Report To Western Springs On Interstate 294 Project's Effects and Email With Resident's Concerns

Mallory A.
Milluzzi
From: Ziegler, Jill <JZiegler@getipass.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 3:02 PM
To: Alice F. Gallagher; Ellen Baer; Casey Biernacki
Cc: Zucchero, Rocco; Allen, Jeffrey
Subject: RE: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance
Attachments: 4326_Commonwealth Storm Water_JS_12_19_2022.pdf
Hi President Gallagher,
While Rocco is out of the office, we wanted to respond with a memo to you addressing Mr. Fulghum’s concerns about
drainage and detention in the Commonwealth area. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or
comments and we will respond with more information.
I have been working on the land acquisition case with Commonwealth and mentioned to their attorney Mike Ryan that
we were developing a memo regarding Mr. Fulghum’s concerns, and he asked if we could receive a copy. If you’re
comfortable with that, I’ll forward to him as well.
Hope you have a wonderful holiday! As always please reach out if you need anything. – Jill
From: Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com>

To: Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>
Cc: Casey Biernacki <CBiernacki@wsprings.com>; Ellen Baer <ebaer@wsprings.com>
Subject: Fwd: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance
Hi Rocco,
Would you care to reply or provide me with the detailed info to respond? I
understand that the cul de sac buildout is part of the equation on the WS side but please let me know if there is more to
it than that.
Thank you! See you Thursday,
Alice
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: December 13, 2022 at 9:04:11 AM CST
To: "Alice F. Gallagher" <agallagher@wsprings.com>
Subject: Re: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance
…so Commonwealth receives an open retention pond surrounded by a chain link fence and Hinsdale
receives an underground vault that will be landscaped. The tollway told Hinsdale that the costs are
about the same. So why can’t Western Springs receive the same solution??
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 12, 2022, at 7:20 PM, Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com> wrote:

1
Thank you for forwarding.
Sincerely,
Alice
On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

wrote:
Hi Alice
…more on the subject.
Sent from my iPad
From: David Fulghum <dave.fulghum@att.net>

Date: December 5, 2022 at 7:37:04 PM CST
To: dave.fulghum@att.net
Cc:
Subject: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance
2
We have not had any recent update on our HOA
negotiations with the Tollway. That’s likely because the
Tollway was busy cutting a sweet deal with Hinsdale.
See the attached newspaper article. Hinsdale gets an
underground storm water storage basin and
Commonwealth gets a pond of contaminated water
surrounded by a chain link fence. Note how outspoken
the Hinsdale Village President is compared to how quiet
our Western Springs President is. Western Springs
village president is on the Tollway Board of Directors. If
anyone is interested – read the Tollway by-laws –
Article VII page 8. It could be a criminal offense for our
Village President to do or say anything that is not in the
best interest of the Tollway. I have been told by one of
our HOA board members that “Western Springs is on
the side of the Tollway.”
Note the special credit given to attorney Bill Ryan. He is

with the same law firm our HOA hired. The difference is
we got his son. Maybe we should have paid a little extra
to get the top guy.
For those of you who don’t know who I am, I have

owned a townhouse on 49th Court South for almost 20
years. The infamous 49th street ditch is in my back yard.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer and a CPA. I
have 25 years of experience in the corporate world and
another 25 years of experience as a consultant. I was
involved in over 1,000 consulting projects in those 25
years for companies like Shell, Ford, Volvo, Deere, and
Caterpillar. The reason I am telling you this is because I
am going to criticize a Patrick Engineering consulting
report that our HOA paid a few thousand dollars to
have prepared. I can read and understand an
engineering consultant report.
Before I talk about the engineering report, my bank just

notified me that my townhouse is now in a flood zone I
need to pay $2,000 for flood insurance. The bank tried
this two years ago and thanks to a letter from FEMA
provided by Gurrie Rhoads I was able to avoid flood
insurance. Our HOA Board needs to take this seriously,
since the HOA will be required to provide flood
insurance if required. What do you think will happen to
the value of your townhome if it’s in a flood zone and
your HOA dues are increased by $2,000 a year. If we
continue to let the Tollway have their way, we will likely
be in a flood zone very soon.
Patrick Engineering does millions of dollars of business

with the Tollway. They stand to lose a lot if they pick a
fight with the Tollway. The Patrick report dated
3
04/02/2021 was to review the Tollway work around
Commonwealth as it relates to storm water and
flooding. Our HOA paid several thousand dollars for this
report. Patrick was very careful to avoid reporting
anything that would be damaging to the Tollway in this
report.
Let’s start with the bottom line. There is a significant

storm water problem between Hinsdale and the
Tollway, and the amount of storm water being
discharged into the 49th street ditch. The amount of
storm water discharged into the 49th street ditch and
Flagg Creek is three times what is allowed by law. I
estimate it will cost $30 million to bring it up to code.
Nobody wants to talk about the $30 million problem.
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)

is a government agency tasked with protecting our
property and lives from flooding. They have an
ordinance in place which is very specific. Not once in
the Patrick report was the MWRD or the ordinance
mentioned. That’s like reporting on an addition to a
building and not mentioning that the building violates
the zoning code and the building code by three times.
Page 3 of the attachment to the subject Patrick report

has the key facts. The area of Hinsdale that drains into
the 49th street ditch is 0.72 Sq. miles. That all the homes
and street between 47th street and 55th street and west
from the Tollway to past County Line Road halfway to
downtown Hinsdale. There are a lot of multimillion-
dollar houses in that area that dump their storm water
in our back yards.
A quick calculation of the numbers in the chart on that

page says that area of Hinsdale dumps about 0.6
CFS/acre of storm water in the 49th street ditch. The
MWRD ordinance allows only 0.2 CFS/acre. Easy math –
that’s three times what is allowed by law. Let’s ignore
the 600-pound gorilla in the room.
That may not seem like a lot of water until you run the
numbers. I estimate about 200 Ac Ft of storm water in
24 hours. Enough water to fill a 20-story building the
size of a football field. It’s a big problem – we need to
address it.
The Patrick report says during a big storm, the flood

water behind my townhouse will be about 5 feet above
flood stage calculated to within 0.01 feet or 1/8 inch.
The waves on the flooding behind my house are higher
than 1/8 inch. Patrick Engineer is that smart (calculate
4
flooding within 1/8 inch deep), but they failed to notice
and report that there will be three times as much flood
water behind my house, and your house, then allowed
by law.
I have a friend in Ft Meyers, they only got a few inches

of water in their house. It’s costing more to fix the
damage than they paid for the house.
I asked our HOA board to partner with Hinsdale and our

board said they were not interested in working with
Hinsdale. I have been raising these issues for a couple of
years. I can count on one hand the number of
Commonwealth owners who publicly support getting
serious about this. The folks in Hinsdale speak up – they
got a much better deal - they live in homes that are
worth 10 times what our home are worth. Maybe
there’s a lesson here.
Dave Fulghum
708-446-3321
<Hinsdale tollway agreement.pdf>
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any
attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not a named recipient, or if you are named but believe that you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return
e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that
any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this
message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality, and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. Thank you for your cooperation.
5
Mallory A. Milluzzi
From: Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Alice F. Gallagher
Cc: Casey Biernacki; Ellen Baer
Yes, we will work on a reply and will send it to you before sending it along to the HOA. We have been actively engaged
with the HOA and their attorney (Mike Ryan) - the son of Bill Ryan who is referenced in the e-mail.
I’ll loop back around with our team today and get something prepared.
Thanks
Rocco
(Sorry I thought I sent this yesterday, but saw it was stuck in my outbox. If you received this twice my apologies).
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:55:57 PM
To: Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>
Cc: Casey Biernacki <CBiernacki@wsprings.com>; Ellen Baer <ebaer@wsprings.com>
Hi Rocco,
it than that.
Alice
From:
Sent from my iPad
6
,
Sincerely,
Alice
On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

wrote:
Hi Alice
Sent from my iPad

Cc: c
7


to get the top guy.


8
report.



in our back yards.

address it.
9
by law.


Dave Fulghum
708-446-3321
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any
attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not a named recipient, or if you are named but believe that you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return
e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that
any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this
message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality, and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. Thank you for your cooperation.
10
Mallory A. Milluzzi
From: Alice F. Gallagher

To: Rocco Zucchero
Cc: Casey Biernacki; Ellen Baer
Hi Rocco,
it than that.
Alice
From:
Sent from my iPad
Sincerely,
Alice
On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

wrote:
Hi Alice
Sent from my iPad
11

Cc: c

12

to get the top guy.



report.

13


in our back yards.

address it.

by law.


14
Dave Fulghum
708-446-3321
15
Mallory A. Milluzzi
From: Alice F. Gallagher

Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 8:09 AM
To: Ellen Baer
Cc: Zucchero, Rocco
Thank you, all. I’ve responded to the
Alice
On Dec 6, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Ellen Baer <ebaer@wsprings.com> wrote:
Thank you for sending this to me. I will talk with Jeff and Casey tomorrow morning.
Ellen
On Dec 6, 2022, at 8:36 PM, Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com> wrote:
Thanks. I haven’t seen this one yet. I will share with the team and prepare to reply if
deemed necessary.
Thanks
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alice Gallagher <

To: Ellen Baer <ebaer@wsprings.com>; Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>
Just fyi - forwarded to me by
Alice
From:
To: Alice Gallagher <
Sent from my iPhone
21

Cc:

22

to get the top guy.



report.

23


in our back yards.

address it.

by law.


24
Dave Fulghum
708-446-3321
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended
recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged
or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named recipient, or if you
are named but believe that you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or
return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your system. If you are
not the intended recipient, please be aware that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of
this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this message is not intended to
waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality, and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not
binding on the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. Thank you for your cooperation.
25
Mallory A. Milluzzi
From: Ellen Baer

To: Zucchero, Rocco
Cc: Alice F. Gallagher
Thank you for sending this to me. I will talk with Jeff and Casey tomorrow morning.
Ellen
On Dec 6, 2022, at 8:36 PM, Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com> wrote:
Thanks. I haven’t seen this one yet. I will share with the team and prepare to reply if deemed
necessary.
Thanks
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alice Gallagher <g >

To: Ellen Baer <ebaer@wsprings.com>; Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>
Just fyi - forwarded to me by
Alice
From:
To: Alice Gallagher <
Sent from my iPhone

Cc:
31
We have not had any recent update on our HOA negotiations with the
Tollway. That’s likely because the Tollway was busy cutting a sweet deal
with Hinsdale. See the attached newspaper article. Hinsdale gets an
underground storm water storage basin and Commonwealth gets a
pond of contaminated water surrounded by a chain link fence. Note
how outspoken the Hinsdale Village President is compared to how quiet
our Western Springs President is. Western Springs village president is on
the Tollway Board of Directors. If anyone is interested – read the
Tollway by-laws – Article VII page 8. It could be a criminal offense for
our Village President to do or say anything that is not in the best
interest of the Tollway. I have been told by one of our HOA board
members that “Western Springs is on the side of the Tollway.”
Note the special credit given to attorney Bill Ryan. He is with the same
law firm our HOA hired. The difference is we got his son. Maybe we
should have paid a little extra to get the top guy.
For those of you who don’t know who I am, I have owned a townhouse
on 49th Court South for almost 20 years. The infamous 49th street ditch
is in my back yard. I am a Registered Professional Engineer and a CPA. I
have 25 years of experience in the corporate world and another 25
years of experience as a consultant. I was involved in over 1,000
consulting projects in those 25 years for companies like Shell, Ford,
Volvo, Deere, and Caterpillar. The reason I am telling you this is because
I am going to criticize a Patrick Engineering consulting report that our
32
HOA paid a few thousand dollars to have prepared. I can read and
understand an engineering consultant report.
Before I talk about the engineering report, my bank just notified me

that my townhouse is now in a flood zone I need to pay $2,000 for flood
insurance. The bank tried this two years ago and thanks to a letter from
FEMA provided by Gurrie Rhoads I was able to avoid flood insurance.
Our HOA Board needs to take this seriously, since the HOA will be
required to provide flood insurance if required. What do you think will
happen to the value of your townhome if it’s in a flood zone and your
HOA dues are increased by $2,000 a year. If we continue to let the
Tollway have their way, we will likely be in a flood zone very soon.
Patrick Engineering does millions of dollars of business with the Tollway.

They stand to lose a lot if they pick a fight with the Tollway. The Patrick
report dated 04/02/2021 was to review the Tollway work around
Commonwealth as it relates to storm water and flooding. Our HOA paid
several thousand dollars for this report. Patrick was very careful to avoid
reporting anything that would be damaging to the Tollway in this report.
Let’s start with the bottom line. There is a significant storm water
problem between Hinsdale and the Tollway, and the amount of storm
water being discharged into the 49th street ditch. The amount of storm
water discharged into the 49th street ditch and Flagg Creek is three
times what is allowed by law. I estimate it will cost $30 million to bring it
up to code. Nobody wants to talk about the $30 million problem.
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) is a government

agency tasked with protecting our property and lives from flooding.
They have an ordinance in place which is very specific. Not once in the
Patrick report was the MWRD or the ordinance mentioned. That’s like
reporting on an addition to a building and not mentioning that the
building violates the zoning code and the building code by three times.
Page 3 of the attachment to the subject Patrick report has the key facts.
The area of Hinsdale that drains into the 49th street ditch is 0.72 Sq.
miles. That all the homes and street between 47th street and 55th street
and west from the Tollway to past County Line Road halfway to
downtown Hinsdale. There are a lot of multimillion-dollar houses in that
area that dump their storm water in our back yards.
A quick calculation of the numbers in the chart on that page says that
area of Hinsdale dumps about 0.6 CFS/acre of storm water in the 49th
street ditch. The MWRD ordinance allows only 0.2 CFS/acre. Easy math
– that’s three times what is allowed by law. Let’s ignore the 600-pound
gorilla in the room.
That may not seem like a lot of water until you run the numbers. I
estimate about 200 Ac Ft of storm water in 24 hours. Enough water to
fill a 20-story building the size of a football field. It’s a big problem – we
need to address it.
33
The Patrick report says during a big storm, the flood water behind my
townhouse will be about 5 feet above flood stage calculated to within
0.01 feet or 1/8 inch. The waves on the flooding behind my house are
higher than 1/8 inch. Patrick Engineer is that smart (calculate flooding
within 1/8 inch deep), but they failed to notice and report that there
will be three times as much flood water behind my house, and your
house, then allowed by law.
I have a friend in Ft Meyers, they only got a few inches of water in their
house. It’s costing more to fix the damage than they paid for the house.
I asked our HOA board to partner with Hinsdale and our board said they
were not interested in working with Hinsdale. I have been raising these
issues for a couple of years. I can count on one hand the number of
Commonwealth owners who publicly support getting serious about this.
The folks in Hinsdale speak up – they got a much better deal - they live
in homes that are worth 10 times what our home are worth. Maybe
Dave Fulghum
708-446-3321
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only. This
e-mail and any attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named recipient, or if you are named but believe that you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies
thereof from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure
or other use of this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any
applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality, and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority. Thank you for your cooperation.
34
Dear Mr. Powell and Mr. Keane,
This letter seeks to compile and answer common questions we have received from Commonwealth HOA board
members, residents, Village of Western Springs staff and elected officials.
Most frequently we receive questions regarding stormwater management, noise and noise abatement walls, and
construction activities and timing. We have separated this document into sections covering these topics.
Thank you,
Kristi Bruno
Stormwater Management
What is a watershed?
A watershed is land area that channels rainfall and snowmelt to creeks, streams, and rivers, and eventually to
outflow points such as reservoirs, bays, and the ocean.
How does Flagg Creek watershed operate?

The Commonwealth neighborhood falls within the Flagg Creek Watershed. Flagg Creek originates in DuPage
County in the Village of Clarendon Hills, then flows eastward underground in a pipe through the Village of
Hinsdale until it surfaces near Veeck Park. It then goes under the Tollway into Western Springs at Spring Rock
Park and flows down the western side of Western Springs for approximately nine miles in a southerly direction
before discharging to the Des Plaines River just downstream of Willow Springs. Its 18 square mile watershed
receives runoff from suburban Cook and DuPage counties.
How is the Army Corps of Engineers involved in the Central Tri-State (I-294) project?
The Tollway acquired permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers for this project. This includes providing
water quality treatment for proposed pavement widening. The USACE permit is necessary for any work,
including construction and dredging, in the Nation's navigable waters and wetlands. The USACE also considers
water quality treatment for the stormwater runoff from the proposed pavement widening as part of the permit
evaluation. The Corps balances the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments of proposed projects and
makes permit decisions that recognize the essential values of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems to the general
public, as well as the property rights of private citizens who want to use their land. During the permit process,
the Corps considers the views of other Federal, state and local agencies, interest groups, and the general public.
The results of this careful public interest review are fair and equitable decisions that allow reasonable use of
private property, infrastructure development, and growth of the economy, while offsetting the authorized
impacts to the waters of the US. The adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are offset by mitigation
requirements, which may include restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving aquatic functions and values.
The Tollway’s Central Tri-State (I-294) Project received an Individual 404 permit issued from the USACE for the
entire Central Tri-State corridor on May 22, 2019.
What is an impervious surface?

