Stormwater Storage and Wetland Development on the Lake Bluff Golf Course

Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizen Task Force

Stormwater Storage and Wetland Development on the Lake Bluff Golf Course Report to the Lake Bluff Park District Board of Commissioners Final Report June 28, 2022

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Golf Course ............................................................................................................................ 1 Capital Needs ......................................................................................................................... 1 Role of the Task Force ........................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 1. Background Information: Lake Bluff Park District and Blair Park ............................................ 4 2. Background Information: Lake County Stormwater Management Commission ...................... 7 3. Background Information: SMC Request for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course ............. 8 3.1 Drainage in Lake County .................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Problem Identification: Flooding on US Route 41 and Adjacent Properties ....................... 9 3.3 SMC Analysis: Scope of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study ................................................. 9 3.4 Regulatory Requirement of Recommended Design Improvements ..................................10 3.5 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study Results and Recommendations .....................................10 3.6 SMC Request to the Park District for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course ................11 4. Background Information: Lake Bluff Golf Course Utilization and Financials ...........................11 4.1 Golf Utilization .................................................................................................................11 4.2 Lake Bluff Golf Course Financials, 2015 – Projected 2027 ..............................................12 5. Background Information: Wetlands .......................................................................................13 5.1 What Are Wetlands? ........................................................................................................13 5.2 Wetlands in Lake Bluff .....................................................................................................15 6. Wetland Mitigation Banking ...................................................................................................15 6.1 Wetlands and Government Regulation ............................................................................15 6.2 Wetland Mitigation Banks and Wetland Credits ...............................................................16 6.3 Buying and Selling Wetland Mitigation Credits .................................................................17 6.4 Wetland Mitigation Banking .............................................................................................19 7. Wetland Mitigation Bank Regulatory Requirements...............................................................19 7.1 Complexity.......................................................................................................................19 7.2 Credit Sales Marketplace .................................................................................................20 7.3 Source of Funding ...........................................................................................................20 8. Building Wetland Mitigation Banks ........................................................................................21 8.1 Land That Can Be Developed Into Wetlands ...................................................................21

8.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank Creation and Timeline...............................................................21 9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives ...........................................24 9.1 Background .....................................................................................................................24 9.2 Land Use Options Retaining the Existing Golf Course .....................................................25 9.3 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands and Eliminating Golf Activities ..............................26 9.4 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands With Alternative Golf Amenities ............................29 9.5 Land Use Option Without Golf or Wetland .......................................................................30 10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives .......................................................................................30 10.1 Background ...................................................................................................................30 10.2 Income and Expense Considerations ............................................................................31 10.3 Land Use Options Retaining the Existing Golf Course ...................................................33 10.4 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands and Eliminating Golf Activities ............................35 10.5 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands With Alternative Golf Amenities ..........................38 10.6 Land Use Option Without Golf or Wetland .....................................................................39 11. Summary and Important Considerations .............................................................................40 11.1 Important Considerations ...............................................................................................40 11.2 Land Use Alternatives at a Glance.................................................................................42 Appendices ...............................................................................................................................45

This report is intended to be accompanied by appendices containing supporting documents and maps. The appendices are listed at the end of this report, but the documents themselves are contained in a separate file.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The greater Lake Bluff community, through its Park District Board of Commissioners, is facing a set of decisions that could impact the future of its golf course, beach and bluff, and swimming pool.

Golf Course In 2021 the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC), the government entity responsible for flood control, proposed the use of the golf course as means of addressing periodic flooding on US Route 41 north of Lake Bluff. This flooding has become a hazard and needs to be corrected. Stormwater runoff now flows from Route 41 into the Skokie River along Naval Station Great Lakes and through the golf course. SMC’s preferred solution to minimize flooding is to increase the velocity of water flowing onto the golf course and store up to 40 acrefeet of water on the property. This will potentially negatively impact play. SMC needs Park District authorization to do such work.

Another solution to Route 41 flooding has been proposed: creation of a wetland that would permanently replace the golf course. Under this plan, SMC would achieve its storage goal through the construction of a wetland. The Park District would receive a federal or state permit for wetland development and establish a “wetland bank.” The bank would allow the District to sell “credits” for the created wetland acreage to developers and government entities that need to offset damage to existing wetlands. Following successful construction and extensive regulatory approval, these wetland credits would be sold over a 7- to 10-year period. Any net proceeds from this activity could be used for other Park District needs.

Capital Needs Concurrently the Park District is facing two important – and costly – capital needs: stabilization and erosion control of the Lake Bluff beach and bluff; and rehabilitation of the swimming pool.

The sale of wetland credits could generate additional revenue that would increase the funds available to the Park District to meet its capital needs.

Role of the Task Force Recognizing both the complexity of the SMC request and the significance of the permanent land use changes that may result from some of the proposed solutions, the Park District Board formed a Land Use Citizen Task Force in January 2022. Over a 6-month period, the Task Force studied SMC’s request, developed an understanding of the regulatory environment for wetland credit sales, and explored the complexity involved in physically building wetlands.

Executive Summary

1

The Task Force developed eight separate land use alternatives. Some of the alternatives contemplate retaining the existing 18-hole golf course; some replace the golf course with a wetland mitigation bank and other uses. Discussion of each alternative includes a ten-year financial projection with potential new Park District revenue and necessary expense identified for each. The discussion of the alternatives includes an analysis of inherent risks, benefits, and uncertainties.

The Task Force appreciates the opportunity to present these findings to the Lake Bluff Park District community and Board of Commissioners. It is our hope and expectation that this information will be useful as a roadmap and reference, guiding the important community discussion that needs to occur.

We anticipate that all stakeholders – Park District Board, SMC, government officials, and community members – will work cooperatively and in a timely manner toward a solution that finds the right balance between flooding and stormwater storage needs, a desire to retain a local golf amenity, and a concern over the availability of funds for needed capital improvements.

The Task Force understands that this is a controversial issue; not every community member will agree with either our analysis or the future Park District Board decision. Nevertheless, we look forward to participating in these important discussions.

Adopted June 28, 2022, by the Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizen Task Force Steve Kraus, Chair Mark Dewart Rob Douglass Julie Gottshall George Russell Nicki Snoblin Al Trefts Emily Lane, Park Board Liaison

Executive Summary

2

INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2021, the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) initiated discussions with the Lake Bluff Park District (Park District) concerning the placement of additional stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff golf course during periods of heavy rain.

Discussions between the Park District and SMC continued throughout 2021. In December 2021, the Lake Bluff Park District Board of Commissioners (Park District Board) appointed a sevenmember volunteer Land Use Citizen Task Force (Task Force) to further study the SMC request.

The Task Force was asked to evaluate, among other things, SMC’s stormwater storage proposal. In its instructions to the Task Force (see Appendix 8.1), the Park District Board noted: “The ultimate goal of the task force is to understand and evaluate the facts impacting the various proposals made for converting some or all of the Lake Bluff Golf Course into wetlands, as part of a stormwater management project with…SMC. The premise for these proposals is that wetland credits could be sold, raising capital for the Park District that could be used to fund other projects including beach/bluff erosion protection and the construction of a new pool.”

The Task Force began its analysis in January 2022 and met every other week through June 2022. As part of its deliberations, members of the Task Force met with SMC on several occasions, discussed wetland development and management with experts in the field and with public-sector wetland owners, and reviewed various technical, legal, and regulatory documents related to wetland creation. (See the Appendices for materials that were reviewed by the Task Force.) The Task Force also developed a series of land use alternatives for the consideration of the Park District Board.

This report, including the Executive Summary, Appendices, and associated visual materials, constitutes the Task Force evaluation of the SMC stormwater storage proposal. The report will assist the Park District Board in their review of the SMC proposal and in their evaluation of possible alternative uses for the golf course property. The Task Force hopes that the report will also be used by the citizens of the Lake Bluff Park District as the basis for community discussion and debate.

Introduction

3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT AND BLAIR PARK The Lake Bluff Park District was created by a vote of the community in June 1925. It now consists of approximately 6 square miles and includes most of the Village of Lake Bluff, most of the unincorporated community of Knollwood, and small parts of North Chicago.

The seven-member Park District Board of Commissioners manages 10 parks/open space areas, an outdoor swimming pool, the Lake Bluff beach, a public golf course, a recreation building and fitness center, winter ice rink and shelter, various racquet sports courts, ballfields, and playgrounds.

Map showing the current boundaries of the Village of Lake Bluff (pink area) and the Lake Bluff Park District (greenoutlined area).

The property that now comprises Blair Park and the Lake Bluff golf course was not developed until the 1960s and followed an unusual development path. Early 19th-century maps show that the golf course property was in a floodplain; its existing hydric soil composition is consistent with a historic wetland. This property was gradually developed into farmland.

1. Background Information: Lake Bluff Park District and Blair Park

4

In 1877, early Lake Bluff settler Henry Hoffman bought 100 acres of land north of Rockland Road between Green Bay Road and the Skokie River. The Hoffman family farmed this land until the mid-1920s.

The Hoffman family farm.

In 1925, S. Quincy Goldman purchased the property and unveiled Goldman’s Green Bay Road subdivision. Marketing materials for this subdivision, one of several residential developments proposed in Lake Bluff during the 1920s, showcased hundreds of individual residential lots plus

1. Background Information: Lake Bluff Park District and Blair Park

5

commercial and multi-family units mirroring the design of the successful Market Square concept in Lake Forest.

The Goldman subdivision failed to generate buyer interest and defaulted during the Depression of the 1930s. The property remained mostly vacant. A 1961 Lake Bluff League of Women Voters report identified five constructed homes; only one remains.

In the early 1960s, concerns about the size of the Goldman subdivision and its location in the Skokie River floodplain resulted in a “Let’s Buy Goldman” initiative. A community proposal resulted in the successful 1962 Lake Bluff Park District referendum that created Rockland Park.

The referendum authorized the purchase of the Hoffman farm property plus additional property to the north that was also within the floodplain. The land was acquired in 1963.

The master plan for the property included a golf course of approximately 145 acres plus space for a recreation center, pool, playground, and other amenities (see map below). To pay for the golf course, the Park District negotiated a 40-year loan from the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The golf course opened for play on Labor Day 1968; the final loan payment was made in 2005. In 1972, an outdoor swimming pool opened.

The pool was funded through a generous donation from the local Blair family. In recognition of their gift, the entire property was renamed Blair Park.

1. Background Information: Lake Bluff Park District and Blair Park

6

The Park District cannot sell more than 4 acres of park district property without going to referendum. To build residential structures on Park District property would require rezoning. Any application for rezoning would have to be reviewed by the Lake Bluff Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals and would have to be approved by the Lake Bluff Village Board.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: LAKE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission was created by the State of Illinois in 1990; its mission is to coordinate stormwater management activities from a countywide and interjurisdictional perspective.

SMC’s mission is threefold: 1. To manage Lake County’s floodplains and watersheds by administering countywide standards 2. To reduce flood damage through mitigation projects, implementing best practices, and developing watershed management plans and floodplain and stormwater management regulations 3. To protect and restore natural resources, using a mix of funding sources and partnerships, to restore and enhance the natural drainage system

2. Background Information: Lake County Stormwater Management Commission

7

The governing body of SMC consists of 12 members: six municipal mayors/presidents (elected by their peers) and six Lake County Board members (appointed by the County Board Chair).

This body establishes policy, adopts an annual budget and work plan, and implements the Lake County Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Work is carried out by a full-time professional staff of 18.

SMC is funded primarily through state and federal stormwater management grants and property taxes, although specific projects may include other funding sources. The Commission offices are located at 500 W. Winchester Road, Suite 201, Libertyville, IL 60044; phone 847-377-7700.

The SMC website can be located through the Lake County site at www.lakecounty.il.gov.

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SMC REQUEST FOR STORMWATER STORAGE ON THE GOLF COURSE 3.1 Drainage in Lake County Drainage in Lake County, Illinois, can be separated into four large watersheds: Lake Michigan, the North Branch of the Chicago River, the Des Plaines River, and the Fox River. The East Skokie River, which is the river that runs through the Lake Bluff Golf Course, is part of the North Branch of the Chicago River watershed. It begins near Grand Avenue in Waukegan and drains an area generally located west of Green Bay Road and east of Waukegan Road. After it leaves the golf course, the river flows south to the Skokie Lagoons and eventually into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal before reaching the Illinois River.

Red lines are watershed boundaries; watersheds left to right are Fox River, Des Plaines River, North Branch of the Chicago River, and Lake Michigan

Upper North Branch of the Chicago River (map courtesy of V3)

3. Background Information: SMC Request for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course

8

3.2 Problem Identification: Flooding on US Route 41 and Adjacent Properties For several decades, the portion of the US Route 41 roadway and adjacent properties located south of the Buckley Road (IL Route 137) crossing at US Route 41 have flooded during periods of heavy and/or persistent rainfall. These rain events have sporadically closed or reduced traffic flow on Route 41, flooded private residential and commercial property in North Chicago and elsewhere adjacent to Route 41, and flooded housing at Naval Station Great Lakes.

All of the stormwater from these areas adjacent to US Route 41 flows toward the East Skokie River and then south through the Forrestal Village of Great Lakes. At the south end of the Navy Base, the stormwater flows under the Canadian Northern Railway tracks and enters Lake Bluff Park District property.

Location where water runs under railroad track and onto LBPD property. (Photo courtesy of G. Russell.)

3.3 SMC Analysis: Scope of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study To address the US Route 41 and related residential and commercial flooding, SMC commissioned an engineering study to analyze the existing drainage system and to develop a series of local drainage improvement options. The engineering report, entitled Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US 41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, Lake Co., IL (the H&H study) was dated September 2021. The H&H study was prepared by Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd., of Rosemont, Illinois. (The H&H study was still in draft form when it was shared with the Task Force. It will not be finalized until a specific solution is approved.) See Appendix 7.1.

The study area included in the H&H study was the US Route 41 corridor and adjacent properties located generally between Buckley Road on the north and the Canadian Northern Railroad crossing of US Route 41 on the south. The H&H study also included analysis of potential impacts of drainage improvements along the East Skokie River as far south as Rockland Road (IL Route 176).

The H&H study did not include present or future drainage conditions in the East Skokie River watershed north of Buckley Road. The study also referenced a prior analysis of drainage at the Canadian Northern Railroad overpass at US Route 41. That engineering study concluded that the existing drainage infrastructure was in need of improvements.

3. Background Information: SMC Request for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course

9

The drainage infrastructure at the Routes 41 and 176 interchange was not part of the H&H study. The Task Force understands that stormwater runoff designs included in the current interchange reconstruction plans do not direct runoff onto the golf course.

3.4 Regulatory Requirement of Recommended Design Improvements Lake County stormwater regulations require that any proposed drainage improvements will not cause adverse impacts on Skokie River flood elevations. Any increase in flood elevations of .01 foot or greater constitutes an adverse impact that will need to be mitigated.

3.5 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study Results and Recommendations The H&H study determined that the existing stormwater drainage infrastructure in the study area was inadequate to handle the volume of stormwater generated during flood events and that drainage conveyance improvements were necessary.

Proposed stormwater improvements were developed that would provide 100-year flood level protection for US Route 41 within the limits of the study area and adjacent properties. Proposed improvements included the construction of new larger storm sewers flowing from west of Route 41 east to the East Skokie River on the Navy Base. See Appendix 7.1, H&H Study, map of proposed improvements.

The study also determined that, while the total volume of any rain event would not increase as a result of the proposed improvements, the velocity (or speed) at which stormwater would flow into the river would increase. This would result in flood elevation increases along the river through Lake Bluff that need mitigation under the Lake County stormwater regulations.

To avoid an adverse downstream impact or flood elevation increase, the H&H study determined that 35 to 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage would need to be constructed. (Stormwater storage capacity is measured in acre-feet. One acre-foot of storage is a volume of water – 326,000 gallons – that would cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage could be spread one foot deep over 40 acres, 6 inches deep over 80 acres, etc.)

The H&H study identified two general locations for the required stormwater storage: • •

35 acre-feet of stormwater storage on the Navy Base 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff Golf Course

In response to Task Force questions, SMC has noted that the required stormwater storage could be placed partially on both the Navy Base and the golf course as long as the required total

3. Background Information: SMC Request for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course

10

storage was achieved. SMC also noted that it would welcome a stormwater storage solution that provided more than 40 acre-feet.

3.6 SMC Request to the Park District for Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course As a result of the H&H study, SMC asked the Park District for permission to build stormwater storage on its property. These discussions continue and are the basis of the Task Force evaluation. While storage on the Navy Base remains an option, SMC has informed both the Park District and the Task Force that it prefers to locate the required additional stormwater on the golf course property.

SMC has not identified the specific location of or design parameters for the needed 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on the golf course.

4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: LAKE BLUFF GOLF COURSE UTILIZATION AND FINANCIALS Golfers first enjoyed the Lake Bluff golf course on Labor Day, September 5, 1968. According to the Lake Forester, over 200 golfers waited for up to a half-hour to try out the new course. In its current configuration, the course is 6,529 yards from the back tees and covers an area of approximately 145 acres. It is comparable is length and area with other local courses. (See Appendix 4.1.)

4.1 Golf Utilization In the 2000s, golf utilization, measured as rounds of golf played, began to decline nationally and locally. According to the United States Golf Association, the 497 million rounds played nationally in 2007 declined gradually to 441 million in 2019. Rounds of golf at the Lake Bluff Golf Course also declined, going from 31,400 in 2007, to 26,000 in 2017, and to 18,000 in 2019.

Recently, during the Covid years, significant increases in rounds played have been reported.

Nationally the number of rounds played reached a record 539 million in 2021; locally the 30,294 rounds played in 2021 almost reached the 2007 peak. Whether that increased interest in golf will be sustained is not clear.

National reports on golf participation show an increase in the number of beginning golfers and reported 25.1 million Americans, or 8.3% of the population, playing golf in 2021, while another 81.2 million (27%) watched, read about, or expressed interest in the sport.

4. Background Information: Lake Bluff Golf Course Utilization and Financials

11

A report produced by the Park District estimated that from 2007 to 2017, 8.1% to 8.7% of the District population used the golf course, mirroring national statistics. Unfortunately, because of changes in golf course management, comparable figures from 2018 through 2021 are not available.

4.2 Lake Bluff Golf Course Financials, 2015 – Projected 2027 The Task Force, utilizing Park District financial records, reviewed actual golf course revenue and expenses from 2015 to 2021 and projected figures from 2022 to 2027. (See the Summary of Golf Financials dated May 3, 2022, Appendix 4.2.)

4.2.1 Golf Administration Prior to 2016, the Park District managed the golf course using internal resources. From 20162018, Billy Casper Golf managed the course under contract, but the Park District retained all management functions and financial responsibilities. In 2019, the Park District outsourced all golf operations to Golf Visions Management, Inc (Golf Visions).

The Golf Visions contract runs through 2023 and requires the firm to manage day-to-day golf activities and individual capital maintenance equipment repairs less than $10,000. Golf Visions receives 100% of golf and related revenue up to $800,000 per year and 90% of the revenue over that amount. The Park District receives 10% of revenue over $800,000 and is responsible for maintenance costs over $10,000 and long-term capital costs. The Park District maintains responsibility for repayment of existing golf course debt service.

The Golf Visions contract is currently under renegotiation.

4.2.2 Net Operating Gain/Loss From 2015 through 2017, the annual average net operating loss from golf operations was over $110,000. Under the outsourced arrangement with Golf Visions, the 2018-2021 average annual net operating loss was $22,000. The projected average annual net operating gain for 2022-2027 is $11,000. The projections include $25,000 in annual Golf Visions revenue sharing, based on recurring levels of golf rounds played.

Implication: The Golf Visions contract has stabilized golf operating financials. Recent and projected golf operations neither significantly add to nor detract from annual Park District operating results.

4. Background Information: Lake Bluff Golf Course Utilization and Financials

12

4.2.3 Capital Expenditures Periodic capital expenditures are necessary for maintaining a quality golf course and are the responsibility of the Park District. For the 2015-2021 period, the capital expense for the golf course averaged about $40,000 per year. Projected capital expenses for 2022-2027 average about $80,500 per year. (Details of capital expense items from 2022-2031 are contained in Appendix 4.2.)

Implication: Since the Park District remains responsible for most upkeep and major course improvements, the golf annual budget needs to account for projected capital expenditures.

Future responsibility for capital expenses is an element of ongoing Golf Visions contract renegotiation.

4.2.4 Debt Service As of June 2022, $617,876 of outstanding debt remains from prior improvements made to the golf course. The debt is scheduled to be fully paid by 2026.

Implication: The Park District needs to budget approximately $125,000 annually for golf course debt service from 2022 through 2026. Debt service must continue even if golf operations cease.

5. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: WETLANDS 5.1 What Are Wetlands?

The US Environmental Protection Agency defines a wetland as a distinct ecosystem that is “… inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support … vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil …” Put another way, wetlands are lands that are flooded often enough and long enough to support plants that “like their feet wet” — plants that have adapted to living in wet conditions. Many wetlands are seasonal; others may be wet only during periods of rain or flooding and dry at other times.

Wetlands are common in floodplains along rivers and streams, where seasonal flooding has resulted in saturated, or hydric, soil. The hydric soil supports the growth and regeneration of vegetation adapted to grow in such wet conditions; this vegetation in turn attracts insects, birds, and other animals.

5. Background Information: Wetlands

13

Wetland floodplains act as natural storage reservoirs, enabling excess water to gradually accumulate over a wide area before flowing back into rivers, thus reducing the depth and speed of the flood water in the river. This action can help prevent sudden and damaging flood conditions downstream.

Wetlands are considered among the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems. A wetland environment positively contributes to the local ecosystem in a number of other ways, including carbon sequestration, carbon dioxide conversion, water purification, groundwater replenishment, and stormwater control and storage. Wetlands also provide a habitat (food, water, and shelter) for thousands of species of aquatic and terrestrial plants and wildlife (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects, including pollinators), as well as corridors for movement of wildlife, and play a role in mitigating effects of climate change.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, mosquito populations are held in check by healthy wetlands as bats, birds, frogs, salamanders, fish, and many types of insects live in wetlands and feed on mosquito larvae and adults.

Wetland loss is of national and local concern.

•

United States: The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, once contained 220 million acres of wetlands; in 2009 that number was less than 110 million acres and decreasing at a rate of 60 acres per hour.

•

Illinois: 1.25 million acres of wetlands remain, about 10% of what once existed.

•

Lake County, Illinois: 55% of county wetlands are gone because of drainage for agriculture and conversion to urban land use.

•

Skokie River watershed, Lake County: 28% of the original wetland area remains.

Loss of wetland functions results in a higher risk of flooding, deterioration of surface water quality, and degradation of wildlife habitat. The US EPA studies suggest that habitat degradation since the 1970s has been a leading cause of migratory bird, waterfowl, fish, and mammal species extinction. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that as much as 87% of the world’s wetlands have been lost, with much of that happening after 1900. Lake County has adopted a “no net loss” wetland policy and established an objective of a “net gain” of wetland function. In 2020, it adopted a Wetlands Restoration and Preservation Plan (WRAPP) to guide the selection of wetland sites for restoration and/or preservation. This countywide planning effort identifies and assesses the functional significance of existing, historical, and potentially restorable wetlands in Lake County.

5. Background Information: Wetlands

14

5.2 Wetlands in Lake Bluff GIS mapping data from the Lake County Wetland Restoration & Preservation Plan (WRAPP) shows that the greater Lake Bluff community includes many acres of wetlands. Other properties are within designated floodplains or contain the necessary hydric soils that could enable wetland creation.

The WRAPP maps in Appendix 9 show wetland features on and near the golf course. The WRAPP Decision Support Tool is available at www.lakecountyil.gov/2531/Wetland-RestorationPreservation-Plan.

If a wetland is to be constructed on the Lake Bluff Golf Course, the likely location for that environment can be generally determined through an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the soil of the property itself. Land that contains hydric soils, is within a floodplain, and is naturally connected to a river or stream is most conducive to wetland development.

6. WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING 6.1 Wetlands and Government Regulation The federal Clean Water Act of 1972, recognizing the ongoing loss of the natural environment, required developers to avoid or minimize the impact of construction on designated bodies of water. Under Section 404 of the Act, if negative environmental impacts are unavoidable, the developer must provide compensatory mitigation. In 1977, these provisions were extended to wetlands.

In 1988, national policies of “no net loss” and “like-kind replacement” of wetland functionality were adopted. These policies required replacement of or substitution for lost wetlands as prerequisites for construction activities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) expanded on existing policies and published guidelines for the establishment and use of wetland mitigation banks in 1995.

The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century specified a preference for mitigation banking to offset loss of wetlands due to transportation projects. In 2008, federal rules were finalized that established standards for the creation, enhancement, and restoration of wetland environments. These standards formalized the operations of wetland mitigation banks under the jurisdiction of the regional USACE district. Similar policies were adopted by Lake County, most recently in the 2020 Wetlands Restoration and Preservation Plan, Volumes 1 and 2. Lake County operates a wetland mitigation banking regulatory process that is managed by SMC. Section 7 of this report compares the USACE and SMC wetland mitigation bank regulations.

6. Wetland Mitigation Banking

15

Data on USACE mitigation banking is collected in the USACE’s Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS). According to Applied Research Associates, a codeveloper of RIBITS, over 4,700 mitigation banking arrangements had been developed as of January 2022.

6.2 Wetland Mitigation Banks and Wetland Credits The Clean Water Act required developers to preserve wetlands or provide compensatory mitigation if wetlands could not be saved. It created a marketplace of “wetland mitigation banking,” a process allowing developers to offset wetland destruction in one ecosystem through the purchase of “wetland credits” in a comparable local ecosystem.

Wetland credits are created by a private or public entity that restores, enhances, or creates wetland on its property through a regulatory protocol known as a “wetland mitigation bank.” A wetland mitigation bank is not a financial institution or established third party. Rather, it is a vehicle established for the purpose of creating and selling specific wetland credits from approved wetland sites.

A wetland mitigation bank has the components identified below. The applicability to a potential Lake Bluff Park District mitigation bank is noted in italics.

1) The bank site is the physical acreage that is restored, established, or enhanced as wetlands.

Locally, the bank site would be the portion of the Lake Bluff golf course property converted to wetlands and suitable for credit sales.

2) The bank sponsor is the public or private entity that owns and operates the bank site.

The Park District would be the bank sponsor.

3) The controlling government body/regulator is the government agency that monitors establishment of wetlands and authorizes credits for sale.

The regulator could be either USACE or SMC. 4) The mitigation bank instrument (MBI) is the formal agreement between the bank sponsor (the Park District) and the government regulator establishing liability, performance standards, management and monitoring requirements, and the terms of wetland credit approval.

An MBI must contain a conservation easement obligating the bank sponsor to maintain the site as wetland in perpetuity. If the Park District creates a wetland mitigation bank, it

6. Wetland Mitigation Banking

16

loses control over any future changes in land use: the property must always be a wetland.

5) Wetland credits are measured as the portion of an acre of land that qualifies as a wetland under the regulatory scheme.

6) The service area is the geographic area within which the wetland credits can be sold.

The service area depends on the selected controlling agency: the metro Chicago region (USACE) or Lake County (SMC). See Section 7.

The number of wetland credits generated at a bank site is calculated by a formula contained in the regulatory framework of the USACE or SMC. The framework generally allocates full credits to restoration/enhancement of historic wetland areas and partial credits for enhancement of existing wetlands and the buffers required to be maintained between the wetland and any other areas.

See Section 9 for a discussion of the number of wetland credits that could be generated from the golf course.

6.3 Buying and Selling Wetland Mitigation Credits 6.3.1 Who Buys Credits?

Public entities (e.g., the Illinois Department of Transportation) and private developers (e.g., the builder of a suburban shopping center) must purchase mitigation credits from a wetland bank sponsor to offset any degradation of existing wetlands caused by their project. The credit transaction satisfies the regulatory goal of “no net loss” of wetlands.

6.3.2 Who Sells Credits?

The bank sponsor (Park District) sells the credits. The Park District most likely would contract with a private firm specializing in environmental design and construction and with experience in mitigation banking to handle/assist in selling the credits (the “outside mitigation banker” or “agent”).

6.3.3 How the Process Works The sale of wetland credits is a private marketplace transaction. At a high level, the process can be summarized as follows:

6. Wetland Mitigation Banking

17

1) A wetland bank sponsor (Park District) creates a wetland mitigation bank under permit from the controlling government agent (USACE or SMC).

2) The wetland site is created and established to environmental standards set forth by the regulatory agency in the mitigation bank instrument. These standards, which are designed to ensure the successful growth of the wetland plant community, include species composition, species dominance, and hydrology considerations. These standards must be met before credits are released for sale.

3) The bank sponsor (Park District), through its agent, releases credits for sale to developers as compensatory mitigation credits.

Credit sales are highly variable based on supply, demand, and competition in the marketplace. If a wetland bank is created from the golf course, then the bank sponsor (Park District through its agent) would price credits based on marketplace factors. Credit price points could vary significantly during the life of the wetland bank.

See Section 9.

•

Credits are released by the regulator for sale by the bank sponsor in increments, at various stages between approval of the mitigation bank instrument and full certification of the bank site.

Under the USACE regulations: o

20% of the total potential credits are released for sale after the MBI has been signed and financial and site protection assurances secured (project year 1)

o

25% of the credits are released when hydrology standards are met (typically project years 2-4)

o

25% of the credits are released when vegetative performance standards are met (typically project years 3-5)

o

Final 30% of the credits are released when the wetland environment is fully established

The SMC regulations contain a similar credit release schedule. See Appendix 5.3 for a comparison of USACE and SMC credit release schedules.

The final release of credits may take seven or more years after the mitigation bank has been approved.

•

The sponsor/agent and the developer negotiate a price point for the credit, and the sponsor sells credits (or portions of a credit) to the developer at the agreedupon price. While the sales of USACE-regulated credits are publicly available in the RIBITS tracking system, prices are not disclosed.

Determining a future credit price point for wetland credits is speculative since it will depend on then-current wetland credit market conditions.

6. Wetland Mitigation Banking

18

4) The regulatory entity (USACE or SMC) monitors the transaction and ensures the availability of credits in the sponsor’s bank. Once the last credit is sold, the mitigation bank is closed.

The bank sponsor retains responsibility for maintaining the wetland site in perpetuity.

A permanent long-term maintenance fund is required under the approved MBI. Long-term maintenance is generally established using a portion of each credit sale.

6.4 Wetland Mitigation Banking A “wetland mitigation banker” is the legally responsible individual or entity that proposes and establishes a wetland mitigation bank (Park District). The term is also commonly used in reference to a third-party firm with mitigation bank experience retained by the sponsor to assist with all or part of the life cycle of a mitigation bank.

In the Lake Bluff situation, the Park District (the bank sponsor) and an outside mitigation banker would be responsible for the acts of the wetland mitigation bank: obtaining a permit from the regulator, creating the wetland to the appropriate environmental standard, negotiating the credit price, releasing and selling the credits to developers, and interfacing with government regulators throughout the process.

If wetlands are created, the Park District should retain a qualified professional or firm to assist in the development and management of a wetland mitigation bank. Professional fees can be structured as a fixed or annual fee over the lifetime of the wetland bank or as a percentage of wetland mitigation credit sales revenue. Since wetland credit sales prices are private transactions, typical professional fees are difficult to determine.

7. WETLAND MITIGATION BANK REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS USACE and SMC provide distinct regulatory frameworks for the creation of wetland mitigation banks and sale of wetland credits. (See Appendix 5.) Each framework contains a permitting process, rules for establishing and nurturing the wetland environment, a schedule for credit creation and release, and a series of financial performance measures. The frameworks differ, however, in three major ways as described below.

7.1 Complexity The USACE regulatory framework involves a more complicated and generally longer permitting process. It requires the oversight of a multi-agency Intergovernmental Review Team (IRT) consisting of the regional and local heads of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the USACE.

7. Wetland Mitigation Bank Regulatory Requirements

19

The IRT reviews the prospectus and proposed banking instrument drafted by the bank sponsor and approves the required financial assurances from the bank sponsor (to ensure sufficient solvency to manage the bank).

The SMC regulatory framework involves only SMC staff oversight. The process is similar to that of the USACE but does not involve other government agencies.

Both USACE and SME require a performance bond (or similar financial assurance) from the bank sponsor that guarantees funding for the successful completion of the wetland mitigation bank. The value of the bond is typically based on the cost of construction. The amount of the bond is reduced as wetland performance standards are met. Performance bond conditions are specified in the MBI. If a wetland mitigation bank is built on the golf course property, the cost and responsibility of the required financial assurance would be negotiated between the Park District and SMC.

7.2 Credit Sales Marketplace The geographic area within which a bank sponsor may sell wetland credits generally matches the service area of the authorizing regulatory entity. The USACE marketplace is larger: •

The service area of the Chicago District of the USACE consists of the six-county Chicago metropolitan area. Wetland credits may be sold by a USACE-approved wetland bank to developers throughout this service area.

•

The service area of the SMC consists of Lake County, Illinois, and its four watersheds.

An SMC bank is not eligible to sell credits for mitigation of impacts that fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. An SMC bank can sell credits as mitigation for impacts to isolated waters of Lake County.

7.3 Source of Funding Most wetland banks are privately developed by property owners or their agents, without federal or state funding. In these cases, either the USACE or SMC regulatory framework may be used.

However, if government funding is used by the bank sponsor to develop a wetland mitigation bank, the choice of regulatory framework must take the funding source into consideration: •

If federal funds are being used, the bank sponsor must gain the prior approval of the USACE to use the USACE regulatory framework. Otherwise, the SMC regulatory framework must be used.

•

If State of Illinois funds are being used, then either the USACE or SMC regulatory framework can be used.

7. Wetland Mitigation Bank Regulatory Requirements

20

Since government funding is central to the Park District considerations surrounding the creation of a wetland mitigation bank, the Park District must know SMC’s funding source (federal or state) before applying for a wetland mitigation bank permit.

8. BUILDING WETLAND MITIGATION BANKS 8.1 Land That Can Be Developed Into Wetlands Wetlands are generally located on land that contains hydric soils, that is hydrologically connected to a nearby river or stream, and that historically supported wetlands or currently holds degraded wetlands. Such land currently used in agriculture, parks, golf courses, athletic fields, or other space may be converted into a wetland.

8.2 Wetland Mitigation Bank Creation and Timeline The creation of a wetland suitable for mitigation banking is a multi-year project that contains a number of discrete tasks. These tasks are described below along with the estimated time frame for each task.

8.2.1 Making the Decision: Planning and Conceptual Design (3-6 months) The conceptual design describes the mix of uses for the site, including the placement of wetlands and prairies, stormwater storage, and any amenities (walking paths, bridges, viewing areas, benches, and other active and passive uses). This step includes projecting wetland credits and performing economic analysis, including funding source. Public input is incorporated at this time. Pre-application meetings with the chosen regulator are strongly recommended.

8.2.2 Surveying/Engineering (1-2 months after award of contracts; 6+ months total) Detailed topographic and soil surveys must be conducted to identify existing drainage features and soil contamination. Excavation and hydrology designs for wetlands and stormwater storage will then be developed, incorporating amenities. Detailed engineering and construction plans must be developed. Contracting for the survey/engineering work should begin during the planning phase.

8.2.3 Prospectus Development and Permitting (1-2 years) Following USACE or SMC protocols, an application for a wetland development permit must be written and submitted. The application must, among other things, satisfy specific site selection,

8. Building Wetland Mitigation Banks

21

hydrology, vegetative, and engineering criteria. It must also describe proposed financial arrangements, including project completion and maintenance assurances. (See Section 7 and Appendix 5 for details.)

A prospectus describing the proposed wetland project typically precedes the permit application.

A mitigation banking instrument must be included. Following time for public comment, the application, MBI, conservation easement, and financial assurances are agreed upon and a permit is issued.

8.2.4 Site Construction (1 year - construction season; combined with site restoration) Site construction includes preparatory earthwork; disabling existing drainage; tree removal; erosion control; stream bank protection; coordination of wetland construction with stormwater storage and other uses; creation of a buffer zone between uses; and the establishment of amenities.

Building a wetland environment will change the underlying aesthetics of the property. The prepared area must be relatively flat and gently sloping to the river. Existing vegetation may be removed if it will not survive in the constructed wetlands ecosystem.

During construction, earth-moving machines will create the contours of the new wetlands. Soil not needed in the wetland will either be moved elsewhere on the site or trucked away. The wetland construction process will be unsightly. Significantly wet weather could delay construction into a second year.

Preliminary 2022 engineering projections estimate that over 445,000 cubic yards of dirt would be moved during construction of a wetland on the Lake Bluff Golf Course.