An impervious surface is any area within a parcel which prevents or significantly impedes the infiltration of
stormwater into the soil. Examples of impervious surfaces include: Roads, parking lots, roofs, driveways, patios,
sidewalks, swimming pools, and gravel and stone areas. As pervious areas (natural soil) are paved, increased
amounts of stormwater runoff are generated, placing an increased demand on the stormwater system.
Illinois Tollway is adding a lot of new, impervious driving surfaces along I-294 for the Central Tri-State project;
what happens to the water run off?
As part of the Central Tri-State project, the existing storm sewers are being replaced with the new pavement
being built. The stormwater system has been sized to capture all the runoff from the Tollway pavement. Where
possible, the sewers are being piped into ditches and detention basins that can help filter the water and control
its outflow to various receiving bodies of water (such as Flagg Creek and the Des Plaines River). The detention
basins are sized to store the additional volume of water created by the new impervious surfaces so that the rate
of flow to the receiving waters will not increase from the current outflow rate after the work is complete; this
means there will be no stormwater impacts to adjacent properties as a result of the work for this project.
Read the Tollway’s Drainage Concept Report.
How is the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency involved in this project?

The Tollway has also acquired permits from the IEPA for this project. This includes providing water quality
treatment for proposed pavement widening. Additionally, the Illinois Tollway provides Annual Reports to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) as required by NPDES permit number ILR400494 for Stormwater
Discharges from an MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System). Typical best management practices (BMPs)
used by Tollway projects to improve water quality include naturalized detention ponds, vegetated roadside
ditches, water quality stormwater treatment structures and bioswales. As required by the permit, the Tollway
evaluates the effectiveness of stormwater BMPs and has performed detailed analysis of the improvements.
Pollutant reductions resulting from the previously implemented Tollway stormwater improvements can be
found in the Monitoring and Reporting section of the NPDES Annual Report.
Learn more about the Illinois Tollway’s Sustainability Initiatives.
Can Tollway direct the flow of water elsewhere?

Illinois Drainage Law requires that the natural flow of any water not be changed to maintain a balanced
ecosystem, this holds for any all development within the State. The Tollway cannot block natural flow patterns
from upstream to the Commonwealth area and further downstream. Tollway policy is to ensure that
stormwater detention is provided for all impervious area on the system to maintain existing flow rates to
sensitive outlets.
The Central Tri-State’s design will address aspects of stormwater runoff quantity, requiring adherence to existing
drainage patterns along with prohibiting an increase in stormwater runoff release rates and the ponding of
water on adjacent properties. The Tollway’s drainage design criteria and guidelines are a commitment to meet,
if not exceed, county and municipal requirements throughout the project area. A key aspect of meeting these
requirements is achieved using stormwater detention facilities. These facilities will capture runoff and hold
water coming from the roadway to control the rate at which water is released from the stormwater outlets. The
Tollway is also pursuing opportunities to improve detention systems through the design of regional detention
basins that can assist in reducing flooding in the general project area. To achieve this, the Tollway has worked
with the counties and municipalities to identify and address flood-prone areas and opportunities where
additional detention volume can be achieved.
Learn more about the Illinois Tollway’s Central Tri-State stormwater management plan.
How does the 49th Street ditch fit into this and what is the history of the ditch?
The 49th Street ditch has existed dating back to at least 1930s according to USGS aerial photos. As part of the
Flagg Creek watershed tributary system the 49th Street ditch carries stormwater that comes from west of the I-
294, under the Tollway through the Commonwealth neighborhood and outlets into Flagg Creek. The ditch and
associated culvert under the Tollway existed prior to the development of the Commonwealth neighborhood.
When the Commonwealth neighborhood was created the developer purchased property from the Tollway in the
vicinity of the ditch. As part of the transaction the Tollway retained an easement to access the ditch. The Tollway
proposed improvements do not increase the rate of flow into the 49th St. Ditch from the current condition.
At the eastern end of the ditch is an inverted siphon carrying the creek water under a Flagg Creek Water
Reclamation District utility line. The metal grate is there to prevent debris from damaging the utility line. The
inverted siphon was constructed in 1972 and was permitted through the Hinsdale Sanitary District.
Periodically, the metal grate needs to be cleared of accumulated debris so the siphon can operate properly. The
Tollway proposed improvements do not impact this siphon.
We are exploring the ways to reduce the amount of debris that enters the creek from upstream.
What are the current plans for managing or improving stormwater management through and near
Commonwealth?
As part of the Central Tri-State project the Tollway will be creating over 15 acre-feet (about 25,000 cubic yards)
of stormwater detention storage within the Flagg Creek watershed. Most of this volume is provided within
proposed above-ground detention facilities, such as those being proposed within the Commonwealth
neighborhood, with some storage provided within oversized conveyance pipes. This volume is equal to
approximately 6 football fields storing approximately 6” of water depth. The Tollway has plans to create two
detention basins within the Commonwealth neighborhood. Basin A will be located just west of the HOA basin
on the 5000 block of Commonwealth Drive, with a proposed capacity of about 1.77 acre-feet (2,850 cubic yards).
Basin B will be located at the far southern end of Commonwealth Drive just north of 55th St., with a proposed
capacity of 1.00 acre-foot (1,600 cubic yards).
Regarding the 49th Street ditch, the Tollway will be making improvements upstream and installing detention
facilities on the west side of the Tollway to ensure the flow of water into the ditch from the Tollway remains the
same. Additionally, efforts are being made to help reduce the amount of debris coming in from upstream. The
Tollway was provided a copy of a preliminary Flagg Creek and 49th Street Ditch streambank erosion evaluation
that was completed in 2014 by the Commonwealth Homeowners Association. The findings showed that due to
invasive vegetation, the streambank side slopes had mostly eroded. The report recommended the invasive
vegetation be cleared and install appropriate deep-rooted plants to naturally control future erosion. The
Tollway is in discussions with the Commonwealth HOA to potentially help address some of the erosion concerns.
View the proposed design at the Virtual Open House.
How is MWRD involved in this project?

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) has been involved from the beginning of
this project, highlighting the importance of stormwater management. MWRD is responsible for and has been
issuing permits for sewer outfalls to waterways and sanitary sewer relocations that are being built as part of the
project. A Watershed Management Ordinance (WMO) permit is required and has been submitted for §201.2
activities, such as qualified sewer, outfalls to waterways, or modification of an MWRD permitted detention
facility. Since the Tollway stormwater detention required volume is more stringent than MWRD requirements,
MWRD accepts Tollway practices for capturing runoff for proposed roadway improvements before draining into
sensitive outlets.
How is the Tollway addressing stormwater management?

The Tollway has been diligently working to design the Central Tri-State project and kept drainage at the
forefront of the effort. The Tollway continues to work with the municipalities and counties throughout the
project area to address the goals of improving stormwater management and drainage.
Drainage design criteria and guidelines were established to ensure that all new runoff generated by the project
is detained within the Tollway’s right-of-way. The guidelines also ensure the release of stormwater runoff is
done so in a controlled manner that meets current release rates. Further, the drainage design criteria and
guidelines were created at a minimum to meet, if not exceed, county and municipal requirements. The Tollway
approaches drainage from both a quality and quantity perspective. Drainage improvements are an integral part
of roadway design and often result in right-of-way acquisition to ensure appropriate accommodations are
provided. Land acquisition necessary for project drainage was already included in the land needs shared with
communities and homeowners.
Learn more about the stormwater management design criteria.
Who do I contact with my stormwater concerns?

Please contact your HOA representatives to report any concerns. The Tollway works directly with the
Commonwealth HOAs on all aspects of the project. Alternately, you may contact Kristi Bruno at
kbruno@omegaassociates.com or (630) 470-0180 who is working with the Tollway on the Central Tri-State
project and is the main point of contact for the Commonwealth area.
Noise and Noise Abatement Walls

Has the noise from the expansion been evaluated?
In accordance with the Tollway’s Traffic Noise Study and Abatement Policy, the Tollway has conducted a noise
analysis for the I-294 corridor to help assist the Tollway in identifying areas for additional noise solutions. The policy
outlines specific measurements and considerations that all factor into proposed noise abatement measures. The
Tollway has also prepared a Central Tri-State Noisewall Brochure highlighting all the essentials regarding noisewalls.
Where are noise abatement walls planned for in the Commonwealth?

The Tollway will be replacing all the existing noise walls in the Commonwealth neighborhood and installing new
walls from 47th Street to 55th Street. Location and limits of the noise walls can be viewed at the Virtual Open
House. View the Virtual Open House.
When will the noise wall be removed and replaced near the Commonwealth area?
The noise wall is scheduled to be removed during mainline I-294 construction, as early as 2023. The removal and
replacement of these noise walls will be communicated to adjacent residents and the HOA in advance of the
removal. Typically, communication consists of updates to the Village and HOA, resident letters mailed to homes,
and construction signage with a 24/7 construction hotline phone number.
How long will the noise wall be down during the removal and replacement?
The noise wall in the Commonwealth area is scheduled to be removed and replaced during one construction
season. A typical construction season runs spring into late fall. We do work closely with our contractors to
expedite noise wall construction whenever possible to provide as much continued traffic noise abatement as we
can during this time.
Who do I contact with my noise concerns?

Please contact your HOA representatives to report any concerns. The Tollway works directly with the
Commonwealth HOAs on all aspects of the project. Alternately, you may contact Kristi Bruno at
kbruno@omegaassociates.com or (630) 470-0180 who is working with the Tollway on the Central Tri-State
project and is the main point of contact for the Commonwealth area.
Construction Activities and Timing

What is the status of the design for the section near Commonwealth?
The project is still in design. We continue to revise plans based on feedback from the community, issues raised
during meetings with the HOA leaders, and the village. Design plans continue to evolve because we take the
concerns and suggestions of our neighbors and incorporate them into plans whenever possible.
The latest planned improvements can be viewed at the Virtual Open House.
Some advanced construction will occur near Commonwealth—the BNSF bridge over I-294 (project began in
2019), and Flagg Creek Water Reclamation District Sanitary Sewer Relocation (project began in 2020). This work
continues to be communicated to residents who are adjacent to the projects, and who will see activity from
private property. Tollway is committed to open communication and has a team working on outreach and
communication with municipalities, HOAs and residents. You should expect to continue to hear from our
outreach team throughout the project. If you have specific questions, you may reach out to them at any time.
When will mainline construction start near the Commonwealth?

Mainline I-294 construction is anticipated to begin as early as 2023 in this area.
What protections will be in place for the adjacent property owners while the noise wall is down?
The contractor will install an 8-foot site-screened fence to protect the work zone and provide a concrete barrier
jersey wall near the construction zone, or existing or new noise wall between the work and the Commonwealth.
Traffic will be shifted away from the noise wall to create a work zone as depicted in the graphic.
Typical work zone with site temporary fence, work zone, and barrier area:
Example of site-screened fence on the northern section of the Central Tri-State project near Schiller Park:
Example of a site-screened fence near the Heatherfields subdivision in Burr Ridge:
Who can I contact with questions during construction?

Please contact Kristi Bruno at kbruno@omegaassociates.com or (630) 470-0180. Kristi will serve as Tollway’s
main point of contact for the Commonwealth area.
September 4, 2020
Mr. Rocco Zucchero

Deputy Chief of Engineering for Planning
Illinois Tollway
2700 Ogden Avenue
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
Re: 47th Street Easements for Stormwater Drainage, Potable Water and Real property
Storm Sewer Separation Project in the Old Town Subdivision
49th Street Ditch Improvements within Commonwealth in The Village Subdivision
Dear Mr. Zucchero,
Based on our recent conversions regarding the above matters, the Village of Western Springs has
prepared this letter to confirm its support of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (“Illinois
Tollway”) with regard to certain proposed stormwater drainage improvements and proposed
easement acquisitions and real property acquisitions that are contemplated adjacent to the following
Illinois Tollway Project Segments of the I-294, Tri-State Tollway Reconstruction Project: TW-05-
16-059 (formerly known as the Hook Parcel), TW-06-16-143 (a Rhoads Development Company
Parcel).
If the Illinois Tollway were to complete one or more of the proposed easement acquisitions and real
property acquisitions, the Village is willing to enter into one or more easement agreements or
intergovernmental agreements, in general conformance with the concepts and terms expressed in this
letter, to the extent such agreements would allow the Village to complete the following projects or
resolve certain ownership issues where it currently has water main infrastructure outside of any
recorded public utility easement (PUE):
• Storm Sewer Separation Project in The Old Town Subdivision: The Village intends
to install a new storm sewer outfall located directly south of the 47th Street Bridge,
east of I-294 and discharge into the east bank of Flagg Creek. The outfall location of
proposed storm sewer will be located in and adjacent to several Illinois Tollway
owned and Illinois Tollway future acquisition parcels.
• Need for PUE Easement or Fee Simple Conveyance of Real Property for Existing
Water Main: The Village operates an existing potable water main that feeds portions
of the Commonwealth Subdivision. The existing water main runs through portions
of Parcel TW-05-16-059 and Parcel TW-06-16-143, but does not appear to be
located within a recorded PUE.
444088_2
If the Illinois Tollway acquires real property in and adjacent to the proposed Village storm sewer and
existing water main, the Village would request the following:
• A 10 foot wide PUE for the installation of a new storm sewer outfall as shown in
“Exhibit A” in blue through TW-05-16-059.2 and a 10 foot wide PUE for an
existing potable water main located through existing Illinois Tollway ROW (47th
Street) and the triangular parcel of real property (PIN unknown at this time) located
adjacent to and directly northwest of Parcel TW-05-16-059.2
• A10 foot PUE for an existing potable water main to be located along the east and
north property line of Parcel TW-05-16-059.1 and reasonable access rights thereto
from Commonwealth Avenue.
• Discussion of Village take-over of maintenance responsibility for the real property

identified in Exhibit A bounded in magenta from the west normal water line of
Flagg Creek to the east parcel line bounded in magenta for the purposes of providing
maintenance access to its infrastructure.
If the Illinois Tollway pursues acquisition of real property in and adjacent located directly northwest
of Parcel TW-05-16-059.2, the Village understands that the Illinois Tollway agrees to:
• Acquire the Flagg Creek Parcel currently owned by Rhoads identified in magenta as
shown in Exhibit A and engage the Village in discussions pertaining to need of
PUEs for a proposed storm sewer and for an existing water main.
• Replace the existing culvert on Flagg Creek Drive identified in magenta in Exhibit
B along with providing reasonable roadway drainage via inlets and storm sewers and
the replacement of existing curbs, pavement and landscape restoration.
• Install on the west side of the Tollway a new trash rack to minimize debris
conveyance under the Tollway through the 49th Street drainage ditch.
• Perform ditch slope maintenance as agreed with the Commonwealth Homeowners

Association in areas shown in blue on Exhibit B.
The Illinois Tollway and the Village have been in conversation with the Commonwealth
Homeowner’s Association regarding the above improvements to the 49th Street drainage ditch to be
made by the Illinois Tollway, at its cost. As to those conversations, the Illinois Tollway has asked for
the Village to participate in discussions with the Commonwealth Homeowner’s Association as it
relates to maintenance responsibilities in the drainage ditch upon the completion of proposed
improvements by the Illinois Tollway. The Village agrees to participate in conversations pertaining
to debris removal from the concrete siphon that is identified in orange shown on “Exhibit B” and is
part of the 49th Street ditch in the Commonwealth Subdivision. As part of reaching an agreement on
the easement and real property acquisitions above, the Village would be willing to periodically
provide equipment and personnel to remove built-up storm debris from the concrete siphon.
This letter represents a general understanding of the Village regarding the proposed easement and
real estate acquisitions. The final terms of any future easement agreements or intergovernmental
agreement between the Village and the Illinois Tollway will have to be finalized to establish the
specific right-of way, design, construction, cost participation and maintenance responsibilities for
444088_2
each party associated with the easement and real property conveyances should the Illinois Tollway
pursue and secure additional real property or easement area.
If you have any questions, please contact [Insert Name and phone Number]
Sincerely,
Matthew Supert
Director of Municipal Services
CC via email: Ingrid S. Velkme, Village Manager