8.2.5 Site Restoration (1 year - construction season; combined with site construction) Site restoration includes creating the ecological site with seeding, plug planting, and the addition of cover crops. It also includes invasive species control, weeding, and monitoring of the growth and health of the emerging plant communities during the restoration of the site.

Creating a wetland involves the introduction and growth of an entirely new plant community chosen specifically for its ability to thrive in wet conditions. Seedlings will be planted and seeds will be sown into the new environment.

8. Building Wetland Mitigation Banks

22

New plants take years to mature. They must take root and spread over multiple growing seasons, freeze/thaw cycles, and periods of drought and flood. The aesthetic of the new wetland will change dramatically during this period.

Photos illustrating stages in the development of a wetland – in this case, Atkinson Preserve in Libertyville Township.

8.2.6 Short-term Maintenance (up to 5 years from site restoration) Short-term maintenance includes invasive species control, weeding, and monitoring of the growth and health of the developing plant communities until plant performance standards (specified in the mitigation banking agreement) have been achieved. Periodic reports must be provided to the regulatory authority.

8. Building Wetland Mitigation Banks

23

8.2.7 Long-term Maintenance (in perpetuity) Long-term maintenance begins when a wetland bank is functionally mature or self-sustaining and/or when wetland mitigation credits have been exhausted. The bank sponsor needs to ensure that a permanent funding source for maintenance is included in the financial design of the wetland.

The bank sponsor (Park District) would retain responsibility for maintaining the wetland site in perpetuity. A permanent long-term maintenance fund must be established. Credit sales could be used to fund the escrow account.

9. STORMWATER STORAGE ON THE GOLF COURSE: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 9.1 Background SMC has been examining solutions to stormwater flooding on US Route 41 and adjacent properties in North Chicago for some time. Early in 2021, SMC shared with the Park District the preliminary results of an engineering study that proposed adding up to 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on an unspecified location of the Lake Bluff Golf Course. (See Section 3 of this report.)

Park District discussions with SMC early in 2021 discussed the possibility of adding stormwater storage within the footprint of the existing golf course. Later that year, the possibility of building a wetland mitigation bank as part of the floodwater storage solution was introduced.

In January 2022, the Land Use Citizen Task Force was established and charged with investigating the land use implications of adding stormwater storage to the golf course.

This section of the Task Force report introduces and describes a number of land use options that integrate the requested stormwater storage onto the golf course. Some involve ways to add storage onto the existing course; others involve replacing the course with a wetland environment.

This section describes the land use alternatives. Section 10 examines their impacts on the Lake Bluff Park District community.

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

24

9.2 Land Use Options Retaining the Existing Golf Course Initial discussions between the Park District and SMC contemplated the temporary storage of up to 40 acre-feet of stormwater within the footprint of the existing golf course. This could be accomplished in one of two ways: provide a flood easement to SMC that would permit additional stormwater to flow over the golf course; or construct stormwater storage areas on the golf course to temporarily contain the added water.

Alternatively, the Park District could choose to decline the SMC request for stormwater storage and retain the existing golf course.

9.2.1 Retain Existing Golf Course Without Adding Additional Stormwater Storage SMC does not have the legal authority to unilaterally place stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff golf course. The Park District could deny the SMC request and continue with current operations.

SMC would need to construct needed stormwater storage elsewhere upstream.

9.2.2 Flood Easement The Park District could grant a flood easement or similar right to SMC. Under the terms of the easement, the Park District would allow the flow of stormwater at higher velocity onto the golf course during rain events. SMC would not construct any storage facilities on the golf course or upstream.

Under this alternative, the golf course would not be modified. The increased peak volume of stormwater could result in closure of the course or modified play during flood events, with the frequency or duration of such events increasing from the current state.

9.2.3 Stormwater Storage Areas Stormwater storage could be provided through the construction of a series of storage areas interspersed throughout the lower elevations of the golf course. Some of these could be small and shallow, only wet during a rain event, and sited on the course in places that minimally impact play. Others could be slightly deeper storage basins situated in fringe areas of the course, holding stormwater until it naturally flows into the river. Alternatively, permanent ponds or water hazards could be created in suitable locations on the course.

Under this alternative, stormwater would flow faster onto the golf course during heavy rains and would be directed into the designed stormwater storage system. The golf course would be modified through the construction of the storage system but would remain in its general 18-hole

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

25

configuration. The constructed storage could reduce flooding that currently occurs on the golf course or it could be determined that flood reduction on the course is not feasible even with limited additional stormwater storage.

This alternative has many possible design solutions. To determine the actual impacts, a wetland delineation, topographical survey, and engineering analysis would have to be performed. A very preliminary determination was performed in 2022 by V3 Companies, Inc., an engineering and environmental design firm. Their preliminary work resulted in the diagram at right, which shows the possible construction of many shallow depressions approximately 1-2 feet deep throughout the lower elevations of the course. See Appendix 2.2 for the V3 report.

The V3 preliminary design does not include deep storage basins and generates only 34 acre-feet of storage. It is likely that this layout, when examined by golf course architects, would not be deemed an acceptable solution. Without more detained analysis, it is not known if stormwater storage could be designed on the golf course in a manner that would be deemed acceptable to the golfing community.

If this land use concept is of interest to the Park District as a way to meet the storage request, an engineering/design firm, a golf course architectural design team, and SMC should be consulted.

9.3 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands and Eliminating Golf Activities In fall 2021, discussions of stormwater storage on the golf course began to include the creation of a wetland mitigation bank. This concept has a number of interrelated parts: •

Build a wetland environment on golf course property in such a manner that excess stormwater can be temporarily retained before discharge into the Skokie River

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

26

•

Configure the wetland environment so it qualifies as a wetland mitigation bank allowing for the sale of wetland credits by the Park District, generating revenue to use for other purposes

•

Design the environment to include amenities that would encourage its use and enjoyment as a natural space (walking paths, bridges, benches, etc.)

These land use alternatives require complete reconfiguration of the land now occupied by the golf course. This would require a massive construction project, a significant change in the aesthetics of the property, a multi-year development cycle, and a permanent conservation easement on the wetland property. See Section 8.

The alternatives would create a wetland for use by the community that could also be used to derive wetland credits for sale in the marketplace.

The land use alternatives with wetlands involve the creation of a “green environment” on the entire golf course property, consisting of a developed wetland in the floodplain and lowerelevation areas and an “upland prairie” in the higher-elevation areas to the east. The higherelevation areas are not easily converted into wetlands because their soil composition is unsuitable and they are much higher than the areas along the Skokie River. In these higher areas, an upland prairie with active or passive recreation could be created.

The wetland and upland prairie areas are graphically shown in the diagram on the next page, which was prepared by the engineering and environmental consulting firm V3.

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

27

On the above diagram: •

The existing golf course is delineated by the black and gold boundary line.

•

The maximum area that can realistically be converted into a wetland is shown in green (re-established wetland), blue (existing wetland), and orange (required buffer areas).

The area consists of approximately 95 acres.

•

The remaining portion of the course is the area that could be converted into an upland prairie, with active or passive uses. The area is approximately 50 acres.

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

28

This diagram (also found in Appendix 2.2) will be helpful in visualizing the location of the proposed wetland and upland prairie and in evaluating changes to land use.

9.3.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie Without Active Recreation Under this alternative, stormwater storage would be provided on the golf course property through the creation of a wetland environment, which would be constructed on the 95 acres identified above. A connected upland prairie covering the eastern 50 acres not suitable for a wetland would complete the design.

Stormwater flowing along the Skokie River would also flow onto the former golf course, where it would naturally accumulate in the newly constructed wetland. The stormwater would flow gradually and naturally without artificial assists (pumps or drain tiles) out of and back into the Skokie River. Depending on the design, some permanent ponds may also be created.

V3 has estimated that the new wetland could accommodate 133 acre-feet of stormwater storage, well in excess of the SMC-requested 40 acre-feet.

The design of the wetland and upland prairie areas could include walking paths, benches, bridges, and other amenities. The entire area would be used for passive activity; active recreational facilities would not be included.

9.3.2 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie With Active Recreation The wetland environment would be constructed and stormwater would be handled in the same manner as described above. The upland prairie, however, would include one or more active recreation options, such as athletic fields, dog park, ice rink, playground, etc. Amenities could be included in both the wetland and upland prairie environments, but funding for the construction of active amenities, exclusive of rough grading, would need to come from the Park District. See Section 10.

9.4 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands With Alternative Golf Amenities As part of its analysis, the Task Force examined a number of golf amenities that could be developed in conjunction with the construction of a wetland environment. Since it appears that it would be difficult to maintain an 18-hole golf course in conjunction with a wetland mitigation bank, two alternative golf experiences were developed. The first alternative involves the construction of the 95-acre wetland environment and the creation of golf amenities on all or part of the 50-acre upland prairie. The second considers the construction of a new 9-hole golf course that would be partly within the developed wetland.

9. Stormwater Storage on the Golf Course: Land Use Alternatives

29

9.4.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie That Includes Golf Under this land use alternative, the 95-acre wetland environment and the 50-acre upland prairie would be constructed as described in Section 9.3 above. The recreational facilities included in the upland prairie would include some golf activities. These golf activities could include, as space permits, a par 3 course, driving range, miniature golf, instructional facilities, etc. These golf activities could be integrated with other recreational facilities.

9.4.2 Building Wetlands, an Upland Prairie, and a 9-Hole Golf Course Under this alternative, a wetland and an upland prairie would be constructed, as would a 9-hole golf course. The golf course would be partially within the wetlands; the remainder would be in the upland prairie.

Since a portion of the golf course would be within the wetland, the number of acres that could be included in a wetland mitigation bank would be smaller than under other alternatives.

Similarly, the type and number of amenities that could be placed in the upland prairie would be limited since the golf course would also be located there.

9.5 Land Use Option Without Golf or Wetland Under this option, the golf course would be closed and the property would be allowed to return to its natural state. A wetland environment would not be constructed, but it is likely that the lowest elevations of the area would gradually return to an original wetland condition. Amenities (walkways, benches, etc.) could be added.

10. ANALYSIS OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Background Section 9 described several land use alternatives considered by the Task Force to address the request for additional stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff Golf Course. This section examines their financial implications.

The alternatives are described in a document entitled Alternative Land Use – Golf Course Property (attached as Appendix 1.1). A ten-year pro forma financial model created to evaluate the alternative land uses is attached as Appendix 1.2, which includes the assumptions used in creating the financial model.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

30

The Task Force anticipates that the discussion of land use alternatives contained in this document will be used by the Park District and the community in their evaluation of the risks and benefits inherent in each of the possible land use changes.

10.2 Income and Expense Considerations Some of the income and expense considerations used in the financial model are summarized below.

10.2.1 Wetland Credit Income The V3 report (see Appendix 2.2) estimated that 75 wetland credits could be derived from the 95-acre wetland development area. The financial model developed by the Task Force uses an estimate of 73 wetland credits as a base; 2 credits are allocated for the construction of paths through the wetland area.

The model provides ranges of potential income based on two wetland credit price points: $120,000 and $150,000 per credit. Wetland credit sales are private transactions; negotiated price points are not readily available. The price points used in the financial model were derived from available market data and discussions with wetland credit bankers. (See Section 6, Wetland Mitigation Banking.) Price points will fluctuate depending on the economy, construction activity, and the demand for credits.

The model also develops Park District income from the sale of wetland credits over the seven years of the probable life of the wetland bank. The model does not project the number of years that might be needed to sell all the available credits, although this important consideration should be part of the Park District’s financial plan.

10.2.2 Expense The model projects expenses for tasks necessary in the creation of an approved wetland mitigation bank. The tasks were identified by environmental design firms familiar with wetland development and by the permitting protocols of the regulatory agencies. Individual costs were based on data and assumptions derived for the model. Construction costs to be incurred by SMC have not been included in the model.

10.2.3 Donor A donor, who wishes to remain anonymous but who is known to the Park District and members of the Task Force, has pledged up to $1 million toward specific components of the proposed wetland and prairie development. There are many conditions attached to this donation, including

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

31

a restriction on golf activities (see donor correspondence in Appendix 10). The Task Force has, for financial evaluation purposes, included the donation in the discussion of the appropriate alternatives.

Before finalizing any land use alternatives that could involve donor funds, the Park District should evaluate the cost/benefit of accepting the restricted gift and then enter into a written agreement with the donor that specifies the terms, conditions, and duration of any constraints inherent in the donation.

10.2.4 Allocation of Responsibilities and Costs SMC is proposing the addition of a minimum of 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity on the Lake Bluff Golf Course. It has not specified a preferred design for or location of such storage. SMC has also indicated that it would be acceptable to construct some of the storage on the golf course and the remaining needed storage on the Navy Base.

Some of the land use alternatives proposed to meet the added stormwater storage request would provide storage on the golf course with the intent that the 18-hole course remain. Other alternatives would eliminate the golf course in favor of a wetland designed to meet the storage need, with the wetland developed in a way that would allow the Park District to generate revenue from the sale of wetland credits.

Most of the land use alternatives considered by the Task Force would involve construction and site restoration activities on the golf course property. SMC has offered to pay many of these costs. The allocation of responsibilities and costs between SMC and the Park District related to the wetland development on the Lake Bluff golf course is summarized below: Project Phases Planning and community input

Park District Responsibility

SMC Responsibility

X

X

Survey/engineering

X

Conceptual design

X

X

Regulatory and permitting

X

X

Site preparation

X

Site development

X

Mitigation banking

X

Establishing plant growth

X

Short-term maintenance (from initial to final credit release)

X

Long-term maintenance

X

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

32

In the pro forma financial model, tasks deemed to be the responsibility of the Park District were analyzed and cost assumptions made. For tasks deemed to be the responsibility of SMC, cost assumptions were not made since they would not be used in this analysis.

The Task Force understands that SMC’s financial responsibilities are specifically limited by a requirement that assumption of such responsibility is “pending final award from the grant entity.”

(See SMC Q&A document dated May 5, 2022, in Appendix 3.3.) The federal or state funding agency providing the grant for the construction of the stormwater storage/wetland development must sign off on the arrangement before a Park District-SMC Intergovernmental Agreement can be signed.

The projections developed in the pro forma financial model are not definitive. The projections are, of necessity, broad estimates. The Task Force believes, however, that these estimates fairly portray the relative financial attractiveness of the various alternatives. They were derived by the Task Force with data obtained from SMC, wetland development experts, public-sector wetland owners, and technical, legal, and regulatory documents related to wetland development.

If the Park District decides to pursue one or more of the alternatives, or any other related land use alternative, it should retain qualified environmental design, financial, mitigation banking, legal, and golf design professionals. High-level cost estimates for the costs of such professional services are part of the financial model.

10.3 Land Use Options Retaining the Existing Golf Course Three ways to provide stormwater storage within the contours of the existing 18-hole golf course were introduced in Section 9: granting a flood easement or creating stormwater storage. Refer to Appendix 1.2 for the detailed financial model covering these options.

10.3.1 Retain Existing Golf Course Without Adding Additional Stormwater Storage Under this alternative, the Park District would reject SMC’s request for additional stormwater storage on the golf course. The existing 18-hole golf course would remain without changes.

Since there would be no changes in the volume or velocity of stormwater flowing onto the course during periods of heavy rain, the periodic flooding and partial or full course closures that exist today would continue.

Since wetlands are not created, the Park District would not receive income from wetland credit sales. Assuming that the Park District will conduct an evaluation of this alternative that includes community input, the Task Force estimates about $62,000 in professional support fees.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

33

10-Year Financial Summary: Income: $0 | Expense: $62,000

10.3.2 Flood Easement Under this alternative, the Park District would allow additional stormwater to flow onto the golf course during rain events.

A flood easement will most likely increase both the incidence and duration of flood events on the golf course. Construction costs, if any, would be minimal and paid by SMC. Since a wetland is not created, there is no income from the sale of credits or from the donor.

Park District costs for high-level planning, community design input, legal fees, and regulatory oversight are estimated at $80,000, and routine maintenance costs are assumed to be covered under a golf management contract.

The Park District remains responsible for golf course capital expenses, projected to be $807,000 over the 10-year period covered by the financial model. This capital expense projection was approved by the Park District prior to the establishment of the Task Force.

Appropriate compensation to the Park District from SMC would need to offset lost utilization revenue and higher maintenance costs. It is reasonable to assume that SMC would pay for the easement rights via a lump-sum payment, a series of annual payments, or a combination of the two. The Task Force has not estimated such income.

10-Year Financial Summary: Income: $0 | SMC easement fee: unknown | Expense: $80,000

10.3.3 Stormwater Storage Areas Under this alternative, SMC would construct a series of stormwater storage areas interspersed throughout the lower elevations of the golf course. Many stormwater storage designs are possible; some alterations to the existing course layout may be needed. The golf course, or portions of the course, would most likely have to be closed for a full season while the storage is constructed.

Since a wetland is not created, there is no income from the sale of credits or from the donor.

SMC would pay for the engineering design and construction costs. It would also cover the restoration of the disturbed areas on the golf course, including utilities and irrigation systems.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

34

Park District costs for high-level planning, community design input, legal fees, and regulatory oversight are estimated at $80,000. Since the contour of the golf course may change due to the location of the storage, an additional $400,000 in project management fees (including golf design fees) is assumed. Routine maintenance costs are assumed to be covered under the Golf Visions contract.

The Park District remains responsible for golf course capital expenses, projected to be $807,000 over the 10-year period covered by the financial model.

It is reasonable to assume that SMC would pay a fee for the right to use Park District property via a lump sum payment, a series of annual payments, or a combination of the two. The Task Force has not estimated such income.

10-Year Financial Summary: Income: $0 | SMC fee: unknown | Expense: $480,000

10.4 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands and Eliminating Golf Activities Two alternatives were identified that provide stormwater storage through the development of a wetland. Each eliminates the golf course in favor of a 95-acre wetland and a 50-acre upland prairie. See Section 9 for a description and map. Refer to Appendix 1.2 for the detailed financial model covering these options.

10.4.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie Without Active Recreation Stormwater storage would be provided on golf course property through the creation of a wetland environment, which would be constructed on the 95 acres identified in the design illustrated in Section 9. A connected upland prairie without active recreation options would complete the design.

A preliminary study by environmental consulting firm V3 determined that, following the USACE protocol, 75.69 wetland credits could be created from the 92.39-acre wetlands based on the regulatory formula:

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

35

Acres

Credit Percentage

Acres of Wetland Credits

Reestablishment/creation

63.12

100%

63.12

Rehabilitation/enhancement

23.57

50%

11.79

100-foot buffer

3.94

20%

0.79

Skokie River Channel

1.76

0%

0.00

Total

92.39

Wetland Mitigation Type

75.69

In this model, 75.69 wetland credits are created. Allowing for land to be used by amenities, especially walking path, the model assumes 73 credits will be available for sale. At $120,000 per credit, Park District gross revenue at the close of the wetland bank would be approximately $8,760,000; at $150,000 it would be approximately $10,950,000.

The donor has indicated a willingness to pay for amenities and short-term maintenance up to $1,000,000 or during a period of up to 5 years, whichever occurs first. The financial model assumes that the entire donated amount will be used within the 5-year timeframe. Total gross income, including the donation, is projected at $9,7600,000 to $11,950,000, depending on credit pricing at the time of credit sales.

SMC will pay for the design and construction of the wetlands and the upland prairie. (The H&H study estimated these construction costs to be around $7,300,000.) SMC will build the wetland following the requirements of the regulatory authority (USACE or SMC). SMC will create the upland prairie from the excess soil moved from the wetland area; soil will be retained on site and not trucked off. Since a wetland mitigation bank is being created, wetland credits will be available for sale.

Park District projected ten-year costs are estimated to be between $4,200,000 and $4,500,000: 

Planning, legal and regulatory

$160,000



Project management

$730,000



Mitigation banking (15% of wetland sales)

$1.3M to $1.6M



Amenities (paid by donor)

$300,000



Short-term maintenance (portion paid by donor)

$985,000



Long-term maintenance escrow account

$380,000



Long-term maintenance, other

$315,000

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

36

10 Year Financial Summary: Credit income: $8,760,000 to $10,950,000 Donor income: $1,000,000 Park District expenses: $4,200,000 to $4,500,000 Net Park District income: $5,560,000 to $7,400,000 The financial model also presents net income with a +/- 10% adjustment. The model projects a 5+ year payout calculation based on USACE credit timing protocols.

10.4.2 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie With Active Recreation Under this alternative, the wetland and upland prairie would be constructed as described above with the addition of active recreation options in the upland prairie. These options could include athletic fields, ice rink, dog park, playground, etc.

In this model, 73 wetland credits would be created, generating ultimate Park District gross revenue of $8,760,000 to $10,950,000.

Donor revenue would remain at $1 million for a period of up to 5 years. Donor conditions allow for active recreation options in the upland prairie (as long as golf of any type is excluded). The active recreation options would need to be paid for by others. In the financial model, the donor contribution is applied to building wetland amenities and short-term maintenance.

SMC would pay for construction and related costs. SMC would also pay for the construction of earthen pads on which the recreation options would be built, but they would not pay for the construction of these facilities.

The financial model assumes that the Park District would pay for the construction of the recreation options. Long-term maintenance–other expenses have been doubled from the prior alternative to account for long-term repair or replacement of the recreation facilities.

Park District projected ten-year costs from the financial model are estimated to be between $4,800,000 and $5,200,000: 10-Year Financial Summary: Credit income: $8,760,000 to $10,950,000 Donor income: $1,000,000 Park District expenses: $4,800,000 to $5,200,000 Net Park District income: $4,960,000 to $6,750,000 The financial model also presents net income with a +/- 10% net adjustment. The model projects a 5+ year payout calculation based on USACE credit timing protocols.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

37

10.5 Land Use Options Creating Wetlands With Alternative Golf Amenities Two land use alternatives retain some form of golf experience within the wetland environment.

The first retains the 95-acre wetland and the 50-acre upland prairie but develops golf activities within the prairie. The second involves the construction of a new 9-hole golf course that would be partly within the developed wetland and partly in the upland prairie.

10.5.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie that Includes Golf Under this land use alternative, the 95-acre wetland environment and the 50-acre upland prairie would be constructed as described in Section 9.3 above. The recreational facilities included in the upland prairie would include some golf activities. These golf activities could include, as space permits, a par 3 course, driving range, miniature golf, instructional facilities, etc. These golf activities could be integrated with other recreational facilities.

73 wetland credits would be created, generating estimated gross Park District revenue of $8,760,000 to $10,950,000. Since golf activities are included in the design, there would be no donor revenue.

SMC would pay for construction and related costs but not for amenities and golf course construction.

Park District projected ten-year costs related to creating the wetland environment are estimated to be between $4,400,000 and $4,700,000. These expense estimates do not include any costs for the design and construction of the golf facility. The Park District should consult qualified golf design professionals.

10-Year Financial Summary: Credit income: $8,760,000 to $10,950,000 Donor income: $0 Park District expenses: $4,400,000 to $4,700,000 Golf course design expenses: Unknown Net Park District income: Unknown

10.5.2 Building Wetlands, an Upland Prairie, and a 9-hole Golf Course Under this alternative, the wetland and upland prairie would be constructed as described in other options. A 9-hole golf course would be constructed that would be partially in the wetland and partially in the prairie. A very preliminary estimate of 49 credits could be available for sale through a wetland mitigation bank.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

38

This analysis is very limited; golf design and wetland engineering professionals need to be consulted if this option is to be seriously considered.

An overall summary of Park District income and expense cannot be provided without additional information concerning the costs of the golf facility.

10.6 Land Use Option Without Golf or Wetland The Park District of Highland Park recently closed a golf course and created in its place a new nature preserve with walking paths, benches, boardwalks, viewing areas, etc., at a reported cost of $1,700,000. A wetland mitigation bank was not created. While stormwater storage is a feature of the preserve, it was not the primary purpose of the development. Something like this design could be replicated in Lake Bluff.

Under this option, the golf course would be closed and the property would be allowed to return to its natural state. A wetland environment suitable for the creation of a wetland mitigation bank would not initially be created. Amenities (walkways, benches, etc.) could be added.

If this land use alternative is of interest, an evaluation of potential designs should be undertaken. Such evaluation should include community input and a full financial review. The Task Force estimates about $62,000 in professional support fees for this review.

Development and maintenance expenses for this alternative have not been developed.

Note: The information contained in this Report and the assumptions used in the financial model were current as of June 28, 2022.

10. Analysis of Land Use Alternatives

39

11. SUMMARY AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS The Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizen Task Force was created to “… understand and evaluate the facts impacting the various proposals made for converting some or all of the Lake Bluff Golf Course into wetlands … raising capital for the Park District that could be used to fund other projects ….”

The Task Force arose in response to a request from the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission for additional stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff golf course. The SMC request introduced the possibility of using outside funds to create a wetland area that may enable the Park District to become a wetland mitigation bank and generate revenue by selling wetland credits.

Any revenue generated from wetland credit sales could potentially be used for beach/bluff erosion protection and for repair/construction of the Lake Bluff community swimming pool.

Preliminary Park District estimates for beach/bluff erosion protection suggest a $4 million to $6 million cost. Reconstruction of the pool will require about $2.2 million. Each of these capital improvements will likely be multi-year projects.

This Task Force Report provides background information necessary to evaluate the various stormwater storage and wetland development alternatives. It covers the responsibilities of the Park District and SMC, stormwater storage recommendations, golf course financials, and details related to wetlands and the building of wetland mitigation banks.

Using this accumulated information, the Task Force developed and analyzed eight separate land use alternatives to determine whether they are feasible, practical, and realistic. The Task Force Report examines regulatory protocols and funding complexities and quantifies potential financial gain; the complexity involved and time necessary to realize that gain; and the aesthetic and social considerations involved with such a permanent change in land use.

11.1 Important Considerations The eight land use alternatives described in this Report involve complex legal and financial issues that are subject to ongoing inquiry. The Task Force believes the alternatives are theoretically feasible, subject to a number of important community considerations: •

•

Alternatives that include wetland development are much more complex than those that retain the golf course and would result in significant and permanent physical changes to the golf course property.

Wetland development alternatives allow the Park District to become a wetland mitigation site and generate wetland credit for sale over a period of up to ten years. Any revenue would be offset by sizable development costs.

11. Summary and Important Considerations

40

•

Alternatives that retain the golf course would require other funding sources for beach/bluff erosion protection and pool reconstruction.

•

Wetland credit sales occur in a private marketplace and have many variables: o

The availability of wetland credits for sale in the marketplace initially depends on the continued growth of the new plant environment and cannot be timed to meet initial expense needs

o

A different credit price is negotiated every time a credit is sold, making ultimate wetland credit sales difficult to project

o

Demand for wetland credits depends on supply, demand, and competition factors not under the control of the sponsor (the Park District), making the timing of credit income unpredictable

•

A permanent conservation easement on approximately 95 acres of Park District property is required in the alternatives that develop a wetland mitigation bank. Future land use changes on that portion of the property would be prohibited.

•

Wetland development and management requires specific expertise that would need to be retained from outside sources or developed internally by the Park District. The Task Force believes this to be a critical success factor.

•

It is unknown whether any alternatives that retains the golf course will result in any material financial or other benefit to the Park District.

•

All alternatives require the cooperation of SMC in the identification of specific funding sources, involve complex and lengthy regulatory approval, and must be finalized in a formal written intergovernmental agreement between the Park District, SMC, and possibly other entities. The responsibilities of all parties must be clearly delineated in this agreement.

The Task Force expects the Park District Board to use the information contained in this Report, supplemented by its own analysis and reflecting Lake Bluff community input, to select one or more land use alternatives for added study. Working in conjunction with SMC and other entities, detailed land use concept plans, engineering and construction specifications, and financial projections must be developed and legal advice must be obtained. Those planning documents, again with community input, will lead to decisions on future use of the Park District property currently used for golf purposes.

The Task Force believes that the activities necessary to facilitate a Park District land use decision could be mostly completed within the 2022 calendar year.

11. Summary and Important Considerations

41

11.2 Land Use Alternatives at a Glance 11.2.1 Options Retaining the Existing Golf Course 11.2.1.1 Retain Existing Golf Course Without Adding Additional Stormwater Storage Physical Environment:

No change to existing golf course SMC constructs storage elsewhere Periodic flooding and course closures continue

Construction Activity:

None

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: No wetland credit revenue Expense: $62,000

11.2.1.2 Flood Easement Physical Environment:

No change to existing golf course Increased stormwater on course Increased flooding and periodic course closures

Construction Activity:

Minimal/none

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: No wetland credit revenue; potential impact fee Expense: $80,000

11.2.1.3 Stormwater Storage Areas Physical Environment:

Likely change in course design and playability Increased stormwater captured in storage areas

Construction Activity:

Storage areas built on golf course Course likely closed for one season

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: No wetland credit revenue; potential impact fee Expense: $480,000

11. Summary and Important Considerations

42

11.2.2 Options Creating Wetlands and Eliminating Golf Activities 11.2.2.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie Without Active Recreation Physical Environment:

Golf course is closed 95-acre wetland and 50-acre upland prairie created Permanent conservation easement on 95 acres Increased stormwater spread throughout wetland

Construction Activity:

Significant removal of existing trees and foliage in lower areas Significant unsightly earth moving and grading New plant environment constructed Wetland amenities constructed (paths, benches) One season construction; up to five years to mature

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: 73 credits, $8.8M to $11.0M over 10 years; conditional $1M donor income Expense: $4.2M to $4.5M

11.2.2.2 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie With Active Recreation Physical Environment:

Same as 11.2.2.1

Construction Activity:

Same as 11.2.2.1 plus Recreation amenities constructed (fields, park, etc.)

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: 73 credits, $8.8M to $11.0M over 10 years; conditional $1M donor income; unknown amenity income Expense: $4.8M to $5.2M

11. Summary and Important Considerations

43

11.2.3 Options Creating Wetlands With Alternative Golf Amenities 11.2.3.1 Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie That Includes Golf Physical Environment:

Same as 11.2.2.1

Construction Activity:

Same as 11.2.2.1 plus Recreation amenities include golf features (e.g., par 3 course, miniature golf) and possible other amenities

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: 73 credits, $8.8M to $11.0M over 10 years; no donor income; unknown golf and amenity income Expense: $4.4M to $4.7M; unknown significant golf design and construction cost

11.2.3.2 Building Wetlands, an Upland Prairie, and a 9-Hole Golf Course Physical Environment:

Same as 11.2.2.1

Construction Activity:

Same as 11.2.2.1 plus 9-hole golf course created; partially in wetland and partially in upland prairie

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

Income: 49 credits, $5.9M to $7.4M over 10 years; no donor income; unknown significant golf and amenity income Expense: Not projected; unknown significant golf design and construction cost

11.2.4 Option Without Golf or Wetland Physical Environment:

Golf course is closed Increased stormwater flows onto property

Construction Activity:

Minimal Property is allowed to return to natural state

Estimated Financial Impact on Park District:

11. Summary and Important Considerations

Income: No credit revenue; potential SMC impact fee Expense: Not projected

44

APPENDICES 1. Land Use Alternatives and Financial Models 1.1 Land Use Alternatives – Description 1.2 Financial Model – Alternatives 1-8 1.3 Annual Financial Model – Alternative 4 2. V-3 Report 2.1 V3 Conceptual Wetland Bank Location on Lake Bluff Golf Course 2.2 V3 Report – May 11, 2022 3. Stormwater Management Commission and Other Correspondence 3.1 SMC Q&A – February 14, 2022 3.2 SMC Q&A – March 15, 2022 3.3 SMC Q&A – May 5, 2022 3.4 SMC Q&A – June 14, 2022 3.5 Burke Engineering Letter – June 16, 2022 3.6 US Army Corps of Engineers Letter – June 17, 2022 4. Golf Course Financials 4.1 Presentation – March 25, 2022 4.2 Updated Financials – May 3, 2022 4.3 Summary Financials and Statistics Presentation 5. Regulatory Overview 5.1 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Memo – April 5, 2022 5.2 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Slides – April 5, 2022 6. Background Materials on Wetlands and Wetland Development 6.1 V3 Presentation – February 8, 2022 6.2 Case Study: Libertyville Township – February 22, 2022 6.3 Case Study: Highland Park Preserve – February 22, 2022 6.4 Case Study: Oak Meadows Golf Course – February 22, 2022

Appendices

45

6.5 Land and Water Resources “Steps Required to Put Together, Permit, Construct and Sell Credits from a Mitigation Bank” – March 22, 2022 6.6 Conceptual Project Plan for Mitigation Banking – March 22, 2022 7. Stormwater Storage Needs 7.1 Burke Engineering: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, Lake County, Il – September 2021 7.2 Intergovernmental Agreement: Stormwater Management Commission, North Chicago, US Navy and IDOT – signed September 2020 8. Instructions to the Task Force 8.1 Remit Memo with Questions 8.2 Task Force Answers to Remit Questions 8.3 Memoranda: SMC and Park District – January 14, 2021; February 17, 2021; March 15, 2021 8.4 Board Memorandum: Stormwater Management – Discussion; March 15, 2021 9. FEMA and Other Maps 9.1 FEMA Base Map Showing Flood Zones on LBGC 9.2 FEMA Base Map Showing Floodway 9.3 FEMA 100-Year Flood Map 9.4 FEMA 500-Year Flood Map 9.5 SMC Route 41 Draft Improvements 9.6 WRAPP Map - Wetlands in Lake County 9.7 WRAPP Map – Wetlands in Lake Bluff Area 9.8 WRAPP Map – Hydric Soils on and around LBGC 9.9 WRAPP Map – Soil Types on LBGC 9.10 WRAPP Map – Potentially Restorable Wetland Areas on LBGC 10. Donor Communication 11. Glossary of Terms

Appendices

46

Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizen Task Force

Stormwater Storage and Wetland Development on the Lake Bluff Golf Course Report to the Lake Bluff Park District Board of Commissioners List of Appendices

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Land Use Alternatives and Financial Models 1.1 Land Use Alternatives – Description 1.2 Financial Model – Alternatives 1-8 1.3 Annual Financial Model – Alternative 4 Appendix 2. V3 Report 2.1 V3 Conceptual Wetland Bank Location on Lake Bluff Golf Course 2.2 V3 Report – May 11, 2022 Appendix 3. Stormwater Management Commission and Other Correspondence 3.1 SMC Q&A – February 14, 2022 3.2 SMC Q&A – March 15, 2022 3.3 SMC Q&A – May 5, 2022 3.4 SMC Q&A – June 14, 2022 3.5 Burke Engineering Letter – June 16, 2022 3.6 US Army Corps of Engineers Letter – June 17, 2022 Appendix 4. Golf Course Financials 4.1 Presentation – March 25, 2022 4.2 Updated Financials – May 3, 2022 4.3 Summary Financials and Statistics Presentation Appendix 5. Regulatory Overview 5.1 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Memo – April 5, 2022 5.2 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Slides – April 5, 2022 Appendix 6. Background Materials on Wetlands and Wetland Development 6.1 V3 Presentation – February 8, 2022 6.2 Case Study: Libertyville Township – February 22, 2022 6.3 Case Study: Highland Park Preserve – February 22, 2022 6.4 Case Study: Oak Meadows Golf Course – February 22, 2022 6.5 Land and Water Resources “Steps Required to Put Together, Permit, Construct and Sell Credits from a Mitigation Bank” – March 22, 2022 6.6 Conceptual Project Plan for Mitigation Banking – March 22, 2022

Appendices List

Appendix 7. Stormwater Storage Needs 7.1 Burke Engineering: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, Lake County, Il – September 2021 7.2 Intergovernmental Agreement: Stormwater Management Commission, North Chicago, US Navy and IDOT – signed September 2020 Appendix 8. Instructions to the Task Force 8.1 Remit Memo with Questions 8.2 Task Force Answers to Remit Questions 8.3 Memoranda: SMC and Park District – January 14, 2021; February 17, 2021; March 15, 2021 8.4 Board Memorandum: Stormwater Management – Discussion; March 15, 2021 Appendix 9. FEMA and Other Maps 9.1 FEMA Base Map Showing Flood Zones on LBGC 9.2 FEMA Base Map Showing Floodway 9.3 FEMA 100-Year Flood Map 9.4 FEMA 500-Year Flood Map 9.5 SMC Route 41 Draft Improvements 9.6 WRAPP Map - Wetlands in Lake County 9.7 WRAPP Map – Wetlands in Lake Bluff Area 9.8 WRAPP Map – Hydric Soils on and around LBGC 9.9 WRAPP Map – Soil Types on LBGC 9.10 WRAPP Map – Potentially Restorable Wetland Areas on LBGC Appendix 10. Donor Communication 11. Glossary of Terms

Appendices List

APPENDIX 1. LAND USE ALTERNATIVES AND FINANCIAL MODELS 1.1 Land Use Alternatives – Description

1

APPENDIX 1.1

ALTERNATIVE LAND USE – GOLF COURSE PROPERTY June 28, 2022

The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) has proposed construction of a minimum of 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff golf course. In exchange, SMC has agreed to either restore the disturbed property to its prior condition or construct a new wetland environment that could contain active or passive recreation uses.

To fully evaluate the SMC proposal, the Task Force is considering eight alternative uses for the golf course property. An accompanying financial model provides a draft pro forma cash financial impact analysis on the Lake Bluff Park District. Please see Section 9 of the Task Force for a more complete description of these alternatives and Section 10 for a discussion of financial impacts.

The Task Force expects the Lake Bluff Park District Board to use this information to select one or more alternatives, and then develop detailed land use concept plans, specifications and financial projections.

LAND USE OPTIONS RETAINING THE EXISTING GOLF COURSE Alternative 1: Retain Existing Golf Course Without Adding Additional Stormwater Storage The Park District would reject the SMC request for stormwater storage on golf course property.

The existing 18-hole golf course would not be modified, No additional flood storage would be accommodated on the property.

Alternative 2: Flood Easement The Park District would grant a flood easement to SMC that would increase the flow of stormwater onto the golf course in times of excessive rainfall. The course would not be modified; additional stormwater would flow naturally onto and off of the course during flood events. The golf course would likely be flooded more frequently with a resulting loss of golf revenue.

Alternative 3: Stormwater Storage Areas The Park District would work with SMC to locate areas on the golf course that could be engineered to provide stormwater storage in times of excessive rainfall. The golf course would likely be closed for one season and minimally redesigned after construction to incorporate additional stormwater storage.

2

LAND USE OPTIONS CREATING WETLANDS AND ELIMINATING GOLF ACTIVITIES Alternative 4: Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie Without Active Recreation Stormwater storage would be provided on the golf course property through the creation of a wetland environment, which would be constructed on 95 acres suitable for wetland development. A connected upland prairie covering 50 acres of higher land on the eastern portion of the property would complete the design. Golf would not be part of the design.

The design of the area could include walking paths, benches, bridges and other amenities. The entire area would be used for passive recreation; active recreation facilities would not be included.

Alternative 5: Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie With Active Recreation The property would be developed as in Alternative 4. The upland prairie, however, would include one or more active recreation options, such as athletic fields, dog park, Ice rink, playground, etc. Golf would not be part of the design.

LAND USE OPTIONS CREATING WETLANDS WITH ALTERNATIVE GOLF AMENITIES Alternative 6: Building Wetlands and an Upland Prairie that Includes Golf The wetland development would be developed as described in Alternative 4. The upland prairie would contain one or more alternative recreational amenities as described in Alternative 5. In addition, the amenities could include golf features; a par 3 golf course, putting green, driving range or similar golf-related features.

Alternative 7: Building Wetlands, an Upland Prairie, and a 9-hole Golf Course Working with golf course architects, a 9-hole golf course would be designed that would wind, in part, through a portion of the new wetland environment. The remainder of the golf course would be built on the upland prairie. Amenities may be added to portions of the wetland not used for the golf course.

LAND USE OPTION WITHOUT GOLF OR WETLAND Alternative 8: No Wetland or Golf The golf course would be closed and the property would be allowed to return to its natural state.

A wetland environment would not initially be created. Amenities (walkways, benches, etc.) could be added.

Appendix 1.1

3

1.2 Financial Model – Alternatives 1-8

Appendices List

4

APPENDIX 1.2 6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Retain 18-Hole Golf Alternatives

(Rounded to 000)

INCOME

Sale of Wetland Credits Number of Wetland Credits SMC Impact Payment

2

3

Retain Golf Course (Reject SMC Offer)

Flood Easement (Storage on current course, limited changes to golf course)

Stormwater Storage Areas (Designed storage on current course)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total EXPENSES

1

TBD

$

-

TBD

$

-

High-Level Plan

30,000

30,000

Community Input

30,000

30,000

NA

Master Plan

$

30,000 30,000

NA

NA

2,000

Legal fees

-

10,000

10,000

Regulatory Oversight Project Management

NA

10,000

NA

NA

10,000

Conceptual Design

NA

SMC

SMC

Survey/Engineering

NA

SMC

SMC

Regulatory and Permitting

NA

SMC

SMC

Site Preparation

NA

NA

SMC

Performance Bonding

NA

NA

SMC

Site Development

NA

NA

SMC

Amenities

NA

NA

NA

Wetland Banking

NA

NA

NA

Planting, Seeding, Vegetation Mgt Wetland ST maintenance (5 yrs) Wetland LT maintenance (Escrow)

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

400,000

Long-term other maintenance

NA

NA

NA

Golf ST and LT maintenance

Golf Visions

Golf Visions

Golf Visions

Total

$

$

Net +10% Net -10%

$ $

NET - Without SMC Impact Payment

NET -- With Golf Course Capital Expense ($807K) Net +10% Net -10%

62,000

$

80,000

$

480,000

(62,000) $

(80,000) $

(480,000)

(68,000) $ (56,000) $

(88,000) $ (72,000) $

(528,000) (432,000)

$

(869,000) $

(887,000) $

(1,287,000)

$ $

(955,900) $ (782,100) $

(975,700) $ (798,300) $

(1,415,700) (1,158,300)

Possible Credit Payment Timing (% each release)

By Project Year Commencing with Year 0 Year 1

Mitigation Bank Approved

20%

Year 2-4

Hydrology Standards Met

25%

Year 3-5

Interim Vegetative Standards

25%

Year 5-7

Final Credit Release

30%

NA

Appendix 1.2

5

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Wetland without Golf Alternatives

(Rounded to 000)

4

5

Wetland / Upland Prairie without Active Recreation (Passive Recreation Only)

Wetland / Upland Prairie with Active Recreation

$120K/credit

INCOME

Sale of Wetland Credits

8,760,000

Number of Wetland Credits $

$

10,950,000

73

NA

8,760,000

$150K/credit

8,760,000

73

NA

Total

$120K/credit

10,950,000

73

SMC Impact Payment

EXPENSES

$150K/credit

73

NA

10,950,000

$

NA

8,760,000

$

10,950,000

High-Level Plan

30,000

30,000

30,000

Community Input

30,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

Master Plan

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

30,000

Legal fees

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

Regulatory Oversight Project Management

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

730,000

730,000

760,000

760,000

Conceptual Design

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Survey/Engineering

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Regulatory and Permitting

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Site Preparation

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Performance Bonding

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Site Development

SMC

SMC

SMC

SMC

Amenities Wetland Banking Planting, Seeding, Vegetation Mgt Wetland ST maintenance (5 yrs) Wetland LT maintenance (Escrow) Long-term other mainenance

300,000

300,000

600,000

600,000

1,314,000

1,643,000

1,314,000

1,643,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

315,000

Golf ST and LT maintenance

315,000

NA

Golf Course Capital Expense

630,000

NA

NA

630,000

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

Total

$

$

4,576,000 $

6,437,000 $

3,931,000 $

5,792,000

Net +10% Net -10%

$ $

5,034,000 $ 4,118,000 $

7,081,000 $ 5,793,000 $

4,324,000 $ 3,538,000 $

6,371,000 5,213,000

$

5,576,000 $

7,437,000 $

4,931,000 $

6,792,000

$ $

6,134,000 $ 5,018,000 $

8,181,000 $ 6,693,000 $

5,424,000 $ 4,438,000 $

7,471,000 6,113,000

NET

NET -- With Donor Contribution Net +10% Net -10%

4,184,000

$

4,513,000

$

4,829,000

$

5,158,000

Possible Credit Payment Timing (% each release)

By Project Year Commencing with Year 0 Year 1

Mitigation Bank Approved

20%

1,752,000

2,190,000

1,752,000

2,190,000

Year 2-4

Hydrology Standards Met

25%

2,190,000

2,738,000

2,190,000

2,738,000

Year 3-5

Interim Vegetative Standards

25%

2,190,000

2,738,000

2,190,000

2,738,000

Year 5-7

Final Credit Release

30%

2,628,000

3,285,000

2,628,000

3,285,000

Appendix 1.2

6

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Wetland with Golf Alternatives

(Rounded to 000)

6

7

Wetland / Upland Prairie with Golf Amenity (May include other Active Recreation)

Wetland / Upland Prairie with 9Hole Golf Course

$120K/credit

INCOME

Sale of Wetland Credits

8,760,000

Number of Wetland Credits $

$

7,350,000

49

NA

8,760,000

$150K/credit

5,880,000

73

NA

Total

$120K/credit

10,950,000

73

SMC Impact Payment

EXPENSES

$150K/credit

49

NA

10,950,000

$

NA

5,880,000

$

7,350,000

High-Level Plan

30,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

Community Input

30,000

30,000

30,000

30,000

Master Plan

50,000

50,000

50,000

50,000

Legal fees

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

Regulatory Oversight Project Management

10,000

10,000

10,000

10,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

Conceptual Design

TBD

950,000

TBD

TBD

TBD

Survey/Engineering

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Regulatory and Permitting

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Site Preparation

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Performance Bonding

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Site Development

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Amenities

TBD

TBD

NA

NA

Wetland Banking

1,314,000

1,643,000

882,000

1,103,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

SMC 985,000 380,000

SMC 660,000 200,000

SMC 660,000 200,000

Planting, Seeding, Vegetation Mgt Wetland ST maintenance (5 yrs) Wetland LT maintenance (Escrow) Long-term other mainenance

950,000

630,000

Golf ST and LT maintenance

630,000

TBD

Golf Course Capital Expense

TBD NA

NA

Total

$

NET -- Without Golf Design,Construction Net +10% Net -10% NET -- With Golf Design,Construction,Maintenance

4,419,000

$

4,748,000

Third-Party

Third-Party

Third-Party

Third-Party

TBD $

2,902,000

TBD $

3,123,000

$

4,341,000 $

6,202,000 $

2,978,000 $

4,227,000

$ $

4,775,000 $ 3,907,000 $

6,822,000 $ 5,582,000 $

3,276,000 $ 2,680,000 $

4,650,000 3,804,000

???

???

???

???

Net +10% Net -10% Possible Credit Payment Timing (% each release)

By Project Year Commencing with Year 0 Year 1

Mitigation Bank Approved

20%

1,752,000

2,190,000

1,176,000

1,470,000

Year 2-4

Hydrology Standards Met

25%

2,190,000

2,738,000

1,470,000

1,838,000

Year 3-5

Interim Vegetative Standards

25%

2,190,000

2,738,000

1,470,000

1,838,000

Year 5-7

Final Credit Release

30%

2,628,000

3,285,000

1,764,000

2,205,000

Appendix 1.2

7

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Alternative

(Rounded to 000)

8 No Wetland /Upland Prairie or Golf (Close the Golf Course)

INCOME

Sale of Wetland Credits

NA

Number of Wetland Credits

NA

SMC Impact Payment

NA

Total EXPENSES

$

-

High-Level Plan

30,000

Community Input

30,000 NA

Master Plan

2,000

Legal fees Regulatory Oversight Project Management

NA

Conceptual Design

NA

Survey/Engineering

NA

Regulatory and Permitting

NA

Site Preparation

NA

Performance Bonding

NA

Site Development

NA

Amenities

NA

Wetland Banking

NA

Planting, Seeding, Vegetation Mgt Wetland ST maintenance (5 yrs) Wetland LT maintenance (Escrow)

NA NA NA

Long-term other maintenance

NA

Golf ST and LT maintenance

NA

NA

Golf Course Capital Expense

NA

Total NET Net +10% Net -10% NET -- With Donor Contribution

$

62,000

$

(62,000)

$ $

(68,000) (56,000) NA

Net +10% Net -10% Possible Credit Payment Timing (% each release)

By Project Year Commencing with Year 0 Year 1

Mitigation Bank Approved

20%

Year 2-4

Hydrology Standards Met

25%

Year 3-5

Interim Vegetative Standards

25%

Year 5-7

Final Credit Release

30%

Appendix 1.2

8

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Description

Financial Data Used in Financial Comparison

Source of Data

Sale of Credits

Credit sales through wetland bank. See Possible Credit Timing table on each alternative spreadsheet.

Total sales over 10-year period are reported.

Credit pricing range based on anecdotal information provided by John Ryan, SMC, V3. Timing provided by V3.

Impact Payment

Compensation by SMC for loss of play or golf course damage incurred by storage of stormwater.

TBD

TBD

High-Level Plan

High-level planning by Board. Address general goals, design parameters and selection of alternative.

Assume $30K

Working assumption

Community Input

Surveys, mailing, etc.

$30K

Contract with Public Communications.

Master Plan

Develop Master Plan for site and amenities

Assume $50K

Working assumption.

Legal fees

Park District legal fees. Preparation and execution of IGA, Different levels of complexity for alternatives. Assumed that all Owner's Representative, Banking and other contractual alternatives will have some need for legal input and review. Assumed documents. $500/hr.

Working assumption

Regulatory Oversight

Oversight of regulatory documents by subject matter expert.

Assume $10,000

Working assumption

Project Management

Project management and engineering/environmental consulting firm as Owner's Representative. Alts 6-7 includes consultation/design with a golf course architect.

Assumptions: Alt 3: Assumed $400K. Alt 4: 10% of $7.3M project cost Alt 5: 10% of $7.6M project cost Alt 6: 10% of $9.5M project cost Alt 7: 10% of $10M project cost.

Village of LB routinely uses engineering firms for this kind of service and suggests 10% (Alts 4-7).

Alt 3: Working assumption Alt 4: SMC estimate ($7M) + amenities Alt 5: SMC estimate ($7M) + amenities Alt 6: Working assumption Alt 7: Working assumption

Conceptual Design

Formal design costs.

100% Paid for by and contracted through SMC for stormwater and/or SMC documentation. wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course. Other golf course costs not included.

Survey/Engineering

Survey and Engineering costs for Stormwater and/or Wetland Project

100% Paid for by and contracted through SMC for stormwater and/or SMC documentation. wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course. Other golf course costs not included.

Regulatory and Permitting

All regulatory and permit documentation for Stormwater and/or Wetland project.

100% Paid for by and contracted through SMC for stormwater and/or SMC documentation. wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course. Other golf course costs not included.

Site Preparation

Preparation (rough grading) required for stormwater, wetland, amenities, and/or golf.

100% Paid for by and contracted through SMC for stormwater and/or SMC documentation. wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course. Other golf course costs not included.

9 Appendix 1.2

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Description

Financial Data Used in Financial Comparison

Source of Data

Performance Bonding

Surety bond, letter of credit, etc.

100% Paid by SMC and/or Contractor.

Site Development

Restoration of site into wetland, sotrmwater and/or golf, including plantings, fairways, greens, etc.

100% Paid for by and contracted through SMC for stormwater and/or SMC documentation. wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course. Other golf course costs not included.

Scope: Passive amenities may include walking paths, benches, bridges.

Assume $300K.

Working assumption. Developing facts. Donor contribution per Donor correspondence. Donor will contribute toward passive recreation (eg, walking paths, benches) amenities.

Alt 5 Scope: In additional to Alt 4 passive amenities, Alt 5 active amenities could include athletic field, dog park, golf, skating rink. No golf-related amenities.

Assume $600K.

Working assumption. Developing facts. Donor contribution per Donor correspondence. Donor will contribute toward passive recreation (eg, walking paths, benches) amenities only. Active recreation amenities may be present, but are not funded by the donor.

Alt 6 Scope: In additional to Alt 4 passive amenities and Alt 5 active amenities, would include a Par 3 golf course.

Assume a minimum of $600,000 for active amenities; golf course costs Working assumption. Developing facts. Donor contribution per are not included.

Donor correspondence. Donor will not contribute toward a project containing golf-related amenities.

Estimated at 15% of total credit cost.

Working assumption.

Amenities

Alt4

Bonding would be absorbed by SMC or other contractors. Per wetland development professionals.

Mitigation Banking

Banking' expenses to establish and market wetland credits. Must comply with ACOE regulations.

Pre-Seeding Vegetation Management

Preparation for planting and seeding; initial year.

100% Paid for by and contracted through+B30 SMC for stormwater V3 quote (5/11/2022). and/or wetland. Some cost-sharing for Alt 7+B54 would be covered by SMC where stormwater/wetlands affect a golf course.

Wetland Short Term Maintenance (5 yrs)

All regulatory and permit documentation for Stormwater and/or Wetland project. A total of 90 acres are mapped for wetlands. (Net Wetland credits are calculated from this base.)

Park District responsibility per ACOE. Alts 4-6: $985,000 for five-year program. Donor funds applied to cove Alt 7: $660,000 for five-year program. Golf maintenance not included.

Maintenance performed by qualified outside contractor.

Alts 4-6: V3 estimate (5/11/2022), 90 total acres (includes apportioned acreage). Donor funds may be applied.

Alt 7: Based on V3 estimate (5/11/2022). Estimate of reduced wetland area due to golf course.

Wetland Long Term Maintenance (Life Escrow)

LT maintenance of stormwater/wetlands for life of the wetlands. Stipulated by ACOE.

Alt 4-6: $380K held in escrow to cover $19K annual cost (5% draw).

Alt 7: $200K held in escrow to cover $10K annual cost (5% draw).

Maintenance performed by qualified outside contractor.

Working assumption. Donor funds may be applied.

Alt 4-6: $200/acre/year, 95 acres.

Alt 7: $200/acre/year, 50 acres

Long Term Other Maintenance

Maintenance not covered by wetland or golf course (eg, maintenance of stormwater features, walking trails, benches, bridges, mowing/striping of soccer field, mowing of dog park, etc). Maintenance performed by PD.

Alt 4: Assume 1/2 headcount, Years 4-10 Alt 5: Assume 1 headcount, Years 4-10 Alt 6: Assume 1 headcount, Tears 4-10; golf maintenance TBD Alts 4-6: Increased 20% for maintenance materials (1 HC = $75,000; plus 20% = $90,000)

Headcount: PD estimate.

Materials: Working assumption.

10 Appendix 1.2

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Description

Financial Data Used in Financial Comparison

Source of Data

Golf-Specific Items

Expense and income issues specific to golf course design/construction.

Without specific expertise it is difficult to estimate golf related expenses Concept design quote by Greg Martin, Golf Architect and and income. Further, without a design, or conceptual design it is not golf/wetland subject matter expert. possible to estimate the percentage of costs to which SMC would contribute. SMC will pay to restore disturbed course areas which are returned to golf use. Design concept quote of $13,500.

Golf ST and LT maintenance

Course maintenance.

Alts 1-3: 100% covered by Golf Visions.

Alt 6-7: Third-Party

Golf Course Capital Expense

Alts 1-3: Current Golf course capital expenses are the Capital Plan for 2022-2031 is $807K. responsibility of the Park District and are assumed to continue.

Alts 4-6, 8: These costs would be unnecessary.

Alt 7: Tthe costs are eliminated, but would be replaced by an updated Capital Plan for a new course. It is possible that the capital costs could be assumed by third-party in a future contract.

Wetland Credits available for sale

Alternatives 4-6

73 Credits (V3's most recent draft of the project site and analysis of hydric soils and topography yields a total of 90 acres of wetlands which yield 75 credits, reduced by 2 acres for walking paths. )

Alternative 7

49 Credits (V3's draft analysis of 73 acres for Alts 4-6, reduced by 14 acres, an estimate of the footprint of Greg Martin's conceptual design.)

Alts 1-3: Golf Visions contract Alts 6-7: Working assumption Park District approved Capital Plan.

Time Value of Funds

This model does not address the possibility that Wetland Credits may increase or decrease during the course of the project due to factors such as market availabiity, inflation and deflation. Likewise, expenses are not adjusted for their present value, inflation or deflation.

Donor contribution

A gift by an anonymous donor for wetland/prairie restoration and certain amenities of up to $1 million or 5 years, whichever comes first. Donor funds may be applied to Passive Amenities, Wetland Short-Term Maintenance and Wetland Long-Term Maintenance Escrow. Funds may not be applied to Active Amenities or golf-associated projects. (Source: Donor correspondence, 5/10/2022)

Release Schedule

Army Corps of Engineers release schedule, provided all requirements are met.

SMC and Amenities

SMC has stated that it will return disturbed golf course areas to their previous condition, provide grading and culverts for walking paths, and rough grading for amenities (eg, athletic fields, dog park, skating rinks).

Net Cost +/-

A 10% over/under is shown for Park District Net. There may be a higher degree of variability for costs related to excavation, construction, etc.

Clubhouse

Potential re-use of the clubhouse a restaurant. No outlay of funds by the PD are budgeted. Assumption is that the clubhouse could be leased and self-sustaining which would be expected to generate positive cash flow for the PD. Use of Clubhouse for this purpose does not affect Donor's contribution.

11 Appendix 1.2

6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE FINANCIAL COMPARISONS OF TASK FORCE ALTERNATIVES TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) Description Golf Course Income (Alt 7)

Financial Data Used in Financial Comparison

Source of Data

Golf course income for a 9-hole course may be less than the current 18-hole course.

Project Impacts on Golf Course Alt 1: No Impact Operations Alt 2: No Impact Alt 3: Out of service 1 season during reconstruction Alts 4-5: Golf continues 1 season during planning, then course closes Alt 6-7: Golf continues 1 season during planning; out of service 1-2 years during reconstruction Alt 8: Not applicable.

Golf Course Debt Service

The Park District has $617,881 remaining in debt service payments related to the golf course for 2022-2027. These payments impact all eight alternatives.

Golf Visions / Park District Financials

This model does not include gain or loss with respect to golf course operations -- it assumes a breakeven proposition.

Amenities Income

This model does not account for possible revenue from use of amenities.

Yellow/Highlighted cells include Working Assumptions

12 Appendix 1.2

1.3 Annual Financial Model – Alternative 4

Appendices List

13

APPENDIX 1.3 6/29/2022

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZENS TASK FORCE ANNUAL -- PRO FORMA CASH FINANCIAL IMPACT ON LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT (10 YEAR MODEL) EXAMPLE Alternative 4: Wetland / Upland Prairie without Active Recreation (Passive Recreation Only) TIMING: End of Project Year

Year 1

INCOME

ACOE Credit Release

Sale of 73 Credits ($120,000/credit)

Credit Sales Allocation

EXPENSES

High-Level Plan Community Input

$

8,760,000

$

30,000 30,000 50,000 40,000 10,000 730,000

Master Plan Legal fees Regulatory Oversight Project Management Conceptual Design Survey/Engineering Regulatory and Permitting Site Preparation Performance Bonding Site Development Amenities Wetland Banking Pre-Seeding Vegetation Mgt

$

30,000 30,000 40,000 28,000 2,000 200,000 -

300,000 1,312,000 SMC 985,000 380,000 315,000

Golf ST and LT maintenance

NET

$

-

NA

Total

Year 3

20.0%

25.0%

Year 4

$

4,182,000

$

$

4,578,000

$

10,000 3,000 2,000 200,000 50,000 -

Year 5

12.5%

Year 10

10.0%

10.0%

10.0%

Total

12.5%

12.5%

$

1,095,000

$

1,095,000

$

1,095,000

$

1,095,000

$

876,000

$

876,000

$

876,000

$

8,760,000

$

3,000 2,000 200,000 200,000 263,000 -

$

3,000 2,000 100,000 50,000 164,000 197,000

$

3,000 2,000 30,000 164,000 197,000

$

164,000 197,000 45,000

$

164,000 197,000 380,000 45,000

$

131,000 197,000 45,000

$

131,000 45,000

$

131,000 45,000

$

30,000 30,000 50,000 40,000 10,000 730,000 SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC 300,000 1,312,000 SMC 985,000 380,000 315,000

-

-

45,000

-

-

(330,000) $

Year 9

1,752,000

265,000

Year 8

$

$

Year 7 30.0%

12.5%

330,000

Year 6

25.0%

20.0%

SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC

Wetland ST maintenance (5 yrs) Wetland LT maintenance (Escrow) Long-term mainenance (Other)

Year 2

45,000 -

-

-

-

-

-

668,000

$

561,000

$

441,000

$

406,000

$

786,000

$

373,000

$

176,000

$

176,000

$

4,182,000

(265,000) $

1,084,000

$

534,000

$

654,000

$

689,000

$

309,000

$

503,000

$

700,000

$

700,000

$

4,578,000

$ $

5,036,000 4,120,000

$

5,578,000

$ $

6,136,000 5,020,000

Net +10% Net -10% NET -- With Donor Contribution

$

5,578,000

$

(130,000) $

(65,000) $

1,284,000

$

734,000

$

854,000

$

689,000

$

309,000

$

503,000

$

700,000

$

($200,000/year Years 1-5)

700,000 Net +10% Net -10%

ACCUMULATIVE NET CASH WITH DONOR CONTRIBUTION

$

(130,000) $

NA

$

(195,000) $

1,089,000

$

1,823,000

$

2,677,000

$

3,366,000

$

3,675,000

$

4,178,000

$

4,878,000

$

5,578,000

Does not account for inflation; Rounding may differ from Alternatives model ACOE Release 1 2 3 4

Mitigation Bank Approved Hydrology Standards Approved Interim Vegitative Standards Final Credit release

20% 25% 25% 30%

14

APPENDIX 2. V3 REPORT 2.1 V3 Conceptual Wetland Bank Location on Lake Bluff Golf Course

Appendices List

15

APPENDIX 2.1 - V3 Conceptual Wetland Bank Location on Lake Bluff Golf Course

³

LEGEND WETLAND REESTABLISHMENT/CREATION (63.24 ACRES) WETLAND REHABILITATION/ENHANCEMENT (26.21 ACRES) 100' PRAIRIE BUFFER (4.02 ACRES) SKOKIE RIVER CHANNEL (1.86 ACRES) EXISTING WETLAND (OFF-SITE) 200

0

200

400 Feet

SITE BOUNDARY (148.44 ACRES) PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

CLIENT:

220229 CREATED BY:

AMM DATE:

BASE LAYER:

05/23/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform With Excellence"

Lake Bluff Park District 355 W. Washington Avenue Lake Bluff, Illinois

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

Lake County Aerial Imagery (2020)

TITLE:

CONCEPT WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Wetland Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

B

J:\2022\220229\NR\Mitigation\FIGBpcond220229.mxd

16

2.2 V3 Report – May 11, 2022

Appendices List

17

APPENDIX 2.2 - V3 Report, May 11, 2022

May 11, 2022 Mr. John Bealer Executive Director Lake Bluff Park District 355 W. Washington Ave. Lake Bluff, IL 60044 RE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Wetland Mitigation Bank Evaluation

Dear Mr. Bealer: On March 8, 2022 V3 Companies, Ltd. (V3) was retained by the Lake Bluff Park District to evaluate the potential conversion of the Lake Bluff Golf Course into a wetland mitigation bank as proposed by the Lake County Stormwater Commission (SMC). The purpose of the conversion is to provide up to 40 acre-feet of compensatory floodplain storage along the Skokie River. The basis for the compensatory floodplain storage is a September 2021 DRAFT Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US-41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, prepared by Christopher B. Burke Engineering Ltd. Three wetland mitigation banking “concept plans” prepared by Hey & Associates had been presented to the Lake Bluff Park District by SMC. On February 8, 2022, Mr. Tom Slowinski explained the basics of wetland mitigation banking at a virtual presentation to the Park District Land Use Citizen Task Force and Park District staff which were considering the SMC proposal. At a follow-up meeting on February 15, 2022 with the Task Force and Park District, the following questions were formulated to be included in an evaluation of the proposed wetland mitigation bank by V3 as described in V3’s proposal dated February 18, 2022.

1. Can the proposed compensatory floodplain storage be provided in conjunction with the existing 18hole golf course?

2. What is the maximum number of wetland mitigation acres/credits that can be provided on the entire golf course property?

3. Can both the floodplain storage and the proposed wetland mitigation bank be accomplished on the property.

The V3 proposal was approved on March 8, 2022. As described in V3’s proposal, the technical evaluation was to be generally based on information provided by SMC and their consultant, Hey and Associates. The initial evaluation was to be completed within three weeks of notice to proceed and the receipt of sufficient details on the concept plans from SMC. As described in the V3 proposal, the details to be provided by SMC included the identification of the location and size/acreage of potential areas of wetland creation (reestablishment), wetland enhancement (rehabilitation), upland buffers and related wetland and/or stream mitigation bank acres/credits, and were to be based upon USACE wetland mitigation banking requirements.

On March 17, 2022, a virtual meeting was held with Mr. Slowinski, Mr. Bealer, Mr. Kurt Woolford of SMC and Mr. Dave Kraft of Hey & Associates (Hey) to find out what information was available from SMC. Following the discussion, the scope of V3’s evaluation including the three questions was provided to Mr.

V 3 | V i s i o , V e r t e r e , V i r 8t u t e … T he V i sion to T ra ns fo rm w ith E xc el lenc e

18

Page 2 of 4 Mr. John Bealer Lake Bluff Park District

Woolford and Mr. Kraft, and we were informed that SMC and Hey would evaluate the questions and provided preliminary answers to the three questions.

On April 4, 2022 a second virtual meeting was held with the Task Force and Park District, which also included Derrick Martin, V3’s Water Resources Group Leader. The status of the lack of information from SMC was discussed with the following resolutions: •

V3 would prepare a concept compensatory storage plan within the existing golf course routing, which would then need to be reviewed by Golf Vision, the operator of the golf course to determine the effect on golf course playability

•

V3 would refine the previous wetland mitigation concept plan

•

V3 would include a credit release/sales forecast

•

Mr. Bealer would follow-up with SMC.

On April 14, 2022, following an email inquiry by Mr. Bealer to Mr. Woolford at SMC, it became apparent that SMC would not be providing any additional information to assist V3 in the evaluation. As a result, V3 is providing the following answers to the questions based on information we have reviewed and/or prepared.

1. CAN THE PROPOSED COMPENSATORY FLOODPLAIN STORAGE BE PROVIDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE? V3’s water resources engineers reviewed the September 2021 DRAFT Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US-41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, prepared by Christopher B. Burke Engineering Ltd., and additional GIS information available from Lake County. Based on this information, V3 prepared the following exhibits, which are provided in Appendix I. •

Potential Areas of Comp. Storage (with Contours)

•

Potential Areas of Comp. Storage (without Contours)

The exhibits show that 33.86 acre-feet of storage can be provided through the grading of 14.23 acres within the existing golf holes. However, the effect on the playability of the golf course will need to be evaluated by a golf course architect and may need to be reduced.

Conclusion: Yes, there is sufficient room within the existing golf course to provide a great deal of compensatory floodplain storage.

2. WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WETLAND MITIGATION ACRES/CREDITS THAT CAN BE PROVIDED ON THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY? Based on the lack of detailed information provided by SMC regarding their proposed “concept plans”, V3 prepared a series of exhibits which presents standard information on wetland and floodplain related conditions at the golf course. These exhibits are provided in Appendix II. V3 then prepared a Mitigation Bank Concept Plan, dated March 11, 2022 which was provided to the Task Force and Park District on March 14, 2022 via email. The revised Wetland Mitigation Bank Concept, dated April 22, 2022 is provided in Appendix III. The revised concept shows the potential to provide 77.15 wetland mitigation credits on 95.33 acres. The credits include 63.24 acres/credits of Wetland Reestablishment/Creation; 13.11

9

19

Page 3 of 4 Mr. John Bealer Lake Bluff Park District

acres/credits of Wetland Rehabilitation/Enhancement; and 0.80 acres/credits for the required 100-foot prairie buffer along the eastern side of the wetlands. The potential credit release schedule based on USACE wetland mitigation design criteria and approval requirements are as follows and assumes a 2-year design and approval process: •

•

•

•

Design and Required Permits (Cost Estimate, $300,000.00) o

US Army Corps of Engineers Permit and Interagency Review Team (IRT) MBI Approval

o

Lake County SMC Stormwater Permit

o

Illinois DNR/Office of Water Resources Floodway Construction Permit

Permit Issuance and Mitigation Bank Instrument (MBI) Approval, 2024 (year 0) o

15.43 credits, 20% of total credits

o

Potential revenue ($120,000 per credit) = $1,851,600.00

o

Based on a potential sale of 5 credits per year it could take up to 3 years to sell the 15.43 credits. Credit sales can be highly variable based on supply, demand, and competition in the marketplace.

o

The revenue from the initial credits sales typically funds construction, including grading and native plant installation, which we understand is to be paid for by SMC. V3’s preliminary opinion of probable cost for both seed and plant plugs is $1,940,000.00, with an additional $175,000 for preseeding vegetation management. The Engineers Opinion of Probable Concept Construction Cost is provided in Appendix IV, but does not include excavation and grading costs, which cannot be accurately determined at this time.

o

The required 5-year management and monitoring period begins the first growing season following the completion of native seeding and planting. If planting occurs in 2024, the 5year period would be 2025-2029.

Meet wetland hydrology standards for 2 consecutive years, 2026-2027 o

19.29 credits, 25% or total

o

Potential revenue = $2,314,800.00

o

During the 5-year management and monitoring period, the Park District would be required to fund annual ecological management (invasive species control, prescribed burning, mowing, etc.), annual hydrology and vegetative monitoring, and annual reporting.

o

Based on the acreage in V3’s Concept Plan, potential annual costs of management, monitoring and reporting have been estimated to be a total of approximately $202,000.00 per year, or a total of $984,000.00 (Appendix IV)

Meet interim vegetation standards, and continue to meet hydrology standards, 2027 o o

•

19.29 credits, 25% of total Potential Revenue = $2,314,800.00

Meet all 5-year performance standards, 2030 (after IRT review and approval of the 5th year monitoring report, including documentation of a final wetland delineation). If performance

10

20

Page 4 of 4 Mr. John Bealer Lake Bluff Park District

standards are not met, the ecological management, monitoring and reporting would be continued until standards are met at which time the final credits would be released. o

23.14 credits, 30% of total

o

Potential revenue = $2,776,800.00

Conclusion: Pending a detail wetland delineation of the golf course property, detailed mitigation design including grading and planting plans, and USACE review and approval, the wetland mitigation bank may provide up to 77.15 credits with potential gross revenue of $9,258,000 between 2025 and 2030 or beyond, within a highly variable demand and market for credits. Potential Park District costs during the life of the mitigation bank may include the following: annual management, monitoring and reporting; mitigation bank administration (credit sale marketing and sales); and USACE and IRT coordination. The total cost of creation and maintenance of the mitigation bank project, excluding all earthwork and related costs, would be roughly $3,700,000 over the life of the project, plus the management and administrative costs. It is unclear as to what portion of these costs would be funded by the SMC through various grants, and which portion would be funded by the Park District. Further details on the structure of the project are required to determine the full financial evaluation of the mitigation banking option.

3. CAN BOTH THE FLOODPLAIN STORAGE AND THE PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION BANK BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE PROPERTY? V3’s water resources engineers also estimated the potential volume of compensatory floodplain storage which could be realized based on the Concept Wetland Mitigation Bank Plan, as shown on the following exhibits provided in Appendix V. •

Proposed Wetland Comp. Storage (with Contours)

•

Proposed Wetland Comp. Storage (without Contours)

The exhibits show that up to 133 acre-feet of storage can be provided through the grading of 44,696 cubic yards.

Conclusion: Yes, the proposed wetland mitigation bank can provide a great deal of compensatory storage, subject to the detailed design and hydrologic modelling required to properly design and ensure an ecologically and financially successful wetland mitigation bank.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this complicated evaluation and we are available to discuss the project any further as required.

Sincerely, V3 COMPANIES, LTD.