Michael Jurusik, Klein, Thorpe, & Jenkins
Jeff Ziegler, James J. Benes & Associates
444088_2
!!,I ,-' ,-" ----:..- .".:]:..::l:::j,]: :4:r::1: '-ci-:=r*(iimTtn -' .
s*
r' t.r '
'
I 7-38-12-&- -:
_ ,
-.-SEtTION
-'i- FOUND CUT "+"
PER DOC. NO. 97906620
\
a-l!# 477 H:STR EET-= -{
a
in N. LINE OF THE NW." TER OF SEC
rn
a t- _(75',)_
:::---- \:.-=a.5 -
l-
_E 3.
-rT-
l\l (74.61't tn rn
rs Lof 'l s
=l tl
\ Lol G
t.68 \ \
.s a tn hl
\ \ SOUTH RicHr 0F WAY LINE OF o "N
RT. \ \ 47TH S rREET DOC. NO.
\ \ \
4--
ln
\ \ l0 N
tn
(\ Lof 3 N
.1,
424
----// \ \ :l i#
\
\ \
\ = Ol
o lin
N Lof
t
I I (\
\ \ \ L
\ \ / I c'r+
1 \i F l\o
/ \ \ @ or
s Lof 6
\ \ TW -5- 16- 059.2 c\l tf)
L
\ \ tL
\ \ I 39 7 +26.8 9 rtO
,c\ Lol 6
\ \ ul
\ \ 4 o4 5 I R T o N
\ \ Lol 26 o I rrt@
r-
\ \ N(\I ,rn Lot 7
\ \ \ Fsf rs \!n
in i
l''
Lolg \ \ \ fuat |-
Lol I
ro
\ t. 4. a ts
to (\ I
\ q4- 2D,
\ \
FLAGG CREEK WATER
RECLAMATTON DISTRICT
EASEMENT PER
\ \
\ \ t'
f 7-
-/
I
lst'n
N Lol I ^l
ln
(\r
Doc. N0. 0912133095 \ \ I sl
\ ,- r0 \n
_-z
.{ \ U- =-\
' ..lr
ro
N Lot N
\ \o
TW- 5- 16 - 059.1
\
\
\
\,3 \ N ,; Lof
1r
ttn
C\
\? \ )'" L
FORE
\ I
t'. r2
c$ \ \ \oG 1 LoT
o c\ l.'
\ suE
gv Lot I -.t l
lv) >
\ -;l $ tn
\ :
\ (\ F(r s RECOR'
t* \ :l gor
\ \ ; so i-, I
PBOPOSEI' lsffA \ rt
I
I\
RIGHT OF WAY LITTIE
\ \ iot
\
\ \
\
o
o
\\
2tE
+ o
ro
c'l
rt
(.o
s
Lol
1r
ui.
(\rl
t\ \ \ Lot sr i-a.
rn ro
\ ts Lof
15
sr
-\ \ :L \ \
/ rl
\ \ \
\ \
I ltJ |-U)
.qt
16 to
(\,
1
\ \ .t.r O
\ \_
\ \ ii. > - \; -l
r{r
a
(\
\ \
\
\ \
\ \E
| 'ul
N
r_: _
1
c\
in \ \
\ \
ril\
N\ Lol
to I
C\
Lo|7
\ -'@_
O, \ L--\ \
I
Or
\rh rfl I
I - TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO VILLAGE
. VILLAGE OF WS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY

OF WS
\ \ 2_ = I
\ \
\
\ \
\ F
v
:s
F
\
-\-
Loflg $
I
\ \ .R\ Lof 20
u20') H2')
I . TRANSFER OWNERSHIP TO VILLAGE OF WS
VILLAGE OF WS MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
/
\
\
\
tf
I
\
-n{z't
3+52.A4 \
\ \
I EXISTING VILLAGE OF WS 20' ACCESS EASEMENT
.45', RT.
10122 \
\ 2r
uot \
ffi - REQUIRED UTILIry PERMANENT EASEMENT
92+6,6,.34
$ \
\ \
\
\
\ o
ffiffi - EXISTING IDOT 3O'' STORM SEWER ,7.69' RT.
(75.41')
.n
E3')
t\
..\ 0
ffiffi . PROPOSED 66'' VILLAGE OF WS STORM SEWER
, Ja--tG
-EXISTINGVILLAGEWATERMAINSREQUIRINGPERMANENTEASEMENT
-- - -
-!{-
EXHIBIT A ,0
EON.
ACOUTSITION PFRT, ,0
f;
N
si
s8 ,#'
57rceeT
I
I
I
IT
L tl i
V
Ir
CO NCRETE SI PHO N TO LLWAY STRUCTU RAL MAI NTAI NANCE
VILLAGE OF WS DEBRIS REMOVAL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
') I EXISTING C.M.P. REPLACED BY BOX CULVERT BY TOLLWAY TO
INCLUDE NEW CURB INLETS AND ROADWAY REPAIRS

I
{
I
l DITCH SLOPE REPAIR AND LANDSCAPE BY TOLLWAY
FUTURE MAINTENANCE BY COMMONWEALTH H.O. ASSOCIATION

l
,//
-7
I NEW TRASH RACK WEST SIDE OF CULVERT BY TOLLWAY
EXHIBIT B
APPENDIX F
OUTLET EVALUATION
NOTE - * FLOW FROM SUB-BASIN IS NOT CONSIDRED IN OUTLET EVALUTION
SEE - APPENDIX D _WATER CROSSING # 21
(ANALYZED IN CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT- BY OTHERS)*
VILLAGE OF
HINSDALE
47T
H S
TRE
55T
ET
H S
26A-OS-05*
TRE
24.42 ACRES
ET
26A-03
4.91 ACRES
26A-OS-03
26A-04
29.59 ACRES
25.55 ACRES
26A-OS-04*
37.13 ACRES
(ANALYZED IN CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT- BY OTHERS)*
26A-OS-01
32.73 ACRES
26A-02
26A-04 4.30 ACRES
26A-OS-02
25.55 ACRES
11.66 ACRES
OUTLET 26A
25A-01
21.14 ACRES
26A-01
25C-01
3.38 ACRES
3.11 ACRES
OUTLET 25C EX DETENTION = 0.3 AC-FT
HINSDALE -
I294
OASIS
= $FILEL$
EX DETENTION = 0.3 AC-FT

OUTLET 25B
FILE NAM E
25B-01
OUTLET 25A 4.02 ACRES
0 500 1000 1500

55T
PLOT SCALE = $SCALE$
SCALE IN FEET
H S
VILLAGE OF
TRE
WESTERN
$SIGDRW$ $SIGDATE2$
$SIGREV$ $SIGDATE3$
$SIGLAY$ $SIGDATE1$
ET
SPRING
24F
EXHIBIT 4
(BY OTHERS)
= $DATE$
= $TIM E$
REVISIONS
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY CONTRACT NO. I-17-4298
SB DATE 8/10/2020
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
2 7 0 0 O G D E N A V E N U E DRAWING NO.
LAYOUT
EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN

DRAWN
D O W N E R S G R O V E,
CHECKED BY JV DATE 8/12/2020 1 OF 2
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 HINSDALE OASIS TO 47TH STREET
NOTE - * FLOW FROM SUB-BASIN IS NOT CONSIDRED IN OUTLET EVALUTION
VILLAGE OF (ANALYZED IN CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT - BY OTHERS)*
HINSDALE
47T
H S
TRE
55T
ET
H S
26A-OS-05*
TRE
24.42 ACRES
ET
26A-03
4.31 ACRES
26A-OS-03
29.59 ACRES
26A-04
1.63 ACRES
26A-OS-04*
37.13 ACRES
(ANALYZED IN CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT - BY OTHERS)*
25D-0S-01
34.92 ACRES
26A-OS-02
(OFF SITE AREA)
11.66 ACRES
26A-02
3.88 ACRES
DETENTION POND OUTLET 26A

MP 25.83 SB
COMPENSATORY
645
(Harding Rd)
645
640
STORAGE SITE
640
640
645
645
645
645
25A-02
1
381
37.
5.12 ACRES
25D-01
18.42 ACRES 26A-05
8.45 ACRES
DETENTION POND
MP 26.04NB
26A-06
HINSDALE 26A-01
(Commonwealth Pond)
7.54 ACRES
5.94 ACRES
OASIS
= $FILEL$
DETENTION POND FLAGG CREEK

MP 25.5 NB
FILE NAM E
OUTLET 25D
(55th St Pond)
OUTLET 25A
0 500 1000 1500

55T
25A-01 SCALE IN FEET

H S
18.43 ACRES
VILLAGE OF
TRE
WESTERN
$SIGDRW$ $SIGDATE2$
$SIGREV$ $SIGDATE3$
$SIGLAY$ $SIGDATE1$
ET
SPRING
24F
(BY OTHERS)
EXHIBIT 5
= $DATE$
= $TIM E$
REVISIONS
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY CONTRACT NO. I-17-4298
SB DATE 8/10/2020
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN

DRAWN
APPENDIX F – OUTLET EVALUATION
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................…I
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... II
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................... 2

2.1 GIS DATA .................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 FIELD WALK/SITE VISIT ............................................................................................. 2
2.3 FIELD SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 3
3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 4

3.1 WATERSHED, SUBWATERSHED AND DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION ............... 4
3.2 MODEL PARAMETERS............................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Runoff Curve Numbers ............................................................................... 4
3.2.2 Time of Concentration ................................................................................ 5
3.3 RAINFALL DEPTH AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................... 6
3.4 MODELING SOFTWARE FOR DISCHARGE .............................................................. 7
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGE ......................................................................... 8

4.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 CRITICAL STORM DURATION ANALYSIS ............................................................... ..8
4.3 EXISTING NON-IMPACT ANALYSIS (ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE
CALCULATIONS) ...................................................................................................... 10
5.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAINAGE ................................................................... 13

5.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 13
5.2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 13
5.3 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: GIS Data Summary .................................................................................................... 2
Table 2: NRCS Web Soil Survey HSG and Dual HSG ............................................................. 4
Table 3: Existing Detention Storage Summary....................................................................... ..8
Table 4: Existing Conditions Hydrologic Parameters.............................................................. ..9
Table 5: Critical Duration Analysis – Peak Discharge Summary ............................................ .10
Table 6: Existing Conditions Non-Impact Hydrologic Parameters .......................................... .11
Table 7: Allowable Release Rate Calculations ....................................................................... .12
Table 8: Proposed Hydrologic Parameters and Release Rate ............................................... .14
Table 9: Peak Release Rates Calculation Results – On Site Area ......................................... .15
Table 10: Peak Release Rates Calculation Results – On Site Area + Off Site Areas ............. .16
Table 11: Basin Outlet Structure Information ......................................................................... .17
Table 12: Emergency Spillway Calculations ............................................................................. 17

Table 13: Provided Basin Storage Volume Summary ............................................................... 18
Table 14: Calculated Planning Level Basin Volume.................................................................. 19
Table 15: Water Quality Requirement Calculation .................................................................... 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Rainfall Totals for the 2-Year, 24 Hour Storm ........................................................... …6
Figure 2: Rainfall Totals for the 100-Year, 24 Hour Storm........................................................ …7
Figure 3: Critical Duration Analysis – Study Area Schematic.. ............................................... …..9
Executive Summary
TranSystems was contracted by the Illinois Tollway Authority to perform a drainage and stormwater
design of approximately 2 miles of Tri-State Illinois Tollway. The project scope calls for the reconstruction
and widening of the Central Tri-State Tollway (I-294) from the Hinsdale Oasis to 47th street (M.P. 25.0 to
M.P. 26.4).
Abbreviations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
I-294 Illinois Tri State Tollway
GIS Geographic Information System
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group
ISWS Illinois State Water Survey
NRCS National Resource Conservation Services
TranSystems TranSystems Consulting Services
TR-55 Technical Release 55

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes stormwater analyses of the reconstruction and widening of the Central Tri-State
Tollway (I-294) from Hinsdale Oasis to 47th street (M.P. 25.0 to M.P. 26.4). TranSystems has been
contracted by the Illinois Tollway to perform these analyses to meet drainage criteria specified by the
Illinois Tollway and Illinois Department of Transportation standards.
Exhibits: General Location Drainage Map, Hydraulic Investigation Atlas Map, and FEMA Map in Appendix
A contain a site location exhibit of the project location.
Page 1
2.0 DATA COLLECTION

This section summarizes collected data used in the stormwater and drainage analysis for the
reconstruction and widening of the Central Tri-State Tollway (I-294) from Hinsdale Oasis to 47th street
(M.P. 25.0 to M.P. 26.4).
2.1 GIS DATA

Geographic Information System (GIS) data was obtained from publicly available sources. Data used in
the study is referenced in Table 1.
Table 1: GIS Data Summary

Item Description Source Date Used In
One-foot interval contours
produced by Cook County, Watershed delineations
derived from 2008 LIDAR. and time of
Contours January 26, 2018
Obtained from Cook County, concentration
Illinois publicly available GIS calculations.
information.
Paved road edge polygons

show the location of pavement
Edge of Roads edges along a road obtained Created May 14, 2014, Curve number
from Cook County, Illinois updated June 4, 2019 calculations.
publicly available GIS
information.
Building Footprints, Suburban

Cook County generated by Curve number
Building ESRI obtained from Cook 2008 calculations.
Footprints County, Illinois publicly
available GIS information.
Soil survey of Cook County
Soils compiled by NRCS publicly November 12, 2018 Curve number
available GIS information. calculations.
United States Fish and Hydrologic soil group

Wildlife, National Wetland assignment for dual
Wetlands October 28, 2018
Inventory publicly available class hydrologic soil
GIS information. groups.
Land use assignment,

Aerial Imagery Aerial imagery from Bing Maps. 2019 Curve number
calculations.
Floodplains of Cook County Hydrologic soil group
publicly available GIS assignment for dual
Floodplains December 7, 2018
information through the FEMA class hydrologic soil
Map Store. groups.
Page 2
2.2 FIELD WALK/SITE VISIT

No field walks or site visits were performed.
2.3 FIELD SURVEY

Two (2) field surveys of topographic and base mapping features were performed by others at different
times. Dates of survey and who performed them were not made available. This information was used in
the development of the stormwater design and calculations.
Page 3
3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

This section describes the hydrologic methodology used in the storm water and drainage analyses for the
project.
3.1 WATERSHED, SUBWATERSHED AND DRAINAGE AREA DELINEATION

Watersheds were delineated using contour data, aerial imagery, existing and proposed design storm
sewer data, as well as visual observations made in Google Street View, Bing Maps bird’s eye view, and
NearMap.
3.2 MODEL PARAMETERS

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, curve number method was used to estimate the runoff volume for each watershed. Development
of runoff curve numbers and times of concentration are discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Runoff Curve Numbers
Runoff Curve Numbers (CN) were assigned based on soil and land use combinations published in USDA
Technical Release 55 (TR-55) “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds” (USDA, 1986). The existing
conditions drainage area land use was determined using “Hydrologic Soil Group” information downloaded
from “USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service“ website.
Proposed conditions drainage area land use was taken from the proposed roadway layout and for off-site
drainage area used “Hydrologic Soil” information report. Refer to Appendix E for “Custom Soil Resource
Report for Cook County and DuPage County, Illinois”.
Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) data was taken from the NRCS web soil survey. Several soils within the
study area were dual HSG, meaning that the soils’ ability to transmit water depends on the location of the
groundwater table. Table 2 summarizes the soils within the study and surrounding areas with the
identification of HSG or Dual Hydraulic Soil Group.
Table 2: NRCS Web Soil Survey HSG and Dual HSG

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name HSG
232A Ashkum silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes C/D
531B Markham silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes C
531C2 Markham silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded C
531D2 Markham silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded C
533 Urban land
802B Orthents, loamy, undulating C
805B Orthents, clayey, undulating D
811A Anthroportic Udorthents, 0 to 2 percent slopes D
Page 4
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name HSG
854B Markham-Ashkum- Beecher complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes C/D
2822B Anthroportic Udorthents- Urban land-Elliott complex, 2 to 4 percent slopes D
146A Elliott silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes C/D
232A Ashkum silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes C/D
298A Beecher silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes D
530C2 Ozaukee silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded C
531B Markham silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes C
531C2 Markham silt loam, 4 to 6 percent slopes, eroded C
802D Orthents, loamy, rolling C
805B Orthents, clayey, undulating D
854B Markham-Ashkum- Beecher complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes C/D
903A Muskego and Houghton mucks, 0 to 2 percent slopes C/D