Thomas E. Slowinski, PWS Technical Director, Wetlands & Ecology

11

21

A PPE N D I X I POTENTIAL COMPENSATORY EXHIBITS WITHIN GOLF COURSE

22 12

0.48 AC-FT

1.95 AC-FT

1.67 AC-FT

1.14 AC-FT

HOLE 14

0.93 AC-FT

HOLE 12 1.71 AC-FT 1.71 AC-FT

0.98 AC-FT

HOLE 15

0.50 AC-FT

2.64 AC-FT

3.08 AC-FT

0.32 AC-FT

0.15 AC-FT

HOLE 13

0.35 AC-FT

HOLE 7

0.26 AC-FT

0.18 AC-FT

1.29 AC-FT

HOLE 16

0.28 AC-FT

0.09 AC-FT

0.29 AC-FT

0.29 AC-FT 0.08 AC-FT

0.30 AC-FT

HOLE 6 3.24 AC-FT

0.34 AC-FT

0.41 AC-FT 1.04 AC-FT

1.47 AC-FT

2.50 AC-FT

HOLE 17 HOLE 5

0.87 AC-FT 2.29 AC-FT

HOLE 4 0.63 AC-FT

0.40 AC-FT

LEGEND

HOLE 18

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AREAS OF EXCAVATION GREEN TEE BOX

*TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED GRADED AREA = 14.23 ACRES TOTAL COMPENSATORY STORAGE CREATED WITH PROPOSED GRADING = 33.86 AC-FT 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

POTENTIAL AREAS OF COMP. STORAGE

LAKE BLUFF GOLF CLUB

LAKE BLUFF

ILLINOIS

DATE: 00-00-00

0

150

300

SCALE: 1"=300'

N:\2022\220229\Drawings\ACAD\NR\E0_\Misc Drawings\Exh_Comp Storage.dwg 4/27/2022

13

23

0.48 AC-FT

1.95 AC-FT

1.67 AC-FT

1.14 AC-FT

HOLE 14

0.93 AC-FT

HOLE 12 1.71 AC-FT 1.71 AC-FT

0.98 AC-FT

HOLE 15

0.50 AC-FT

2.64 AC-FT

3.08 AC-FT

0.32 AC-FT

0.15 AC-FT

HOLE 13

0.35 AC-FT

HOLE 7

0.26 AC-FT

0.18 AC-FT

1.29 AC-FT

HOLE 16

0.28 AC-FT

0.09 AC-FT

0.29 AC-FT

0.29 AC-FT 0.08 AC-FT

0.30 AC-FT

HOLE 6 3.24 AC-FT

0.34 AC-FT

0.41 AC-FT 1.04 AC-FT

1.47 AC-FT

2.50 AC-FT

HOLE 17 HOLE 5

0.87 AC-FT 2.29 AC-FT

HOLE 4 0.63 AC-FT

0.40 AC-FT

LEGEND

HOLE 18

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AREAS OF EXCAVATION GREEN TEE BOX

*TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED GRADED AREA = 14.23 ACRES TOTAL COMPENSATORY STORAGE CREATED WITH PROPOSED GRADING = 33.86 AC-FT 7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

POTENTIAL AREAS OF COMP. STORAGE

LAKE BLUFF GOLF CLUB

LAKE BLUFF

ILLINOIS

DATE: 00-00-00

0

150

300

SCALE: 1"=300'

N:\2022\220229\Drawings\ACAD\NR\E0_\Misc Drawings\Exh_Comp Storage.dwg 4/27/2022

14

24

APPENDIX II EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBITS

25 15

³ Project Location

2,000

0

2,000

4,000 Feet PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

PROJECT LOCATION

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

CLIENT:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

ESRI World Street Map

16

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

1

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG1loc220229.mxd

26

³

PEM1A

Project Location

PFO1A PEM1A PSS1A

PEM1C

PFO1A

PEM1A

PFO1A

PEM1A PEM1C PUBFh

R5UBH PUBGx

PEM1A

R4SBC PUBHx

PFO1A PEM1C

PUBHx

PFO1A PFO1A PUBHx

PEM1C

PUBHx

PEM1A PFO1A

PUBHx PEM1C

PUBHx

PUBFx 500

0

500

PUBHx

PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

CLIENT:

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY (NWI)

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

PUBKx

1,000 Feet

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

USGS Topographic Map Waukegan Quadrangle (2021)

17

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

2

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG2nwi220229.mxd

27

³ Project Location

Legend Lake County Wetland Inventory (2002) Artificial Wetland Converted Wetland Farmed Wetland Farmed Wetland* Non-Wetland Prior Converted Wetland Potential Farmed Wetland Urban Converted Wetland Wetland 500

0

500

1,000 Feet PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

LAKE COUNTY WETLANDS

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

CLIENT:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

USGS Topographic Map Waukegan Quadrangle (2021)

18

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

3

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG3lcw220229.mxd

28

³ Project Location

500

0

500

1,000 Feet PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

USGS HYDROLOGIC ATLAS

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

CLIENT:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

USGS Hydrologic Atlas Waukegan Quadrangle (1967)

19

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

4

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG4hydro220229.mxd

29

³ Project Location

071200030101 Upper North Branch Chicago River

Legend 12-Digit Hydrologic Unit 7,500

0

7,500

15,000 Feet PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

12-DIGIT HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE (HUC)

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

CLIENT:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

USGS Hydrologic Atlas Waukegan Quadrangle (1967)

20

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

5

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG5huc220229.mxd

30

³ Project Location

Legend Illinois Flood Zones (2021) Zone A Zone AE Zone AE, Floodway Zone AH Zone AO Open Water Zone X, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X, Protected By Levee Zone X, Depth Less Than 1 ft Zone X Area Not Included 500

0

500

1,000 Feet PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

Lake Bluff Park District 220229 355 W. Washington Avenue CREATED BY: Lake Bluff, IL 60044

TITLE:

FLOOD ZONES OF LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS (2021)

AMM

DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

CLIENT:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

BASE LAYER:

Lake County Aerial Imagery (2020)

21

SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

7

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG7nfhl220229.mxd

31

530D 698A

830

232A

530B

530B

232A

Project 989A Location

697A

805B

978A

330A

979B

³

298A

530B

978A 530B

530B

530B

365A 840B

698A

697A

298A

103A

697A

153A

981A

696B

23A

365A

23A

697A 840B 698B

981A

978A 830

698A 1330A

320A

320B

330A 103A

W

981A

696B

320A

Hydric Soils of Lake County

981A

0

232A

500

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

530B

1,000 Feet

220229 CREATED BY:

AMM DATE:

03/09/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"

698B

189A 153A

PROJECT NO.:

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

1330A

696A

W

802B

Legend

840B

697A 153A

500

840B

696A

W

153A CLIENT:

Lake Bluff Park District 355 W. Washington Avenue Lake Bluff, IL 60044

BASE LAYER:

Lake County Aerial Imagery (2020)

22

697B 298A

TITLE:

SOIL SURVEY OF LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS SITE:

Lake Bluff Golf Course Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

8

J:\2022\220229\NR\FIG8soil220229.mxd

32

APPENDIX III WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT PLAN

33 23

³

LEGEND WETLAND REESTABLISHMENT/CREATION (63.24 ACRES) WETLAND REHABILITATION/ENHANCEMENT (26.21 ACRES) 100' PRAIRIE BUFFER (4.02 ACRES) SKOKIE RIVER CHANNEL (1.86 ACRES) 200

0

200

400 Feet

EXISTING WETLAND (OFF-SITE) PROJECT NO.:

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

CLIENT:

220229 CREATED BY:

AMM DATE:

BASE LAYER:

05/12/2022 Visio, Vertere, Virtute...

"The Vision To Transform With Excellence"

Lake Bluff Park District 355 W. Washington Avenue Lake Bluff, Illinois

SCALE:

See Scale Bar

Lake County Aerial Imagery (2020)

TITLE:

CONCEPT WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PLAN SITE:

24

Lake Bluff Golf Course Wetland Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff, Illinois

FIGURE:

B

J:\2022\220229\NR\Mitigation\FIGBpcond220229.mxd

34

APPENDIX IV ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONCEPT PLAN CONSTRUCTION COST

35 25

Client:

Lake Bluff Park District

Job Name: Lake Bluff GC Lake Co, IL Date of Plans: 4/22/2022 Concept Revision Date: N/A Date of Estimate: 5/10/2022 Project: 220229

Phone: Email: ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONCEPT PLAN CONSTRUCTION COST ITEM 1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

TASK EXCAVATION, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL 1.1 Mobilization 1.2 Construction Entrance 1.3 Silt Fence Installation 1.4 Silt Fence Removal 1.5 Drain Tile Disablement 1.6 Topsoil Excavation & Placement 1.7 Earth Excavation 1.8 Hydrology Monitoring Well Installation PLANTING AND SEEDING 2.1 Wetland Seeding 2.2 Wetland Plant Plugs - Reestablishment (63.24 acres @ 5,000/acre) 2.3 Wetland Plant Plugs - Rehabilitation (26.21 acres @ 3,000/acre) 2.4 Prairie Buffer Seeding 2.5 Erosion Control Blanket PRE-SEEDING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (ONE YEAR) 3.1 Wetland Rehabilitation Clearing 3.2 Preseeding Wd Cntrl Boom (89.45 ac) 3.3 Prescribed Burning FIVE YEAR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 4.1 Post-Seeding Weed Control (89.45 ac) 4.2 Mowing (prairie only, 4.02 ac) 4.3 Prescribed Burning FIVE YEAR MONITORING AND REPORTING 5.1 Vegetation Monitoring 5.2 Hydrology Monitoring 5.3 Annual Reporting

QUANTITY

UNIT

UNIT PRICE

TOTAL

89.45 ACRE 316,200.00 EACH 78,630.00 EACH 4.02 ACRE 4.02 ACRE

$ $ $ $ $

3,500.00 4.00 4.00 3,500.00 8,900.00

$ $ $ $ $

313,075.00 1,264,800.00 314,520.00 14,070.00 35,778.00

26.21 ACRE 268.35 ACRE 1.00 EACH

$ $ $

5,000.00 130.00 10,000.00

$ $ $

131,050.00 34,885.50 10,000.00

5.00 YEAR 6.00 EACH 2.00 EACH

$ 162,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 10,000.00

$ $ $

810,000.00 4,800.00 20,000.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $ $

75,000.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 3,102,978.50 620,595.70 3,723,574.20

YEAR YEAR YEAR

15,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 TOTAL: 20% CONTINGENCY: TOTAL with CONTINGENCY

*This is a conceptual estimate for the seeding, planting, management and monitoring. Construction activities including tile disablement, excavation and grading are not included as these activities have not been designed. As such, actual scope and pricing will be determined by final design, site constriants and permitting requirements which may cause significant variation from this estimate.

26

36

APPENDIX V WETLAND MITIGATION BANK COMPENSATORY STORAGE EXHIBITS

37 27

LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF GRADING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND CREATION EXISTING WETLAND 100' PRAIRIE BUFFER

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

*TOTAL VOLUME OF PROPOSED GRADING = 44696 CYD = 227 AC-FT TOTAL FLOODPLAIN COMP. STORAGE CREATED WITH PROPOSED GRADING = 214775 CYD = 133 AC-FT

PROPOSED WETLAND COMP. STORAGE

LAKE BLUFF GOLF CLUB

LAKE BLUFF

ILLINOIS

DATE: 00-00-00

0

150

SCALE: 1"=300'

300

N:\2022\220229\Drawings\ACAD\NR\E0_\Misc Drawings\Exh_Wetland Comp Storage.dwg 4/27/2022

28

38

LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF GRADING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WETLAND CREATION EXISTING WETLAND 100' PRAIRIE BUFFER

7325 Janes Avenue Woodridge, IL 60517 630.724.9200 phone www.v3co.com

*TOTAL VOLUME OF PROPOSED GRADING = 44696 CYD = 227 AC-FT TOTAL FLOODPLAIN COMP. STORAGE CREATED WITH PROPOSED GRADING = 214775 CYD = 133 AC-FT

PROPOSED WETLAND COMP. STORAGE

LAKE BLUFF GOLF CLUB

LAKE BLUFF

ILLINOIS

DATE: 00-00-00

0

150

300

SCALE: 1"=300'

N:\2022\220229\Drawings\ACAD\NR\E0_\Misc Drawings\Exh_Wetland Comp Storage.dwg 4/27/2022

29

39

APPENDIX 3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE 3.1 SMC Q&A – February 14, 2022

Appendices List

40

APPENDIX 3.1 - SMC Q&A, February 14, 2022 Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force Questions to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission February 14, 2022

The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) has determined that 40 acre feet of Stormwater detention is needed to alleviate identified flooding issues in the US Route 41 corridor and adjacent properties running from Illinois 137 south to Illinois 176. The preferred location for the detention capacity is on Lake Bluff Park District (Park District) land. SMC has recently asked the Park District to consider the use of its property for detention purposes.

The Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force (Task Force) has been created, in part, to review the SMC request. The Task Force has a number of related questions and requests for clarification.

1. SMC has examined a number of options that could mitigate existing flooding in the subject area. It is the understanding of the Task Force that the use of Park District property for all of the needed detention is the preferred option. However, other options exist that would require less, or no, Park District property. Please confirm that the Park District option is preferred. Yes, the Park District option is preferred.

2. The Task Force believes that neither SMC nor any other governmental entity can compel the Park District to provide detention capacity on its property. Please confirm from SMCs perspective and advise as to other governmental entities if possible. Property owners have rights and SMC does not have land use authority to compel the Park District to provide detention capacity on its property. The East Skokie Drainage District may have some stream maintenance authority to ensure stormwater conveyance is maintained along the Skokie River. Typically, the ESDD performs their work in cooperation with each property owner.

3. The 40 acre feet request apparently does not reflect recently updated 100-year flood statistics. How should the 40 acre feet request be adjusted? The effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are outdated; however, they are required to be used as the regulatory standard for permitting purposes. Additional analysis can be performed above and beyond the current regulatory requirements.

4. The SMC project work in the study area will ultimately increase the velocity of the stormwater flowing onto the Park District property but will not increase its volume. The study parameters also assume no increase in the volume of stormwater that would result from any new construction in the study area or in the Skokie River drainage area to the north. If the Task Force wants to account for future increases in detention needs based on future upstream developments, what factor would SMC recommend to adjust the 40 acre

41

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

feet need? In addition to using the required FEMA methodology, SMC can perform a comparison of assumed future hydrologic conditions. Those conditions can incorporate increased rainfall for the late 21st century (modeled by the Illinois State Water Survey) and projected urbanization of the watershed (significant build-out with larger amounts of impervious surfaces).

Has SMC considered a maximum detention capacity and/or involved land area that it would construct on Park District property? If yes, what is that maximum capacity? No, the objective is to ensure there are no negative downstream impacts from our proposed project. The analyses determined 40 acre-feet is required to ‘hold the line.’ Additional storage would be beneficial, however, not required for permitting purposes.

The Task Force believes that SMC has not identified the specific Park District property that will be considered for the requested detention area, but will work cooperatively with the Park District to select a site or sites that are acceptable to each party. Please confirm. The storage area needs to by hydraulically connected to the Skokie River. The area should freely drain and allow for high flow rate floodwaters to back up and temporarily fill/access the storage area.

Please confirm that the SMC stormwater detention services for use of Park District Property will include all services necessary and typical for such projects, including site selection, design, engineering, permitting, construction, replanting, etc. Please also confirm that such work will be performed in consultation with the Park District and at no cost to the Park District. Yes, all services listed will be covered by SMC, except long-term maintenance. The Park District would be consulted, and an Intergovernmental Agreement signed by both parties will specify mutual benefits and responsibilities.

If some of the constructed detention area disrupts existing golf course use, under what conditions will SMC rebuild the disrupted portion of such golf course? SMC’s funding is for regional stormwater management infrastructure. In-kind replacement of disturbed areas is covered. Upgrading/re-building a golf course would not be an appropriate use of SMC’s funds. Creating wetlands is covered as it is an eligible stormwater management [green] infrastructure component. SMC can provide a better answer if specific locations, areas, or concept plans are provided for our review.

If the Park District wants some of all of the property disturbed by the detention construction reconfigured as wetlands (and ultimately be eligible for the sale of wetland credits), will SMC work with the Park District in the design, engineering, permitting, and building of such wetlands? Would additional SMC services and personnel be available?

Please describe. Yes, if a minimum of 40 acre-feet of new excavated stormwater storage can be located somewhere on the golf course site, SMC will provide assistance (IGA) to the Park District to construct wetlands and establish a wetland mitigation bank.

The Task Force understands that the maintenance of the completed area, whether as wetlands or other land uses, will be the responsibility of the Park District. Are there other

42

long-term costs that the Park District should consider? Maintenance and some form of periodic monitoring (field inspection, aerial photography review, drone fly-over) to identify potential areas that need targeted maintenance.

11. What timeline is proposed by SMC for this project? Current planning phase should be completed ASAP as we need to sequence many project variables.

12. The Task Force understands that SMC has funding available for the contemplated project.

What assurances, if any, can be given to the Park District concerning the availability of such funding throughout the entire project? State Capital Bill appropriation is for regional stormwater management projects in Lake County. This project is interjurisdictional at every level of government and the primary beneficiary is the State of Illinois for Route 41.

13. Will the contractual relationship governing this project be between only the Park District and SMC or will other entities be involved? We are flexible, however recommend just SMC and Park District for this project component.

43

3.2 SMC Q&A – March 15, 2022

Appendices List

44

APPENDIX 3.2 - SMC Q&A, March 15, 2022 Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force Questions to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission March 15, 2022

On February 14, 2022, the Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task (Task Force) issued a list of questions to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) concerning the request for the creation of stormwater storage on Lake Bluff Park District land, specifically the Lake Bluff Golf Course. The Task Force thanks SMC for its prompt and thoughtful responses to those questions.

In the intervening month, the Task Force has continued its review of SMCs request, and presents below additional questions related to the request. Some of these questions relate to illustrations contained in a Preliminary Conceptual Plan (Concept Plan) presented in January, 2022 to the Village of Lake Bluff Board of Trustees. The referenced illustrations are attached to the email transmittal of these questions.

1. One of the illustrations in the Concept Plan identified 105 acres of wetland or wetland buffer created or rehabilitated on Park District property. These 105 acres may generate 77 wetland credits for sale on the open market. (Another illustration identifies 96 acres of wetlands generating 64 wetland credits.) We have a number of questions concerning these plans: a. Is the 77 credit number the SMC projection of the maximum wetland credits that can be generated on the Golf Course property? If not, has SMC calculated a maximum wetland credit projection? The 77 credit number is a conservative estimate of the maximum number of credits for the entire 145-acre property. b. Will SMC commit to pay for the construction of wetlands as illustrated in the 105acre/77 credit scenario? If not, is there a maximum acreage construction limit? (See below for another question regarding the definition of ‘construction’). SMC would request a release of State funding, from Lake County’s regional stormwater appropriation, for the construction of wetlands up to the 77 credit scenario. c. The Task Force believes that the current Golf Course covers about 145 acres.

(The 145 acres excludes the parking lot, recreation center, pool, playground,

45

etc.) Please explain the difference between the Task Force assumption of 145 acres and the Concept Plan use of 105 acres. What are we missing? There are areas where a full 1:1 ratio of credit will not be possible. Those areas include existing wetlands (no double-counting), enhancement areas, buffers, upland areas etc.

2. The Concept Plan illustrations contain trails, boardwalks, overlooks, bridges, and other amenities incidental to the establishment of a wetland environment. Will these desirable amenities be paid for by SMC as part of wetland establishment or will these features be the responsibility of the Park District. (Such costs may be offset by the future sale of wetland credits or other means.) Please confirm SMCs financial commitment. SMC cannot guarantee these desirable amenities will be eligible as stormwater grant expenditures. Currently, we are investigating this question for another wetland project in Waukegan. SMC will provide additional information as soon as possible.

3. In the event that the Park District decides to maintain a golf course on the area used by SMC in the creation of storm water storage, the Task Force understands that SMC will pay for all construction activity and for in-kind replacement of disturbed golf course areas. The Task Force assumes that ‘in kind’ replacement means vegetative restoration for a golf course of equivalent playable length and quality. Please confirm and elaborate as needed. SMC will pay for reasonable costs for the restoration of disturbed areas and relocation of conflicting utilities e.g., irrigation system.

Typical non-structural areas of restoration include compacted sub-base, topsoil lifts, vegetative stabilization, and erosion control measures. Please provide a typical cross-section detail and specification of the desirable restoration of golf course areas.

4. In the event that the Park District decides to transform into a wetland all or a portion of the golf course on the area used by SMC in the creation of storm water storage, the Task Force understands that SMC will pay for all construction costs including but not limited to a. Surveying, design and engineering for storm water storage, wetland establishment or rehabilitation, and buffer areas b. Permitting and coordination with regulators

46

c. Excavation work, including excavation, grading, material hauling and disposal, etc. d. Topsoil removal and replacement with erosion control planning e. Vegetative planting consistent with wetlands and approved by the regulating authority f. Other costs necessary and typical for the creation of a wetland environment.

Please confirm this understanding. Yes, the construction costs listed in a. through f. are eligible grant expenditures. We would appreciate additional information on the planting schemes that would be involved in the creation of the wetland environment and need more information on when SMCs involvement in the development of the wetland would end (for example, when vegetation has been planted, or through one growing cycle, or when approved by the regulator, etc.) SMC is flexible on reasonable planting schemes for a diversity of native wetland vegetation (not exotic botanical gardens). SMC’s involvement can be indefinite, but financial commitments are limited to grant funding terms and availability.

5. If the Park District wishes to maximize the area of wetland on the golf course property, will SMC pay for wetland establishment on the entire new wetland area that is created or only on the specific areas used for storm water storage. SMC will pay for all wetland areas to be constructed on the golf course property, including areas outside of the stormwater storage area(s).

6. With respect to a number of functions necessary for the successful creation of a wetland mitigation bank, will SMC perform the following functions on behalf of the Park District? a. Securing permits and regulatory approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or other regulatory authorities Yes, with the Park District as the Applicant. b. Establishing, operating and maintaining a wetland mitigation bank throughout the wetland credit sales cycle. This is time-dependent relative to our grant funding. However, SMC will provide technical assistance indefinitely.

Credit sales are market driven and could be sold out in 1 year, 10 years, or longer. c. Negotiating wetland credit sales with prospective buyers. No, this would be a conflict of interest. The Park District should consider whether the bank is a short-term or long-term revenue generating asset.

47

d. Other tasks typically required in the operation of a wetland mitigation bank.

Depends on specifics. Technical assistance, Yes. Financial commitments will be limited to terms of grant funding and availability.

7. As part of the Concept Plan, a slide presenting Wetland Bank Cost Estimates was presented. It identified three cost phases and cost estimates: a. Construction: fully paid be SMC Yes b. Short-term maintenance (erosion control, planting natives): estimated at less than $500/acre; unclear as to whether this is paid by SMC, the Park District or an anonymous donor Yes, SMC will pay for short-term maintenance within the grant period of performance. c. Long-term maintenance (controlled burning, herbiciding, re-seeding); estimated at less than $200 /acre/year; Park District responsibility. Long-term maintenance will be a responsibility of the landowner (Park District). The cost of $200 / acre / year is a reasonable estimate.

Please confirm if these tasks, financial responsibility, and projected costs are correct, especially the short-term maintenance. Would a $1,000,000 donation be sufficient? Yes, the donation would be sufficient for short-term maintenance.

8. The H&H study, Alternative 3, provided two options for storm water storage: 40 acrefeet located on the Lake Bluff Golf Course, or 35-acre-feet located on the Great Lakes Navy Base. Could storm water storage be constructed at both locations (say, 20 acrefeet at the Navy Base and 20 acre-feet on the Golf Course)? Yes. 9. The Concept Plan suggests that any wetland construction that is undertaken on the Lake Bluff Golf Course must be completed no later than 2026. Why is 2026 an important trigger date? The 2026 date assumes backwards planning from State and Federal grant sources. There will always be future grants, but (unlikely) nothing like the current once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for stormwater infrastructure investments.

Thank you for your answers to these questions. We apologize in advance if, in the spirit of accuracy and completeness, we are sometimes vague or redundant in our questions. Please bear with us as we look for solutions that are in the interests of all parties.

48

3.3 SMC Q&A – May 5, 2022

Appendices List

49

APPENDIX 3.3 - SMC Q&A, May 5, 2022 Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force Questions to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission May 5, 2022

On February 14, 2022 and again on March 15, 2022, the Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force (Task Force) submitted questions to the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) concerning its request for the placement of stormwater storage on Lake Bluff Park District property. The Task Force thanks SMC for its prompt answers to those questions. (These documents can be found in the March 22, 2022 and April 22, 2022 Task Force meeting packets).

The Task Force has a number of additional questions for SMC. These questions address the scope of work, the sources of SMC funding, and SMCs project responsibilities and use of third-party resources.

1. Confirmation of the scope of work. The original SMC proposal contemplated the creation of a minimum of 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on Lake Bluff Park District property, specifically portions of the Lake Bluff golf course. In exchange for this use of Park District land, SMC agreed to restore the property to its former use and/or to develop a wetland environment on the property. a) Has SMC developed a concept plan showing the location(s) of the requested 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage on the Lake Bluff golf course? NO, there are no designated location area(s) at this time.

Just options for the Navy property or the Golf Course, or a combination of both. The storage locations can be anywhere on the Golf Course property, either centrally located or decentralized and spread throughout the property in many locations. SMC remains flexible on the locations if the storage area(s) is/are hydraulically connected and can freely drain into the Skokie River. SMC can develop location-specific plans after the Park District’s written confirmation to participate as a project partner.

• If yes, please share with the Task Force • If no, does SMC plan on developing such concept plan? b) Could a filter be added to the north of the Park District property to catch solids before draining onto the golf course? If yes, would SMC pay for its installation and maintenance? Yes, except long-term maintenance should be performed by the property owner e.g., IDOT, ComEd, Navy, etc.

50

As part of its review of the SMC proposal, the Park District retained V-3, a professional services firm experienced in the development of wetlands. V-3 produced the attached draft Proposed Conditions diagram which identifies ~95 acres of the golf course property which could be built out into ~77 wetland credits.

(The diagram is for illustrative purposes only – the specific areas covered by each land use designation will require more extensive analysis. In addition, the diagram will need to be adjusted to reflect actual land ownership of some small parcels – for example, a strip of land north of Route 176 is owned by the Village of Lake Bluff.)

In considering the draft Proposed Conditions diagram: c) Please confirm that SMC will, as part of its project to create stormwater storage, fund the development of wetlands in the entire ~95 acre area delineated on the V-3 diagram (the green, blue, orange and purple areas).

YES Note that this area could contain stormwater storage in excess of the 40 acre-feet originally requested. (The draft V-3 calculation, still under development suggests that well over 100 acre-feet of stormwater storage could be accommodated on the property). Please note that SMC’s project needs a minimum of 40 acre-feet of new excavated storage.

The Lake Bluff golf course property consists of approximately 145 acres. The ~50 acres not suitable for wetland development are located east of the prairie buffer on the draft V-3 diagram (the prairie buffer is shown in orange). Note: the V-3 diagram incorrectly omits the south-east corner of the golf course from the non-wetland area - the diagram will be modified.

In considering the draft Proposed Conditions diagram: d) Please confirm that, if the Park District wishes to develop this ~50-acre parcel into an upland prairie integrated with the wetlands, SMC will fund the development of such prairie. SMC will fund the restoration of all project-related disturbed areas, including excess excavated soil materials relocated to upland areas. e) If the Park District wishes to develop this ~50-acre parcel into alternative recreational uses (soccer fields, an alternative golf experience, dog parks, etc.) to what degree will SMC contribute to the property development necessary for such other uses? Same response as d) above and

51

“pads” can be graded with excess soil materials and stabilized with typical vegetation cover, or reasonable alternatives.

2. SMC funding sources. SMC has identified a number of specific potential funding sources for the stormwater storage project, including the 2019 Rebuild Illinois Capital Plan, the 2021 federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and, most recently, the FEMA Community Project Funding requested by Rep Schneider.

Other funding sources or grants, including from the Department of Defense, have been discussed, with SMC noting that the ultimate funding source will depend on funding terms and availability.

The Task Force understands that the scope of the project will be fully defined in an agreement between the Lake Bluff Park District and SMC and that the terms of the agreement will contain any conditions imposed on SMC by the funding entity. With this understanding: a) Please advise the Task Force which funding source or combination of sources are aligned with the proposed storage/wetland project scope and will be used for the funding of the Lake Bluff Park District stormwater storage/wetland development project Remaining $92M unencumbered State of Illinois appropriation for Lake County regional stormwater management projects. Note this entire amount will be used for other countywide projects as well.

Another option is the FEMA grant (Rep. Schneider) depending on the final scope of this inter-jurisdictional project. b) Please confirm that SMC will fully fund all actual (not just budgeted) project costs related to the stormwater storage/wetland development project as described in the eventual development agreement Yes, pending final award from the grant entity. c) Please confirm that SMC will be financially accountable for all costs of the wetland development that are required to achieve the first wetland credit release (e.g. grading, planting costs, weed control) Yes, pending final award from the grant entity. d) Please identify conditions likely to be contained in the funding allocation Reference DCEO Round 1 grant agreement (attached).

3. Project responsibilities and SMC. The Task Force has learned that the success of wetland development projects requires the deployment of skilled professionals with specific subject matter expertise and experience in managing similar

52

projects. A project manager conversant in each of wetland development phase/service is also a critical success factor.

To better understand the way that project responsibilities will be shared between the Lake Bluff Park District and SMC, the Task Force has prepared the following task summary:

Project Phases Planning and Community Input Survey/Engineering Conceptual Design (PD input) Regulatory and Permitting Site Preparation Site Development Mitigation Banking Establishing Plant Growth (from planting to initial credit release) Short-term maintenance (from initial to final credit release) Long-term maintenance

Park District Responsibility

SMC Responsibility

X

X X X X X X

X

X

X X X

Please answer the following questions with respect to the delineation of responsibilities identified above: a) Does SMC agree with the delineation of responsibilities outlined above?

Generally, yes. Except regulatory and permitting would ultimately be the Park District responsibility as the “Applicant/Property Owner” SMC will provide assistance to develop quality applications and assist throughout the permitting process. b) Will the services identified as SMCs responsibility be performed wholly by SMC or will SMC utilize a third-party? SMC would provide limited staff resources with significant third-party services. c) If a third-party will assist SMC, please identify the likely firm or individual Likely Hey & Associates, however other firms can be used, if desired.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

53

3.4 SMC Q&A – June 14, 2022

Appendices List

54

APPENDIX 3.4 - SMC Q&A, June 14, 2022 On Jun 14, 2022, at 3:47 PM, John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> wrote:

Task Force Members, Please see information provided by Kurt Woolford, these were received today. Thank you

1. When Kurt made his initial presentation to the task force he stated that for the Lake Bluff wetland bank project, if implemented, that we should pursue the Corps wetland bank process as opposed to the SMC wetland bank process. Can we please receive a written explanation from Kurt as to why he made this recommendation. Can Kurt or someone from SMC provide the task force with a concise summary of the limitations on the sale of wetland credits for the SMC process as opposed to the Corps. For example: eligible type of wetland projects (only impacts to isolated wetlands?) market area limitations, etc. and any other clarifying information that would be helpful to the task force to understand the overall limitations of eventually trying to sell credits by following the SMC bank process. If Kurt has any information on new wetland banks that will be coming "on-lilne" in Lake County, and whether they are Corps banks or SMC banks, that would be helpful also. If the Park District's goals are to generate shortterm income revenue then my recommendation is to establish a USACE-approved wetland mitigation bank or a USACE-approved permittee responsible mitigation site. If the goals are not to generate short-term income revenue, rather a long-term income revenue stream, then my recommendation would be to establish an SMC-approved wetland mitigation bank. The recommendations are based on market demand factors. An SMC-approved bank is not eligible to sell credits as mitigation for impacts to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) which fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE. A USACE-approved wetland mitigation bank can sell credits as mitigation for both: WOTUS and Isolated Waters of Lake County ("Isolated Wetlands") which fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance. There are new wetland mitigation banks coming On-Line in the Des Plaines River watershed, and additional research would need to be performed to understand the current status of mitigation banking in Lake County.

T F A R D

2. SMC has recently provided a response that SMC can pay for rough grading for paths through the wetlands and prairie areas and even for rough pad construction for items like a soccer field base. It is still not clear if SMC would pay for all of the various pipes that would need to penetrate below paths and whether or not they would pay for any elevated wooden walkways or decks (fishing piers) depicted in some of their presentations. Drainage-related improvements can be paid for, subject to terms of each grant opportunity, and necessary culverts under path areas should be included. Elevated walkways or decks are not drainage-related improvements, and should not be included as a reimbursable expense.

3. Lastly, can a detailed explanation be provided as to why it is not a concern that the silt typically carried in the East Skokie River flows will not settle out to some degree into the newly constructed wetland areas, and then over a period of years literally start to "silt-in" the wetland areas. Why will this not occur? If it possibly can occur, who is responsible if the wetland areas need to be re-dredged and

12

55

replanted in a couple decades, or whatever time period would be applicable. SMC is concerned with water quality impairments, including silt and sediment, in the Skokie River. SMC formed the North Branch Watershed Workgroup https://www.nbwwil.org/about-us/members/ and would welcome the Lake Bluff Park District to become a dues-paying member to participate as a watershed stakeholder.

Typically, maintenance dredging and vegetative repair is the responsibility of the property owner unless other provided by others (through some form of recorded legal instrument).

•

•

•

•

•

•

Can you provide a detailed written proposal explaining what SMC will provide (funding, expertise, etc.) to LBPD, under what conditions, if LBPD elects to convert 95 acres to wetland and 50 acres to prairie? We need as much specificity as you can give. We understand the need for specificity, and request the Lake Bluff Park District offer their desired scenario(s) in order to provide specific responses. The normal process involves having a "Plan" to respond to and without one, it is challenging to provide definitive answers to these questions.

In the most recent Q&A, you state that “SMC will fund the restoration of all project-related disturbed areas, including excess excavated soil materials relocated to upland areas.” Under certain scenarios, LBPD will not “restore” to a golf course, but would create a new landscape of either prairie or some active use amenities. Please explain what SMC will provide (funding, expertise, etc.) for these latter scenarios. SMC will provide funding for our project, including vegetative stabilization. However, wetland plantings to be used for a USACE-approved wetland mitigation bank credits will need to be funded from a Non-Federal source. Again, the normal process is to have a plan which can be presented to the regulatory agencies at a preapplication meeting.

If SMC cannot yet give specifics on funding, please explain when and how we can get clarity on that point (understanding that LBPD cannot make an informed decision about which option to select if it does not understand the funding). SMC has received specifics on the federal funding for USACE-approved wetland mitigation banks. The Army Corps stated they would contact Executive Director Bealer to provide this information.

In the last Q&A, SMC represented that it would “fully fund” all actual project costs related to wetland development “pending final award from the grant entity.” Please explain what that means. How likely is the grant to “fully fund” all project costs? Would the amount be capped? How can LBPD get more clarity on this point? Provide SMC with a desired plan.

Can you provide a layman’s list of possible conditions likely to be contained in the funding allocation? The DCEO Round 1 grant is difficult to digest for the uninitiated. [I have not seen the grant; I’m relying on Steve’s statements last night.] Each grant has specific criteria. We can provide copies of previous grant agreements for review.

If the LBPD decides to allow some stormwater storage on the golf course, will compensation be offered to LBPD beyond loss of golf course revenue during the installation period? Yes, a temporary construction/access easement or agreement can be developed with appropriate compensation.

T F A R D

13

56

3.5 Burke Engineering Letter – June 16, 2022

Appendices List

57

APPENDIX 3.5 - Burke Engineering Letter, June 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM

June 16, 2022 To:

Project Stakeholders

From:

Darren T. Olson, PE, CFM Luke J. Sherry, PE, CFM

Subject:

Illinois Route 41 & Skokie River Regional Flood Mitigation Project Summary of Additional Skokie River Drainage Analysis (CBBEL Project 220179)

As you are aware, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL) has been assisting the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) with the planning and design of the Illinois Route 41 & Skokie River Regional Flood Mitigation Project. This project includes improvements to the drainage system along US 41 and the US Navy Base. These drainage improvements do not increase the drainage area to the river or divert water from other areas, they simply get the same water to the river quicker.

Because of this, the creation of additional flood storage is necessary to offset these increases in flows.

The Lake Bluff Golf Club (LBGC) has been identified as a potential location for the creation of this new flood storage.

Based on our preliminary drainage studies, the amount of flood storage necessary for the project has been determined to be approximately 40 acre-feet. When determining the potential impacts of a project, the design standard is always the “100-year flood.” The 100-year flood is used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood insurance purposes and is also the basis for designing and permitting drainage projects. For this project, it would take the creation of 40 acre-feet of new storage volume to mitigate any impacts for the 100-year flood on the Skokie River. If additional flood storage (i.e., more than 40 acre-feet) were to be provided, it would reduce flood elevations from their existing condition and provide downstream benefits.

A common misconception is that the 100-year flood occurs once every 100 years. The fact is that a 100year flood refers to a storm event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, and can occur multiple times over a short period of time.

It is our understanding that project stakeholders want a better picture of how climate change and increased urbanization in the watershed might affect the function of the proposed project (and corresponding required flood storage volume). To accommodate this request, CBBEL performed additional hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the drainage system, which are summarized below.