W Water
As shown in Table 2, this project has the presence of dual HSGs for Type C/D soils. For the purposes of
this hydrologic analysis, locations where these dual HSG soils are present were assumed to be undrained
HSG D in wetland and/or floodplain areas and drained HSG C in all other locations. Spatial wetlands data
was taken from the National Wetland Database and spatial floodplains were taken from Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Mapping Service Center. Appendix E shows the
NRCS assigned HSG or dual HSGs within and surrounding the project area along with the wetlands and
floodplains. Appendix E also shows the assigned HSG used in the hydrologic analysis.
Weighted runoff curve numbers for each drainage area were calculated based on the land use and HSG.
Curve number calculations for both the existing and proposed conditions are presented in the following
sections.
3.2.2 Time of Concentration
The Time of Concentration (TC) for each sub-watershed was calculated using the NRCS segmental
approach described in TR-55 (USDA, 1997). The longest hydraulic flow path for each sub-watershed was
delineated using field survey information supplemented with Cook County 1-foot contour data, imagery,
and stormwater sewer information. The flow paths were subdivided into sheet, shallow-concentrated,
open-channel and/or pipe flow components. The following methods were used to calculate flow velocities
(time of concentration was then found by dividing the flow length by velocity) for each flow component:
• Sheet Flow: Sheet flow velocity was computed based on methodology presented in TR-55.
This equation calculates time of concentration based on Manning's roughness coefficient for
sheet flow, flow length (up to a maximum distance of 100 feet) and slope, and the 2-year, 24-
hour rainfall event depth (2.9 inches) (ISWS, Frequency Distributions of Heavy Rainstorms in
Illinois (Circular 172), 1989).
Page 5
• Shallow Concentrated Flow: Shallow concentrated flow velocity was calculated based on
methodology presented in TR-55. This equation calculates average velocity based on the
slope and surface of the watercourse.
• Open Channel Flow: Open channel flow velocities were computed using Manning's equation
to determine average velocity.
• Pipe Flow: Pipe flow velocities were computed using Manning's equation.
A minimum of two hydraulic flow paths were delineated for each sub-watershed and compared to
determine the longest travel time.
3.3 RAINFALL DEPTH AND DISTRIBUTION

Rainfall amounts were determined by interpolation from values shown in the Illinois State Water Survey
(ISWS) Bulletin 70, (ISWS, 1989), ISWS Circular 172 (ISWS, Frequency Distributions of Heavy
Rainstorms in Illinois (Circular 172), 1989), and Rainfall Distributions from ISWS Circular 173 (ISWS,
Illinois State Water Survey, Circular 173, “Time Distributions of Heavy Rainstorms in Illinois", 1989) in
accordance with the Illinois Tollway Drainage Design Manual (IL Tollway, 2019) and the Illinois
Department of Transportation Design Manual (ILDOT, 2011). Precipitation depths and Huff temporal
distributions for the 2-year and 100-year storm frequencies were determined from the Illinois State Water
Survey’s Bulletin 70 for Northeastern Illinois. The project location was plotted on the figure below and is
shown as a red star for the 2-year, 24-hour event (Figure 1) and 100-year, 24-hour event (Figure 2).
Figure 1: Rainfall Totals for the 2-Year, 24 Hour Storm
Page 6
Figure 2: Rainfall Totals for the 100-Year, 24 Hour Storm
The values were interpolated for both the 2- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events, which were determined
to be 2.90 inches and 7.00 inches respectively. This project started prior to the release of this updated
rainfall data; the previous 1989 rainfall data is considered to be grandfathered for this hydrologic analysis.
A discussion of the selection of critical duration is discussed in Section 4.2 of this report.
3.4 MODELING SOFTWARE FOR DISCHARGE

US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS (Hydrological Engineering Center – Hydrologic Modeling
Systems), version 4.2.1 was used to estimate peak flow and to design storm water management basins.
Page 7
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAINAGE

4.1 OVERVIEW
The existing I-294 roadway drainage system consists of both open and closed drainage infrastructure that
convey roadway stormwater runoff. There is a system of drainage structures along the center of the
median that collect runoff from the median shoulder and inside lane. This median drainage system outlets
to a system of open roadside ditches and closed drainage storm sewer on the outside of the interstate.
The outside lanes and shoulder sheet flow to the roadside ditches in open drainage areas and to
drainage structures and storm sewer in sections where gutter is present. On west side of I-294, a few
existing storm sewer pipes from the Village of Hinsdale drain into Tollway open ditches as shown in
Exhibit: Existing Drainage Plan.
The project drainage boundary is located within one regional watershed: the Flagg Creek Watershed. The
Flagg Creek Watershed drains from Willow Spring Road to just south of Ogden Avenue (at approximately
milepost 23.1 to 27.5). The I-17-4298 (C06) project limits are approximately from mile post 25.0 to 26.4.
Existing stormwater detention is provided in oversized ditch systems with control structures to manage
the release rate. The existing stormwater detention locations are shown on the Exhibit: Existing Drainage
Plan and Table 3 provides a summary of the existing storage provided within the existing Tollway ROW.
This data was obtained from the Conceptual Drainage Report during the feasibility study for this project
(Concept Drainage Report, December 22, 2017).
Table 3: Existing Detention Storage Summary
Existing
Detention
within Tollway
Watershed Outlet ROW (AC-FT)
25B 0.30
Flagg Creek
25C 0.30
Total Existing Detention 0.60
4.2 CRITICAL STORM DURATION ANALYSIS

A critical storm duration analysis was ran using ISWS Bulletin 70, Circular 172 and 173 in accordance
with the Illinois Tollway Standards. This analysis was conducted to determine the critical storm that
results in the highest peak discharge at each of the three (3) proposed outlets to Flagg Creek. Figure 3
shows the schematic of hydrograph routing to each outlet (study) point used in the critical duration
analysis.
Page 8
Figure 3: Critical Duration Analysis – Study Area Schematic
Input parameters for the existing condition Flagg Creek drainage areas as shown in the figure above were
calculated following CN and TC procedures discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. The calculations for CN
and TC are provided in Appendix F of this report. Table 4 summarizes the calculations of the existing
hydrologic parameters used in the critical duration analysis. Refer to Appendix F for the Existing Drainage
Area, Time of Concentration, and Study Points, shown in Exhibits: Existing Drainage Area.
Table 4: Existing Conditions Hydrologic Parameters

Total Total
Tc - Time of Impervious Drainage
Study Concentration Composite Area Area
Point Sub-basin (min) CN (acres) (acres)
24F 24F 5.00 91.70 8.21 14.87
25A 25A-01 13.20 89.60 8.47 21.14
25B 25B-01 9.12 89.90 1.70 4.02
25C 25C-01 11.23 87.60 0.77 3.03
26A-01 12.89 86.60 0.63 3.38
26A-02 12.08 90.20 1.91 4.30
26A-03 9.87 92.20 2.88 4.91
26A-04 23.46 90.30 11.49 25.55
26A 26A-OS-01 7.0* 83.00 - 32.72
26A-OS-02 6.0* 83.00 - 11.66
26A-OS-03 9.0* 83.00 - 29.58
26A-OS-04** 13.0* 83.00 - 37.13
26A-OS-05** 11.0* 83.00 - 24.42
Total Areas (acres) 36.06 216.71
* Clark Unit Hydrograph Method
** Excluded from outlet evaluation
Minimum tc used in this analysis is 5 min (0.083 hr)
Page 9
The 15-minute, 30-minute, 1-hour, 2-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, 12-hour and 24-hour durations were analyzed
for the 2-year and 100-year recurrence interval storm event. The critical storm was established for each
study point by determining the duration that results in the peak discharge. The peak discharges for each
duration were computed in the HEC-HMS model and compared in Table 5 at each study point. The result
at each study point that yields the highest peak discharges for a specific duration was selected, as
highlighted.
Table 5: Critical Duration Analysis – Peak Discharge Summary

100 Year - Peak Discharge for Each Duration (cfs)
Study Selected
Point Duration
15 min 30 min 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr
24F 53.10 88.30 75.50 62.40 48.30 31.10 19.00 12.80 30 Min
25A 55.00 94.40 87.40 69.30 57.90 40.10 25.80 17.90 30 Min
25B 6.40 10.00 10.20 9.70 8.90 7.20 5.00 3.40 1 Hr
25C 5.20 7.10 7.30 7.00 6.20 4.90 3.50 2.50 1 Hr
26A 77.10 130.10 133.40 114.40 96.90 69.50 46.00 32.40 1 Hr
4.3 EXISTING NON-IMPACT ANALYSIS (ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE

CALCULATIONS)
In accordance with the Tollway Drainage Manual, the allowable release rate and required detention
storage is only provided for newly added impervious area. These new impervious areas consist of areas
that are grass, woods, gravel etc. during the existing condition but are impervious in the proposed
condition.
Existing impervious areas regardless of whether they remain as impervious in the proposed condition or
become pervious will be considered impervious for the allowable release rate calculations.
As such, modified existing conditions hydrologic parameters were developed to be used in the Existing
Non-Impact Analysis. The pervious surface areas to be developed into impervious surfaces were
removed from the overall CN calculation and drainage area. Input parameters for the existing condition
non-impact analysis following CN and TC procedures discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are provided
in Appendix F of this report. Table 6 summarizes the calculations of the existing non-impact hydrologic
parameters used in the allowable peak flow discharge calculations. The peak discharges were computed
in the HEC-HMS model at each study point using the critical duration storms determined in Section 4.2.
The modified existing conditions peak flowrates to be used in the Existing Non-impact Analysis are
summarized in Table 6. Refer to Appendix F for the Existing Condition Drainage Area and Time of
Concentration, shown in Exhibits: Existing Drainage Area.
Page 10
Table 6: Existing Conditions Non-Impact Hydrologic Parameters

Total Total
Tc - Time of Impervious Drainage
Point Sub-basin (min) CN (acres) (acres)
24F 24F 5.00 94.20 8.21 11.30
25A 25A-01 13.20 90.60 8.47 18.06
25B 25B-01 9.12 92.20 1.70 2.92
25C 25C-01 11.23 89.40 0.77 2.01
26A-01 12.89 87.80 0.63 2.31
26A-02 12.08 92.70 1.91 3.06
26A-03 9.87 94.30 2.88 3.93
26A-04 23.46 91.20 11.49 22.43
26A 26A-OS-01 7.0* 83.00 32.72
26A-OS-02 6.0* 83.00 11.66
26A-OS-03 9.0* 83.00 29.58
26A-OS-04** 13.0* 83.00 37.13
26A-OS-05** 11.0* 83.00 24.42
Total Areas (acres) 36.06 201.53
Minimum tc used in this analysis is 5 min (0.083 hr)
The existing conditions allowable release rates for each Study Point were also calculated in accordance
with the Tollway Drainage Manual (Section 10.0). Stormwater Detention Facility Criteria for Illinois Tollway
projects as follows:
• Maximum allowable release rate of 0.04 cfs/acre for the 2-year flood event.
• Maximum allowable release rate of 0.15 cfs/acre for the 100-year flood event.
These maximum allowable release rates were calculated for the increased impervious as mentioned
above then added to the existing (non-impacted) flowrate to determine the existing allowable release rate.
The existing allowable release rate calculations are shown in Table 7. Locations of each study point, and
corresponding drainage area can be found in Exhibits: Existing Drainage Area in Appendix F.
Page 11
Table 7: Allowable Release Rate Calculations

Release Rate Existing
Total Existing
Existing from Added Conditions
Added Conditions
Conditions Impervious (Allowable
Study Sub- Impervious (Non-impacted)
(cfs) Area Release Rate)
Point basin area (cfs)
(cfs) (cfs)
(Acres) 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr
24F 24F 3.57 20.60 88.30 21.20 77.70 0.14 0.54 21.34 78.24
25A 25A 3.08 20.20 94.40 19.00 85.30 0.12 0.46 19.12 85.76
25B 25B 1.10 4.10 10.20 3.90 9.40 0.04 0.17 3.94 9.57
25C 25C 1.02 2.30 7.30 1.80 6.10 0.04 0.15 1.84 6.25
26A-01 1.07
26A-02 1.24
26A 32.40 133.40 30.10 116.50 0.26 0.96 30.36 117.46
26A-03 0.98
26A-04 3.12
Total at End of Project 79.60 333.60 76.00 295.00 0.61 2.28 76.61 297.28
Maximum Allowable Release Rate for 100-yr = Total added impervious area * 0.15 + Non-impacted existing
discharge
Maximum Allowable Release Rate for 2-yr = Total added impervious area * 0.04 + Non-impacted existing
discharge
The total allowable peak discharge at the end of the I-17-4298 (C06) portion of the project for the 2-year
and 100- year storm is 76.61 and 297.28 cfs, respectively.
Page 12
5.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRAINAGE

5.1 OVERVIEW
Within the I-17-4298 (C06) portion of the Flagg Creek watershed, there are a total of 3 stormwater
detention pond facilities provided with one located on the west side and two on the east side of I-294.
There will be one compensatory storage site within the project limits which is located at the southeast
corner of 47th Street Bridge over I-294. In the proposed condition, off-site area 26A-OS-01 will be diverted
to Outlet 25D and routed through the proposed detention basin MP 25.5 NB while off-site areas
26A-OS-02 and 26A-OS-03 are routed through the proposed detention basin MP 25.83 SB due to limited
right-of-way, maintenance, and constructability concerns. Also, the Value Engineering (VE) Study for the
Central Tri-State reconstruction project recommended routing the off-site area through detention basin
MP 25.83 SB in lieu of constructing a large box culvert around the facility. All other off-site drainage areas
were excluded from analysis as stormwater runoff from these areas discharge directly to the outlets and
are not conveyed by the proposed ditches and/or storm sewer. The existing and proposed conditions
analysis was performed in two steps:
Case 1: On-site area only (within Tollway right-of-way) – determine office sizing for control structure to
restrict stormwater runoff from the Tollway and determine whether proposed detention basins
could be filled up.
Case 2: On-site area + off-site area routed through proposed detention basins (Only sub-basin 25D-OS-
01/26A-OS-01, 26A-OS-02 and 26A-OS-03) – determine larger orifice diameter to allow bypass
(off-site) flow while maintaining same 100-year high water elevation. In the Concept Drainage
Report (CDR), the Clark Unit Hydrograph method was used for Off-Site drainage area to
account for storage volume that was difficult to quantify. The same methodology was used for
off-site drainage area while the SCS method was used for on-site area.
5.2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
The proposed conditions hydrologic input parameters were determined using procedures mentioned in
the previous sections. Hydrologic parameters for the proposed conditions analysis were developed
following CN and TC procedures discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in Appendix F of this report. A
summary of the calculated proposed condition hydrologic input parameters is shown in Table 8. For the
proposed drainage area and time of concentration, refer to Exhibits: Proposed Drainage Plan.
Page 13
Table 8: Proposed Hydrologic Parameters and Release Rate

Proposed Conditions
Total Total Release Rate
Tc - Time of Impervious Drainage (cfs)
Point Sub-basin (min) CN (Acres) (Acres) 2-yr 100-yr
24F 24F 5.00 94.50 3.50 4.65 9.10 32.60
25A-01 10.20 94.10 13.29 18.43
25A 34.00 131.90
25A-02 13.20 85.00 0.35 5.12
25D-01 6.60 91.30 9.60 18.42
25D 10.30 33.90
25D-OS-01 7.0* 83.10 0.00 34.92
26A-01 8.05 92.50 3.61 5.94 29.00 103.80
26A-02 6.00 98.00 3.88 3.88
26A-03 6.00 94.60 3.26 4.31
26A-04 6.00 98.00 1.63 1.63
26A-05 7.44 91.90 4.80 8.45
26A
26A-06 6.00 95.70 6.28 7.54
26A-OS-02 6.0* 83.00 11.66
26A-OS-03 9.0* 83.00 29.58
26A-OS-04** 13.0* 83.00 37.13
26A-OS-05** 11.0* 83.00 24.42
Total Areas (acres) 50.20 216.08 73.30 269.60
Minimum tc used in this analysis is 0.083
The peak discharge for the proposed condition was computed with the HEC-HMS model at each study
point using the critical duration storm determined in Section 4.2. The results have been summarized in
Table 9 and Table 10 for each study point.
Page 14
Table 9: Peak Release Rates Calculation Results – On Site Area Only (within Tollway right-of-way)
Existing
Existing Proposed
Total Existing Conditions
Conditions Conditions % Reduction /
Added Conditions (Allowable Proposed
(Non-impacted) Release Rate Increase
Impervious (cfs) Release Rate) Drainage
(cfs) (cfs)
Study area (cfs) Area ID
Point Sub-basin (Acres) 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr (Acres) 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr
24F 24F 1.74 20.60 88.30 21.20 77.70 21.34 78.24 24M 9.10 32.60 -57.36% -58.33%
25A-01
25A 25A 3.08 20.20 94.40 19.00 85.30 19.12 85.76 34.00 131.90 77.79% 53.80%
25A-02
25D-01
25B 25B 1.10 4.10 10.20 3.90 9.40 3.94 9.57 10.30 33.90 161.16% 254.42%
25D-OS-01
25C 25C 1.02 2.30 7.30 1.80 6.10 1.84 6.25 26A-06
26A-01 1.07 26A-01
26A-02 1.24 26A-02
26A-03 0.98 26A-03 29.00 103.80 -9.93% -16.10%
26A 32.40 133.40 30.10 116.50 30.36 117.46
26A-04
26A-04 3.12 26A-05
26A-06
Total Reduction / Increase with respective Existing Release Rate 3.52% -9.41%
Total Reduction / Increase of with respective Allowable Release Rate 7.56% 1.66%
Page 15
Table 10: Peak Release Rates Calculation Results – On Site Area (within Tollway right-of-way) + Off-Site Area Routed Through
Proposed Detention Basins
Existing
Existing Proposed
Total Existing Conditions
Conditions Conditions % Reduction /
Added Conditions (Allowable Proposed
(Non-impacted) Release Rate Increase
Impervious (cfs) Release Rate) Drainage
(cfs) (cfs)
Study area (cfs) Area ID
Point Sub-basin (Acres) 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr (Acres) 2-Yr 100-Yr 2-Yr 100-Yr
24F 24F 1.74 20.60 88.30 21.20 77.70 21.34 78.24 24M 9.10 32.60 -57.36% -58.33%
25A-01
25A 25A 3.08 20.20 94.40 19.00 85.30 19.12 85.76 34.00 131.90 77.79% 53.80%
25A-02
25D-01
25B 25B 1.10 4.10 10.20 3.90 9.40 3.94 9.57 13.90 67.60 252.43% 606.74%
25D-OS-01
25C 25C 1.02 2.30 7.30 1.80 6.10 1.84 6.25 26A-06
26A-01 1.07 26A-01
26A-02 1.24 26A-02
26A-03 0.98 26A-03
26A-04
36.90 122.40 1.38% -23.22%
26A 26A-04 3.12 36.40 167.50 34.30 152.20 34.56 153.16 26A-05
26A-06
26A-OS-01 0.00 25D-OS-01
26A-OS-02 0.00 26A-OS-02
26A-OS-03 0.00 26A-OS-03
Total Reduction / Increase with respective Existing Release Rate 12.32% -3.59%
Total Reduction / Increase of with respective Allowable Release Rate 16.20% 6.46%
As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, the proposed condition release rates are higher than the allowable release rate for both cases. This indicates that
additional stormwater detention and control/restriction of proposed release rates for both the 2-year and the 100-year storm event is necessary.
As per the Concept Drainage Report (CDR), the stormwater detention and release rate requirements for the entire Flagg Creek watershed will be met as
discussed in Section 9.1 Detention Summary-Overall Flagg Creek Watershed of the drainage report. The need for additional detention and restriction of
proposed release rates will be provided in the C04 and C05 contracts. The complete summary will be provided in the final drainage submittal.
Page 16
Outlet control structures including outlet pipes, orifices, and weir walls, were modeled directly in
HEC-HMS. A summary of the primary control structures used in the proposed conditions analysis are
summarized in Table 11 and a detail of the outlet structures and basin grading are included in the plans.
Table 11: Basin Outlet Structure Information (Designed for “On-Site + Off-Site” Flow)
Basin Outlet Structure
2-Yr 100-Yr
Orifice Outlet Water Water
Basin Invert Berm Size Weir Wall Pipe Size Surface Surface Freeboard
Identification (elev.) (elev.) (in) Elevation Elevation (in) Elevation Elevation (ft)
MP 25.5 NB
639.00 645.00 45 639.00 642.50 48.00 640.50 642.50 2.50
(55th St Pond)
MP 25.83 SB
639.40 644.00 30.5 639.40 642.00 48.00 639.70 642.00 2.00
(Harding Rd)
MP 26.04NB
639.20 643.25 10 639.20 641.25 36.00 639.80 641.25 2.00
(Commonwealth)
The emergency spillway calculations were performed using the standard weir equation of:
Q = CLH2/3
Where C is the weir coefficient, set to 3.0, H is the depth of flow in feet over the spillway crest, Q is the
discharge of cubic feet per second and is the inflow into the basin which is found in Appendix C for the
proposed HEC-HMS calculations, and L is the length of spillway calculated in feet. A summary of the
emergency spillway structures is provided Table 12 and a detail of the spillway and geometry has been
included in the plans.
Table 12: Emergency Spillway Calculations (Designed for “On-Site + Off-Site” Flow)
Basin 100-Yr Storm Spillway
Peak Height of Length of
Basin Invert Berm Inflow Freeboard flow Spillway
Identification (elev.) (elev.) Elevation (cfs) (ft) Elevation (ft) (ft)
MP 25.5 NB
639.00 645.00 642.50 110.10 2.50 644.75 0.25 30.0
(55th St Pond)
MP 25.83 SB
639.40 644.00 642.00 71.90 2.00 643.75 0.25 25.0
(Harding Rd)
MP 26.04NB
639.20 643.25 641.25 37.30 2.00 643.00 0.25 20.0
(Commonwealth)
A summary of the detention storage is provided in Table 13. It contains the volume of storage computed
in the model using the conic method and the volume of storage.
Page 17
Table 13: Provided Basin Storage Volume Summary (Designed for “On-Site + Off-Site”
Flow)
Computed Volume
Basin Value of Drawing
Water Surface Provided
Identification Interest Elevation
Elevation (ac-ft)
2-year 640.50 - 0.60

MP 25.5 NB 100-year 642.50 - 1.77
(55th St) Spillway Crest - 644.75 3.37
Maximum - 645.00 3.55
2-year 639.70 - 0.10
MP 25.83 SB 100-year 642.00 - 1.60
(Harding Rd) Spillway Crest - 643.75 3.12
Maximum - 644.00 3.36
2-year 639.80 - 0.30
MP 26.04NB 100-year 641.25 - 1.00
(Commonwealth) Spillway Crest - 643.00 2.11
Maximum - 643.25 2.28
In addition, a planning level calculation of required storage volume was performed at each study point, in
Table 14. Supporting calculations can be found in Appendix D of this report.
Table 14: Calculated Planning Level Basin Volume

Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Impervious
100-YR
Area 2-yr
Required
Total Total Difference Required
Detention
Impervious Impervious at Each Detention 100-yr
Volume
Study Drainage Area Drainage Area Study Point 2-yr NIPC Volume NIPC
(acre-ft)
Point Area ID (acre) Area ID (acre) (acre) (Ac-Ft/Ac) (acre-ft) (Ac-Ft/Ac)
24F 24F-01 8.21 24M-01 3.50 -4.71 0.20 -0.94 0.53 -2.47
25A-01
25A 25A-01 8.99 13.64 4.65 0.20 0.93 0.53 2.44
25A-02
25D-01
25B 25B-01 1.70 9.60 7.90 0.20 1.58 0.53 4.15
25D-OS-01
25C 25C-01 26A-06
26A-01 26A-01
26A-02 26A-02
26A-03 26A-03
17.68 23.46 5.78 0.20 1.16 0.53 3.03
26A 26A-04
26A-04 26A-05
26A-06
26A-OS-05 26A-OS-05
Total 36.58 50.20 13.62 2.72 7.15
The total amount of required stormwater detention for the 2-year and 100-year storm events is
2.72 acre-ft and 7.15 acre-ft, respectively. The total amount of storage provided for the 2-year and
100-year events is 1.06 acre-ft and 4.37 acre-ft, respectively. The remaining required storage will be
Page 18
provided within the Flagg Creek watershed in Contracts C04 andC05. Refer to Section 9.1 of the
drainage report for additional information.
5.3 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

A water quantity analysis was run for the Flagg Creek watershed based on the Tollway Drainage Manual.
The Water Quality Volume (WQV) for each location was calculated to capture the first flush of the
contributing area. The preferred WQV storage is provided in either a forebay or below the elevation of the
primary gravity outlet of the detention facility to allow for evapotranspiration and/or infiltration of this
volume into a subsurface drainage system. There are 6 identified locations within the C06 improvement
limits where storm sewer drains untreated water directly to the outlet. In this scenario, a Stormwater
Treatment Structure will be installed to treat the stormwater runoff prior to it leaving the Tollway right-of-
way to meet WQV requirements. The required WQV was calculated in accordance with the Illinois
Tollway Drainage Manual which is calculated by multiplying the increase in imperious area by 0.1. A
summary of the water quality requirements is shown in Table 15.
The provided water quality volume in detention basin and “Stormwater Treatment System” will be
provided in 100% design phase, once borings results will be available between the 95% and 100% design
phase, and required modifications to the basins will be made in the 100% design phase to account for the
results of borings.
Table 15: Water Quality Requirement Calculation

Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Impervious
Total Total Area Required
Study Total Total Difference Treatment
Impervious Impervious
Point Drainage Impervious Drainage Impervious at Each of WQV
Area at each Are at Each
Area ID Area Area ID Area Study Point (ac-ft)
Study Point Study Point
(acre) (acre) (acre)
(acre) (acre)
24F 24F-01 8.21 8.21 24M-01 3.50 3.50 -4.71 -0.39
25A-01 13.29
25A 25A-01 8.99 8.99 13.64 4.65 0.39
25A-02 0.35
25B 25B-01 1.70 1.70 25D-01 9.60 9.60 7.90 0.66
25C 25C-01 0.77 26A-06 -
26A-01 0.63 26A-01 3.88
26A-02 1.91 26A-02 3.26
26A-03 2.88 17.68 26A-03 1.63 23.46 5.78 0.48
26A
26A-04 4.80
26A-04 11.49 26A-05 6.28
26A-06 3.61
Total 36.58 36.58 50.20 50.20 13.62 1.14
Page 19
APPENDIX G
HYDROLOGIC INPUT PARAMETER

Runoff Curve Number Worksheet
DATE:
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-1-74-4298_C06) MADE BY: SB 10-Aug-20
Location: Outlet 25A CHCK BY: JV 12-Aug-20
Watershed Location:
Bold One: Existing PropoSB
Subbasin Soil Name Cover Description CN Area Product

and of
ID Hydrologic ( Cover type, treatment, and acres CN x Area
group hydrologic condition:
percent impervious: Tab. Fig. Fig.
unconnected / connected 2-2 2-3 2-4
( Appendix A ) impervious area ratio )
D Open Space, fair condition 84 12.67 1064.28

25A-01
D Streets and Roads, paved 98 8.47 830.06
Totals = 21.14 1894.34
CN (weighted) = total product / total area CN (weighted) = 89.6
total drainage area (sq. miles) = 0.0330

DATE:
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-1-74-4298_C06) MADE BY: SB 10-Aug-20
Watershed Location:
Bold One: Non Impacted -Existing PropoSB

and of

25A
D Streets and Roads, paved 98 8.47 830.06
Totals = 18.06 1635.28

Time of Concentration (Tc) Worksheet
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-1-74-4298_C06) By: SB Date: 8/10/2020

Location: Hinsdale Oasis to 47th Street Checked: JV Date: 8/12/2020
Bold One: Tc Tt Sub-basin: 25A-01
Sheet Flow (Applicable to Tc only)
1. Surface description Unpaved

2. Manning's roughness coeff., N 0.030
3. Flow length, L ft 95
4. Two-yr 24-hr rainfall, P2 in 2.9
5. Land slope, s ft/ft 0.011
0.8
6. Tc = 0.007*(NL) /((P20.5)*(s0.4)) Compute Tt hr 0.06 + = 0.06
Shallow Concentrate Flow
7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) Unpaved

9. Watercourse slope, s ft/ft 0.021
10. Average velocity, V ft/s 2.34
11. Tt = L/(3600*V) Compute Tt hr 0.02 + = 0.02
Channel Flow
Channel
2
12. Cross sectional flow area, a ft 7.00
13. Wetted perimeter, pw ft 10.32
14. Hydraulic radius, r = a/pw Compute r ft 0.68
15. Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.00
16. Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.030
17. V = 1.49*(r2/3)*(s1/2)/n Compute V ft/s 2.47
18. Flow length, L ft 1205.00
20. Watershed or sub-basin Tt or Tc (add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19) hr 0.22
21. HEC-HMS SCS Lag Time = 0.6 * Tc min 7.81

DATE:
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-1-74-4298_C06) MADE BY: SB 8/10/2020
Location: Outlet 25A CHCK BY: JV 8/12/2020
Watershed Location:

and of
D Open Space, fair condition (Hinsdale Oasis Area) 84 0.52 43.68

Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers)
D 98 1.44 141.12
25A-01 (Hinsdale Oasis Area)
D Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers) 98 11.85 1161.20
Totals = 18.43 1734.00


25A-02
Totals = 5.12 434.98

Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-1-74-4298_C06) By: SB Date: 8/10/2020

1. Surface description Unpaved

6. Tc = 0.007*(NL)0.8/((P20.5)*(s0.4)) Compute Tt hr 0.06 + = 0.06

Channel Flow
Channel
12. Cross sectional flow area, a ft2 7.00

DATE:
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-17-4298_C06) MADE BY: SB 10-Aug-20
Location: Outlet 25B CHCK BY: JV 12-Aug-20
Watershed Location:

and of

25B
Totals = 4.02 361.48

DATE:
Location: Outlet 25B CHCK BY: JV 12-Aug-20
Watershed Location:
Bold One: Non Impacted -Existing PropoSB

and of

25B
Totals = 2.92 268.91

Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-17-4298_C06) By: SB Date: 8/10/2020

Bold One: Tc Tt Sub-basin: 25B
1. Surface description Dense Grass


Channel Flow
Ditch
2/3 1/2
17. V = 1.49*(r )*(s )/n Compute V ft/s 2.19
min 9.12
DATE:
Location: Outlet 25D CHCK BY: JV 12-Aug-20
Watershed Location:

and of

25D
Totals = 18.42 1681.68

SB-off site C Residential - 1/4 Acre 83 32.73 2716.18

Totals = 34.92 2900.14


Bold One: Tc Tt Sub-basin: 25D
1. Surface description Paved

7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) Paved

Channel Flow
Channel Pipe
12. Cross sectional flow area, a ft2 7.00 9.62
13. Wetted perimeter, pw ft 10.32 11.00
14. Hydraulic radius, r = a/pw Compute r ft 0.68 0.88
15. Channel slope, s ft/ft 0.06 0.02
16. Manning's roughness coeff., n 0.03 0.01
2/3 1/2
17. V = 1.49*(r )*(s )/n Compute V ft/s 9.03 14.10
18. Flow length, L ft 270.00 638.00
19. Tt = L/(3600*V) Compute Tt hr 0.01 + 0.01 = 0.02

DATE:
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-17-4298) MADE BY: SB 10-Aug-20
Watershed Location:
Bold One: Existing Proposed
Subbasin Soil Name Cover Description CN Area Product Combined Weighted Total
and of Area Drainage
ID Hydrologic ( Cover type, treatment, and acres CN x Area acres CN Area
percent impervious: Tab. Fig. Fig. Sq Mi.