Climate Change To account for the impacts of climate change, CBBEL utilized more up-to-date rainfall than the Skokie River drainage analysis currently used by FEMA. The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) released updated rainfall data in 2019 (a study titled Bulletin 75), which replaced the previously effective Bulletin 70 (1989). The updated study accounts for rainfall records up through 2017 (including the record July 2017

CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.

9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520

58

MEMORANDUM

storm event in Lake County). Additionally, Bulletin 75 also placed greater emphasis on more recent rainfall records, so that the impacts of climate change would be accounted for in the analysis. When comparing 100-year rainfall depths, the Bulletin 75 rainfall depths are approximately two inches higher.

CBBEL updated the existing conditions Skokie River drainage analysis to utilize the updated Bulletin 75 rainfall data. The results of this analysis indicate that 100-year flood elevations along the Skokie River are between 0.1 – 1.6 feet higher than what is currently shown on the FEMA flood maps, with the greatest increases occurring on the LBGC. This is independent of any project that is contemplated for the LBGC or upstream areas, the increased flood elevations are due solely to the increased rainfall depths from the ISWS Bulletin 75 study.

A separate proposed conditions analysis was then performed to analyze the effects of the proposed project under these future conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed drainage improvements would function as designed and the required storage volume would be consistent with the previously reported results.

Increased Urbanization CBBEL performed a review of the existing land use throughout the Skokie River Watershed and identified vacant parcels that could potentially be developed in the future. Since they are unlikely to be developed, golf courses, forest preserves, park district property, Navy property, and known wetland mitigation areas were excluded from this list. Based on this review, a total of 387 acres (0.6 square miles) were identified as area that could be developed in the future. As a comparison, the total drainage area to the Skokie River at Rockland Road is approximately 8.1 square miles.

The Skokie River drainage analysis was updated to include the additional impervious area associated with the development of the 387 acres. This new impervious area was added into the results of the climate change analysis, so that the effects of the full future conditions could be determined. Based on the results of this analysis, 100-year flood elevations along the Skokie River are between 0.2 – 1.6 feet higher than what is currently shown on the FEMA flood maps. Generally speaking, the results are slightly higher than the “climate change” analysis described earlier. This is independent of any project that is contemplated for the LBGC or upstream areas, the increased flood elevations are due solely to the increased rainfall depths from the ISWS Bulletin 75 study and future development in the watershed.

A separate proposed conditions analysis was then performed to analyze the effects of the proposed project under these future conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed drainage improvements would function as designed and the required storage volume would be consistent with the previously reported results.

Conclusions While Skokie River flood elevations will increase as climate change and increased urbanization occurs in the watershed, it was determined that the proposed project will function without adversely impacting downstream areas during these future conditions.

CHRISTOPHER B. BURKE ENGINEERING, LTD.

9575 W Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-4920 Tel (847) 823-0500 Fax (847) 823-0520

59

3.6 US Army Corps of Engineers Letter – June 17, 2022

Appendices List

60

APPENDIX 3.6 – US Army Corps of Engineers Letter, June 17, 2022 From: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 4:51 PM To: Chernich, Kathleen G CIV USARMY CELRC (USA) <Kathy.G.Chernich@usace.army.mil> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Meeting Kathy, Thank you for attending (virtually) our meeting and sharing information about wetland development. As we discussed in the meeting, there is concern whether the federal grant funding can be used to develop the wetlands and then the mitigation credits sold by the Park District. I believe that you said you would check with your counsel, to confirm this information. We are interested in relaying this information to our Task Force and Board Members, as soon as we hear back from you. Thanks again for your time and expertise.

John Bealer From: Chernich, Kathleen G CIV USARMY CELRC (USA) <Kathy.G.Chernich@usace.army.mil> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 6:52 PM To: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Subject: RE: Meeting John, Talking with our OC tomorrow. Will relay the information once received. May take a few days though since I’m sure they will want to research the issue.

Kathleen Chernich Assistant Chief, Regulatory Branch Permits and Enforcement U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 231 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone (312) 846-5531 Fax (312) 353-4110 http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx From: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 12:26 PM To: Chernich, Kathleen G CIV USARMY CELRC (USA) <Kathy.G.Chernich@usace.army.mil> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] RE: Meeting Hi Kathy, Just checking to see if you have received an opinion from Counsel? Thank you

John Bealer

61

From: Chernich, Kathleen G CIV USARMY CELRC (USA) <Kathy.G.Chernich@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 7:38 PM To: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Cc: Chernich, Kathleen G CIV USARMY CELRC (USA) <Kathy.G.Chernich@usace.army.mil> Subject: RE: Meeting John, In the process of digging in the weeds so that all bases are covered. Preliminarily, and hopefully some good news, it appears that SMC can construct the site (grading and planting a cover crop of annual seed to stabilize exposed soils) and then the PD takes over from there with the specific vegetative plantings and management and monitoring utilizing a separate pot of funds to create the bank. Preparing the site as a natural area appears to be covered under the restrictions but spending the funds for the creation of a mitigation bank is not.

Kathleen Chernich Assistant Chief, Regulatory Branch Permits and Enforcement U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District 231 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone (312) 846-5531 Fax (312) 353-4110 http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx

Appendix 3.6

62

APPENDIX 4. GOLF COURSE FINANCIALS 4.1 Presentation – March 25, 2022

Appendices List

63

APPENDIX 4.1

Lake Bluff Golf Club

March 25, 2022 Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Advisory Task Force

64

65

66

Timeline

2016

2019

2023

Park District continued to provide Golf course maintenance

Significant decrease in Park District staff costs

Notice to exercise option to renew Lease deadline June 1, 2023

Leased to Billy Casper Golf for a 3 year contract

Leased to Golf Visions for a 5 year contract

Leased terminates Golf Visions December 31, 2023

Restructured and eliminated personal

67

United States: Rounds of Golf Played 2007 - 2021 550.0

Rounds Volume: United States

540.0

2021 539.5 Mil. Rounds

530.0 520.0 510.0

2007 497.6 Mil. Rounds

500.0 490.0 480.0 470.0 460.0 450.0 440.0 430.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Source: USGA

68

Lake Bluff: Rounds of Golf Played 2007 - 2021

29,500

Golf Visions Commencement

2007 31,403 Rounds

Billy Casper Golf Commencement

34,000

Rounds Volume: Lake Bluff Golf Club

2021 30,294 Rounds

25,000

20,500

16,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Source: Lake Bluff Park District, Billy Casper Golf & Golf Visions

69

Surrounding Public Golf Courses Golf Course

Location

Back Tees

Property Size

• Lake Bluff Golf

Lake Bluff

6,539 yards

149 acres (golf course only)

• Deerpath Golf

Lake Forest

6,255 yards

135 acres

• Foss Park Golf

North Chicago 6,839 yards

176 acres

• Shepard’s Crook

Zion

6,827 yards

163 acres

• Thunder Hawk

Beach Park

7,031 yards

245 acres

• Stonewall Orchard Grayslake

7,174 yards

357 acres

• The Preserve

7,015 yards.

288 acres

Addison

These courses have extensive wetland & wildlife features

Source: Acreage calculated from Lake County Maps 70

Lake Bluff Golf Operating Budget: 2015 - 2021

Expense Personnel Services Commodities Contractual Services Total Expenses Net Gain(Loss) Debt Service Total Net Gain(Loss)

$742,689.50

2017 Actuals

2018 Actuals

$837,946.32

$788,294.00

$703,588.00

$21,332.00

$2,375.00

$1,985.00

$1,403.00

$19,833.93

-$20.25

$9,930.61

$9,794.58

$88,971.84

$23,244.00

$20,037.00

$10,530.00

-$1,289.92

$97,640.16

$186,257.52

$4,483.20

$13,880.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$6,732.00

$8,971.00

$4,851.00

$18,593.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$892,149.35

$970,156.23

$1,011,355.13

$748,391.78

$561,384.65

$328,796.09

$348,903.49

$265,356.08

$214,953.37

$187,696.97

2019 Actuals

2020 Actuals

2021 Actuals

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$32,145.15

$41,080.80

$47,155.42

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$31,543.00

$39,073.30

$32,145.15

$72,623.80

$86,228.72

$388,728.99

$0.04

$0.00

$0.00

$341,457.92

$141,700.04

$7,613.99

$18,480.10

$8,013.00

$435,281.54

$428,618.34

$427,584.83

$98,016.85

$65,153.26

$58,980.08

$1,014,437.70

$979,031.00

$1,118,979.75

$958,013.86

$105,630.88

$83,633.36

$66,993.08

-$122,288.35

-$8,874.77

-$107,624.62

-$209,622.08

-$73,485.73

-$11,009.56

$19,235.64

$217,227.89

287,081.58

$247,669.79

$209,223.33

$0.00

$215,785.00

$222,816.25

-$339,516.24

-$286,956.35

-$355,294.41

-$418,845.41

-$73,485.73 -$226,794.56

-$203,580.61

Golf Visions Commencement

Revenue Fees and Admissions Rentals Concessions Merchandise Miscellaneous Programs Lessons Golf Lease Proceeds Total Revenue

2016 Actuals Billy Casper Commencement

Source: Lake Bluff Park District

2015 Actuals

71

Lake Bluff Golf Operating Budget: 2022 - 2027 ource: Lake Bluff Park District

Revenue Fees and Admissions Rentals Concessions Merchandise Miscellaneous Programs Lessons Golf Lease Proceeds Total Revenue

2021 Projections

*

2022 Budget

2023 Budget

2024 Budget

2025 Budget

2026 Budget

2027 Budget

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$47,155.42

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$39,073.30

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$86,228.72

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$25,000.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$8,013.00

$0.00

$7,500.00

$7,000.00

$22,500.00

$0.00

$15,300.00

$3,964.54 $10,964.54

$4,043.83 $41,187.55

$4,124.71 $18,768.43

$4,207.20 $30,211.90

Expense Personnel Services Commodities Contractual Services Total Expenses

$58,980.08

$14,793.38

$66,993.08

$14,793.38

$3,886.80 $26,030.52

Net Gain(Loss)

$19,235.64

$10,206.62

$13,613.20

$14,035.46

-$1,543.83

$20,875.29

$5,492.80

$222,816.25

$126,441.25

$121,978.75

$122,410.00

$126,543.75

$120,507.50

$0.00

Debt Service Total Net Gain(Loss) * Golf Visions Contract

-$203,580.61

-$116,234.63 -$108,365.55 -$108,374.54 -$128,087.58

-$99,632.21

-$5,211.90

72

Lake Bluff Golf Course Debt Service

Year

2021

Debt Payment $222,816

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

$126,441 $121,979 $122,410 $126,544 $120,508

Source: Lake Bluff Park District

2027

$0

73

Lake Bluff Park District Debt by Category Total Debt Composi�on 4%

8% 33%

14%

41%

March, 2022

Pool (vi a re fe re ndum) Communi ty Ce nte r Ne w Mone y - Ge ne ra l Ca pi ta l Pa ddl e Gol f 74

Operating Budget Summary • Park District met the 2015 objective to reduce annual Golf Club losses by leasing the operations to a third party.

• Leasing the operations stabilized Park District’s financials • Assumes current Lease terms will remain in effect beyond current expiration on December 31, 2023.

• Golf course debt will roll off at the end of 2026.

Source: Lake Bluff Park District

75

Golf Course Capital Needs • In five years the debt service on the golf course will retire, 2026.

• After the debt service retires and

assuming leasing the course continues and golf rounds remain strong, the golf operations will be +/- break even.

• Assuming the golf course operations

continues leasing for the next ten years, the projected golf course capital replacement budget is $807,371. See detail on next slide.

• New capital needs will need to be funded

76

Lake Bluff Golf Course Capital Needs 2022-2031 Golf Triplex Mower (4) Groundmaster Carryall Cart (2) Turf Maintenance Roof Fairway Mower (2) Cart Barn Roof Golf Maint Fire Protection HVAC:Downstairs heat and cool Cart Path Partial Replacement Pumphouse, rebuild pumps Sprayer 300 Gallon Bunker Repair/Renovation Exhaust Trap Rake Club House Deck Gas Roller Well Pump Replacement Silt/Sludge Removal (2) Sump Pump Line Replacement HVAC: Clubhouse Tractor Massey Workman HD Golf Total Total Capital Total ADA

Year 2022 2022 2024 2024 2024 2025 2025 2025 2026 2026 2026 2027 2027 2027 2028 2028 2028 2029 2030 2030 2030 2031

Total $158,803 $28,223 $15,000 $33,750 $90,000 $25,000 $18,000 $10,000 $100,000 $12,500 $35,000 $50,000 $15,000 $17,000 $40,000 $12,000 $25,000 $50,000 $15,000 $15,000 $18,095 $24,000 $807,371 $807,371

ADA

Master Capital List

2022 2023 $38,803 $28,223

2024

$15,000 $33,750 $45,000

$10,000

$10,000

$67,026

$0

$93,750

2025 $40,000

$25,000 $18,000 $10,000

2026

2027

2028 $40,000

2029

2030

2031 $40,000

$45,000

$100,000 $12,500 $35,000

$50,000 $15,000 $17,000

$40,000 $12,000 $25,000

$50,000

$15,000 $15,000 $18,095

$24,000 $93,000 $147,500 $82,000 $162,000 $50,000 $48,095 $64,000

$67,026 $0 $93,750 $93,000 $147,500 $82,000 $162,000 $50,000 $48,095 $64,000 Lake Bluff $10,000 Source: $0 $0 Park District $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0

77

Golf Visions Contract Summary • Term of Lease:

Five Years

• Renewal:

Notice 180 days prior to termination date. If no agreement by 9/1/2023 Lease terminates.

• Licensor Payment:

$1.00 base payment + 10% of annual Gross Revenue that exceed $800K.

(1/1/2019 - 12/31/2023)

• Maintenance Equipment: Park District’s responsibility.

• Lake Bluff Park District is responsible for Capital Needs costs.

Source: Lake Bluff Park District

78

4.2 Updated Financials – May 3, 2022

Appendices List

79

APPENDIX 4.2 Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force Summary Golf Financials May 03, 2022

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Net Operating Actuals: 2015 – 2021 Net Operating Projections: 2022 – 2027 Summary Financials: 2015 – 2021 Projected Summary Financials: 2022 – 2027 Capital Expense Reconciliation: 2019 to 2029 and 2022 to 2031 Capital Expense Projections: 2019 to 2029 and 2022 to 2031 Golf Course Utilization

80

Lake Bluff Golf Club Net Operating Results: 2015 - 2021 LBPD 2015 Revenue Fees and Admissions Rentals Concessions Merchandise Miscellaneous (includes reimbursement from Billy Casper and Golf Visions for golf cart lease) Programs Lessons Golf Lease Proceeds Total Revenue Expense Personnel Services Commodities Contractual Services (includes golf cart lease expense from LBPD to bank) Total Expenses

Net Operating Gain / (Loss)

$

742,690 21,332 19,834 88,972

2016 $

837,946 2,375 (20) 23,244

Billy Casper Golf 2017 $

788,294 1,985 9,931 20,037

2018 $

703,588 1,403 9,795 10,530

Golf Visions 2020

2019 $

-

$

-

2021 $

-

(1,290)

97,640

186,257

4,483

32,145

41,081

47,156

13,880 6,732 -

8,971 -

4,851 -

18,593 -

-

31,543

39,073

$

892,150

$

970,156

$

1,011,355

$

748,392

$

32,145

$

72,624

$

86,229

$

561,385 265,356

$

328,796 214,953

$

348,904 341,458

$

388,729 141,700

$

7,614

$

18,480

$

8,013

187,697

435,282

$

1,014,438

$

$

(122,288)

$

979,031

(8,875)

428,618

427,585

98,017

65,154

58,980

$

1,118,980

$

958,014

$

105,631

$

83,634

$

66,993

$

(107,625)

$

(209,622)

$

(73,486)

$

(11,010)

$

19,236

81

Lake Bluff Golf Club Net Operating Projections: 2021 - 2027

2021 Revenue Fees and Admissions Rentals Concessions Merchandise Miscellaneous Programs Lessons Golf Lease Proceeds Total Revenue Expense Personnel Services Commodities Contractual Services Total Expenses

Net Operating Gain / (Loss)

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

$

47,155 39,073

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

86,228

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

25,000

$

8,013 58,980

$

14,793

$

7,500 3,887

$

7,000 3,965

$

22,500 4,044

$

4,125

$

15,300 4,207

$

66,993

$

14,793

$

11,387

$

10,965

$

26,544

$

4,125

$

19,507

$

19,235

$

10,207

$

13,613

$

14,035

$

(1,544)

$

20,875

$

5,493

82

Lake Bluff Golf Club

Summary Financial Results: 2015 - 2021

LBPD 2015 Net Operating Gain / (Loss)*

$

Capital Expenditures**

$

Debt Service

$

Operating Gain / (Loss) plus Capital Expenditures plus Debt Service

$

Billy Casper Golf 2017

2016

(122,288)

2018

Golf Visions 2020

2019

2021

$

(8,875)

$

(107,625)

$

(209,622)

$

(73,486)

$

(11,010)

$

19,236

$

(3,121)

$

(17,731)

$

(6,541)

$

(250,000)

$

-

$

-

(217,228)

$

(287,082)

$

(247,670)

$

(209,223)

$

(339,516)

$

(299,078)

$

(373,026)

$

(425,386)

$

-

-

(323,486)

$

(215,785)

$

(222,816)

$

(226,795)

$

(203,580)

"Net Operating Gain/Loss" refers to the annual financial impact resulting from operating the golf course "Capital Expenditures" refer to the amounts needed to repair, replace or maintain equipment or golf course fixtures "Debt Service" is the annual sum of Interest payments and repayment of principal resulting from prior capital expenditures * Golf Cart Financing Lease revenues and expenses are already included in the "Net Operating Gain / (Loss)" figures ** Contract with Golf Visions states LBPD is responsible for capital related expenses over $1,500

83

Lake Bluff Golf Club Summary Financial Projections; 2022 - 2027

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

Net Operating Gain / (Loss)*

$

10,207

$

13,613

$

14,035

$

(1,544)

$

20,875

$

5,493

Capital Expenditures**

$

(67,026)

$

-

$

(93,750)

$

(93,000)

$

(147,500)

$

(82,000)

Debt Service***

$

(126,444)

$

(121,978)

$

(122,410)

$

(126,544)

$

(120,500)

$

-

Total Net Gain / (Loss) plus Capital Expenditures plus Debt Service

$

(183,263)

$

(108,365)

$

(202,125)

$

(221,088)

$

(247,125)

$

(76,507)

"Net Operating Gain/Loss" refers to the annual financial impact resulting from operating the golf course "Capital Expenditures" refer to the amounts needed to repair, replace or maintain equipment or golf course fixtures "Debt Service" is the annual sum of Interest payments and repayment of principal resulting from prior capital expenditures * "Net Operating Gain / (Loss) " figures come from "Net Operating Projections 2021-2027" ** "Capital Expenditures" figures come from "Master Capital List" worksheet *** "Debt Service" figures come from separate spreadsheet "Debt Payments Schedule"

84

Lake Bluff Golf Course Evolution of Capital Spending Projections from 2018 to 2022 (Less): Projects Funded 2018 thru 2021

2018 to 2029 Projected Capital Needs Clubhouse Driving Range Netting Golf Cart Replacement Irrigation System Maintenance Equipment Golf Maintenance Buildings On Course Projects Cart Paths

$

Total

$

1,268,274 51,000 186,000 175,000 413,683 221,875 30,000 363,000

$

2,708,832

$

(250,000) -

2022 to 2031 Projected Capital Needs

(15,000) (51,000) (186,000) (123,750) -

$

15,000 18,000 50,000 -

$

(263,000)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

80,000 102,500 398,121 76,750 50,000 100,000

(375,750)

$

83,000

$

(1,256,211)

$

807,371

(Less): Projects Deferred $

(72,500) (30,000) (352,500)

Plus: New Projects Added

Plus / (Minus) Revisions in Project Scope

$

(938,274)

(15,562) (39,375)

*Please see next worksheet for details of Capital Improvement Plan adjustments between 2018 and 2031.

85

2022-2031 Golf Capital List

2018-2029 Golf Capital List

Clubhouse HVAC:Downstairs heat and cool Kitchen Exhaust System Club House Deck HVAC: Clubhouse-bath and locker room heat

2025 2027 2028 2030

10,000.00 15,000.00 40,000.00 15,000.00

Clubhouse Clubhouse Renovation Plumbing, Electrical HVAC, Interior Clubhouse Roof Replacement Club House Deck Fire Supression System Clubhouse ADA Updates Clubhouse Mold Remediation Lightning System

2019 2019 2022 2019 2019 2019 2027

450,000.00 63,650.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 649,624.00 25,000.00 15,000.00 1,268,274.00

80,000.00 Driving Range Range Netting

-

Golf Cart Replacement Carts Irrigation System Pumphouse, rebuild pumps Well Pump Replacement Silt/Sludge Removal (2) Sump Pump Line Replacement

2026 2028 2029 2030

12,500.00 25,000.00 50,000.00 15,000.00

Driving Range Range Netting

51,000.00

Golf Cart Replacement Carts Irrigation System Irrigation Central Computor Pumphouse, rebuild pumps Big Sump Discharge Line Big Sump Pump Rebuild Well #1 Small Well Well #2 Big Well Silt/Sludge Removal (2)

186,000.00 2027 2026

12,000.00 25,000.00 35,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 25,000.00 56,000.00 175,000.00

2022 2019 2028 2028

102,500.00 Maintenance Equipment Triplex Mower (4) Groundmaster Carryall Cart (2) Fairway Mower (2) Sprayer 300 Gallon Trap Rake Gas Roller Tractor Massey Workman HD

Various

158,803.44 28,222.74 15,000.00 90,000.00 35,000.00 17,000.00 12,000.00 18,095.00 24,000.00

2022 2024 Various 2026 2027 2028 2030 2031

Maintenance Equipment Triplex Mower (4) JD Pro Gator Workman HD Fairway Mower (3) Turfcat Mower/Rough Mower Turfcat Mower GroundsMaster 4000 Sidewinder Reel JD Tractor Sprayer 300 Gallon Aerator Fairway Aerator Greens Top Dresser Beverage Cart

Various 2024 2022 Various 2019 2023 2024 2028 2029 2026 2025 2026 2025 2019

76,800.00 14,000.00 13,750.00 76,650.00 49,000.00 18,600.00 35,601.00 12,000.00 25,000.00 33,179.00 17,900.00 16,903.00 14,300.00 10,000.00 413,683.00

2020 2024 2019 2019

46,375.00 23,750.00 33,750.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 18,000.00 221,875.00

2018

30,000.00

2022 2025

238,000.00 125,000.00 363,000.00 2,708,832.00

398,121.18 Golf Maintenance Buildings Turf Maintenance Roof Cart Barn Roof Golf Maint Fire Protection Nitrogen System

2024 2025 2025

33,750.00 25,000.00 18,000.00

Golf Maintenance Buildings Cart Barn Roof Replacement Chemical Bldg Roof Replacement Turf Maintenance Roof Cart Barn Fire Suppression System Chemical Bldg Fire Suppression System Turf Maintenance Bldg Fire Suppression System

76,750.00 On Course Projects Bunker Repair/Renovation Cart Paths Cart Path Repair/Partial Replacement

Total

2027

50,000.00

2026

100,000.00

$

100,000.00 807,371.18

On Course Projects Tree Removal Cart Paths Cart Path Repair/Partial Replacement Cart Path Repair/Partial Replacement Total

$

86

LBGC Financials Lake Bluff Golf Club Annual Rounds (9 or 18 holes) of golf played from 2019 to 2021 (1) (2) (3) 2019 Rounds Played

2020 As a Pct of Total

Rounds Played

2021 As a Pct of Total

Rounds Played

As a Pct of Total

Rounds Identified on Day of Sale (4) Residents of Lake Bluff Park District, Lake Forest or Libertyville (5) (6)

2021 + / (-) 2019 (Pct.)

4,699

26%

11,136

41%

10,089

33%

115%

667

4%

545

2%

913

3%

37%

5,366

30%

11,681

43%

11,002

36%

105%

3,415 2,494 3,218 2,049 446 1,042

19% 14% 18% 11% 2% 6%

6,558 1,494 3,833 1,595 352 1,377

24% 6% 14% 6% 1% 5%

7,414 1,512 4,465 2,261 1,109 2,531

24% 5% 15% 7% 4% 8%

117% -39% 39% 10% 149% 143%

Sub-total unIdentified

12,664

70%

15,209

57%

19,292

64%

52%

Total Rounds

18,030

100%

26,890

100%

30,294

100%

68%

Non-resident Sub-total Identified Unidentified Rounds Played Online Reservations: Golf Now Online Reservations: LBPD Season Passes/Membership Leagues High School / College Teams Passes / Comps / Misc.

Notes: 1. Prior to 2019 the percentage of Lake Bluff Park District users was determined manually and is not comparable with this data.

2. Data provided by Golf Visions which was responsible for booking golf activity during the time period of this table.

3. Golf Visions only tracks the number of rounds played; they do not track the number of unique users nor the number of rounds each unique user plays.

4. Golf Visions only tracks resident / non-resident pay status when those users pay for rounds on the day of play.

5. Residents are defined as those persons living within the Lake Bluff Park District boundaries, or in Lake Forest or in Libertyville.

6. Prior to 2019 unique user residency was determined by a manual analysis of the identity of users. This data indicated that approximately 8% of the Lake Bluff Golf Course unique users were Lake Bluff Park District Residents and these residents played approximately 19 to 20% of the total rounds.

87

4.3 Summary Financials and Statistics Presentation

Appendices List

88

APPENDIX 4.3

Lake Bluff Park District Land Use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course Summary Financials and Statistics June 26, 2022 Not reviewed during Task Force Meeting 89

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course

90

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course Timeline • 1963

Park District acquired the land and began constructing the golf course

• 1968

Golf course opened for play

• 2001

Driving range installed

• 2008

New irrigation system installed

• 2008

Continuing operating losses drive ongoing comprehensive evaluation of operations

• 2009

Raised fees, enhanced services, restructured operations, but losses continue

• 2010

Further restructuring, but losses continue

• 2012

Begin 3 years of task force and advisory committee reviews of the course

• 2015

New strategic plan for the course, further restructuring, public meetings on closing

• 2016

Hire Billy Casper Golf to manage the course, further restructuring – losses continue

• 2019

Leased course to Golf Visions for 5 years:

• 2021

• • •

Revenue sharing over $800,000 LBPD responsible for major repairs and capital expenditures Results improve to near breakeven

Lake County SMC requests additional stormwater storage on the golf course 91

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Rounds of Golf Played in the US 2007 to 2021 Rounds Played (in Millions) 550

539.5

530 510

499.6

503.0

497.6

490 470 450

454.0

430 410

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Rounds Played 92

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Rounds of Golf Played on the Lake Bluff Golf Course 2007 to 2021 Rounds Played (in thousands) 34 32

31,883

31,403 30,294

30 28 26

24,484

24 22 20

19,050 17,429 17,429

18 16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Rounds Played (000's) 93

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Local Public Golf Courses 18 Holes

94

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Local Public Courses 9 Holes

95

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Local Private Courses 18 Holes

96

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force US Golf Utilization 2007 to 2021 350 300 250 200 150 100

Approximately 8.3% according to NGF

50 0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 US Population

US Golfers 97

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course Utilization 2007 to 2017

Unique Users % of 8,000 Park District Residents Utilizing Golf Club

Source: Ron Salski Presentation of “Facts About the Lake Bluff Golf Club and its Future”, February 26, 2018

98

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course 2018 Forward

99

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – US Golf & Country Clubs 12,000

10,000

8,000

4,000

2,000

2012

2014

Source: Statictica.com

2016

2018

2020

2022

100

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Net Operating Results 2015 to 2021

101

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Net Operating Projections 2022 to 2027

102

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Cash Flow Results 2015 - 2021

103

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Cash Flow Projections 2022 - 2027

104

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Capital Expense Projection 2022 to 2031

105

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Capital Expense Reconciliation 2018 Projection compared with 2022 Projection

106

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – Golf Visions Contract Summary • Lease Term:

Five Years – 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2023

• Renewal:

Notice 180 days prior to termination date Lease terminates if no agreement by 9/1/2023

• Compensation:

$1 base lease payment

• Revenue Sharing:

10% of annual revenue exceeding $800,000

• Equipment Maintenance: Park District Responsibility • Capital Expenditures:

Park District Responsibility

• Debt Service Costs:

Park District Responsibility

107

Lake Bluff Park District - Land use Citizens Task Force Lake Bluff Golf Course – FEMA Flood Map

108

APPENDIX 5. REGULATORY OVERVIEW 5.1 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Memo – April 5, 2022

Appendices List

109

APPENDIX 5.1

Memorandum TO:

Lake Bluff Land Use Citizen Task Force

FROM:

Juan Andrés Mata Nancy J. Rich

DATE:

April 1, 2022

SUBJECT:

Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview

Cc: Julie L. Gottshall

This memorandum overviews the two distinct regulatory paths to establishing wetlands for the sale of wetland credits through mitigation banks: (1) the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance under the Stormwater Management Commission (“SMC”), and (2) the Corps of Engineers’ Interagency Coordination Agreement on Mitigation Banking within the Regulatory Boundaries of Chicago District (“Corps”) under the Chicago District (“District”).

QUESTION PRESENTED Provide a summary and compare/contrast analysis of the two approaches with a focus on bonding or security requirements, native plant requirements and growth, buffer requirements, banking, stream mitigation, and more.

BRIEF OVERVIEW / KEY Summary: The two regulatory approaches have somewhat parallel application processes although the SMC approach looks more favorably on creation of new wetlands while the Corps approach prefers the re-establishment of former wetlands and analyzes creation on a case-by-case basis.

Under the SMC approach, the bank sponsor must (1) hold a pre-application, informational meeting with SMC, and (2) submit an initial request, consisting of a Watershed Development Permit application (if needed) and a prospectus to develop the bank. SMC then issues a public notice, triggering a 30-day comment period. Taking into account the application, prospectus, and public commentary, SMC and the bank sponsor create an authorizing document from the prospectus for the bank memorializing the responsibilities of the bank sponsor and the information in the Ordinance. SMC then makes a site inspection of the proposed area, and records its observations in a written response identifying the bank’s feasibility. If the written response says the bank is feasible, then it is considered a general acceptability of conceptual bank plans and a probable issuance of a Watershed Development Permit or probable signatory approval of a Mitigation Bank * This memorandum is distributed as a source of information only. The material contained herein is not to be construed as legal advice or opinion.

110

Charter upon completion of detailed plans. After a formal request (permit application, copy of prospectus, and detailed plan) is accepted and adequate financial assurances are secured, then the permitted activity can commence.

Under the Corps approach, the application process falls more on the applicant’s shoulders and involves multiple entities: the Corps, the District, and the Interagency Review Team (“IRT”). The bank sponsor is not required to hold a pre-application meeting or site visit, but it is strongly recommended. However, a prospectus must be submitted, and it will trigger the District’s public notice. This period lasts for a minimum of 30 days. If needed, a Department of Army permit should also be applied for at this time. Following that period and an approved prospectus, the applicant creates the draft banking instrument (based on the prospectus) that will describe physical and legal characteristics of the bank and how it will be established/operated. Applicant must also submit a description of financial assurances and discuss in detail how the assurances will result in a successful project, including a financial plan for long-term management mechanisms. Upon approval of the banking instrument by the IRT, the mitigation bank will be authorized through a Department of the Army permit, and approved work at the bank may commence at that time.

Both plans have similar monitoring, maintenance and reporting obligations (annual) imposed on the bank sponsor during the operational life of the bank, stipulations requiring financial assurances for long-term maintenance of the banks, and termination provisions. There are, of course, other core differences between the two. For example: 

The size required for site selection ranges from a minimum of 10 acres (SMC) to a minimum of 20 acres (Corps) with limited exceptions under both plans.



SMC seems to provide more credits when buffer land is taken into account. SMC provides a larger percentage of credits (75%) per acre created of buffer land whereas Corps gives 10-25% per acre and caps it at 15% of total credits allowed for the project.



Under the Corps approach, there is not a default species composition plan like there is under the SMC approach.



Under the Corps protocol, initial physical and biological improvements at the bank site must be completed no later than the end of the first full growing season following initial debiting of the bank whereas SMC allows up until the third full growing season following the sale of the first mitigation bank credit.



SMC’s credit release schedule is more favorable. The SMC schedule, the Corps Schedule, and a comparison of the two are include in the table below:

111

SMC Plan

Corps Plan Initial Release of Credits

Max of 30% of total potential credits can be sold after approval of bank charter.

Max of 20% of total credits after the banking instrument has been signed, adequate financial assurances are in place, and the site protection instrument has been recorded

Second Release of Credits Additional 20% of total potential credits sold after demonstration of wetland hydrology and planting  incremental certification allowed

Additional 25% of the total credits once appropriate wetland hydrology is demonstrated at the bank, and hydrology performance standards have been met for at least two consecutive growing seasons

Third Release of Credits Additional 20% of total potential credits More credit will be released per the sold after completion of the approved vegetation performance standards as planting plan. defined in the approved mitigation banking instrument; and  incremental certification allowed Final Release of Credits Final 30% only sold upon full certification. Final credits released after final performance standards are met (IRT can recommend adjustment to the final credit amount released).

Brief Comparison 

Initial release of credits once banking instruments has been signed and adequate financial assurances are in place are 30% under SMC versus 20% under Corps.



SMC plan allows for two additional levels of credit releases (each capped at 20%) while the Corps approach caps the first additional level at 25%, the second is released as approved in the banking instrument, and final amount of released credits can be adjusted by the Corps by recommendation of the IRT.



Additionally released credits can be modified based on progress (e.g., if hydrology levels are 80% of where they need to be for the additional release of credits, then 80% of the available credits may be released) under the SMC plan, but there is no such provision under the Corps plan.

112

As to the questions in the email from Steve Kraus, the bonding/security requirements are covered in the “Financial Assurances” section below. The native plant requirements are explicit under the SMC approach (and can be negotiated at the outset) whereas, under the Corps approach, there are no pre-identified targets when creating a bank. Instead, the Corps approach has that negotiated in the banking instrument. Buffer/upland requirements vary based on size for the SMC plan (capping at 50 feet for the largest requirement) and are set at 100 foot minimums for all sizes under the Corps plan. The rest of the differences can be found below in the “Comparison” section that will later be translated into an all-encompassing, easily-readable presentation.

The “Comparison” section below will summarize the steps for both regulatory plans in the following format. Commonalities between the two approaches will appear in regular text, and divergences in the regulatory approaches will be demarcated by “SMC” (for the Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance) and “Corps” (for the Corps of Engineers’ agreement) preceding the approach-specific provision. It covers the following topics starting on the next page: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Considerations in Establishment Site Selection Criteria Initial Planning Legally Binding Agreement via Watershed Permit/Authorizing Document (SMC) or Banking Instrument (Corps) Credits Sponsor’s Monitoring, Management, and Reporting Responsibilities Performance Standards for Full Certification Modifications, Non-Compliance, & Termination

113

COMPARISON I.

CONSIDERATIONS IN ESTABLISHMENT 

The primary purpose is to generate mitigation credits to offset the loss of wetlands through the creation of mitigation banks.



Mitigation banks can be publicly or privately-owned, and they can be incorporated as for-profit or not-for-profit. (SMC: If incorporated, it must be incorporated in the state of Illinois.)



All land, including associated uplands, which are part of the mitigation bank are protected in perpetuity from future development by an appropriate deed or plat restriction that.



Subject to approval by the SMC or by the District in consultation with IRT, respectively.



The relevant agency (SMC/District) issues a public notice, triggering a public comment period of 30 days minimum.



Permits: o Follows normal permit processing procedures. (SMC) o If no Department of the Army (“DA) permit is required, then the banking instrument is the primary legally binding document. (Corps)



Bank sponsor will manage bank and design it to be ecologically self-sufficient with long-term management plans, including adequate financial resources.



Transfer or sale of the mitigation bank may occur to a party willing and financially able to abide by the terms and conditions of the legally binding instrument entered into by the SMC/Corps and the bank owner. Any such transfer must be approved by the SMC or IRT.

114

II.