26A-01 3.38 86.6 0.00528

26A-02 4.30 90.2 0.00672

26A-03 4.91 92.2 0.00767

26A-04 25.54 90.3 0.03991
26A-OS-01 C Residential Area - 1/4 Acre 83 32.72 2715.76 32.72 83.0 0.05113
DATE:
Watershed Location:
Bold One: Non Impacted -Existing Proposed

26A-01 2.31 87.8 0.00361

26A-02 3.06 92.7 0.00478

26A-03 3.93 94.3 0.00614

26A-04 22.43 91.2 0.03505
Project: I-294 Central Tri-State Tollway (I-17-4298) By: SB Date: 8/05/2020

1. Surface description Pavement

7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) unpaved

Channel Flow
Ditch
2
min 12.89



Channel Flow
Ditch
2
min 12.08



Channel Flow
Ditch
2
min 9.87

1. Surface description Grass


Channel Flow
Ditch
2
min 23.46
TC and Storage Coefficient estimation Worksheet

Bold One: Tc Tt Sub-basin: 26A-OS-01

Bold One: Tc Tt Sub-basin:
Crossing CR#23
AREA (TDA) = 0.0511 Sq. Mi.
LENGTH (MCL) = 0.39 Miles
Slope = 194.7 Ft/Mi
Equation 2 from USGS publication WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS 82-22:
(Tc + R)e = 0.40
R/(Tc + R) value from Fig 1 for the project location = 0.7
Re = R/(Tc + R) * (Tc + R)e

0.28 hours
Tce = (Tc + R)e - Re

0.120 hours
7 min
BaSB on study "Detailed Watershed Plan for the Lower Des Plaines River Watershed" prepared for
MWRDGC dated February, 2011, the a factor of 3 shall be applied to R value for Flagg Creek subbasins.
Therefore, R to be uSB in Clark unit hydrograph method = Re*3

R= 0.84 hrs
Project: I-294 CTST from 95th St to Cermak Rd (4223) By: SB

Location: STA 1410+80, M.P. 26.65 Checked: JV
Date: 8/10/2020
Bold One: Existing Proposed Date: 8/12/2020
Crossing CR#23
Slope = 201.2 Ft/Mi
(Tc + R)e = 0.33
Re = R/(Tc + R) * (Tc + R)e

0.23 hours

0.098 hours
6 min

R= 0.69 hrs

Date: 8/10/2020
Crossing CR#23
Slope = 139.4 Ft/Mi
(Tc + R)e = 0.50
Re = R/(Tc + R) * (Tc + R)e

0.35 hours

0.150 hours
9 min

R= 1.05 hrs

Date: 8/10/2020
Crossing CR#23
Slope = 104.7 Ft/Mi
(Tc + R)e = 0.70
Re = R/(Tc + R) * (Tc + R)e

0.49 hours

0.210 hours
13 min

R= 1.47 hrs

Date: 8/10/2020
Crossing CR#23
Slope = 118.5 Ft/Mi
(Tc + R)e = 0.61
Re = R/(Tc + R) * (Tc + R)e

0.42 hours

0.182 hours
11 min

R= 1.27 hrs
DATE:
Watershed Location:
D Open Space, fair condition 84 2.33

26A-01 549.37 5.94 92.5 0.0093
D Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers) 98 3.61
26A-02 D Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers) 98 3.88 380.24 3.88 98.0 0.0061
D Open Space, fair condition 84 1.05

26A-03 407.68 4.31 94.6 0.0067
D Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers) 98 3.26
26A-04 D Streets and Roads (paved; curbs and storm sewers) 98 1.63 159.41 1.63 98.0 0.0025

26A-05 8.45 91.9 0.0132

26A-06 7.54 95.7 0.0118



Channel Flow
Pipe
2
min 8.05



Channel Flow
Pipe
2
min 6.00



Channel Flow
Pipe
2
min 6.00



Channel Flow
Pipe
2
min 6.00



Channel Flow
Pipe
2
min 7.44


0.8
6. Tc = 0.007*(NL) /((P20.5)*(s0.4)) Compute Tt hr 0.03 + = 0.03

Channel Flow
Pipe
min 6.00
APPENDIX H
DETENTION VOLUME
DETERMINATION CHART
DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL
DETENTION VOLUMES FOR THE TOLLWAY-PROJECTS
(EXCLUDES DUPAGE AND KANE COUNTIES)
0.525
Source: “Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices for Northeastern Illinois” by
Thomas H. Price and Dennis W. Dreher, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Notebook, 1993
March 2015 G-2 Illinois Tollway
APPENDIX I
DETENTION BASIN GRADING AND

CONTROL STRUCTURE
NB I-294
BASIN 25B DETENTION BASIN VOLUME
64
9
BOTTOM ELEV.= 639.0 FT ELEVATION VOLUME (AC-FT)
2-YEAR RELEASE RATE = 14.2 CFS 641.0 0.86

650 0
655
5
671
6 2-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= 0.6 AC-FT 642.0 1.46
dgn
650
660
660
2 YEAR H.W.L.= 640.5 FT 642.5 1.77
655
AECOM _DS16_NA\Documents\60545817-Central Tri-State DCM \0400 W ork Packages\I-17-4298-SG3\31-C06\01 - DGN\12 - SHT\05-Drain\4298-C06-sht-drain-det-pond-01-TSC.
S248 643.0 2.11
6
646
647
64
645
4
66 645.0 3.55
5
5 100 YEAR RELEASE RATE = 69.2 CFS

66
6
66
4
667
64
648
6 646
668
663
EX ROW 100-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= 1.77 AC-FT

5
669
7
64
S329
660
PERM ESMT
670
662
661
5
100-YEAR H.W.L.= 642.5 FT
659
4
651
652
6
P248
4
640 OVERFLOW ELEV.= 644.75 FT
8
653
P329 8
4
64
65
6
5
TOP OF BERM ELEV.= 645 FT

0
655
S259
656
647
WQV PROVDIED =
657
7
64
658
ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCK S330

0
64
67
6
REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1
646
6
64
(JT285055)
647
646
ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCK
EX ROW REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1
64
6
(JT285055)
650
646
64
5
64
5
648
FUTURE
664
649
6
4
665
8
666
648
640
667
CUL-DE-SAC
663
8
66
9
6
6
660
670
662
647
661
64
652
651
659
5
644
645
6 645 645
4
8
5
653
4
6
643
654

645
4
5
64
65
645
REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1 (JT285055)

6
5
6
7
5
658 6
64
3
647
S325
8
4
6
647
650
645 648
649
WETLANDS
647
646
64
P325
4
643
643 6
4
4
6
645 S326 5 64
8
4
2
64
643
649
64
64
5
640 1
639
645
641
644
638
637
636
63
5 S327 P326
648
634
633
632 A
63 3
1 64
630 64
640
1
642 A
7
4
639 64
64
638 646
637
P327
6
4
636 643
4
2
635
646
64
64
634 5
633
643
632
63 4
1 4
643
ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCK 630 6
644
64 3
1 4
6
645
6
64
0
S328
4
3
100 YEAR FEMA FLOODPLAIN
REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1 (JT285055) 630 639
6
4
3
63
63
1 8
6
3
7
2 63
63 6
63
5
4 633 63
63 35 4
6
633 642
632
638 641
631
640
639 630
639
640 638
641 63
4 637
635
63
3
630 636
635
1
63
634
632
642 633
R ROW
63
3
6
P 632
631
630
645 4 4
4 6

6
646
647
7
63
648
634
649 3
650 642
8 637
636
63
5
63
REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1 (JT285055)
6
651 63
3
639
8
652
FLAGG CREEK
0 0
WATERS OF THE US 64 63 632

4
3
1
64
63
1
63
9
6
4
0
630
641
631
2
63
63 63
2 632
0 30 60 90
2
632
666 636
6
642 4
2
642
64
3
643
SCALE IN FEET
com:
bentley.
\\aecom-na-pw.
10' - TOP OF BERM

RIM ELEV.= 645.21
S326 S327
1
= pw:
45'
S325
BASIN BOTTOM
FILE NAM E
ELEV=639.00 30 30'
S328
P325 1
TOP OF BERM ELEV.=645.00
P326 P327
9960 '/ in.
FLAGG OVERFLOW ELEV.=644.75
MANHOLE WITH RESTRICTOR

CREEK
2' SUM P
2' SUM P
(SEE DETAIL SHEET DDET-8)

)
)
N.
N.
PLOT SCALE = 99.

(M I
(M I
WATER QUALITY VOLUME
ELASTOMERIC CHECK VALVE, 48"

7/27/20
7/27/20
(PAY ITEM JT60801X)

OVERFLOW SPILLWAY DETAIL (SECTION A-A)
(NOT TO SCALE)
DETENTION BASIN OUTLET DETAIL
= 7/27/2020
45 AM
(NOT TO SCALE)
41:
SSB
JRD
= 11:
REVISIONS
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY CONTRACT NO. I-17-4298 (C06) DDET-3
JRD 7/27/20 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
DRAINAGE DETAIL
DRAWN
CHECKED BY SSB DATE 7/27/20 273 OF 1037
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 55TH STREET POND
646
5
4
6
5
4
6
6
4
5
6 6
4 4
6
7
BASIN xxx
646
645
6
4
6
BOTTOM ELEV.= 639.4 FT
6
4
6
2-YEAR RELEASE RATE = -- CFS
7
64
2-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= -- AC-FT
W
dgn
O
64
6
R
2 YEAR H.W.L.= -- FT
PR
5
64
646
100 YEAR RELEASE RATE = -- CFS
5
64
100-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= -- AC-FT
64
5
646
100-YEAR H.W.L.= -- FT
645
5
64
6
4
5
64
5
OVERFLOW ELEV.= 644.0 FT
PR ROW
5
645
4
6
TOP OF BERM ELEV.= -- FT
646
AD
645
646
645
RO
6
4
64
7
WQV PROVDIED = --
NG
5
4
6
6
I
RD
4
6
64
5
HA
645 645
4
640
64
645
5
4
EX PIPE
4
64 5
64
645
5
64
DETENTION BASIN VOLUME
645
64
5
64
P444
4
645
5
64
5
ELEVATION VOLUME (AC-FT)
64
5
64
640
5
4
6
S444
REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1 SEE DETENTION POND 640.0
5
ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCK 644
64
5
(JT285055) DETAIL SHEET DDET-4
64
0 640.5
64
644

6
640
4
5
5
64
(JT285055) 641.0
645
644
PR ROW 645
641.5
644
642.0
4
64
5
64
4
4
6
642.5
4
6 645
S448 643.0
64
S445 S450
4
645
643.5
64
4
S446 644.0
64
(JT285055)
64
S449 0
64
5
P446
5
640
645
P449
645
644
645
P450
645
645
4
64
4
64
645 645 645 645
645 645
645
648
646
650
647 647
650 650
6
4
9
645
645 645
P448
645
645
S404 0 30 60 90
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: SOUTHBOUND ROADSIDE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FROM STA

1367+00 TO 1380+00 ON HOLD PENDING TOLLWAY’S FINAL DECISION REGARDING
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS. CURRENT DESIGN INCLUDES NO ROW OPTION.
ACQUISITON OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD RESULT IN REDESIGN OF THE ROADSIDE END
CONDITIONS, RETAINING WALL, NOISE ABATEMENT WALL, DRAINAGE DITCHES,
STORM SEWERS, BOX CULVERTS, AND ASSOCIATED ITEMS
\\aecom-na-pw.
= pw:
FILE NAM E com:
bentley.
DETENTION BASIN OUTLET AND OVERFLOW SPILLWAY DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
9960 '/ in.
PLOT SCALE = 99.
7/27/20
7/27/20
= 7/27/2020
54 AM
41:
SSB
JRD
= 11:
REVISIONS
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
DRAINAGE DETAIL
DRAWN
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 HARDING ROAD POND
+00
1375 BASIN 26A DETENTION BASIN VOLUME
S560 P560 655 BOTTOM ELEV.= 639.2 FT ELEVATION VOLUME (AC-FT)

PR ¡ I-294
P559 650 2-YEAR RELEASE RATE = 1.2 CFS 640.0 0.37
-294
NB I S559 2-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= 0.3 AC-FT 641.0 0.87
dgn
S558 655 655 2 YEAR H.W.L.= 639.8 FT 641.25 1.00

5
P558
650 64
642.0 1.44
645 644
100 YEAR RELEASE RATE = 3.4 CFS 643.0 2.11

ROW
655
P538
645 PR
645
655
100-YEAR PROVIDED DETENTION VOL.= 1.0 AC-FT
650
640
100-YEAR H.W.L.= 641.25 FT
6
4
5
645 640 OVERFLOW ELEV.= 643.0 FT

645
650 TOP OF BERM ELEV.= 643.25 FT
645
64
655
4
WQV PROVDIED = --
655
645
655 645
650S557
645
646
64
3
5
660
64
643
655 REVETMENT SYSTEM, TYPE 1
645
645 (JT285055)
645
640
EX ROW 642
640
EMENT 640
MP EAS 642
E 640
6
RT
4
P
64
64
4
5
641
645 S555
6
4
4
645 645
64
6
644
WETLAND
S556
645
P555 645
645
645 645
645
644
644 643
645 642
644 643
1
642 64
PR ROW
645
641
644
5
0
64
4
ARTICULATED CONCRETE BLOCK 64
3
6
6
4
1
(JT285055)
646
643
2
64
640
647
6
4
2
8
64
644
6
3
9 64
639
5
641
641
639
640
641
64
64
6
6
642 642
642
3
64
643
64 64
4 644 7
64
644 6
643 645
645 645
647
6
64 646
646
6
4
6
646
646
64
6
6
4
646
647
647
647
646
646
646
6
64
6
4
6
COMMONWEALTH AVENUE 64
6
64
7
6
4
7
647
6
4
6
646
64
646
6
6
64
647 64
6
6
4
7
64
6
7
4 648
7
6
4
8
648
6
64
6
7
4
64
646
64
7
647
647
0 30 60 90
648
647
6
64
646
648
64
8 SCALE IN FEET
com:
bentley.
\\aecom-na-pw.
10' - TOP OF BERM

TOP OF BERM
ELEV.=643.25 S559
S560
3
1
= pw:
20'
S558
BASIN BOTTOM
FILE NAM E
ELEV.=639.20 15'
10
P558
1
TOP OF BERM ELEV.=643.25

P559 P560
9960 '/ in.
OVERFLOW ELEV.=643.00
MANHOLE WITH RESTRICTOR

2' SUM P
2' SUM P
(SEE DETAIL SHEET DDET-8)

)
)
N.
N.
PLOT SCALE = 99.

(M I
(M I
WATER QUALITY VOLUME
ELASTOMERIC CHECK VALVE, 36"

7/27/20
7/27/20
(PAY ITEM JT608010) OVERFLOW SPILLWAY DETAIL (SECTION A-A)

(NOT TO SCALE)
= 7/27/2020
01 AM
DETENTION BASIN OUTLET DETAIL

42:
(NOT TO SCALE)
SSB
JRD
= 11:
REVISIONS
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
DRAINAGE DETAIL
DRAWN
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 COMMONWEALTH POND
LOC
ATI
ON
SB I-294
dgn
AECOM _DS16_NA\Documents\60545817-Central Tri-State DCM \0400 W ork Packages\I-17-4298-SG3\31-C06\01 - DGN\12 - SHT\05-Drain\4298-C06-sht-drain-det-comp-01-TSC.
1395+00
PR ¡ I-294
NB I-294
645
64
COMP STORAGE SITE COMP STORAGE VOLUME
644
645
5
EX ROW EX ROW
645 BOTTOM ELEV.= 632.4 FT ELEVATION VOLUME (AC-FT)
COMP STORAGE AREA PROVIDED= 10.94 AC-FT 634.0 0.13
640 NORMAL WSE= 637.0 FT 636.0 0.9

640
10 YEAR WSE= 638.86 FT 638.0 3.05
647
3
64
100 YEAR WSE= 642.48 FT 638.9 4.43

650
643
INVERT ELEV.= 630.0 FT 640.0 6.38
641.0 8.21
WETLAND
5
642.0 10.13
64
0
65
0
64
648
642.4 10.94
646
644
64
649
5
635
640
646
4
4
6
64
3
4
4
6
W 6
RO
4
4
64
2
PR
64
635 644
5
2
64
64
641 RIM ELEV.= 632.18 642

2
63
7
641
6
4
64
1
641
1
64
642
0
64
4
63
641 9
63 6
63
635
64 8
1 63
633
637
5
63
64
1
632
RIM ELEV.= 632.37 640 640

64
0
4
63
639
63
640 3 634
63
64
636
4
0
8
63
63
0
64
6
637 633
63
635
640
4
com:
5 2
639
63 63
632
0
64
64 640
0
633
64
63 1
9
bentley.
634
64
63
0
635
4
638 6 4
641 63 63 64
632 2
637
63
0 7
64
63 63
63
9 4 63
4
63
9
6 8
3
64
640
\\aecom-na-pw.
6
3
1
5 63
5
63 640
EX STORM SEWERS TO BE USED 633 9 652
6
4
8
3
3
0
6
6
64
4
653
0
1
64
63
6 65
3
6
3 4
64
63
64
0
64
8
0
64
0
4
63
8 65
7 634 5
63 2
63
3
633
6
640
OUTLET INVERT ELEV.= 630.65
8
656
665
64
5
6
66 6
0
P
4
7
1
RR
6
64
16
5
9 3
6
OW 63
5
63
64
2
= pw:
64
0
64
64
6
65
3
1
3
1
63
8
63
8
634
5
K
63
REE
6
65
63
5
647
64 632
9
635
0 634
66
637
GC
0
63
64
641
0
G
FILE NAM E
63
3
LA
64
F 635
0 30 60 90
8
63
5
63
100 YEAR FEMA FLOODWAY
5
9
63
64
635
ESM
634
9
63
632
638
M
633
SCALE IN FEET
5
PER
2
63
36
65
4
6 63
0
7
63
63
651
5
3
63
64
9960 '/ in.
5
63
65
6
4
0
2
632
63
3
6
5
634
3
641
6
4 6
63 3
632
64
0
662
654
631
643
640
PLOT SCALE = 99.
655
644
656
63
6 1
63 32
3
9
63
661
64
639
657
5
7/27/20
7/27/20
64
6
65
639
8
659
647
660
09 AM
= 7/27/2020
6
4
8
64
42:
9
6
= 11:
2
0
66
REVISIONS
7/27/20 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
DRAINAGE DETAIL
DRAWN
CHECKED BY DATE 7/27/20 276 OF 1037
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 COMPENSATORY STORAGE AREA
OAS
CONCENTRIC FRAME AND GRATES/LIDS EXPANSION ANCHOR IS
AS SHOWN ON PLANS C FOR 38" STUD BOLTS (TYP.)

3" X 3" STEEL ANGLES REFER TO ANGLE FASTENER DETAIL
T
H S
3" X 3" STEEL ANGLES
T
INLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE INLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE
H S
55T
5
8" STEEL RESTRICTOR PLATE
A A
47T
FOR 6' DIAMETER MANHOLE
3
4" STEEL RESTRICTOR PLATE
FOR 8' DIAMETER MANHOLE
dgn
AECOM _DS16_NA\Documents\60545817-Central Tri-State DCM \0400 W ork Packages\I-17-4298-SG3\31-C06\01 - DGN\12 - SHT\05-Drain\4298-C06-sht-drain-det-04-TSC.
ANGLE FASTENER DETAIL
REFER TO INLET TUBE DETAIL
OFFSET MEASURED TO
2 EQUAL
CENTER OF STRUCTURE RESTRICTOR PLATE
6" SPACES 6"
C
6"
-
PLAN VIEW SECTION B-B STUD BOLT LOCATIONS
3 EQUAL SPACES
2 - 24" DIA. OPENINGS
TOP OF GRATE LID ELEVATION
IN FLATSLAB TOP
-
WITH 2 FRAMES
AND GRATES/LIDS
TYPICAL HORIZONTAL ANGLES
LOOKING TOWARD BOTTOM OF MANHOLE
CLEARANCE CLEARANCE = 0.5' MIN.
5
(6" MIN) 8" STEEL RESTRICTOR PLATE FOR ELEVATION OF TOP
TOTAL STUD BOLTS REQUIRED: 22
3" X 3" STEEL ANGLES 6' DIAMETER STRUCTURE OF PLATE
6"
-
3#4" STEEL RESTRICTOR PLATE FOR
RESTRICTOR TYPE AS NOTED
8' DIAMETER STRUCTURE
IN RESTRICTOR TABLE STUD BOLT LOCATIONS
MANHOLE, TYPE A
MANHOLE, TYPE A
TYPICAL VERTICAL ANGLES
INLET PIPE
LOOKING TOWARD MANHOLE WALL NOTES:
OUTLET PIPE
1.ALL STEEL ANGLES AND PLATES SHALL BE
D1
00
RESTRICTOR PLATE GALVANIZED
STEEL ANGLE BOLTING DETAILS
2.STEEL PLATE AND ANGLES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AASHTO M 270 GRADE 36
D INVERT OF
2
RESTRICTOR TYPE 3.ANGLES SHALL BE 3" X 3" X 38"
4.VERTICAL ANGLES SHALL EXTEND FROM

B B THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP OF THE RESTRICTOR
24" SUMP (MIN.) PLATE.
5.HORIZONTAL ANGLES SHALL EXTEND
FROM VERTICAL ANGLE TO VERTICAL ANGLE.

1
4"
RESTRICTOR PLATE
SECTION A-A SECTION C-C
5
8" TYP. FOR 6' DIAMETER MANHOLE
D
3
4" TYP. FOR 8' DIAMETER MANHOLE
INLET TUBE
INLET TUBE DETAIL

com:
bentley.
\\aecom-na-pw.
RESTRICTOR TYPE
TOP OF
STRUCTURE OFFSET* OFFSET MH DIA MH RIM D�� D� INLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE RESTRICTOR 1 2 3 4 5 6
STATION INV D�� INV D� RESTRICTOR
NUMBER (FT) LT/RT (FT) ELEV (IN) (IN) (IN) (IN) TYPE
PLATE ELEV RE -ENTRANT RE -ENTRANT
TUBE SHARP EDGES SQUARE EDGED TUBE SQUARE EDGED ROUNDED
= pw:
S326 1349+00 313 RT 8 645.00 N/A N/A 638.20 45 48 48 642.50 TYPE 2

S559 1378+65 142 RT 6 646.00 N/A N/A 639.20 10 36 36 641.25 TYPE 2
FILE NAM E 9960 '/ in.
LENGTH 12 TO 1 DIA. STREAM CLEARS SIDES LENGTH: 2-12 DIA. LENGTH: 2-12 DIA.
C=.52 C=.61 C=.61 C=.73 C=.82 C=.98

PLOT SCALE = 99.
RESTRICTOR TYPES
*OFFSET MEASURED TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE
VALUES OF "C" FOR CIRCULAR
AND SQUARE ORIFICES
7/27/20
7/27/20
40 AM
= 7/27/2020
42:
SSB
JRD
= 11:
REVISIONS
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
REVIEWED
LAYOUT
DRAINAGE DETAIL
DRAWN
I L L I N O I S 6 0 5 1 5 RESTRICTOR OUTLET
ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
2700 Ogden Ave., Downers Grove, IL 60515
VOLUME 1 OF 1
PRE-FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
CENTRAL TRI-STATE TOLLWAY (I-294)
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT I-17-4298 (C06)

HINSDALE OASIS TO 47TH STREET
M.P. 25.0 TO M.P. 26.4
PRE-FINAL - 95% SUBMITTAL
August 14, 2020

1475 E. W OODFIELD ROAD, SUITE 600
Schaumberg, IL 60173
847 605 9600
FAX 847 463 0565
Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review
00 95% Pre- SB 8/13/20 JLV 8/14/20

Final (DCM)
PRE-FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT (PFDR)
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
1.0 MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT ........................................ 2

1.1 STORM SEWER LAYOUT .............................................................................................. 2
1.2 DETENTION BASIN LOCATIONS ................................................................................... 2
1.3 PIPE JACKING................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 TEMPORARY / INTERIM DRAINAGE ............................................................................. 3
2.0 KEY CRITERIA AND REFERENCES.............................................................................. 4
3.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONCERNS .............................................................................. 4

3.1 HINSDALE OASIS FLOODING (SI 1315)........................................................................ 4
3.2 LOCAL ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 4
3.2.1 Corroded Culvert Under Creek Drive Near M.P. 26.2 (SI 985) ............................. 4
3.2.2 Off System Structure and Ditch Just Downstream of Creek Drive (SI 966)........... 5
4.0 STORM SEWER DESIGN ............................................................................................... 5

4.1 STORM SEWER DESIGN DEVIATIONS......................................................................... 8
4.1.1 DD-42: Drainage Pavement Encroachment ......................................................... 8
4.1.2 DD-46: Drainage Minimum Storm Sewer Cover ................................................... 8
4.1.3 DD-49: Sewer HGL Freeboard ............................................................................. 9
4.1.4 DD-50: Off-Site Drainage ..................................................................................... 9
5.0 INLET SPACING AND ENCROACHMENT ..................................................................... 9
6.0 DITCH CAPACITY AND VELOCITY ............................................................................. 10
7.0 MAJOR BRIDGES ........................................................................................................ 11
8.0 MAJOR CULVERTS ..................................................................................................... 11

8.1 STA 1338+54 (M.P. 25.3) - WATER CROSSING (#20) [WOUS CULVERT].................. 12
8.2 STA 1386+54 (M.P. 26.2) - WATER CROSSING (#21) [WOUS CULVERT].................. 12
9.0 STORMWATER DETENTION ....................................................................................... 14

9.1 OUTLETS AND SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 15
9.1.1 Flagg Creek Watershed ..................................................................................... 15
9.1.1.1 Outlet 25A .............................................................................................. 15
9.1.1.2 Outlet 25B .............................................................................................. 15
9.1.1.3 Outlet 25C .............................................................................................. 15
9.1.1.4 Outlet 25D .............................................................................................. 15
9.2.1.1 Outlet 26A .............................................................................................. 15
9.0 DETENTION SUMMARY – OVERALL FLAGG CREEK WATERSHED ......................... 17
10.0 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 19

10.1 WATER QUALITY SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 20
11.0 FLAGG CREEK FLOODPLAIN .................................................................................... 20
12.0 COMPENSATORY STORAGE ..................................................................................... 21

12.1 COMPENSATORY STORAGE SUMMARY ................................................................... 21
13.0 PERMITS ...................................................................................................................... 23

13.1 MWRDGC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PERMIT FOR DIRECT OUTLETS
TO FLAGG CREEK ....................................................................................................... 23
13.2 IDNR-OWR FLOODWAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ................................................... 24
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Exhibit 2 GENERAL LOCATION MAP – HA MAP
Exhibit 3 FEMA FIRM MAPS
Exhibit 4 EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN
Exhibit 5 PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A STORM SEWER DESIGN ............................................................................. A.1

Storm CAD Modeling (Network) Zone – Key Map ..................................................................... A.1
Catchment Area Summary ...................................................................................................... A.1
Storm CAD Model Output .......................................................................................................................................................A.1
APPENDIX B GUTTER CAPACITY AND INLET SPACING ............................................... B.2

Equivalent Gutter Criteria......................................................................................................... B.2
Typical Sections Indicating Allowable Encroachment ............................................................... B.2
Pavement Encroachment Calculations .................................................................................... B.2
APPENDIX C DITCH CAPACITY AND VELOCITY ............................................................ C.3
APPENDIX D CULVERTS .................................................................................................. D.4
APPENDIX E COOK AND DUPAGE COUNTY WEB SOIL REPORT ................................ E.5
APPENDIX F OUTLET EVALUATION ................................................................................F.6
APPENDIX G HYDROLOGIC INPUT PARAMETER ........................................................... G.7
APPENDIX H DETENTION VOLUME ................................................................................. H.8
APPENDIX I DETENTION BASIN GRADING AND CONTROL STRUCTURE .................... I.9

Executive Summary
The Illinois Tollway is preparing to reconstruct and widen the Central Tri-State Tollway (I-294) from 95th
Street to Balmoral Avenue. The design section for Contract I-17-4298 (C06) is located along I-294 from the
Hinsdale Oasis to 47th Street (Mile Post 25.0 to Mile Post 26.4) in Cook County, Illinois. The design section
limits are located within many Chicago suburban municipalities including the Villages of Hinsdale and
Willow Springs.
The proposed project scope includes pavement reconstruction and widening of the mainline in both
directions and providing new shoulders. A concrete barrier median will be constructed throughout the
project length. The existing storm sewers and drainage infrastructure within the pavement reconstruction
limits will be removed and replaced with new infrastructure designed to meet current Tollway design
standards. Stormwater detention ponds and compensatory storage facilities will also be constructed within
the project limits.
This entire design section extends through the Flagg Creek watershed and drains to Flagg Creek through
multiple outlets. The project scope does not include any crossings of Flagg Creek.
The existing I-294 drainage system includes a combination of open and closed stormwater conveyance
systems. Generally, there is a closed drainage system that collects runoff from the median shoulder and
inside lane. The median drainage system outlets to a system of open roadside ditches and closed storm
sewers outside of the traveled roadway. The outside lanes and shoulders sheet flow to the open roadside
ditch drainage systems and to the drainage structures and storm sewers where curb and gutter is present.
The roadside ditches then drain to outlets which leave the Tollway right-of-way and ultimately discharge
into Flagg Creek.
The improvements constructed under this contract shall include reconstruction of the mainline pavement
and ramps to/from the Hinsdale Oasis through the construction limits between Mile Post 25.0 and Mile Post
26.4. Existing storm sewers and other drainage infrastructure including roadside ditches within the
reconstruction limits will be removed and replaced with new storm sewer, ditches/swales, and stormwater
detention facilities to comply with current Tollway design standards. Also included in the work is the box
culvert extension of one of the waterway crossings located within the project limits.
The existing drainage patterns will be maintained throughout the project limits and the existing outlets are
utilized where feasible. A portion of the drainage area from the south will be re-routed from Contract CO5
(M.P. 23.8 to M.P. 25.0) into C06. However, this area outlet to Flagg Creek in the existing conditions and
will continue to do so under the proposed conditions.
The calculations and assumptions contained in this report are provided in support of the proposed
improvements to reconstruct and widen the Central Tri-State Tollway (I-294) under construction contract
I-17-4298 (C06).
Page 1
1.0 MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONCEPT DRAINAGE REPORT
The Concept Drainage Report (CDR) prepared by the Exp/TranSystems/SE3 Team and dated December
22, 2017, serves as the basis of the drainage design. Several drainage improvements proposed in the 95%
Pre-Final design are modified from the Concept Drainage Report to reflect progression of the overall design.
Future modifications to the drainage system and stormwater detention facilities associated with the
Brandy’s and Columbia properties are possible pending property acquisitions. A summary of the various
drainage modifications is discussed below:
1.1 STORM SEWER LAYOUT

The 95% pre-final design proposes modifications to the storm sewer layout from the design described in
the CDR. Changes in the storm sewer layout are necessary to accommodate significant changes in the
design of storm water detention facilities, roadway geometry, and maintenance of traffic (construction
staging).
The storm sewer layout at the south project limits is revised to accommodate revisions to both roadway
geometry and construction staging. Several revisions to roadway geometry require modifying the proposed
storm sewer network from open to closed networks through limited sections due to right-of-way constraints.
In addition, the 95% pre-final design is changed to fit the planned construction sequencing and facilitate the
construction of complete storm sewer runs within each stage. Generally, the design intent and intention of
the CDR is maintained with the 95% pre-final design.
The storm sewer layout between 47th Street and 55th Street is revised to accommodate revisions to the
detention basin layouts and storage capacities. Detention basin locations were added and deleted from
those identified in the CDR and the corresponding storm sewer layout is revised to provide drainage to best
utilize the current detention basin layout and storage capacities.
1.2 DETENTION BASIN LOCATIONS

As part of the Concept Design Review stage, the Tollway requested significant revisions to the stormwater
detention design and locations of the detention basins through the I-17-4298 (C06) design limits. A
summary of the resulting detention basins within the design limits is listed below:
Page 2
Table 1. Detention Basin Summary
Proposed Provided Required

Tributary
Release Rate Detention Detention
Basin Area
(cfs) (ac-ft) (ac-ft)
Identification
100- 100-
(acres) 2-Year 2-Year 100-Year
Year Year
MP 25.5 NB
53.34 14.20 69.20 0.60 1.77 1.60
(55th St Pond)
MP 25.83 SB
(Harding Rd 48.79 14.50 44.80 0.10 1.60 1.60
Pond)
MP 26.04NB
(Commonwealth 5.30 1.20 3.40 0.30 1.00 1.00
Pond)
1.3 PIPE JACKING

Pipe jacking is proposed at several locations through the design section to facilitate construction of storm
sewer pipes during the staged construction sequence. Pipe jacking is proposed for the installation of four
lateral storm sewer crossings beneath the Central Tri-State (I-294).
Detailed discussion of pipe jacking operations was not highlighted in the CDR. However, Pipe Jacking is
necessary as the proposed maintenance of traffic and construction staging does not allow for the open
trench installation of the indicated storm sewer crossings without significant disruption of traffic due to lane
closures which would be required.
1.4 TEMPORARY / INTERIM DRAINAGE

The construction staging and maintenance of traffic sequence was revised from the Concept Design. The
95% Pre-Final design is set to construct the NB lanes of I-294 in Stage 1 through Stage 3 and the SB lanes
in Stage 4 and Stage 5 while the median, including shoulders, are to be constructed in Stage 6. The
construction staging also implements several sub-stages and a winter shutdown.
Temporary and interim drainage is proposed as required to maintain the existing drainage patterns and to
facilitate positive drainage during construction. Additional revisions to the CDR storm sewer design layout
including reversing the connections and directions of storm sewer laterals, as required, to facilitate the
staged roadway construction. The storm sewer layout proposes to construct full runs of pipe as part of each
MOT stage and avoid partial construction, where possible.
A combination of proposed storm sewer and temporary storm sewer will provide surface drainage for the
northbound lanes and embankment from Stage 1 through Stage 3. A combination of proposed storm sewer
and temporary storm sewer will provide surface drainage for the southbound lanes and embankment from
Stage 4 through Stage 5. Proposed storm sewer will provide surface drainage for the median shoulders
through stage 6.
In addition, the typical section is revised to allow for a future overlay to establish the final design cross
Page 3
slopes. The interim condition, which precedes the final overlay, results in a “flatter” cross slope than the
ultimate condition. In this case, there are some locations where the interim condition was the controlling
spread design and resulted in closer inlet spacing that the ultimate, or final, condition requires. The
proposed design is intended to meet the Tollway requirements for both the interim condition (temporary
design criteria) and the final condition (design criteria).
2.0 KEY CRITERIA AND REFERENCES