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA A failure to meet any of the below criteria may be grounds for rejection: 

Be owned and/or under the full control of the bank sponsor;



Contain a majority of drained or hydrologically modified hydric soils;



Have no high-quality aquatic resources that would be adversely affected by construction activities at the bank or restoration work;



Contain adequate perimeter upland areas to buffer the wetlands from potentially incompatible land uses on adjoining parcels and meet the buffer requirements;



Be situated so that adequate hydrology is ensured;



Contain no known hazardous waste (confirmed by an environmental assessment by a qualified person/firm);



Size: o Minimum size of 10 acres or 5 acres if within Lake Michigan Watershed area (SMC) o Minimum size of 20 acres unless proposed within the Lake Michigan watershed area. If within that area, it may be smaller. Any size smaller than 20 acres must be approved by the IRT (Corps);



Be part of an adopted or accepted open space plan, watershed plan, conservancy district, protected riparian corridor, or other local or regional conservation land use plan (SMC).



(Corps) o Be compatible with adjacent land uses and watershed plans; be selected using watershed plans (or similar plans developed from a landscape perspective); and be positioned in the watershed; o Not adversely affect federal or state listed endangered or threatened species, or their habitat, or other high quality habitats or natural areas such as oak groves, prairies, or savannas; o Be managed to utilize the natural water storage functions of wetlands, however, flood control shall not be the primary purpose (i.e., can’t be used to satisfy local or regional Stormwater detention requirements).

115

(Corps) IRT considers other relevant, unrequired, factors are development trends, anticipated land use changes, habitat status and trends, the relative locations of the impact and mitigation sites within the stream network, local or regional goals for the restoration or protection of particular habitat types of function, water quality goals, floodplain management goals and the relative potential for chemical contamination of the aquatic resources.

(Corps) Highly recommended that the site incorporate the needs of the watershed or improve existing high quality habitats by:

III.



[Repeated from the requirements above = being positioned in the watershed; selected using watershed plans or similar plans developed from a landscape perspective]



being identified as important wetlands under the Corps/USEPA Advanced Identification Process;



providing important habitat for State or federally listed endangered or threatened species;



being identified in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory;



providing important breeding, foraging, or resting areas for migratory birds or other wetland-dependent wildlife; and



containing high native plant species diversity, reflecting relatively undisturbed conditions.

INITIAL PLANNING (SMC) A prospective sponsor must: 

hold informal discussions with the SMC during which SMC (1) informs the prospective sponsor of legal, regulatory, and ecological background and provides procedural guidance, and (2) informs them that a formal request (prospectus and a Watershed Development Permit Application, if required) must be made to the SMC; and



then, sponsor and the SMC develop an authorizing document to be signed by all parties, outlining responsibilities of the sponsor and containing the necessary information in the Ordinance governing the bank’s operation.

(Corps) It strongly recommends a pre-application meeting, along with a scheduled site visit to the proposed bank. [Note: It is unclear if the visit is mandatory.]

116

But, the IRT must be informed of the following information alongside the request for a pre-application meeting: 

Maps of the project area including site location, USGS topographic map, NWI map, soil survey, and aerial photographs, including historic photos if available;



Preliminary determination of existing on site resources;



Existing hydrology and drainage patterns;



Hydrology to be established;



Existing vegetation;



Vegetative communities to be established;



Buffer to be established (100 foot minimum from bank boundary);



Current and future adjacent land uses;



Connectivity to other natural areas; and



Existing drainage patterns of site and surrounding properties. a. Prospectus development The prospectus must: 

provide enough information to support informed public and SMC/IRT comment,



allow SMC/IRT to determine if general considerations and site evaluation criteria are likely to be met if the bank is established;



serve as the basis of the mitigation bank charter;



include (at a minimum): o bank location and size; o legal description of the property; o real estate interest in the bank property; o type of bank (e.g., single user, general use, etc.);

117

o method of credit production (e.g., establishment), the number of proposed credits by each method, and the rationale for crediting; o site plan showing the location of delineated aquatic resources and upland habitats, existing and proposed roads, trails, structures and utilities, and any other existing conditions and proposed site improvements o a delineation of any wetlands or other jurisdictional areas that may exist at the proposed bank location; o (SMC): 

an outline of management and maintenance responsibilities;



a preliminary construction plan and schedule of completion, preliminary planting plan, and preliminary administrative, management, monitoring, and financial plans; and



a charter of incorporation for the mitigation bank, if appropriate.

o (Corps): 

discussion on how the proposed bank will be established and operated;



a strategy that details the goals, objectives and technical feasibility of the bank, including wetland types and respective acreages;



discussion of the ecological suitability of the proposed site to achieve the objectives of the bank, and how the site will support the proposed aquatic resources and functions;



assurance of sufficient hydrology to support longterm sustainability of the bank must be included;



identification of the proposed service area(s);



means for establishing appropriate hydrology;

118



discussion of the qualifications and experience of the proposed bank sponsor including any information of past activities or completed projects.

b. Financial Assurances A description of financial assurances must be provided and discussed in detail to ensure a high level of confidence that the project will be successful and conform to applicable standards. 

Bank sponsor responsible for: o securing sufficient funds or other financial assurances to cover contingency actions in the event of bank default or failure; and o securing adequate funding to monitor and maintain the bank throughout its operational life, and to make provision for long-term management through financial assurances or thorough agreements with land management organizations or agencies.



Total funding requirements should reflect: o (SMC) realistic cost estimates for monitoring, long-term maintenance, contingency, and remedial actions; per acre cost of completing the approved plan, including grading and panting of the site; cost estimates for the construction and/or planting and maintenance for creation of wetlands, and any other factors SMC may consider. o

(Corps) realistic cost estimates for inflationary adjustments, land acquisition, planning, engineering, mobilization, construction, bank operations, monitoring, long-term maintenance, contingency and remedial actions, as well as the cost of replacement mitigation; the size and complexity of the compensatory mitigation project, the degree of completion of the project at the time of project approval, the likelihood of success of the project, the past performance of the project sponsor, and any other factors the District deems appropriate. 



It will be determined by District, in consultation with the project sponsor, and documented in the administrative record.

Financial assurances can take the form of:

119

o (SMC) performance bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, irrevocable trusts, escrow accounts, casualty insurance, or other approved sureties. o (Corps) realistic cost estimates for inflationary adjustments, land acquisition, planning, engineering, mobilization, construction, bank operations, monitoring, long-term maintenance, contingency and remedial actions, as well as the cost of replacement mitigation.





Written format for the financial documents must be approved by the District, and payable at the District’s discretion.



Be held by a financial institution or a public entity



Assurance must ensure that the district engineer will received notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.



Proof of assurances must be submitted to the District

by February 15 of each calendar year.

Schedule of release of the financial assurances o A proposed schedule of release of the financial assurances following completion of specific tasks associated with the establishment of the bank must also be submitted for approval. o (Corps) 

Bank instrument requires a special condition that the financial assurances be made in place prior to commencing the permitted activity.



Financial assurances may be reduced once demonstrated that the bank is meeting performance milestones with the approved performance standards, with the consent of the IRT.



Two assurances for mitigation bank projects are required: (1) one to assure project construction to be released at completion of construction, and (2) one to assure the required performance standards to be released in accordance with ecological success milestones.

120



Long-term management Sponsor must establish, via performance bond, escrow account, irrevocable letter of credit, or other financial surety, adequate funds to ensure the bank site can be maintained in perpetuity. Financial plan must demonstrate that the bank and its wetlands can be maintained in perpetuity whether through continual ownership or by conveyance to a public or private agency that will assume the responsibilities. o (SMC) 

Interest on all such escrow accounts may be used for monitoring, management, and maintenance purposes only. Financial sureties must be maintained until all credits have been certified and sold or the SMC has determined the mitigation bank is self-sustaining.

Amount of surety is reviewed annually based on results of the monitoring report.

o (Corps)

IV.



Plan should outline a strategy for the establishment of a fully-funded endowment for long-term management activities of the bank, including description of long-term management needs, annual cost estimates for those needs, and identify the fund mechanism to be used to meet those needs.



Long-term manager of the bank must provide written approval to the District Engineer of their acceptance of the long term funding mechanism.



District requires provisions to address inflationary adjustments and other contingencies as appropriate.

LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT VIA WATERSHED PERMIT/AUTHORIZING DOCUMENT (SMC) OR BANKING INSTRUMENT (CORPS) Provisions for long term financing must be addressed in the legally binding agreement, and land, including associated uplands, which are part of the mitigation bank are protected in perpetuity from future development by an appropriate deed or plat restriction.

(SMC) Final stage before being issued a watershed development permit. Each mitigation bank shall have a site development plan approved by SMC that identifies:

121



Diverse aquatic and supporting landscapes which are interrelated one to the other, so as to maximize wetland functions and values



Diverse wildlife habitats and associated edge conditions



Associated upland buffer areas contiguous to the wetlands to protect the wetlands from potential adverse effects of adjacent land uses, specifying the width and area of all such zones.



Wetland functions which will be created or enhanced by maximizing vegetative diversity and abundance, structuring specific wildlife habitats, optimizing wetland hydrology, and providing public access;



Species native to the area;



the use of native soils on the site



The means for establishing the appropriate hydrology; and



The mitigation bank shall be designed to be as self-sufficient as possible and minimize maintenance

The final formal request must have: 

a Watershed Development Permit Application to conduct the proposed work necessary to establish the bank;



a copy of the previously described prospectus; and



a plan that details the goals, objectives, and success criteria for creating wetlands, including wetland types and respective acreages.

(Corps) The IRT will approve the mitigation banking instrument, and the Department of the Army will authorize the bank with a DA permit. It must be based on the prospectus and contain: 

A description of the proposed geographical service area of the mitigation bank. The service area is the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province and/or other geographic area within which the mitigation bank is authorized;



Accounting procedures;



A provision stating that legal responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation lies with the sponsor, once a permittee secures credits from the sponsor;



Default and closure provisions;

122

V.



Mitigation plan that includes all applicable items listed in § 332.4(c)(2) through (14); and



Credit release schedule tied to achievement of specific milestones in accordance with the approved performance standards.

CREDITS a. Establishment Units of wetland credit are equal to acres of wetland. 

(SMC) o Full Credit given for wetland creation. o Created wetland edges use to meet the buffer requirements are credited at 75% of acreage created. 



Buffer requirement: Wetlands with a total surface area greater than 1/3rd acre but less than 1 acre require a 30 feet buffer; between 1-2.49 acres requires a 40 feet buffer; and 2.5-greater acres requires a 50 feet buffer.

(Corps) o Full credit for creating new wetlands IF establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions o Credits upland buffer 10-25% per acre with a maximum cap of 15% of the total credits of the project.

b. Certification 

(SMC) o Credits are certifiable by the SMC when the bank credits conform to the “Performance Standards” section (or other standards as approved by the SMC): 

meet buffer requirement



See “Performance Standards” section or other agreed-upon standards.

o Certifiable at any point but no later than 5 years from the date of planting unless specified in the bank charter and approved by SMC.

123

o Following the second full growing season following creation, SMC may conditionally certify the credits of the bank based on reasonable progress. 

75% of minimum number of native perennial species required for full certification must be present to be conditionally certified.



Total of native perennial species within each plan community shall represent at least 15% of the total dominance measure.

o Conditional certification allows for a reduction of posted financial security. 

(Corps) o Credit released is authorized in a letter format and will be sent to the property owner and bank sponsor prior to the sale of bank credits.

c. Sale of Credits Sponsor must keep ledger of all available credits (purchased or unpurchased) and provide SMC with an updated ledge at the conclusion of every credit sale. 

(CMS) o Certified credits and conditionally certified credits may be sold provided that adequate funds as approved by the SMC are established through an escrow account, performance bong, irrevocable letter of credit, or other financial surety for the generation of certified credits and long-term maintenance of the bank site. pg. 128 o Uncertified credits may be sold for mitigation purposes provided that adequate funds (as approved by SMC) are established in the same way as the certified/conditional credits above. 

Max of 30% of total potential credits can be sold after approval of bank charter.



Additional 20% of total potential credits sold after demonstration of wetland hydrology and planting 



incremental certification allowed

Additional 20% of total potential credits sold after completion of the approved planting plan.

124

 

incremental certification allowed

Final 30% only sold upon full certification.

o SMC has sole authority to determine number of credits available to withdraw from mitigation bank, and all sales must have prior approval by SMC. o But, initial physical and biological improvements at the bank site must be completed no later than the end of the third full growing season. o Penalties: If sponsor sells more than the approved number of credits, SMC can deduct the amount of the over sale from the total potential credits available, which will not be restored. 

(Corps) o Corps, after consulting with the IRT, can release: 

a max of 20% of total credits after the banking instrument has been signed, adequate financial assurances are in place, and the site protection instrument has been recorded



an additional 25% of the total credits once appropriate wetland hydrology is demonstrated at the bank, and hydrology performance standards have been met for at least two consecutive growing seasons



more credit will be released per the vegetation performance standards as defined in the approved mitigation banking instrument; and



final credits released after final performance standards are met (IRT can recommend adjustment to the final credit amount released).

o IRT can conduct a field visit prior to a requested credit release. o Initial physical and biological improvements at the bank site must be completed no later than the end of the first full growing season o No credits sold without authorization. Penalties: decrease of credit sales, suspension of the sale of future credits, and suspension of the bank.

125

o If agreements to buy credits between bank sponsor and permittee is terminated, sponsor provides the District with written notice within 15 days.

VI.

SPONSOR’S MONITORING, RESPONSIBILITIES

MANAGEMENT,

AND

REPORTING

a. Monitoring Qualified personnel must make periodic inspections on the site to ensure that soil erosion control measures are employed and functioning properly, and such reports shall be submitted to SMC/District on a monthly basis. 

(SMC) o Monitoring occurs for a period of 5 years from date of the completion of the approved planting plan. o Monitoring Results must be provided to SMC on annual basis during the 5 year period, but not required afterwards. SMC reserves the right for a site inspection at any time. o Any required remedial measures based on information in monitoring reports or SMC site inspections.



(Corps) o Amount of financial assurance to be reviewed annually based on results of required monitoring reports and as part of yearly bank audit. o Monitoring reports for the bank must be provided to all members of the IRT on an annual basis until all performance standards are met and all credit sales are complete. IRT conducts joint field inspections to confirm submitted data.

b. Management 

(SMC) o Management activities shall continue until the standards are met, as verified by the SMC

c. Operational Life of Mitigation bank 

It consists of period during which the terms and conditions of the charter are in effect (excluding the arrangement for the long-term management and

126

protection in perpetuity of the wetlands/resources/uplands). Terminates when: o Wetland mitigation credits have been exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice to SMC/District; or o SMC/District determines the bank is functionally mature or selfsustaining to the degree specified in the charter d. Long-Term Management 

Legal mechanisms, entity responsible for long-term management, and protection of the bank must be documented in the banking instrument, and supporting documentation must be provided. Final approval falls on either the SMC or the District in consult with the IRT. 

(Corps) o Prefers that any proposed long-term manager or organization have expertise in executing adaptive management procedures. o Banking instrument must have provisions to transfer longterm management responsibilities to a land stewardship entity, including financial arrangements and long-term management funds. o Sponsor must provide confirmation of financial assurances, written verification of site control, and confirmation to be submitted by Feb. 15 of each calendar year.

127

VII.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FULL CERTIFICATION a. Species Composition 

(SMC) o Must be native to Lake County and appropriate for hydrologic zone to be planted. o Must include:





marsh - minimum of 15 native perennial species



mesic prairie (buffer) – minimum of 25 native perennial species



50% of required minimum number of species must occur at a 10% frequency or greater.

(Corps) o As approved in the banking instrument.

b. Species Dominance 

(SMC) o non-native species (including cattails and canary grass) cannot be more than 5% of total dominance measure for each community for which credit is granted o native perennial species must represent at least 80% of total dominance measure

c. Wetland Hydrology 

(SMC) o Must be demonstrated within each wetland for which credit is sought from data gathered by piezometers that were placed with the approval of the SMC prior to bank approval.



(Corps) o As approved in the banking instrument.

128

VIII.

MODIFICATIONS, NON-COMPLIANCE, & TERMINATION a. Modification Modifications must be approved in advance by the SMC or the District in consult with the IRT. 

(Corps) District will consult with the sponsor and the IRT to consider modifications to the instrument, including adaptive management, revisions to the credit release schedule, revisions to the credit generation table, and alternatives for providing compensatory mitigation to satisfy credits that have already been sold. If the aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation activities results in an increase in aquatic resource other than what was approved in the MBI, modification to the banking instrument will be required.

b. Non-Compliance 

(SMC) If terms of charter are not met, SMC informs the bank sponsor and allows for reasonable period to cure. Non-performance results in revocation of charter and forfeiture of financial securities.



(Corps) If terms of charter are not met, banker informs the District and specify a period of time to comply with the banking instrument. Continued noncompliance results in revocation and forfeiture of financial securities.

c. Termination 

(Corps) A party may terminate its participation in the agreement upon 30 days of written notice to all other signatories.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

129

5.2 Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview Slides – April 5, 2022

Appendices List

130

APPENDIX 5.2

PRESENTATION TO LAKE BLUFF LAND USE CITIZEN TASK FORCE

Wetland Mitigation Banks Regulatory Overview April 5th, 2022

PRESENTERS Juan Andrés Mata, Associate Nancy J. Rich, Partner

* This presentation is distributed as a source of information only. The material contained herein is not to be construed as legal advice or opinion.

131

Intro Remarks The goal of this presentation is to provide a comparison of two distinct regulatory paths to establish wetlands for the sale of wetland credits through mitigation banks: 1.

SMC – The Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance under the Stormwater Management Commission

2.

Corps – The Corps of Engineers’ Interagency Coordination Agreement on Mitigation Banking within the Regulatory Boundaries of Chicago District (involving the Corps, the Chicago District, and the Interagency Review Team)

Due to the technical nature of the following requirements, the Task Force will need to consult with their wetlands consultant to determine which program best fits their objectives 132 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

1

Areas of Comparison 1. Considerations in Establishment 2. Site Selection Criteria 3. Initial Planning 4. Legally Binding Agreements

5. Credits 6. Sponsor’s Monitoring, Management, and Reporting Responsibilities

7. Performance Standards for Full Certification 8. Modifications, Non-Compliance, & Termination 133 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

2

SMC Approach (prefers wetland creation) Requires preapplication/infor mational meeting with SMC

SMC issues public notice & 30-day comment period

Submit an initial request (Watershed Development Permit application & bank prospectus)

SMC performs a site inspection and issues a written response identifying the bank’s feasibility.

SMC and bank sponsor create an authorizing document based on the prospectus.

If positive, submit a formal request (permit application, copy of prospectus, and detailed plan) and secure adequate financial assurances

134 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

3

Corps Approach (prefers re-establishment of former wetlands) Strongly recommends preapplication/site visit

District issues public notice & a minimum 30-day comment period

Submit a prospectus, and a Department of Army permit

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

IRT decides on the viability of the proposed banking instrument

After the period and an approved prospectus, the applicant drafts the banking instrument and a description / the planned application of financial assurances

If positive and the bank receives Dept. of Army permit, work can start

135 4

Comparison Points

136 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

5

Credits • • • •

Credit Schedule Establishing Credits Certification of Credits Sale of Credits

137 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

6

Credit Schedule (pg. 19, 31, 32) RELEASE SCHEDULE SMC

Corps

Initial Release of Credits

Max of 30% of total potential credits after approval of bank charter

Max of 20% of total potential credits after instrument has been signed, financial assurances secured, and site protection instrument is recorded

Second Release of Credits

Additional 20% of credits after demonstration of wetland hydrology and planning*

Additional 25% of credits after hydrology is demonstrated and hydrology performance standards are met for at least 2 consecutive growing seasons

Third Release of Credits

Additional 20% of credits sold after completion of the approved planting plan*

More credits will be released based on vegetation performance standards as negotiated

Final Release of Credits

Final 30% released upon full certification

Remaining credits released after final performance metrics are met & IRT can recommend an adjustment in either direction

*incremental certification allowed 138 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

7

Establishing Credits (pg. 30) Standard: Units of wetland credit = acres of wetland SMC

Corps

• Acres of wetland = Full Credit

• Creating new wetlands = Full Credit if establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area/functions

• Created wetland edges used to meet buffer requirements = Credited at 75% of the acreage created Buffer requirements. If total surface area of wetlands is between: • 1/3rd and 1 = 30-foot buffer • 1-2.49 acres = 40-foot buffer • Greater than 2.49 = 50-foot buffer Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

• Credits for wetland edges = Credited at 10-25% per acre created with a max cap of 15% of total credits of the project Buffer requirement = 100 feet 139 8

Certification of Credits (pg. 30, 31) SMC Corps • Certifiable by SMC per the credit • Credit released is authorized in a schedule (or other negotiated letter format and sent to property standards) provided buffer requirements owner prior to the sale of bank are met credits • Certifiable at any point but no later than 5 years from date of planting (negotiable) • After second full growing season following creation, SMC can conditionally certify credits based on schedule. Requires: • 75% of minimum number of native species present • Native species = 15 % of total dominance Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

• Released per credit schedule (negotiable parts) • No conditional certification

140 9

Sale of Credits (pg. 31-33) Sponsor must: • Keep ledger of available credits (purchased or unpurchased); and • Provide agency with updated ledger at the conclusion of each credit sale.

SMC •

•

Certified/Conditional credits can be sold if adequate funds are established through financial surety Uncertified credits can be sold for mitigation purposes if adequate funds are established through financial surety

Corps •

Corps (in consult with IRT) release credits per schedule

•

IRT can conduct a field visit prior to a requested credit release

•

No credits sold without authorization

•

SMC has sole authority to determine the number of credits available to sell, and all sales require prior SMC approval

•

If credit purchase agreement between sponsor and permittee is terminated, the sponsor provides District with written notice within 15 days.

•

Initial physical and biological improvements at bank site must be completed no later than the end of the third full growing season.

•

Initial physical and biological improvements at bank site must be completed no later than the end of the first full growing season.

141

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

10

Performance Standards for Full Certification

142 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

11

Performance Standards (pg. 35) SMC

Corps

Species Composition: • Must be native to Lake County and appropriate for hydrologic zone • Marsh = minimum of 15 native species • Mesic Prairie (buffer) = minimum of 25 native species • 50% of or required minimum number of species must occur at 10% frequency or greater

Species Composition, Dominance, and Hydrology: • As approved in banking instrument

Species Dominance: • Non-native species cannot be more than 5% total dominance measure per each community • Native species must represent 80% of total dominance measure Hydrology: • Must be demonstrated within each wetland for which credit is sought from data gathered by piezometers that were placed with the approval of the SMC 143 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

12

Considerations in Establishment

144 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

13

Considerations in Establishment (pg. 21) SIMILARITIES: • Can be publicly or privately-owned and incorporated as FP or NFP • All lands in the project protected in perpetuity • Bank sponsors will manage bank/design it to be self-sufficient with adequate financial resources • Ownership interest can be transferred or sold with prior approval SMC

Corps

• If incorporated, it must be incorporated in Illinois.

• Department of the Army permit processing

• Follows normal permit processing procedures

145 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

14

Site Selection Criteria

146 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

15

Site Selection Criteria (pg. 22) Either plan can be rejected unless the proposed land: • is owned or fully controlled by sponsor • contains a majority of drained or hydrologically modified hydric soils • has no high-quality aquatic resources that could be damaged by the creation

• contains adequate perimeter buffer lands* • contains no known hazardous waste as confirmed by a qualified person

147 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

16

Site Selection Criteria (pg. 22) SMC • Minimum size = 10 acres (or 5 acres, if within Lake Michigan Watershed area)

Corps • Minimum size = 20 acres (or smaller IF approved by the IRT and within Lake Michigan Watershed Area)

•

•

Be compatible with adjacent land uses and watershed plans; be selected using watershed plans (or similar plans developed from a landscape perspective); and be positioned in the watershed;

•

Not adversely affect protected wildlife/habitats

•

Used for natural water storage functions of wetlands

•

Buffer (100 foot minimum)

Be part of an adopted or accepted open space plan, watershed plan, conservancy district, protected riparian corridor, or other local or regional conservation land use plan

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

148 17

Site Selection Criteria (pg. 23) Extra considerations for Corps Approach: Essentially all factors that the IRT considers relevant (e.g., development trends, anticipated land use changes, habitat status and trends, relative locations of the impact and mitigation sites)

Also, “Highly recommends” that the proposed land: • Is identified as important wetlands under the Corps/USEPA Advanced Identification Process • Provides habitats for at-risk species • Is identified in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory • Provides important breeding grounds for migratory and domestic wildlife • Contains high native plant species diversity

149 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

18

Initial Planning • • •

First Steps Prospectus Development Financial Assurances

150 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

19

First Steps (pg. 23-24) SMC • Required, informal discussion with SMC about what should be included with the initial application (permit & prospectus)

Corps • Recommends the meeting/visit before submitting initial request/prospectus Requests must be accompanied by: • • • • • • • • • •

Maps of the project area (e.g., location, topographic map, soil survey, aerial photos) Determination of current site resources Existing hydrology and drainage patterns Hydrology to be established Current vegetation Vegetation to be established Plans for buffer Current and future adjacent land uses Connectivity to other natural areas Drainage patterns of site/surrounding properties 151

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

20

Prospectus Development (pg. 24-26) SIMILARITIES: • Provide enough information to support informed public comment • Allow for determination of general considerations/evaluation criteria • Serve as a basis for the future legally binding instrument • Include (at least): • Bank location/size • Legal description of property • Real estate interest in property • Type of bank • Method of credit production/number of proposed credits/rationale • Site plan • Delineation of any wetlands/other jurisdictional areas at location

152 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

21

Prospectus Development (pg. 24-26) SMC •

Outline of management and maintenance responsibilities

Corps •

Discussion on how proposed bank will be established/operated

•

Construction plan and schedule of completion (including planting, administrative, management, monitoring, and financial plans)

•

Strategy detailing goals, objectives, and technical feasibility of bank

•

Discussion of ecological suitability of site

Charter of incorporation (as needed)

•

Discussion of how the site supports wetland resources and functions

•

Assurance of sufficient, long-term hydrology

•

Means for establishing hydrology

•

Discussion of qualifications and experience of proposed bank sponsor (e.g., past activities, completed projects)

•

153

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

22

Financial Assurances (pg. 26-27) • Need a description of assurances and high-level discussion on how funds will be used to achieve goals.

• Bank sponsor is responsible for securing funds for the operational life of the bank and for long-term management • Proposed release schedule of financial assurances - broken down by task SMC • Funding requirements • Form of assurances are listed (general)

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

Corps • Funding requirements (slightly more demanding) • Form of assurances mostly mirror SMC’s but must meet extra requirements • Requires a special condition that assurances are in place prior to commencing the permitted activity • Two sets of assurances: (1) project construction; and (2) ecological success milestones 154 23

Financial Assurances – Long-term management (pg. 28) Sponsor must establish assurance (e.g., escrow account) to ensure the bank site can be maintained in perpetuity, and the plan must demonstrate the bank/wetlands will be maintained either by (1) ownership; or (2) conveyance of interest.

SMC •

Interest on escrow accounts can be used for monitoring, management, and maintenance purposes only.

Corps •

Plan needs strategy for establishment of a fully-funded endowment for long-term management activities of bank

•

Sureties must be maintained until: (1) full certification; (2) all credits have been sold; or (3) SMC determines bank is self-sustaining.

•

Long-term bank manager must provide written approval to the Chicago District Engineer of acceptance of the long-term funding mechanism

•

Required surety amount is reviewed annually

•

District requires provisions to address inflation and can require other contingencies.

155

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

24

Legally Binding Agreement

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

156 25

Legally Binding Agreement (pg. 28-30) • Will include provisions for long-term financing and protection of land from future development SMC Requires a site development plan approved by SMC, identifying:

Corps • IRT approves the banking instrument • Dept. of Army authorizes permit

•

Banking instrument must include: • Description of proposed service area • Accounting procedures • Provision stating sponsor is legally responsiblee for providing the compensatory mitigation associated with credits • Default and closure provisions • Mitigation plan • Proposed credit-release schedule

• • • • • • •

Diverse aquatic and supporting landscapes Wildlife habitats and edge conditions Upland buffer areas specifications Anticipated wetland functions Native species Native soils Means for establishing hydrology Design showing eventual selfsufficiency

157 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

26

Sponsor’s Monitoring, Management, and Reporting Responsibilities • • •

Monitoring Operational Life of Bank Long-term Management

158 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

27

Monitoring (pg. 33) Qualified Persons must make periodic inspections of soil erosion control measures and reports are submitted on a monthly basis.

SMC

Corps

• Monitoring period of 5 years from date of completion of planting plan

• Amount of financial assurance to be reviewed annually based on results of required monitoring reports

• Other monitoring results provided on an annual basis to SMC until the end of the above-period

• Yearly bank audits

• Reserves the right for a site inspection at any time

• Monitoring reports provided to all members of the IRT annually until all performance standards are met and all credit sales are complete • IRT conducts joint field inspections to confirm data on monitoring report.

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

159 28

Operational Life of Bank (pg. 33, 34) • It consists of the period during which the terms and conditions of the legally binding instrument are in effect, excluding the long-term management and protection in perpetuity provisions.

• Terminates when:

• Wetland mitigation credits are exhausted • Banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice to reviewing agency; or • SMC/District finds bank to be “functionally mature or self-sustaining” as specified in the legally binding instrument.

160 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

29

Long-term Management (pg. 34) Corps • Any proposed long-term manager should have expertise in executing adaptive management procedures • Must have provisions to transfer long-term management responsibilities to a land stewardship entity • Sponsor must provide confirmation of financial assurances, written verification of site control, and confirmation to be submitted by Feb. 15 of each calendar year.

161 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

30

Modifications, NonCompliance, & Termination

162 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

31

Questions?

163 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

32

Katten Locations CHARLOTTE 550 South Tryon Street Suite 2900 Charlotte, NC 28202-4213 +1.704.444.2000 tel +1.704.444.2050 fax

LONDON Paternoster House 65 St Paul’s Churchyard London EC4M 8AB United Kingdom +44 (0) 20 7776 7620 tel +44 (0) 20 7776 7621 fax

NEW YORK 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020-1605 +1.212.940.8800 tel +1.212.940.8776 fax

CHICAGO 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661-3693 +1.312.902.5200 tel +1.312.902.1061 fax

LOS ANGELES – CENTURY CITY 2029 Century Park East Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 +1.310.788.4400 tel +1.310.788.4471 fax

ORANGE COUNTY 100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92618-4960 +1.714.966.6819 tel +1.714.966.6821 fax

DALLAS 2121 North Pearl Street Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201-2591 +1.214.765.3600 tel +1.214.765.3602 fax

LOS ANGELES – DOWNTOWN 515 South Flower Street Suite 4150 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2212 +1.213.443.9000 tel +1.213.443.9001 fax

SHANGHAI Suite 4906 Wheelock Square 1717 Nanjing Road West Shanghai 200040 P.R. China +86.21.6039.3222 tel +86.21.6039.3223 fax

WASHINGTON, DC 2900 K Street NW North Tower - Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007-5118 +1.202.625.3500 tel +1.202.298.7570 fax

Katten refers to Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and the affiliated partnership as explained at katten.com/disclaimer.

Attorney advertising. Published as a source of information only. The material contained herein is not to be construed as legal advice or opinion.

164 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Confidential & Proprietary

33

APPENDIX 6. BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON WETLANDS AND WETLAND DEVELOPMENT 6.1 V3 Presentation – February 8, 2022

Appendices List

165

APPENDIX 6.1

WETLAND (& STREAM) MITIGATION BANKING BASICS Presented by: Tom Slowinski, PWS Wetlands & Ecology Technical Director

11

166

Engineering/Surveying Wetland & Water Resources Design & Permitting Ecological Restoration Design & Construction Designed, Permitted and/or Constructed Six Wetland Mitigation Banks in Illinois & Indiana

QUICK FACTS      

Founded in 1983 Multi-disciplined firm 290 professionals Employee owned ENR top 500 design firm since 2003 #4 Best AEC Firm to Work for in 2021

12

167

TEAM OF EXPERTS

13

168

OUR FOOTPRINT

14

169

Village of Lake Bluff

 Tangley Oaks Stormwater Design & Permitting, Natural Resources Goup, 2012  Ravine Park Erosion Control, Construction Group, 2013  Moffet Road Land Bridge Project, Construction Group, 2017

Park District of Highland Park

 Highland Park Country Club Ecological Restoration, Ecological Restoration Group  Millard Bluff Slope Stability Analysis and Permitting, Natural Resources Group

East Skokie Drainage District

 Skokie River Streambank Stabilization (1 Mile), Lake Forest, Engineering Design, USACE & Lake County SMC Permitting, Construction

15

170

V3 WETLAND RESTORATION LLC  Wetland Mitigation Partnership with Campton Township in Kane County since 2003  Based on Design-Build-Manage Approach to Wetland Mitigation & Ecological Restoration  Wetland Mitigation Projects  Blackberry Creek Headwaters Mitigation Bank  Gray Willows Wetland Mitigation Bank  $6 Million V3 Investment  Design-Build-Manage-Finance-Administer (Credit Sales)  2021: 21.3 credits sold, $2 Million  Finally profitable!

16

171

WHAT IS A WETLAND MITIGATION BANK?  A site where wetlands are restored, re-established, enhanced and/or preserved for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts authorized by USACE and/or County stormwater permits.  A mitigation bank sells credits to permittees whose mitigation obligation is transferred to mitigation bank sponsor.  Credits are measured in acres: 1 Acre = 1 Credit  A Mitigation Bank Instrument (MBI) governs the operation and use of a mitigation bank.  The Interagency Review Team (USACE, USFWS, USEPA) reviews and approves wetland mitigation banks and credit releases.  Stream Mitigation Banks-similar concepts for stream and riparian corridors (Linear Feet instead of Acres)

17

172

WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING RULES  2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (Federal Mitigation Rule). Prioritizes wetland mitigation banks vs. permittee responsible (onsite) mitigation  2017 Interagency Coordination Agreement (ICA) on Mitigation Banking within the Regulatory Boundaries of Chicago District, Corps of Engineers  Definitions  Approval Process  Credit Establishment & Releases  Performance Standards

18

173

WETLAND MITIGATION DEFINITIONS & CREDITS  Wetland Re-Establishment (Creation) – returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource (drained historic wetlands)  100% credit; one acre re-established = one wetland credit  Wetland Rehabilitation (Restoration/Enhancement) – repairing or restoring natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource.  50% credit; one acre restored = 0.5 credit  Wetland Preservation: 10% credit (not very common)  Upland Prairie or Buffers: 100 foot buffer generally required  10 to 25% credit; one acre restored = 0.1 or 0.25 credit

19

174

WETLAND MITIGATION APPROVAL PROCESS  Prospectus: mitigation bank concept/preliminary plan submitted for review by the Interagency Review Team. Also serves as basis for public review through a Public Notice process.  Draft Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI): based on approved Prospectus and describes in detail the physical, biological and legal characteristics of the mitigation bank, and how the bank will be established and operated.  Final MBI: Responds to agency and public comments and is signed by the mitigation bank sponsor(s), and the IRT members  Approval Timing: 1-3 years to obtain MBI approval, including design process

20

175

WETLAND MITIGATION CREDIT RELEASES  Final MBI Approval, Financial Assurances and Site Protection Instrument  20% of total credits released for sale (previously 30%)  Demonstrate and meet wetland hydrology performance standards for two growing seasons and approval of IRT upon review of Annual Monitoring Report  25% of total credits released  Meet interim vegetative performance standards (Floristic quality, i.e. native plant community diversity) and approval of IRT upon review of Annual Monitoring Report  20% of total credits released  Meet all 5 - year performance standards, final wetland delineation and approval of IRT  35% of total credits certified and released

21

176

WETLAND MITIGATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS  Wetland Hydrology  Measured with monitoring wells  Water table 12 inches or less below the soil surface for a minimum of 28 consecutive days or two consecutive 14-day periods  Wetland Plant Communities  Floristic Quality/Plant diversity standards  Quantitative and Qualitative Standards  Strict Invasive Species Limitations  Final Wetland Delineation (meet 3 wetland criteria of vegetation, soils and hydrology)

22

177

WETLAND MITIGATION RISKS Technical Risks-Failure to Meet Performance Standards

Financial Risks

 Poor design (hydrologic conditions vs. native plant communities)  Restoration contractor experience  Extent of native seed and plant plugs (most important cost item)  Lack of diligent annual ecological management/invasive weed control  Lack of communication between designer, contractor and monitoring consultant  Lack of ability to make field changes during native planting due to contractor limitations/costs  V3 avoids these issues through our Design-BuildManage approach

 Extensive upfront costs/long term investment  Delay in agency approvals at each level: Prospectus, Draft MBI, Final MBI  Additional costs due to technical issues/field changes  Failure to Release and Sell Credits  Lack of Market Demand  Not meeting interim and/of final performance standards  Agency delays in releasing credits

23

178

BLACKBERRY CREEK HEADWATERS • April 2005, USACE Approval & Permit (Pre-MBI) • Construction & Planting, 2005-2006 • January 2013, Certification of 48.85 Phase 1 credits • July 2015, Phase 2 Expansion • All Performance Standards Met, 2021 Growing Season

24

179

HEADWATERS PHASE 2 EXPANSION  Emergent Wetland Credits  Wetland Reestablishment (Creation) = 32.12 acres  Wetland Rehabilitation (Enhancement) = 0.42 acres  Prairie Buffer = 27.43 acres  Other Upland Buffer = 4.92 acres  Total Credits = 37.81

25

180

HEADWATERS SEDGE MEADOW/WET PRAIRIE WETLANDS

26

181

GRAY WILLOWS WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN  Emergent Wetland Credits  Wetland Reestablishment (Creation) = 32 acres  Wetland/Creek Rehabilitation (Enhancement) = 17.5 acres  Prairie & Woodland Upland Buffer = 46 acres  Total Credits = 52.37

27

182

GRAY WILLOWS (FORMER AG FIELD)

28

183

THANK YOU! Tom Slowinski, PWS 630-330-0035 tslowinski@v3co.com

29

184

tv'f'~~Jprt Lake

I

/11,dt-- _>Q(iL/t,. /l1A-f>

County, Illinois

~l)~,,../011

bl" 'll

(94)

"1

"'..,:,

,,

T7

[~C

0.

a,

tl.Jck1ey

rw

( "' Great Lakes "O 0:

~cS>

:-;: "C

"' "'

I

-;;.

Rd

%

~

~-

"'C7"

:r

,!l QI

,,o.

-:,

Abbott Park

:;;

"'...

~

n,

""',.. ,i

~

~

,.

CJ

;;;;

QI ;)

QI

0

"" vi

"' ""'?..

C:

z

Iv

~If'

,.

Q

"'"'

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science

D St

i .t:. "'

v,

"'0

,,,.,

t::

~

"'Q

0

Shoreacres

- -

I

fo<re

--.

~~ ,.,.,.~ 'O';

0

~

<,'-

Arrle'1 Shore D1

\q,

,o 1•

l

,on Rd

bl

fr

1-

{

\Ve

I

CRO Pond· Abbott

~o~

.

678ft

ft '7/t Rd

l'-1bor D

cl l>,\Jf:

SanctuJry 1 ark

She1idarl <lt Green O~ks

j

,-1;1bal'I'

KL

cH nd ,d

l

?< I)'

I

0,,:

'r>

~Jo

""('

\"-\~· ,

131

. 658ft

Lake Bluff Golf Club E Blodgett Ave

W

Was.1,ngto'l Ave

I

w Ncl th Ave

VIiiage of Lake

:r

Bluff Open

i

I

RJ Sources World Topographic Map Sources Esrl, HERE. Garmin. FAO, NOAA, USGS, C penStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Space Lake World_Hillshade Sources. Esri Airbus OS, USGS NGA NASA. CGl,(IR;-N Robinson, N<!EAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, tn termap and ttila GIS user community

[]

~~ Lake :ounty Map Printed on 1/31/2022

b

l'l

E W'lod/cina Rd

E North Ave

Bluff

f

0.6m i

,ter A.l

N

A

Lake County. Illinois

Disclaimer:

30

Tho seloclod feature may not occur anywhere In lhc cUrtcnt map extent A Rcglslorod Land Surveyor should bo consullcd to dotormino the procise location of properly boundaries This map doos 1101 conslih,le a regulatory determination and Is not a baso for engineering ~csign This map is intondccl to bo viewed and prinlod In color

_'l'l_l_h!l ground

185

l,-t r"

Lake County, Illinois

LJ'$6)1"

-.,.,. ~ ..

✓

'

8t"kl

;?J11f)

6-'J7(.,. '<,

ey R(I

I

/evaf

6'1'1:5,

~skr/1 T,.}

CJ ii'

1L4,' __ J

(I)

~

,fs

Bt,ckh.•y R

.c ~ C,

Great Lakes

0

0::

0

~;>

<:

D St

"'~-

,/\

/'

f:d CJ

';,

>,

~

"' "'

,a :, Abbott Pa1lk

"'

% "2. "',.

~

:c

0

C.

""0

I

C

2

t:l

I

' 'Zl.

r~

C)

"'"' }1

,,\, \'- ·t

~

Vl

~

.L..

0

IShoreacres

0

,t

'"\

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science

.,.,

; CJ ,.

.,,

-"'

1/)

~

C'

~

;:l 0.

::,

?•' lf'" .M. ~;::;" l

0

<::i

~

.::.'Iv

.,...

rden Sron•

,o~e,

t>-fb'lr

o,

or

t>.\3ba111a ,we kinsor' Rd

,,;1,1ctuary Park

1,,

Sheridat at Green Cliks

~

flurr s Av

0-f. ,.('>

CRO Pond· Abbott

( • 678ft

17ft

I

I

17 ft

c

Rd

\.el

,;;o"

1>-"e .,.,o'{I

l'"e

131

'\

• 658ft

~

Lake Blu ff Golf Club

\C(''f.\

F Blodgl'tt Ave

IEWood/arid Rd

W Wasli,nyton Ave WNorrr-Ave

·

I ._,______,11, Esrl IHERE. Garmin. FAO. OAA. USGS. C> OpenSlre

I. ,d Rd

".oc, and h j

Villageoflake Bluff Open

J

Cf

E North Ave

Sources World Topographic Map Sources Map contributors. and lhe GIS User Communily Spa La kli BI u ff World_Hillshade: Sources. Esrl, Airbus OS, USGS, NGA NASA, CGl(',R, N Robinson, NCEAS, NL OS, NMA, Geodalaslyrelsen, Rijkswalerstaal, GSA, Geoland FEMA. lntennap and the GIS user comm_u_nl_tyf~- -

[]

~~ Lake<:ounty Map Printed on 1/31/2022

0.6 mi

f Ce'1tc As,

N

A

Lake Counly. Illinois

Disclaimer:

31

Tho soloclod foaluro may nol occur anywhoro In lho current map extenl A Rogislcrod Land Surveyor should bo consullod lo determine lhe p,ociso location ol properly boundaries on the ground This map does nol conslilulo a regulatory doto,minallon and Is not a base lor engineering design This map Is inlended lo be viowod and p,inlod in color

186

Lake County, Illinois Maps Online

+ –



Visit our home page

Find pin, address or place 

Measurement |

Acres

Measurement Result

66.3 Acres

 

Clear

Lake County, Illinois GIS/Mapping Division | Lake County, Illino

600ft 600ft

42.286 -87.851 Degrees

32

187 Press CTRL to enable snapping

Lake County, Illinois Maps Online

+ –



Find pin, address or place

Visit our home page

Measurement



|

Acres

Measurement Result

78 Acres

 

Clear

Lake County, Illinois GIS/Mapping Division | Lake County,

188 600ft 600ft

42.284 -87.855 Degrees

33

Press CTRL to enable snapping

(as of 2013)

34

189

This page intentionally left blank

190

6.2 Case Study: Libertyville Township – February 22, 2022

Appendices List

191

APPENDIX 6.2

Libertyville Township Atkinson Rd. Wetland Mitigation Bank TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2022 LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT LAND USE CITIZEN TASK FORCE MEETING

192

Libertyville Township Open Space District 1,500 acres of Open Space

Open Space Fund: $2,010,000 Only source of annual revenue are farm license agreements which generate approximately $60,000 annually.

Spend approximately $150,000 annually on maintenance and restoration projects.

Town Levy: FY21 $2,007,286 Expenses paid out of the Town Fund: Salaries and related expenses for 3 full time open space employees, professional services, & equipment purchases/rentals – approximately $350,000.

Project considerations: restoration potential, flooding mitigation/improved stormwater management opportunities, proximity to other restored sites, & potential funding sources.

193

Pre-bank site conditions 80-acre site completely covered in buckthorn and other invasive species.

Stormwater run-off onto Atkinson Road causing flooding of roadway and unsafe travel conditions.

194

195

196

Engaged Land & Water Resources, INC. as banker for wetland mitigation bank The creation of the bank fit into the Township’s long-term goal of the restoration of the site and the ability to generate revenue for the Township’s Open Space Fund.

LAWR, Inc. assumed all financial risk for the creation of the bank: responsible for restoration, selling and reporting of the credits, meeting threshold requirements of the bank.

Township was required to earmark approximately $25,000 for long term maintenance of the site.

197

Challenges of the bank The overall process requires patience: •

the permitting process can be lengthy.

•

the construction of the bank is unappealing and can be frustrating for neighbors.

•

following construction, the site may look weedy/unmaintained. It will take years to become fully established.

•

ensuring the bank meets the required thresholds.

•

the timing of the release of credits.

198

199

200

201

Site Management Herbicide applied as needed to invasives; approximately $500 annually on herbicide. If the application is contracted out, the cost may range from $15,000 - $20,000.

Conduct prescribed burns to encourage growth of natives and deter invasives every 2- 3 years as conditions allow. Anticipated the work will be contracted out with an anticipated cost of $20,000.

Trail maintenance handled by staff; approximately $300 annually in trail screenings.

Three full time employees managing 1,500 acres of land. http://www.libertyvilletownship.us/sitemedia/2021stemanagementplans. pdf

202

203

Immediate and long-term benefits Site has been restored with high quality native plant species and an improved the health of the Oak Knoll.

Generated approximately $950,000 in revenue for Libertyville Township’s Open Space Fund

Improved stormwater storage and halted flooding of Atkinson Road and adjacent neighborhood.

Created 50.75 acres of wetland on approximately 62% of the site.

Improved 1.1 miles of trail for hiking, biking, cross country skiing, snow shoeing, and bird watching.

Improved wildlife habitat.

As a result of our previous experience, Libertyville Township is pursuing another wetland mitigation bank and assuming a more active role in the process.

204

205

206

207

Questions? Comments?

Thank you!

Kathleen O’Connor, Libertyville Township Supervisor koconnor@libertyvilletownship.us

208

6.3 Case Study: Highland Park Preserve – February 22, 2022

Appendices List

209

The Preserve of Highland Park

APPENDIX 6.3

Park District of Highland Park

210

Approximate Boundary of The Preserve – former Highland Park Country Club Golf Course

211

212

213

Highland Park’s Park District Community Attitude and Interest Surveys from 2009 and 2013 identified a need for residents to have access to additional walking and biking trails.

Process • The Park District of Highland Park acquired the Highland Park Country Club site from the City of Highland Park in fall 2018.

• A citizen advisory committee was formed in fall 2018 to brainstorm a master plan.

• In June 2019, following a community survey, public open houses and numerous committee meetings, the advisory committee presented its final plan that prioritized the natural environment and provided nature-based play opportunities and places to relax and explore in the outdoors, close to home.

• Converted 100 acres of the former Highland Park Country Club golf course to a protected open space.

- Woodland - Wetland - Riverfront habitat areas - Golf-related topography featuring sand traps, cart paths and river crossings.

- Not intended to mitigate flooding.

• Nearly 50 acres were seeded with native plants in planting zones that reflect the underlying soils and water conditions.

• Formal opening planned for May 2022.

Finances • The construction bid of $1.2 million included amenities, trail work and restoration of the shoreline of the North Pond.

• Funding included an Illinois DNR’s Open Space Land Acquisition and Development grant and an Illinois EPA 319 grant.

• No wetland banking used for project financing.

Management • Park District project management, outside design and construction.

Source: Park District of Highland Park

214

6.4 Case Study: Oak Meadows Golf Course – February 22, 2022

Appendices List

215

The Preserve at Oak Meadow

APPENDIX 6.4

DuPage County Forest Preserve District

216

217

218

Salt Creek winds for 1¼ miles through the DuPage County Forest Preserve in Addison. It regularly flooded nearby homes and damaged the Oak Meadow golf course for months at a time. It was clear that the Forest Preserve District needed a new approach that would work with nature, rather than against it.

Process • The DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup is a collection of local public agencies, private consulting firms, and environmental advocacy groups that was established to improve the quality of rivers and streams in DuPage and Cook counties.

• In 2015, the Workgroup, with the Forest Preserve District and DuPage County, was tasked to use the District’s Oak Meadow Golf Course to help turn Salt Creek from a liability to an environmental asset for the surrounding community.

• The golf course reopened in 2017. It’s now part of a flood prevention system, a water quality project and an important wildlife area.

• The project created 35 new acres of wetlands and 40 acres of prairie. The 288-acre section of land can now accept 20 million additional gallons of storm-water, enough to deal with a 100-year storm event.

• Roughly 85% of the property is devoted to native oak savanna, prairie and river ecosystems. The golf cart paths double as a 5.6-mile trail system.

• Oak Meadow is now described as “a preserve, that happens to include golf.”

Finances • The project cost a total of $16.8 million. Funding sources included Wetland Mitigation Banking, $2.25 million from the DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup and $2.5 million from DuPage County Stormwater for environmental improvements.

District Management

• The DuPage Forest Preserve District: Has a dedicated Wetland Management staff that manages regulatory and finance matters for wetlands in-house. They have established 5-6 banks to-date.

Significant regulatory oversight has been ceded to the District by the Corps of Engineers.

Design and construction are contracted to third parties with a high degree of oversight by the District.

Sources: DuPage County Forest Preserve District, the “Daily Herald, ”Golf Digest,” and the Chicago District Golf Association

219

6.5 Land and Water Resources “Steps Required to Put Together, Permit, Construct and Sell Credits from a Mitigation Bank” – March 22, 2022

Appendices List

220

APPENDIX 6.5 Steps Required to Put Together, Permit, Construct and Sell Credits from a Mitigation Bank Lake Bluff Golf Course Making the Decision - Need to incorporate 40-acre feet of flood storage - Determine mix of uses and size/ location of each i.e.: golf, wetlands, prairies, public access amenities - Economics - Public wishes for various uses Survey/Engineering - Detailed topographic survey - Soils survey - Historic preservation work - Steam morphology - Existing drainage features including drain tiles - Soil contamination issues - Excavation design for wetlands and flood storage - Hydrology design for wetlands and flood storage - Reconstruction and reconfiguring of remaining golf holes Conceptual Design for Mitigation Bank - Determine mix of wetlands and stream credits to incorporate - Determine how much of the flood storage can be incorporated in the wetlands so you can appropriately design the flood storage Regulatory/Permitting - Prospectus - Draft MBI - Final MBI - 2 or 3-year process Site Construction - One growing season - Earthwork - Disabling drainage - Erosion control - Slope protection on stream - Coordination of wetland construction with flood storage and other uses - Paths and amenities Site Restoration - Seeding - Plugs - Cover crop - Short-term Maintenance

13

221

-

Monitoring Invasive species control

Mitigation Banking - Permitting - Coordination with Park District - Negotiations with agencies - Construction supervision - Supervise maintenance and monitoring - Reporting of monitoring results and pushing for credit releases - Coordination of all subcontractors/ suppliers - Site visits with agencies - Negotiate credit releases - Sales of credits - Keep ledger and notification to agencies of sales - Accounting for all sales and costs Long-Term Maintenance - Establish appropriate endowment - Develop long term management plan

14

222

Conceptual Project Plan for Wetland Mitigation Banking March 22, 2022

TIMELINE PK DIST YR START YR STOP BUDG

Making the Decision Need to incorporate 40-acre feet of flood storage (Determine total acreage formula)

PARK PROJ LANDS ENV GOLF SMC BOARD MGR ARCH CONSULT BANKER ARCH X

Determine mix of uses and size/ location of each i.e.: golf, wetlands, prairies, public access amenities

X

X

X X

Economics Public wishes for various uses/amenities Survey/Engineering Detailed topographic survey

Soils survey Historic preservation work ervation work Stream morphology Existing drainage features including drain tiles Soil contamination issues Excavation design for wetlands and flood storage Hydrology design for wetlands and flood storage Reconstruction and reconfiguring of remaining golf holes Design of other recreational amenities Conceptual Design for Mitigation Bank Determine mix of wetlands and stream credits to incorporate Determine how much of the flood storage can be incorporated in the wetlands so you can appropriately design the flood storage

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Regulatory/Permitting Determine mix of wetlands and stream credits to incorporate Determine how much of the flood storage can be incorporated in the wetlands so you can appropriately design the flood storage

Regulatory/Permitting (2 or 3-year process ) Prospectus Draft MBI Final MBI

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X

Site Construction (One growing season)

Earthwork Disabling drainage Erosion control Slope protection on stream Coordination of wetland construction with flood storage and other uses Paths and amenities Amenities

X X

Site Restoration X X X X X

Seeding - Plugs Cover crop Short-term Maintenance Work Monitoring Invasive species control

Mitigation Banking X

Permitting Coordination with Park District Negotiations with agencies Construction supervision Supervise maintenance and monitoring Reporting of monitoring results and pushing for credit releases Coordination of all subcontractors/ suppliers Site visits with agencies Negotiate credit releases Sales of credits Keep ledger and notification to agencies of sales Accounting for all sales and costs

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Long-Term Maintenance Establish appropriate endowment Develop long term management plan Maintenance Work

15

X X

X X

223

6.6 Conceptual Project Plan for Mitigation Banking – March 22, 2022

Appendices List

224

APPENDIX 6.6 Conceptual Project Plan for Wetland Mitigation Banking

March 22, 2022 Making the Decision Need to incorporate 40-acre feet of flood storage (Determine total acreage formula)

Determine mix of uses and size/ location of each i.e.: golf, wetlands, prairies, public access amenities

Economics

Public wishes for various uses/amenities Survey/Engineering Detailed topographic survey

Soils survey

Historic preservation work ervation work Stream morphology Existing drainage features including drain tiles Soil contamination issues Excavation design for wetlands and flood storage Hydrology design for wetlands and flood storage Reconstruction and reconfiguring of remaining golf holes Design of other recreational amenities Conceptual Design for Mitigation Bank Determine mix of wetlands and stream credits to incorporate Determine how much of the flood storage can be incorporated in the wetlands so you can appropriately design the flood storage

Regulatory/Permitting

Determine mix of wetlands and stream credits to incorporate Determine how much of the flood storage can be incorporated in the wetlands so you can appropriately design the flood storage

Regulatory/Permitting (2 or 3-year process ) Prospectus Draft MBI Final MBI

Site Construction (One growing season)

Earthwork Disabling drainage Erosion control Slope protection on stream

Coordination of wetland construction with flood storage and other uses Paths and amenities Amenities

Site Restoration

Seeding - Plugs Cover crop Short-term Maintenance Work Monitoring Invasive species control

Mitigation Banking

Permitting Coordination with Park District Negotiations with agencies Construction supervision Supervise maintenance and monitoring Reporting of monitoring results and pushing for credit releases Coordination of all subcontractors/ suppliers Site visits with agencies Negotiate credit releases Sales of credits Keep ledger and notification to agencies of sales Accounting for all sales and costs

Long-Term Maintenance

Establish appropriate endowment Develop long term management plan Maintenance Work

TIMELINE

PK DIST

PARK

YR START YR STOP

BUDG

SMC BOARD MGR X

PROJ LANDS

X

ARCH

ENV

GOLF

CONSULT BANKER ARCH

X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X

225

APPENDIX 7. STORMWATER STORAGE NEEDS 7.1 Burke Engineering: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US41 and Skokie River, City of North Chicago, Lake County, Il – September 2021

Appendices List

226

APPENDIX 7.1 (Extract) - Download full report at https://www.dropbox.com/s/lnvbce0r2kvhnix/DRAFT%20Route41_SkokieRiver%20H% 26H%20Study.pdf?dl=0

AF T

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of US-41 and Skokie River

City of North Chicago, Lake County, IL

R

Prepared for

D

Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 500 W Winchester Road, Suite 201 Libertyville, IL 60048

Prepared by Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. 9575 W. Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, IL 60018

CBBEL Project No. 180324

September 2021

227

Skokie River/US-41 – Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis

September 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................................i List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii List of Exhibits……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………ii List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1 1.1

Project Overview .......................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 2

Study Development....................................................................................................................1

2.1

Study Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Storm Sewer Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 2

2.2.2

Existing Floodplain and Floodway......................................................................................................... 2

2.2.3

Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 3

Existing Conditions Analysis........................................................................................................ 3

AF T

2.2.1

3.1

Description of Existing Drainage System....................................................................................................... 3

3.2

Existing Conditions Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Analysis ..................................................................... 4

3.2.1

XP-SWMM Model ................................................................................................................................. 4

3.2.2

Skokie River Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling ................................................................................. 6

Chapter 4

Proposed Conditions Analysis ..................................................................................................... 8

Development of Drainage Improvements .................................................................................................... 8

4.2

Proposed Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................. 9

4.3

Proposed Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 4.5 4.6

Proposed Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................... 12

Proposed Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................... 15

Proposed Alternative 5 ............................................................................................................................... 16

Optional Upstream Improvements ............................................................................................................. 17

D

4.7

R

4.1

Chapter 5

Summary ................................................................................................................................. 19

i

228

Skokie River/US-41 – Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis

September 2021

LIST OF TABLES

AF T

Table 1: Skokie River BFE Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Skokie River Drainage Area Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 Table 3: Model Verification, July 2017 Event ............................................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Bulletin 75 Design Storm Rainfall Depths ....................................................................................................... 5 Table 5: Existing Conditions XP-SWMM Results ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 6: Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Results at Alabama Ave/Virginia Dr.................................................................. 8 Table 7: Proposed Conditions XP-SWMM Results, Alternative 1 ................................................................................. 9 Table 8: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results (WSEL, ft), Alternative 1 .................................................................. 10 Table 9: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results at Alabama Ave/Virginia Dr, Alternative 2 ...................................... 11 Table 10: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results (WSEL, ft), Alternative 2 ................................................................ 11 Table 11: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results (WSEL, ft), Alternative 3 ................................................................ 13 Table 12: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results (WSEL, ft), Alternative 4 ................................................................ 15 Table 13: Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Results (WSEL, ft), Alternative 5 ................................................................ 16 Table 14: Proposed Conditions XP-SWMM Results, Alternative 5 ............................................................................. 17 Table 15: Proposed Conditions XP-SWMM Results, Optional Upstream Improvements........................................... 18 Table 16: Summary of Proposed Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 19

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Location Map Existing Drainage Map Existing Drainage Map, through Problem Area Existing Conditions Inundation Map (100-Year) HEC-RAS Cross-Section Location Map Proposed Stormwater Improvements Proposed Conditions Inundation Map (100-Year), Proposed Relief Sewer Proposed Conditions Inundation Map, Additional Upstream Improvements

R

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Drainage Investigation by Rempe-Sharpe & Associates, Inc. FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Lake County and Incorporated Areas Intergovernmental Agreement for IL Route 41 & Skokie River Regional Flood Mitigation Engineering Study Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results, Alternative 1 Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results, Alternative 2 Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results, Alternative 3 Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results, Alternative 4 Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Model Results, Alternative 5 Cost Estimates

D

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10)

ii

229

7.2 Intergovernmental Agreement: Stormwater Management Commission, North Chicago, US Navy and IDOT – signed September 2020

Appendices List

230

APPENDIX 7.2

13

231

14

232

15

233

16

234

APPENDIX 8. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TASK FORCE 8.1 Remit Memo with Questions

Appendices List

235

APPENDIX 8.1 TASK FORCE REMIT

The ultimate goal of the task force is to understand and evaluate the facts impacting the various proposals made for converting some or all of the Lake Bluff Golf Course into wetlands, as part of a stormwater management project with the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC).

The premise for these proposals is that wetland credits could be sold, raising capital for the Park District that could be used to fund other projects including beach/bluff erosion protection and the construction of a new pool.

The remit does not include trying to understand what the LBPD residents want; it should not be construed as a community survey. Should the task force conclude that the proposals warrant further study and should the LBPD Board agree and therefore vote to pursue one or more of these proposals, resident input will of course be needed and requested.

It should be understood that the actual project, that has as its goal the temporary storage of up to 40 acre-feet of stormwater coming from North Chicago/US 41/Great Lakes Naval Base, is a project of the Lake County SMC. It should also be understood that the SMC is a direct statutory body of the State of Illinois, whose budget is set by the state and administered by Lake County. Furthermore, as other documents included in this packet indicate, wetlands are not required in order to provide the desired stormwater storage. And finally, the stormwater that would be diverted to the golf course for storage would have no impact on Lake Bluff whatsoever; it would only impact flooding in North Chicago and the Naval base.

We therefore believe that the following issues need to be understood and evaluated by the task force: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

What is the ultimate goal of the SMC with their project?

What role do wetlands play in meeting this goal?

What are the financial risks and benefits from participating in this project?

What are the environmental/land use risks and benefits in participating in this project?

What is the benefit to the Lake Bluff community in participating in this project?

What alternatives exist for the LBPD should we decide to participate in this project?

How are the above points altered by participating in this project through one of the wetland conversion proposals?

The task force should work with experts in the field, including but not limited to: - Engineering firms - Academics - Communities with relevant experience - Lake County SMC It is strongly suggested that, particularly as it relates to engineering firms, that firms that have done, are doing, or may do business with Lake County be excluded from participating so as to avoid any conflicts that may arise.

236

The task force may also conclude that a professional financial consultant should be contracted in order to best arrive at realistic estimated costs for these proposals. This recommendation will then be presented to the LBPD Board for review and action.

Specifically, the issues of creating and maintaining wetlands, and the sale of wetland credits, is key to the task force remit. These issues may include the following points: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Understanding how wetland credits work How credits are sold, who sells them, and who buys them The difference between Army Corp of Engineers wetland banks and Lake County wetland banks The role of wetland credit bankers Surety and performance bonds for wetland credits History of selling wetland credits as a money-making tool Types/categories of lands typically used to convert to wetlands The process of creating wetlands: a. Surveys b. Water and soil analysis c. Permitting d. Inspections e. Planting/vegetation f. Staffing 9. The process of maintaining wetlands: a. Inspections b. Labor c. Flood/drought damage d. New planting 10. The grant process a. What is typically paid for as part of a relevant grant b. What costs would the LBPD have to pay, both in the initial stage as well as on an ongoing basis

237

8.2 Task Force Answers to Remit Questions

Appendices List

238

APPENDIX 8.2 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM PARK DISTRICT’S REMIT TO TASK FORCE Please note that this document was prepared before the final Task Force report, and some of the wording and conclusions here have been superseded by those in the full report. This document is provided solely to give a fuller picture of the Task Force’s discussions and deliberations.

REMIT SECTION 1

1. What is the ultimate goal of the SMC with their project? a. The “project” is building stormwater storage on the golf course property. b. The goal of the SMC project is to provide improvements to alleviate flooding on US Route 41 just south of Illinois Route 137, in the Strawberry Condominium Subdivision southwest of the intersection of US Route 41 and Illinois Route 137, and on several Naval Station Great Lakes residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the Skokie River south of Illinois Route 137. c. The improvements to alleviate flooding must be implemented without any downstream impact. SMC has determined that 40-acre feet of stormwater storage is necessary to avoid a downstream impact. d. There are multiple avenues to pursue this goal; it does not all have to be on LBPD property. e. SMC’s request is time sensitive because availability of government funding.

2. What role do wetlands play in meeting this goal? a. Creation of wetlands is not required to meet SMC’s goals. b. Wetlands have been identified as one of the ways to meet stormwater storage needs. c. The golf course property has been suggested as a location for stormwater storage and wetlands. d. The golf course consists of 145 acres; approximately XX acres would be eligible for conversion to wetlands.

For purposes of discussion of questions 3-5, It is useful to view “the project” in three ways: (a) SMC’s request—construction of 40 acre-feet of stormwater storage (referred to “Adding minimum storage only – 18-hole golf course remains”); (b) construction of extensive wetlands suitable for wetland mitigation banking to meet SMC’s request, with the remainder of the property left undeveloped (“Extensive wetlands storage + green space”); and (c) construction of

239

wetlands with the remainder developed for recreational purposes (“Extensive wetlands storage + alternative recreational uses”).

3. What are the financial risks and benefits from participating in this project?

1. Adding minimum storage only – 18-hole golf course remains a. Risks i. The golf course would need to be closed for one season, resulting in a loss of revenue. ii. It might be necessary to renegotiate the Golf Visions contract. iii. LBPD might have to bear the cost of some golf course redesign and engineering. iv. The redesigned golf course with storage may be less appealing to the golfing public. v. There may be increased operating expense unless negated by the contract with SMC. b. Benefits i. There is potential for a slight benefit if improved drainage helps keep the course dry during the playing season.

2. Extensive wetlands storage + green space a. Risks i. LBPD must provide effective oversight and management of the project and maintenance. ii. If the district fails to provide such oversight, there is a possibility that maximum credits (future revenue) will be reduced. iii. The cost of maximizing access to the wetlands and prairie via construction of walkways, etc., would have to be borne by the Park District. iv. The timing of future wetland credit sales may be protracted. v. If the credits are not sold, the District will have lost the golf course without the anticipated financial benefits to offset it. b. Benefits i. Sales of wetland credits have the potential to generate multimillion-dollar revenue for the district over time. This revenue will cease once all wetland credits have been sold. ii. There will be a decrease in capital costs compared to the golf course.

3. Extensive wetlands storage + alternative recreational uses a. Risks i. Same considerations as in (b). ii. Adding recreational uses would be paid for the LBPD.

Appendix 8.2

240

iii. There would be increased risk in the form of complexity of construction, ongoing maintenance, and securing the revenue stream from new amenities. b. Benefits i. Same considerations as in (b). ii. Recreational uses could generate revenue from user fees.

4. What are the environmental/land use risks and benefits in participating in this project?

1. Adding minimum storage only – 18-hole golf course remains a. Risks i. There should be minimal environmental or land use risks because the (slightly modified) golf course would remain, unless an environmental problem is discovered during the creation of the storage. ii. The golf course may not be considered the highest and best use of the land. iii. This solution may not be adequate to address actual current and future stormwater storage needs. b. Benefits i. The project could potentially reduce the flooding on golf course. ii. This option would protect the current use of the space as a golf course. iii. Current usage levels of the golf course would be retained. iv. LBPD would retain autonomy over the space.

2. Extensive wetlands storage + green space a. Environmental risks i. There should be minimal environmental risks, as wetlands inherently bring significant environmental benefits, unless an environmental problem is discovered during the creation of the wetlands. ii. Unless properly designed, built, and maintained, the wetlands may attract undesirable flora and fauna. iii. There will be some tree loss. iv. There is potential for erosion during the construction phase. v. Upland prairie? b. Land use risks i. We would no longer have a golf course, which would be a permanent loss. ii. The construction phase will be unsightly, which may negatively influence public perception of the land use. iii. Wetlands have a different, more natural appearance and topography compared to the manicured appearance of a golf course. (Some people may view this as a benefit.) iv. The portion of the property for which wetland credits will be sold (the “wetland bank”) will be in a conservation easement, which is permanent Appendix 8.2

241

and irrevocable. That acreage cannot be repurposed in the future. (Some people may view this as a benefit.) v. Upland prairie? c. Environmental benefits i. The creation of wetlands addresses the identified stormwater storage needs. ii. Wetland plantings create a natural filtration system for stormwater. iii. Many plants suitable for wetlands attract pollinators (bees, butterflies) and other wetland organisms. iv. The conversion to wetlands will significantly reduce the use of chemicals on the property. v. Once established, a well-designed wetland requires minimal maintenance. d. Land use benefits i. Wetlands have a different, more natural appearance compared to the manicured appearance of a golf course. (Some people may view this as a risk.) ii. The portion of the property for which wetland credits will be sold will be in a conservation easement, which is permanent and irrevocable. That acreage cannot be repurposed in the future. (Some people may view this as a risk.) iii. There is the potential for new educational and recreational opportunities and a more natural environment.

3. Extensive wetlands storage + alternative recreational uses a. Land use risks i. Same as for (b). ii. The wetland design needs to accommodate any features added in the non-wetland area. b. Benefits i. Same as for (b). ii. There would be new recreational opportunities and amenities for LBPD residents.

5. What is the benefit to the Lake Bluff Park District community in participating in this project?

1. Adding minimum storage only – 18-hole golf course remains a. There may be fewer days of flooding and road closures on Rt. 41 with traffic detouring onto Green Bay Road and Waukegan Road. b. The golf course stays open with no loss of revenue. c. There may be less flooding of the westernmost holes of the course.

2. Extensive wetlands storage + green space a. There may be fewer days of flooding and road closures on Rt. 41 with traffic detouring onto Green Bay Road and Waukegan Road.

Appendix 8.2

242

b. There is the potential for new passive open space for educational and recreational opportunities and a more natural environment. c. Selling wetland credits should generate new and potentially significant revenue for LBPD’s current and future capital and operational needs for the life of the wetland bank.

3. Extensive wetlands storage + alternative recreational uses a. There may be fewer days of flooding and road closures on Rt. 41 with traffic detouring onto Green Bay Road and Waukegan Road. b. There is the potential for new passive and active open space for educational and recreational opportunities and programs and a more natural environment. c. Selling wetland credits should generate new and potentially significant revenue for LBPD’s current and future capital and operational needs for the life of the wetland bank. d. Some of the alternative recreational opportunities could be perceived as an additional attraction for Park District users.

6. What alternatives exist for the LBPD should we decide to participate in this project?

In regard to options (2) and (3), below is a partial list of possible recreational uses for the portion of the property that is not suitable for wetlands.

1. Alternative fee-based golf experiences a. 9-hole course b. 9-hole course integrated into wetlands, open to all consistent with parks within district boundaries c. 9-hole Par 3 course with or without adjacent golf practice/teaching facility d. Driving range e. Miniature golf 2. Other uses a. Educational programming b. Soccer fields (expanded programming or leased to outside organizations?) c. Dog park d. Playground e. Running track (expanded programming or leased to outside organizations?) f. Ice rink g. Ball field h. Water slide i. Velodrome (could incorporate a running track and/or playing field) j. Community center facility with restaurant (potential rent fee base)

7. How are the above points altered by participating in this project through one of the wetland conversion proposals?

Appendix 8.2

243

1. See “wetlands storage” options in questions 3-5.

Appendix 8.2

244

REMIT SECTION 2

1. Understand how wetland credits work 2. How credits are sold, who sells them, and who buys them Wetland mitigation banks represent parcels of land (a site) that are restored, enhanced, or newly created as wetlands. Such banks are owned and operated by private or public entities (the ‘bank sponsor’) and regulated by the controlling governmental agency, in this case either the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Stormwater Management Commission of Lake County, Illinois (SMC).

What Are Credits: Wetland mitigation banking is a system that involves the establishment of wetland compensatory mitigation ‘credits’ at a wetland site. Wetland credits are measured as portions of an acre of land. The number of wetland credits generated at each bank site is calculated through a formula contained in each regulatory framework. The frameworks generally allocate full credits to restoration/enhancement of historic wetland areas; partial credits can be allocated for enhancement of existing wetlands, for required buffers from incompatible uses, and for other factors. Credits are released for sale at prescribed times during the wetland development and approval process.

Who Buys Credits: Land development that disrupts existing wetlands is highly regulated, generally through the provisions of the US Clean Water Act. Building permits for land developments in which wetlands are disturbed are often contingent on the purchase of offsetting wetland credits.

In many land development situations, a public entity (e.g., the Illinois Department of Transportation) or private developer (e.g., the builder of a suburban shopping center) whose land use proposal results in unavoidable degradation of existing wetlands must purchase offsetting compensatory mitigation credits from a wetland bank sponsor. This transaction satisfies the Clean Water Act regulatory goal of ‘no net loss’ of wetlands.

3. The difference between Army Corps of Engineers wetland banks and Lake County Stormwater Management Commission wetland banks USACE and SMC have each published a regulatory framework for the creation of wetland mitigation banks and for the sale of wetland mitigation credits. (See the Task Force Report for a detailed comparison of the regulatory frameworks.) Each framework provides for a permitting process and creates rules for establishing the wetland environment and its growth, a schedule for creating and releasing credits, and a series of financial performance measures. There are, however, two major differences between these frameworks: Appendix 8.2

245

a. Complexity. In general, the USACE regulatory framework includes a more complicated and longer permit process, requires the creation of a multi-agency Intergovernmental Review Team (IRT), and has more required financial assurances.

(The IRT consists of the national and regional heads of the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Environmental Protection Agency.) b. Credit Sales Marketplace. The geographic area within which a wetland bank sponsor may sell wetland credits generally matches the service area of the authorizing regulatory entity. The USACE marketplace is larger: i. The service area of the Chicago District of the USACE consists of the sixcounty Chicago metropolitan area with the exception of those lands that drain to Lake Michigan. Wetland credits may be sold by a USACE-approved wetland bank to developers throughout this service area. ii. The service area of the SMC consists of Lake County, Illinois, and its four watersheds. In general, an SMC-approved wetland bank may sell wetland credits only to developers within the watershed where the bank exists which, in this case, is the Middle Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River. There are provisions that allow sale outside of each watershed, but developers have to mitigate at twice the rate that would otherwise be required for in-watershed.

4. The role of wetland credit bankers A wetland mitigation “bank” refers to the site on which wetlands have been created; it does not refer to a traditional financial bank. Thus, a ‘wetland mitigation banker’ is the bank sponsor (or its agent), which creates a private marketplace for the sale of wetland mitigation credits.

The wetland mitigation banking process, and the role of a wetland credit banker, can be summarized as follows: a) A wetland bank sponsor creates a wetland mitigation bank under permit from USACE (or locally from SMC) b) The sponsor (or agent) offers the wetland credits created in that bank for sale to developers as compensatory mitigation credits c) The sponsor and developer negotiate a price point for the credits d) The sponsor sells credits (or fractions of a credit) to the developer at the agreedupon price e) The regulatory entity (USACE or SMC) monitors the transaction and ensures the availability of credits in the sponsor’s bank The actual sale of wetland credits is considered a private marketplace transaction. Price points do not have to be publicly disclosed.

5. Surety and performance bonds for wetland credits Appendix 8.2

246

A wetland bank sponsor (property owner) must secure adequate funding to establish, maintain, and monitor the bank throughout its operational life. Financial assurances must be provided and approved by the regulatory agency as part of the bank permit process and must be maintained until all wetland credits have been sold or the wetland bank is considered by the regulator to be self-sustaining.

Such assurances can take any form acceptable to the regulator, including performance bonds, letters of credit, insurance, escrow accounts or other sureties. The amount of assurance needed is directly related to the costs associated with the construction, achievement of performance standards (e.g., growth of the plant environment), and maintenance of the wetland bank. The wetland bank permit contains a schedule of release of the financial assurances following the completion of these specific tasks.

Under the current wetland bank development proposal, SMC would be responsible for the construction of the wetland bank. However, either USACE or SMC could be chosen as the regulator. If USACE is the regulator, discussions should be held as part of the permitting process to determine which entity (SMC or the Park District) must provide financial assurance. If SMC is the regulator, the financial assurance amount, if any, that would be required should be discussed.

A wetland bank financial plan must contain a strategy for the establishment of a funded endowment for long-term maintenance of the property. Setting aside a portion of each credit sale into a permanent fund developed for such purpose is a reasonable approach.

6. History of selling wetland credits as a money-making tool The Clean Water Act was passed by the US Congress and signed into law in 1972. Section 404 of the Act required developers to minimize the impact of construction on designated water bodies and, if negative impacts were unavoidable, to provide compensatory mitigation. In 1977, these provisions were extended to wetlands.

In 1988, national policies of ‘no net loss’ and ‘like-kind replacement’ of wetland functionality were adopted. The Environmental Protection Agency and the USACE expanded on existing policies and published guidelines for the establishment and use of wetland mitigation banks in 1995.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, passed in 1998, specified a preference for mitigation banking for transportation projects. Finally, in 2008, federal rules were finalized establishing standards for mitigation banks.

Data on mitigation banking is collected in the USACE’s Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS). According to the Applied Research Associates, a codeveloper of RIBITS, over 4,700 mitigation banking arrangements had been developed as of January 2022.

Appendix 8.2

247

7. Types/categories of lands typically used to convert to wetlands Wetland mitigation banks are restored, enhanced, or created wetlands whose purpose is to provide credits to offset unavoidable impacts to existing wetlands. A bank can be located on land that historically supported wetlands or currently holds degraded wetlands. Current use of a parcel of land is not a factor in determining whether a wetland bank can be created.

8. The process of creating wetlands a) b) c) d) e) f)

Surveys Water and soil analysis Permitting Inspections Planting vegetation Staffing

Development of a wetland mitigation bank is subject to the provisions negotiated with the regulatory agency as part of the permitting process. These provisions specify: a) Site selection criteria b) Initial planning steps, including surveys and current water and soil condition analysis c) Prospectus development, including construction schedules and planting, administrative, management, monitoring, and financial plans See the regulatory overview prepared for the Task Force for more details.

In addition, the Task Force has developed a conceptual project plan for the creation and management of a wetland bank. The plan, which is a way to think about the work steps involved in creating a wetland, includes a matrix of required activities, responsible parties, a timeline, and a budget. (See the Task Force report for details.) Using such a project plan could streamline the wetland bank development process.

9. The process of maintaining wetlands a) b) c) d)

Inspections Labor Flood/drought damage New planting

During the period when a wetland bank is being constructed and later when credits are being sold, qualified persons must make periodic inspections to determine that performance standards

Appendix 8.2

248

established in the wetland prospectus or permit are being met. These standards are designed to ensure the successful growth of the wetland plant community and include species composition, species dominance, and hydrology considerations. Failure to meet the agreed upon standards will delay the release of credits. Maintenance costs during the life of the bank have been estimated at $XX - $YY annually per acre.

Once all wetland credits have been sold, the bank is closed and the bank sponsor becomes responsible for the long-term health and maintenance of the plant environment. Such long-term maintenance costs have been estimated at $XX - $YY annually per acre and are covered by the financial arrangement established during the permitting process.

The estimated maintenance costs include only those costs required to ensure the health of the wetland plant community. They do not include repair, upgrade, or replacement of any amenities added to the wetland environment (e.g., walking paths, bridges, benches, overlooks, etc.) These costs should be projected based on the useful life expectancy of the amenity and a long-term capital expense budget should be developed.

10. The grant process a) What is typically paid for as part of a relevant grant? b) What costs would the LBPD have to pay, both in the initial stage and on an ongoing basis?

Wetland bank sponsors (property owners) typically develop a wetland bank on their own or in conjunction with a wetland bank development firm. Costs associated with wetland development and maintenance are paid by the sponsor/developer and are eventually offset through credit sales. Wetland sponsors may receive grants from public or private entities to assist in specific components of their wetland construction project.

The offer by SMC to provide funding and management for construction of wetlands as an offshoot of building stormwater storage on Park District property seems to be a special situation.

(ASK SMC FOR OTHER INSTANCES) The Task Force has not yet discovered comparable wetland development arrangements.

SMC’s offer to construct wetlands includes areas outside of the required stormwater storage area. This commitment includes payment of costs necessary and typical for the creation of a wetland environment, costs for the restoration of disturbed areas not converted into wetlands, and short-term maintenance costs during wetland development. (See the SMC responses to questions in the February 14, 2022, and March 15, 2022, memos.)

The Park District would be responsible for construction and maintenance of any amenities built into the wetland environment, as well as short-term maintenance costs during the credit sales years and long-term maintenance costs after final approval for sales.

Appendix 8.2

249

8.3 Memoranda: SMC and Park District – January 14, 2021; February 17, 2021; March 15, 2021

Appendices List

250

APPENDIX 8.3 - Memoranda Between SMC and Lake Bluff Park District, 2021 John Bealer From: Sent:

To:

Subject:

Woolford, Kurt A. < KWoolford@lakecountyil.gov> Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:26 PM John Bealer Lake Bluff Golf Club

Hello Mr. Bealer, I would like to introduce myself and give you an update on a flood mitigation project were are studying along the Skokie River. We are working with the City of North Chicago, IDOT, and the Navy. The Lake Bluff Golf Club is immediately downstream of the project and there are some options and potential opportunities including flood damage reduction. Would you have some time tomorrow Friday for a brief call?

Thank you.

Kurt Woolford Lake County Stormwater Management Commission

6

251

7

252

)

))

))

))

))

Beacon St

)) Optional Stormwater Improvement

))

))

))

Ve r

))

)) Existing Storm Sewer/Culvert

Skokie River Centerline

t

²

Bitterswee t Ave ) )) ))

))

))

))

)

Dakota Ave

Vermont Ct

))

co n

1 inch = 500 feet si n

Dr

e

Georg

))

))

)

rio

Ct

)

ton Av

i St

))

g Washin

p issip

)

))

))

))

Miss

))

)

W is

t )) Erie C

))

Bonaparte Ave

Optional Shorecrest Pond Improvements Replace Outlet Control Structure Replace 1,200 LF of Existing 36" Storm Brompton Sewer withAve 60" Storm Sewer

))

))

))

))

)) ve ll A e

Vermont Ave

))

))

M

)

w

tC

US-41/Bittersweet Avenue Improvementsinn es Construct 1,535 LF of 60" Storm Sewer ot a Av Install Temporary Restrictor Plate on Upstream End e Construct Water Quality Channel at Outfall

))

r Fa

on

Berwyn Ave

))

))

m

)) Base Project Stormwater Improvement

ia Ave

))

))

))

))

))

Legend

Optional Strawberry Condos Improvements Replace Outlet Control Structure Colorado Ave Replace 490 LF of Existing 18" - 24" Storm Sewer with 36" - 42" Storm Sewer

On ta

Kent

Ave ucky

Dr

)

ia Virgin

Virginia Avenue Improvements Remove Triple 7' x 4' Elliptical CMPs Restore Channel

Grea t Lak es D r

Skok

)

v ie Ri er

s Forre

tal Dr

Yo New

n St

t rior S Supe

Huro

Sa n

Alabama Avenue Improvements Replace 12' x 7' Elliptical CMP with 12' x 7' Box Culvert ct ua

ry

Ave ware a l e D

rn Califo

ia Ave

Ln

w kie H Sko

Meadow

Cir

ve ma A Alaba

ghw S Hi y U

Atkinson Rd

ay 4

Talbot Ave

1

B

Burris Ave

Birch Ave

Adelphia Ave

d for Saf

C B

e rk Av

Optional Compensatory Storage Area Construct 40 Acre-Feet of Storage on Lake Bluff Golf Course

Ave

r ste Fo

ER EJ&

e Av

253 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

CLIENT

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. 9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, IL 60018 (847) 823-0500 / FAX (847) 823-0520

oad ailr

TITLE

LAKE COUNTY SMC

PROJECT NO.

180324.00001

US-41/SKOKIE RIVER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OVERALL EXHIBIT 8

DATE

.

1/5/2021

EXHIBIT 1

9

254

10

255

8.4 Board Memorandum: Stormwater Management – Discussion; March 15, 2021

Appendices List

256

APPENDIX 8.4

BOARD MEMORANDUM March 15, 2021 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Item To:

Board of Commissioners

From:

John Bealer, Executive Director

Date:

March 12, 2021

Subject:

Storm Water Management – Discussion

____________________________________________________________________________ Background The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) has been collaborating with local, county and state partners since May 2020 to help alleviate flooding along Route 41 in North Chicago between Strawberry Condominiums and the Naval Station Great Lakes properties along the Skokie River. This collaboration effort has led to a partnership between the Naval Station Great Lakes, Illinois Department of Transportation, the City of North Chicago, East Skokie Drainage District, Lake County, and Hoyt Companies (Naval Housing). The partnership pursued a hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) study in September 2020 with Christopher Burke Engineering to determine a draft design plan for flood mitigation in this area that would not adversely impact downstream properties. The results of the study concluded that in order to alleviate flooding in this area, 20 to 40-acre feet of compensatory flood storage must be implemented downstream of the project.

SMC is reaching out to the Lake Bluff Park District to consider allowing the implementation of some or all that compensatory flood storage on the Lake Bluff Golf Course property. There is flexibility in this request, being that the flood storage locations could be spaced out throughout the golf course property and work into current operations. A flood easement can be obtained for a portion of the golf course property, etc. There is no monetary amount that SMC is asking for from the Lake Bluff Park District. SMC is currently seeking funding opportunities to implement this project, which would cover the costs of the compensatory flood storage. The end result of this is hopefully the project can also mitigate some of the current flooding on the Lake Bluff Golf Course and the local area. This request is a voluntary request to the Lake Bluff Park District and one we hope that the Board will consider working with this partnership to implement.

Action and Motion Requested None.

11

257

LAKE BLUFF PARK DISTRICT GOLF COURSE WETLANDS CONVERSION PROPOSAL Jennifer Beeler – Contacts for Information on wetland development and maintenance Joe Himelinski

Wetland Specialist/Highland Park Involved in Middlefork Wetlands

(847) 648-1924

Re: Wetland development, credit sales, costs for creation and continued maintenance References: RIBITS (Regulartory In-lieu Fee & Banking Info Tracking) US Army Corp Engineers – Wetland Info Mike Warner

Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc. Director/Former SMC Director

(847) 478-9700

Re: Wetland creation, costs Ann B. Maine

Lake County Commissioner and on SMC Board (847) 857-1732 Re: Ft. Sheridan golf course conversion to wetlands, plans for SMC and LBPD

Mike Talbett

SMC Commission Attendee and Administrator, Village of Kildeer (847) 438-6000 Re: Wetland development, costs, plans for SMC and LBPD

Sam Beckman

Emergency 9 Golf Re: Information pertaining to his proposal integrated into Chair Hart’s proposal, costs, wetlands on golf courses

Kathleen O’Connor

Supervisor, Libertyville Township (847) 816-6800 Re: Development of wetlands, costs, work to be outsourced or can be done on staff with wetlands, sale of wetland credits

Peggy Motta

Project Manager, Naperville Park District (630) 848-5000 On site visit to Naperville PD wetlands, development, costs on-going maintenance of wetlands and establishment

12

258

DRAFT

DECEMBER 10, 2021 MEETING RE: Route 41 FLOOD MITIGATION STUDY The Meeting was called to order at 1:02 p.m. and was conducted virtually via Zoom video conference. The following were in attendance: Paul Greenfield – President of Lake Bluff Park District Jennifer Beeler – Commissioner of Lake Bluff Park District John Bealer – Executive Director of Lake Bluff Park District Jeff Spillman – Communications & Promotions Manager of Lake Bluff Park District Donny Schmit – Chairperson of the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) Kurt Woolford – Chief Engineer of SMC Ashley Strelcheck – Water Resources Professional of Lake County SMC President Greenfield began the meeting by stating that he felt it was important to get together with Lake County Stormwater Management Commission to understand all the facts about the Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study. He advised that the Lake Bluff Park District Board is in the process of appointing a Citizens Task Force to review proposals from Sandy Hart, Chairperson of Lake County Board - District 13, which involve selling up to 80 acres of wetlands to raise money for the Lake Bluff Park District, while providing stormwater mitigation.

Mr. Woolford explained that SMC does not get involved in land use decisions and is not a land use authority. Their job is to regulate and manage flooding caused by stormwater. He said SMC protects natural resources, manages the watershed and does not want to be landowners.

President Greenfield stated his assumption that none of the floodwater being discussed in the Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study has an impact on Lake Bluff, other than the golf course, and Mr. Woolford explained that the Skokie River drains through the Lake Bluff Golf Course and that just the Lake Bluff Park District golf course property would be impacted by this project.

President Greenfield noted that the Golf Course is comprised of floodplain that is 65 acres in size and 74.3 acres is within the 100 year floodplain, and Mr. Woolford agreed. President Greenfield commented that if wetlands are created, that would not solve the problem of flooding and a detention pond would still have to be constructed. Mr. Woolford said that is correct and an additional volume of 40 acre-feet of storage would be needed. He said it could be put anywhere on the Golf Course property as long as it is connected hydraulically to the River and, also, it does not have to be part of existing floodplain.

President Greenfield noted that the water table on the Golf Course is very high so there would need to be a large geographic area (detention pond) in order to accommodate 40 acre-feet.

Mr. Woolford said there is another option of building a lift station, with its own expense. He said the groundwater is at or 1 ft. above what the normal river flow is. Reshaping, widening and lowering the grade next to the River would work. Mr. Woolford said you can excavate at the level of the river or lower but excavation around the river is the preferred method (to stay

13

259

December 10, 2021 Meeting Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study

hydraulically connected). If you excavate below the level of the river then there would need to be a lift station to pump water back towards the Skokie River. Reshaping, widening and lowering the grade next to the Skokie River would work for flood storage.

Commissioner Beeler asked how wetlands fit in with the work that SMC does. Mr. Woolford said that SMC works with the Army Corps of Engineers and issues permits, determines jurisdictions, and handles wetland mitigation. He said the purpose of the Route 41 project is to fix the drainage and make the hydraulics work. When storms come in, they arrive in waves and peaks and that is the reason storage is needed.

Ms. Strelcheck said that it was decided in 2021 that storage would be needed for this project following the draft completion of the H&H (Hydrologic and Hydraulic) study performed for the proposed project area, and the addition of wetlands helps to create wetland credits, which are in short supply in Lake County. She said wetlands are the preferred stabilization practice.

Chairperson Schmit advised that the pipe by the railroad tracks along Route 41 is too small and if the size is increased, the amount of water flowing through it would be the same, but it will flow out a lot faster. In order to cure the problem along Route 41, they cannot cause a problem somewhere else, and that is why detention is needed in order to slow up the flow of the water.

Mr. Woolford said they are working with IDOT, North Chicago, and the Navy so what they do will not cause any adverse reaction downstream.

Ms. Strelcheck said that the Golf Course flooding already exists, so this is the reason SMC came up with using Golf Course land as a potential option. Mr. Woolford said that this option might make the duration of the flooding on the Golf Course less than what it is now, but this idea would have to be studied further.

President Greenfield said that the Lake Bluff Park District would like to help to the extent that it can, noting that the Park District has a successful Golf Course which is an asset to the community; however, the District does not want to take on any financial responsibility for this proposed project. He said it is a known fact that the Golf Course floods, and it is accepted. He asked if SMC approached North Chicago about using Foss Park for storage, and Ms. Strelcheck said that it is already being used for this purpose, and they already widened the channel through the golf course there. Mr. Woolford said that Foss Park is upstream and anything to the north would not work for the Route 41 project. The area they are looking at is between the Strawberry Complex condominiums and the old Meyer Material site, and if they increase the size of the pipe, that increases the flow and storage would be needed in the same drainage path.

Mr. Woolford explained that another option is a flood easement, but he would have to check with the Navy about this. An easement would essentially mean that the Lake Bluff Park District enters into an easement with SMC to take on extra floodplain (.04 feet or approximately 3 inches) and would be compensated by SMC. The easement would be for the East Skokie Drainage Ditch and/or SMC. President Greenfield asked what kind of compensation the Park

14

260

December 10, 2021 Meeting Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study

District would receive. Mr. Woolford said compensation would have to be negotiated because this type of easement is not typical. They would have to contact the Assessor’s Office for the land value and go from there. Mr. Woolford said that basically the easement would allow SMC to flood the Golf Course by 3 inches for maybe an hour timeframe. He thought maybe this would work in the short term.

Mr. Woolford said he would like to start work on the design from the Navy Base through the Lake Bluff Golf Course. They will put in a restrictor plate until further commitment for stormwater storage. When and if the Park District makes their decision to allow detention or an easement, the restrictor plate can be removed.

President Greenfield asked about the availability of funding and grants. Mr. Woolford reported that there is $122 million available in State of Illinois Capital Funds for regional stormwater management projects and $30 million has been released. He said they would have to work with State Representatives about timelines and getting dates modified. All contracts need to be signed by December 31, 2024 and the projects need to be completed by the end of 2026.

He advised that State Legislators are the people who pick the projects and release the money.

Commissioner Beeler said that a big concern of the Board is if this project would be 100% funded by SMC or grants. Mr. Woolford said that every project is unique. SMC needs land rights (easements) and there is flexibility, but they need complete design plans before they can submit for grant money.

President Greenfield asked if water storage is built on the Golf Course, are there places it can be put without having to redesign the whole course. Mr. Woolford said yes if there are pipes or wider ponds constructed that would be connected to the River, then it would be reasonable for a grant to cover the restoration costs. Chairperson Schmit noted that the first round of funding is $30 million, and SMC has 14 projects currently underway which are limited to $2.5 million each.

President Greenfield asked if the grant would fund the building of wetlands and Mr. Woolford said yes, because that is the preferred method. He noted that there can even be ten areas of detention and/or wetlands which add up to 40 acre-feet, and that would be okay. He said there is also the option to go to 20 acre-feet with a flood easement, which could eliminate a lot of reconstruction on the Golf Course.

President Greenfield asked if there would be 40 acre-feet of detention, how many acres of wetlands would there be for credits. Mr. Woolford said SMC is flexible and, for example, 10 acres would be needed for 4 foot deep detention and old wetlands can be restored also. He further explained that the 40 acre-feet of storage could be done by having ten acres of detention ponds 4 feet deep; 80 acres of detention ponds 6 inches deep, or anything in between. If detention ponds were spread throughout the Golf Course property, there would need to be either major grading done, or pipes installed in order for the stormwater surges to run down into the ponds. There would be an extra cost in doing this, but this might be offset by

15

261

December 10, 2021 Meeting Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study

the lower cost of digging only 6 inches down rather than 4 feet, for example. There is a lot of flexibility, but the total volume of excavation needs to be 40 acre-feet of new storage.

However, SMC has limited funds for a large number of projects, so the cost of each project has to be carefully monitored.

President Greenfield asked about selling wetland credits. Mr. Woolford said there are wetlandmitigation banks where developers can buy wetland credits to replace marshes or other wetlands that are destroyed during the construction of roads or subdivisions. He said SMC wants to preserve what is left of wetlands and there is a shortage of wetlands in Lake County.

Commissioner Beeler stated that the Park District does not have the human resources available to either act as the wetlands credit banker or to maintain the wetlands and would have to either hire the necessary people or have the work contracted out to wetlands credit bankers.

Mr. Woolford stated that the bankers will do all the work on maintaining the wetlands and selling the credits, but that in exchange they get the vast majority of the payments for the credits.

Commissioner Beeler and President Greenfield asked why SMC just did not do the work on the Navy property. Mr. Woolford replied that working with the federal government, especially an arm of the military, is extremely difficult and complicated and it would be much easier for SMC to work with Lake Bluff on this project.

President Greenfield asked if any organizations had ever created wetlands for the primary purpose of raising money. Mr. Woolford replied that wetland bankers, who earned substantial amounts of money with this process would do this but could not name any other organizations/communities that had.

There was general discussion of the need to maintain the quality of the wetlands during the period when credits were being sold. It was noted that the Army Corps of Engineers supervises this process and if, for example, there is a drought or flooding and plantings die, they need to be replaced before the credits can again be sold. When the wetland credits have been sold, then it is up to the community to maintain the wetlands according to whatever standard it chooses.

Commissioner Beeler asked about wetland management. Mr. Woolford said that SMC would provide help to a certain point with management, but once the credits are sold and the permit is closed, it needs to be maintained by the owner.

Commissioner Beeler said that she understands that the Park District would have a long-term commitment to keep up the wetlands and the cost would appear to be around $1,000 per acre to maintain. President Greenfield said that the Park District does not have the staff to take care of wetlands, so the work would have to be contracted out.

16

262

December 10, 2021 Meeting Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study

Chairperson Schmit exited the meeting at 2:31 p.m.

President Greenfield explained that the Board of Commissioners has taken the first steps to appointing a Citizens Task Force to discuss proposals for the Golf Course and have set an end of June completion date for their recommendations. He said that depending on the results and any recommendations from the Task Force, the Board may then go to the community to get their input on the proposals. President Greenfield also noted that the GolfVisions contract expires at the end of 2023, so there is a lot to be considered.

Commissioner Beeler asked who would be involved in the project going forward and Mr. Woolford said if an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is involved it would be North Chicago, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), U. S. Navy, Lake Bluff Park District, and SMC. He said an easement option would be easier and would not involve an IGA. Woolford stated that the Lake County SMC is an independent statutory authority. Its budget is independent of Lake County, although the county administers its budget. The project outlined is a project of the SMC alone, and any agreement/contracts would be between LBPD and SMC only.

Mr. Woolford said that SMC wants to go forward with the design of the project and requested a letter from the Lake Bluff Park District Board of Commissioners that they are willing to explore an easement and/or stormwater storage.

Commissioner Beeler stated that having a Citizens Task Force in place is like giving the community a voice, and residents want an unbiased opinion. She did not want to overstep this process and President Greenfield agreed.

Mr. Woolford said he really wants to proceed with the design of installing larger diameter pipes along Route 41 by the railroad tracks and then adding a restrictor plate for now. Then whatever happens in the future with a decision from the Park District on a possible Golf Course project, SMC would need to remove the restrictor plate; it is a temporary solution only. Mr. Woolford said this is their only project with a local, federal, and state partnership and this is the last piece of the puzzle. He said it is possible that other grants will become available to provide more funding.

President Greenfield thanked everyone for attending the meeting and said that he now has a better understanding of what options the Park District has regarding this flood mitigation project.

The meeting ended at 3:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Marcia A. Jendreas

17

263

December 10, 2021 Meeting Route 41 Flood Mitigation Study

Recording Secretary December 11, 2021

18

264

APPENDIX 9. FEMA AND OTHER MAPS 9.1 FEMA Base Map Showing Flood Zones on LBGC

Appendices List

265

APPENDIX 9.1

266

9.2 FEMA Base Map Showing Floodway

Appendices List

267

I

APPENDIX 9.2

FEMA Base Map flood way - 31.9 Acres

I

Source: Lake County, Illinois Maps Online w measurement

268

9.3 FEMA 100-Year Flood Map

Appendices List

269

I

APPENDIX 9.3

FEMA 100 Year Flood Map - 66.3 Acres ii1 to

I

Source: Lake County, Illinois Maps Online w measurement

270

9.4 FEMA 500-Year Flood Map

Appendices List

271

I

APPENDIX 9.4

FEMA 500 Year Flood Map - 78 Acres Source: Lake County, Illinois Maps Online w measurement

I

272

9.5 SMC Route 41 Draft Improvements

Appendices List

273

APPENDIX 9.5 -))- Optional Stormwater Improvement -)';- Base Project Stormwater Improvement -)';- Existing Storm Sewer/Culvert - Skokie River Centerline

stall Temporary Restrictor Plate Quality Channel

1 inch= 500 feet

Replace Outlet Control Structure Replace 1,200 LF of Existing 36" Storm Sewer with 60" Storm Sewer

274

CLIENT

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. 9575 West Higgins Road, Suite 600 Rosemont, IL 60018 (84 7) 823-0500 I FAX (84 7) 823-0520

TITLE

LAKE COUNTY SMC

PROJECT NO.

180324.00001

US-41 /SKOKIE RIVER ORAi NAGE IMPROVEMENTS OVERALL EXHIBIT

DATE

1/5/2021

EXHIBIT 1

9.6 WRAPP Map - Wetlands in Lake County

Appendices List

275

APPENDIX 9.6

276

9.7 WRAPP Map – Wetlands in Lake Bluff Area

Appendices List

277

APPENDIX 9.7

278

9.8 WRAPP Map – Hydric Soils on and around LBGC

Appendices List

279

APPENDIX 9.8

Great Laties Oulldlng 2217

/09/1

Lake Bluff Go/I Club lOA.f'

8d�{f ou£

Pond i

la

Bluff Golf Club

Late Bluff Elementary School uh Bluff Elome"""'7 School

Village of Lake­ Bluff Public Works

I Rd

Lake Bluff Goll Club

w

/09ft Lake Blulf Carrier Annex.

Village of Lake 81utr Publlcwor/<$ Knollwood Fire Department

t..ak�

Blu1 l

Ga

Clu

Pond J Goldman Pona_l

Rockland Rd

Rockland Rd

Thornwood Ln

"' C e Ce:ntnif County Jolr,t Action Water

...,.

Slrkdalt Rd

280

9.9 WRAPP Map – Soil Types on LBGC

Appendices List

281

APPENDIX 9.9

Lake County WRAPP Decision Support Tool - Soils & Hydric Soils Map

Legend

�

Soils-2004 Hydric

Soils-2004 103A- Hou3hton muck 1082A. Millington silt loam 1103A- HoJghton muck 1107A -Sawmill silty clay loam 121 OA Lens muck 1330A - Peotone silty day loam 134A - Camden silt loam 134B - Camden sih loam

146A. Elliottsih loam 146B- Ellio:t silt loam 1529A -Selmass loam 153A. Pelle silty day loam 153A+ - Pella silt loam 189A - Martinton silt loam 189B - Martinton silt loam 192A. Del Rey silt loam 192B Del Rey sih loam 219A - Millbrook silt loam

:n:=rn - VArnA o::ilt k1Am � 223C2 - Vama silt loam 228A - Napoanee silt loam 228B - Nappanee silt loam

1/J' 1/,?

228B2 - Nappanee sifty day loam 228C2 - Na:ipanee silty day loam 232A. Ashkum silty day loam 23A- Blount silt loam 23B Blount silt loam

282

X

9.10 WRAPP Map – Potentially Restorable Wetland Areas on LBGC

Appendices List

283

i

APPENDIX 9.10

Wetland Areas - Highlighting the Golf Course

i

-

Eh

Green areas are approximate locations of current wetlands Blue areas are water bodies Purple areas are Potentially Restorable Wetlands Source: Lake County Wetland Restoration And Preservation Plan on-line Decision Support Tool

284

APPENDIX 10. DONOR COMMUNICATION

Appendices List

285

APPENDIX 10 - Donor Communication Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:41 AM To: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Subject: Land Use Citizen Task Force Mr. Bealer, It has come to my attention that the Land Use Citizen Task Force is not taking into consideration the $1 million donation when analyzing the various options for the golf course. We would still like to remain anonymous, but request you share this commitment letter with the Land Use Task so they realize that we, as Lake Bluff residents of more than xx years, are behind this and have no other motives. While they can know our names, we request they respect our anonymity.

My XX and I will donate UP to $1 million for the creation and restoration of a prairie should the park district choose to convert ALL of the current Lake Bluff Golf Course into the proposed wetlands and savannah. This solution will potentially save millions in the coming years that the Park District will have to spend on capital improvements.

"Creation and restoration" refers to educational and passive recreation within the natural spaces. For example: any reseeding/planting of the prairie and creating trails, boardwalks, and viewing platforms throughout the prairie. We will also pay for short term maintenance. We are committed for up to 5 years or $1 million, whichever comes first, to help maintain the prairie and it's infrastructure going forward.

While our goal is to not call attention to ourselves for this donation, it's come to our attention that several people are questioning the validity of this "anonymous" donation. Furthermore, we believe by letting residents know this isn't a corporate donation, it will encourage fellow Lake Bluff residents to step forward with additional donations to build upon this seemingly financially and environmentally beneficial opportunity for our town. Their donations could go towards a dog park, biking/sledding hill, ecological and environmental educational classes, and other opportunities that will surely arise. These activities outside the scope of the prairie should be paid for by the wetland credits and other donors.

We hope this donation, along with the money earned from the wetland credits, will alleviate the burden on the taxpayers for the upcoming restoration of the Lake Bluff beach. Feel free to call me with questions. I can be reached at xxx-xx-xxxx. Please let members of the Land Use Task Force and Park District Board know I am happy to meet with anyone in my office

286

From Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:51 AM To: John Bealer <jbealer@lakebluffparkdistrict.org> Cc: Subject: Task Force Questions Mr. Bealer – XXXXX discussed these questions and our response is below underlined. Thanks.

Mr. XXXX, Two of the Task Force Members asked me to forward the following message and attachment. Thank you

Thank you for the very generous offer you have made in support of wetlands at the Lake Bluff Golf Club.

As the Land Use Task Force considers alternative uses for the golf course property, there are four points we wish to clarify regarding the conditions of your offer related to its conversion to a natural area.

Given that the Task Force is asking these questions, it would make sense that Chair Krause joins us when we meet. Could you please invite him.

Context: The golf course parcel includes approximately 95 acres of lowlands along the river and approximately 50 acres of uplands along the eastern side of the parcel. The Lowlands and Uplands are distinctive and separated by a difference in elevation as well as soil type. Conversion of the Lowlands to a functioning wetland/savannah is relatively straightforward. The Uplands are more suitable to a prairie; extensive earthmoving and soil replacement would be required to convert the uplands to the wetland/savannah condition.

A draft rendering of the Lowland and Upland areas is attached. The Lowland area is in green and blue. The eastern Upland is in tan. An orange buffer line separates these two topographic/soil regions. The perimeter of the golf course is a dashed yellow line. The river is a purple line.

Presuming that the golf course is converted into a natural environment: 1) Would you accommodate and fund passive recreation in the Lowlands/Wetlands (e.g., walking paths, bridges, benches)?

Yes. We would pay for all walking paths, bridges, benches, etc. within the

287

preserve -both wetlands and prairie.

2) Would you accommodate and fund use of the Upland section as a Prairie which could be used for passive recreation (e.g., walking paths, benches) and educational programming (e.g., rustic seating for a class)? Yes - but our understanding is that SMC would pay for the conversation from golf course to Prairie. Based on all information we have heard - the entire golf course acreage is eligible to convert to a wetlands prairie. Perhaps we should dial in the guy from SMC to clarify.

3) Would you accommodate and fund use of a portion of the Upland Prairie for more active purposes? For example, athletic field(s), a different kind of golf experience which could exploit the prairie (Nine-hole, Par 3), dog walking park, jogging paths. No. We like the idea of dog parks, biking hills, athletic fields, but that would be funded by other donors or the credits. We do not think golf is economically feasible and therefore we require that there is no golf course (if you choose to have a 9 hole, we will not provide funding).

4) Would you accommodate the continued use of the clubhouse as an eating establishment which overlooks the natural areas? This could allow a continued revenue source for the Park District.

Sure. It would not be funded by us, but the park district is welcome to repurpose that space so it makes sense for the community.

Most importantly, XXX and I want this opportunity to be voted on by the community. While I love the idea of creating open space that makes environmental and economical sense, the community should have a say in what they want. I know that is what this task force was created for. Thank you for your work on this topic. I would welcome meeting with you or anyone else on the task force to discuss this further.

XXXXX

288

11. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Appendices List

289

APPENDIX 11 - GLOSSARY These are definitions of terms that are used in the Task Force Report or are otherwise useful for understanding stormwater storage. acre-foot A unit of volume equal to one acre in area (about the size of a football field) and one foot in depth. An acre-foot can be configured in any combination of area and depth (for example, ½ acre and 2 feet deep). One acre-foot contains 326,851 gallons; 40 acre-feet contains a little over 13 million gallons. detention basin, detention pond An area intended to hold stormwater temporarily, until it runs out or is absorbed. A detention pond (also called a dry pond) is usually empty except immediately after a storm. (Compare to retention pond to see the difference.) hydric soil Soil that has been saturated by water, seasonally or year-round, resulting in anaerobic, or lowoxygen, conditions hydrologic cycle A continuous process by which water is purified by evaporation and transported from the earth's surface (including the oceans) to the atmosphere and back to the land and oceans hydrology The science that encompasses the occurrence, distribution, movement, and properties of the waters of the earth and their relationship with the environment within each phase of the hydrologic cycle hydrophyte Any plant adapted to grow wholly or partly submerged in water or wet habitats flood, 100-year A flood resulting from a storm event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. Also called base flood for FEMA purposes. Contrary to common interpretation, it does not mean a flood that only happens every 100 years. floodplain Any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source

290

floodway The stream channel and that portion of the adjacent floodplain that must remain open to permit passage of the base flood (aka 100-year flood) flood fringe The remainder of the floodplain beyond the floodway

Adapted from https://emilms.fema.gov/is_0727/groups/36.html)

mitigation bank A wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area that has been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources A mitigation bank may be created when a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity undertakes these activities under a formal agreement with a regulatory agency. Mitigation banks have four distinct components: 1. Mitigation bank site: the physical acreage restored, established, enhanced, or preserved 2. Mitigation bank instrument: the formal agreement between the bank owners and regulators establishing liability, performance standards, management and monitoring requirements, and the terms of bank credit approval 3. Interagency Review Team (IRT): the interagency team that provides regulatory review, approval, and oversight of the bank 4. Service area: the geographic area in which permitted impacts can be compensated for at a given bank

291

retention basin, retention pond A stormwater control structure that captures and retains stormwater runoff. A retention pond (also called a wet pond) always contains water. (Compare to detention pond to see the difference.) wetland Areas with the presence of these three characteristics: • • •

Water in or above the soil at least part of the year Hydric soil Hydrophytic vegetation

"Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. …" - Definition used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the 1970s for regulatory purposes Wetlands are areas where the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or near the soil surface (wetland hydrology) drives the natural system—meaning the kind of soils that form (hydric soils), the plants that grow (hydrophytes), and the wildlife communities that use the habitat.

When the upper part of the soil is saturated with water at growing-season temperatures, soil organisms consume the oxygen in the soil and cause conditions unsuitable for most plants.

Such conditions also cause the development of soil characteristics (such as color and texture) of so-called "hydric soils." The plants that can grow in such conditions, such as marsh grasses, are called "hydrophytes." Together, hydric soils and hydrophytes give clues that a wetland area is present.

292