The storm sewer design is based on the applicable sections of the Tollway Drainage Design Manual, March
2020. Additional design guidance specific to the Central Tri-State corridor is provided in the Design Corridor
Manual, latest version.
Pavement encroachment and spread guidance for the Flex Lane is outlined in the technical memorandum
titled, “Hydraulic Evaluation of Roadway Crown Location and Flex Lane Memo dated April 8, 2016 and
Revised November 1, 2016”.
3.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONCERNS

3.1 HINSDALE OASIS FLOODING (SI 1315)
As per the Concept Drainage Report (CDR), it’s reported that unexpected flooding was identified on
9/8/2015 in the ditch located in the grass gore area between northbound I-294 and the northbound exit
ramp (Ramp E) to the Hinsdale Oasis at approximately Sta. 1318+00. No other occurrences of flooding at
this location have been logged or identified since this date. The Concept Drainage Report also concluded
that “the flooding was caused by the inlet being blocked by debris or vegetation”.
The proposed improvements in this area include revisions to the profile, horizontal alignment, and removal
of the Hinsdale Oasis structure (by others). As a result, the grading in this area will be significantly different
than the existing condition. The grading and drainage improvements proposed as part of this project are
expected to resolve any previous drainage concerns in this area.
3.2 LOCAL ISSUES

NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Although both of the below mentioned culverts are within the project limits of
I-17-4298 (C06), the analysis and design of both issues are to be completed by others. Information from
the Concept Drainage Report (CDR) study is added below.
3.2.1 Corroded Culvert Under Creek Drive near M.P. 26.2 (SI 985)
An existing 7.33’ x 11.6’ arch-shape CMP culvert carrying ditch flow under Creek Drive at approximate Sta.
1385+54 (at approximate milepost 26.2, 425 feet east of the Central Tri-State center line) was found to be
corroded. A previous recommendation was made to replace this culvert with a new RCP box culvert with
ownership of the culvert then being transferred to the Village of Western Springs. This culvert is located
Page 4
immediately downstream of I-294 culvert crossing WC 21 and within the regulatory floodplain. The culvert
will be replaced with a 12’ (W) x 6’ (H) box culvert.
3.2.2 Off System Structure and Ditch Just Downstream of Creek Drive (SI 966)
A concrete grate structure was discovered in the ditch line just downstream of the Creek Drive culvert within
the Village of Western Springs. The structure is in poor condition and will need to either be removed or
replaced.
Additional information on this structure and its intended function was requested from the Village of Western
Springs; however, the information has not yet been obtained. Once information is received from the Village,
further investigation of the structure will be completed and a recommendation for addressing this issue will
be provided.
4.0 STORM SEWER DESIGN

The existing I-294 roadway drainage system consists of both open and closed drainage infrastructure that
conveys roadway storm water runoff. There is a system of drainage structures along the center median to
collect runoff from the median shoulder and inside lane. This median drainage system outlets to a system
of open roadside ditches and closed drainage storm sewer along the outside of the Tollway. The outside
lanes and shoulder sheet flow to the roadside ditches in open drainage areas and to drainage structures
and storm sewer in sections where gutter is present. For areas with proposed retaining walls, noise walls,
cut sections with backslopes, or areas with steep front slopes, the proposed roadway typical cross section
will utilize a gutter unless sheet flow is feasible for drainage of the outside lanes.
Existing storm sewers and drainage infrastructure within the pavement reconstruction limits will be removed
and replaced with new infrastructure designed to meet current Tollway design standards. The existing
drainage patterns are maintained and the existing outlets are utilized in the proposed conditions where still
possible.
In the proposed conditions, runoff from the median shoulders and adjacent flex lanes will flow to median
drainage structures. The median storm sewer system outlets to outside drainage ditches or storm sewers.
Runoff from the outside travel lanes will drain into the closed drainage system or the roadside ditches. For
areas with proposed retaining walls, noise walls, cut sections with backslopes, or areas with steep front
slopes, the proposed roadway typical cross section will utilize a gutter unless sheet flow is feasible for
drainage of the outside lanes. New RCP storm sewer systems will be provided.
The roadway drainage design and storm sewers are designed in accordance with Section 9.0 of the
Drainage Design Manual (2020). A summary of key design criteria is outlined below:
Page 5
ROADWAY DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Criteria Comments

1. Roadway Profile
a. Design Flood 50-Year Use HY-22 to determine hydraulic
(2% chance of exceedance) gradient
b. Check Floods 500-Year No overtopping of roadway at the low
(0.2% chance of exceedance) edge of pavement for 500-yr (0.2%
exceedance flow)
c. Minimum Freeboard 3 ft. From the Design WSEL to the edge
of pavement
2. Pavement
a. Design Flood 50-Year Use FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox Version
(2% chance of exceedance) 4.4 (or sample spreadsheet in
Appendix J)
b. Maximum Pavement Encroachment Zero encroachment on traveled way.
Water shall remain on shoulder and no
closer than 3’ from the edge of
pavement.
c. Inlet Spacing (Max. water depth) 0.35 feet
d. Trench Pavement Drain 0.2% minimum slope See Roadway Design Criteria
Manual for profile information.
3. Bridge Deck
a. Design Flood Rainfall Intensity of 7 inches per hour.
b. Inlet Spacing Zero encroachment on the traveled way. Use FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox
Minimum of 3 inlets at any sag vertical Version 4.4 (or sample spreadsheet
curve. in Appendix I)
c. Bridge Approach Inlets Required for longitudinal grades
> 0.5%.
4. Medians and Shoulders
a. Grassed Areas
a.1. Design Flood 50-Year

(2% chance of exceedance)
a.2. Inlet Spacing Maximum of 1,000' (1st inlet may be as Install structure along conveyance
great as 1,200' from crest vertical curve). system to meet spacing
requirements if less than 1000’.
a.3. Median Drains Must use flat grate inlet. Outlet
>15" RCP. Ditch check required.
a.4. Minimum Grade See Roadway Design Criteria
Manual for grade information
a.5. Median Water Surface >2 ft. below edge of pavement
b. Paved Areas
b.1. Design Flood 50-Year Use FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox

(2% chance of exceedance) Version 4.4
b.2. Inlet Spacing Such that water stays on the shoulder Use FHWA Hydraulic Toolbox
and encroachment is Version 4.4 (or sample spreadsheet
Page 6
>3' from the edge of pavement. in Appendix J)
Maximum of 1000’ (1st inlet may be as Minimum 3 (three) inlets or catch

great as 1200’ from crest vertical curve). basin structures shall be provided in
sag areas.
b.3 Inlets Use Standard Illinois Tollway or IDOT
median inlets or catch basins.
c. Inlet Spacing Maximum Water Depth 0.35 ft
5. Storm Sewers
a. Design Flood 50-year (2% chance of exceedance) or
the most restrictive feature drained by
storm sewer whichever is greater.
b. Inlet/Catch Basins Use Standard Illinois Tollway or IDOT Unless local conditions (i.e. at large
drainage structures. pipe junctions/ connections or
adjacent to a retaining wall) require
the design of special structures.
c. Structure Spacing At all changes in grade and: 350 ft. for d Change in invert shall take place at a
= 15” - 24” structure unless otherwise required by
400 ft. for d = 27” - 36” the drainage design.
500 ft. for d = 42” - 54”
1000 ft. for d > 60"
d. Minimum Size d = 12" For connecting a single structure to
the storm sewer system (outside of
d = 15” traveled way)
Under mainline or ramp pavement
e. Material Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) RCP shall be used for placement
Bituminous or epoxy coated Corrugated under all mainline and ramp
Galvanized Steel Pipe or high-density pavement.
polyethylene smooth interior pipe
f. Velocity Range 3 to 10 fps Design velocity shall be self-
cleaning.
g. Water Surface at Manholes 2' below rim elevation For depressed roadways, the 100-year
HGL shall be at or below the low edge of
pavement.
h. Water Surface at Inlets 2’ below rim elevation For depressed roadways, the 100-year
HGL shall be at or below the low edge of
pavement.
i. Junctions Laterals shall connect at inlets, manholes, No blind connections into storm sewers
catch basins, or other structures. allowed without Illinois Tollway approval.
j. Depth 6” minimum cover between bottom of
sub-base and crown of pipe.
k. Outlet Set approximately 6 inches above the
bottom ditch invert elevation.
6. Pipe Underdrains
a. Minimum Diameter 6" Use Illinois Tollway Standard Detail
b. Minimum Slope 0.3%
c. Maximum Length 250’ if PGL ≤ 1%

375’ if 1% < PGL < 2%
500’ if PGL ≥ 2%
500' before increasing diameter (1000’
Page 7
maximum) or outletting
d. Outlet Set approximately 6 inches above the

bottom ditch invert elevation.
7. Temporary Drainage
a. Design Flood 2-Year (on grade)
(50% chance of exceedance)
5-Year (at sag and underpass) (20%

chance of exceedance)
b. Maximum Pavement Encroachment Allow for a minimum of 8 feet of lane For temporary conditions, a maximum
width to be open to vehicular 4’ of pavement encroachment will be
movement. allowed per IDOT Drainage Manual
Section 1-304.01.
Storm sewer calculations are provided as Appendix A of this report.
4.1 STORM SEWER DESIGN DEVIATIONS

The following storm sewer design deviations have been requested for use in the I-17-4298 (C06)
construction contract:
4.1.1 DD-42: Drainage Pavement Encroachment
This deviation is specifically at I‐294 northbound and southbound mainline outside shoulder beneath 55th
Street Bridge (NB Sta.1343+65 to 1347+35 and SB Sta. 1344+97 to Station 1349+00) and beneath 47th
Street bridge (NB Sta. 1397+24 to 1400+69 and SB Sta.1399+45 to 1402+88). The proposed design for
mainline I-294 is currently constrained by the existing abutments and piles at the 55th Street and 47th Street
bridges. These bridges were recently reconstructed in 1992 as part of Tollway Contract CIP-660 and the
inspections and condition assessment performed during the Master Plan determined that reconstruction of
the bridges is not warranted at this time. Additionally, significant challenges would be encountered if these
IDOT bridges were to be reconstructed.
With the bridges remaining in place, any other alternative considered would also result in a more significant
design deviation. Allowing the spread to encroach up to the edge of pavement is the recommended design,
as this is the least impactful alternative to operations and is also the condition that would be most easily
corrected as part of a future project.
4.1.2 DD-46: Drainage Minimum Storm Sewer Cover
WILL BE PROVIDED WITH FINAL SUBMITTAL
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: The southbound roadside design development from Sta 1367+00 to 1380+00 is
on hold pending the Tollway’s final decision regarding right-of-way acquisition(s). The current design
assumes no additional right-of-way will be purchased. Right-of-way acquisition would result in redesign of
the roadside end conditions, retaining wall, noise abatement wall, drainage ditches, storm sewers, box
culverts, and associated items.
Page 8
4.1.3 DD-49: Sewer HGL Freeboard
4.1.4 DD-50: Off-Site Drainage
5.0 INLET SPACING AND ENCROACHMENT

Tollway roadway drainage facilities are designed for a 50-year flood event. The design of all pavement
medians, shoulders and associated drainage structures shall insure that there is zero runoff encroachment
on the traveled way. Stormwater shall remain on the shoulder no closer than 3’ from the edge of pavement.
The maximum depth of flow shall be limited to 0.35 feet, regardless of the calculated encroachment width.
Additional guidance is provided by the DCM to determine equivalent gutter slope and equivalent allowable
encroachments for G-2 and G-3 gutters which vary based on shoulder cross slopes. The criteria were
applied in the Hydraulic Tool Box to approximate the G-2 and G-3 gutters and calculate pavement
encroachment. A copy of the criteria is included in Appendix B.
Additional guidance related to pavement encroachment onto the Flex Lanes is found in Section 212.4 of
the CTS Corridor Manual and is shown on the following page:
Page 9
The I-17-4298 (C06) plans and design results in an “interim” condition for pavement and shoulder cross
slopes. A separate contract will be used post construction to overlay the design limits and result in the
final condition.
The interim condition is a temporary status and the encroachment design is based on the 2- and 5-year
design storms. The final condition (post-overlay) is evaluated using the 50-year design criteria. For inlet
spacing the “New Curb and Gutter Analysis” design feature in the Hydraulic Toolbox software was used to
verify the encroachment or water spread width and water depth at collecting inlet/s. A Manning’s “n” value
of 0.013 was used for the calculations.
Inlet spacing and encroachment calculations for the Interim and Final Conditions are provided as Appendix
B of this report.
6.0 DITCH CAPACITY AND VELOCITY

Roadside ditches and channels are designed to convey runoff from the roadway, right-of-way, and storm
sewers. Roadway ditches generally follow the slope of the roadway and the natural topography of the
surrounding landscape. The ditches are designed in accordance with Section 6.0 of the Drainage Design
Manual (2020). A summary of key design criteria is outlined below:
DITCH AND CHANNEL HYDRAULICS

1. Design Discharge 50-year (2% chance of Flow to be determined in accordance with Section 5.
exceedance)
2. Design Water Surface Minimum 2.0’ below edge of pavement
and 1.0’ below adjacent ROW.
Page 10

3. Minimum Longitudinal 0.5% preferred If longitudinal slope <0.3%, then the ditch/channel
Slope (0.3% minimum) shall require special consideration to encourage
positive flow.
4. Maximum Flow Velocity 3-5 fps depending on ditch slope Maximum velocity is a function of the lining and/or soil type
for vegetative linings.
5. Shape Most efficient hydraulic section Subject to safety and maintenance the section shall
be in accordance with AASHTO's "Roadside Design
Guide."
6. Lining Grass lining is preferred If the velocity exceeds the maximum allowed for grass
lining, the ditch shall be lined with manufactured linings, or
other available materials with Illinois Tollway approval7.
7. Erosion Protection As required References:
1. Illinois Tollway Standard Drawings (Erosion
and Sediment Control Standards)
2. "Procedures and Standards for Urban Soil
Erosion and Sedimentation Control in Illinois
(Illinois Urban Manual / The Green Book)
3. Armortec-Erosion Control Solutions and Geoweb
8. Ditch Checks The crest shall be a minimum of 1' Ditch checks shall not be located within the clear zone, nor
above grated inlets within roadside at the toe of unshielded non- recoverable slopes. The
ditches and 2.0’ below edge of water depth at the ditch check shall not exceed 4 feet for
pavement. safety concerns (especially if located within the clear
zone).
Roadside ditches are designed to convey the 50-Year Design Storm using. The design WSEL for ditch
flows is at least 2.0-feet below the adjacent edge of pavement and 1.0-feet below the adjacent ROW. The
minimum longitudinal slope of ditches and channels is 0.3%.
The channel designed using manning equation for to verify the calculated ditch capacity and water surface
elevation between stations. A Manning’s “n” value of 0.03 was used for the calculations.
Ditch sizing calculations are provided as Appendix C of this report.
7.0 MAJOR BRIDGES

There are no major bridge crossings over waterways within the C06 improvements limit.
8.0 MAJOR CULVERTS

Two major roadway cross culverts are located within the limits of the C06 improvements. No major
modifications to either are proposed as the existing waterway openings were determined to of adequate
size as part of the analysis completed under the Concept Drainage Report (CDR) contract. A summary of
both culverts is provided below:
Page 11
8.1 STA 1338+54 (M.P. 25.3) – WATER CROSSING # 20 [WOUS CULVERT]

NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Although Water Crossing #20 is located within the project limits of I-17-4298
(C06), the hydraulics for this culvert remain unchanged from the Concept Drainage Report (CDR). A brief
summary from the CDR of the culvert has been added below:
The existing single 7’x5’ box culvert is 388’ in length and no changes are needed or proposed to
accommodate the proposed roadway geometry. This culvert conveys drainage from the west (southbound)
I-294 ditch and from an approximately 0.235 square mile (150.43 acres) urban watershed within the Village
of Hinsdale under I-294. A short section of ditch conveys the flow which ultimately discharges into Flagg
Creek.
The HEC-HMS Clark Unit Hydrograph method (Bulletin 70, Huff distributions) developed in the AES was
validated and the critical storm duration of peak flows was used for the crossing. Culvert hydraulics was
analyzed using the HEC-RAS Program which determined that flow through the culvert is inlet controlled.
The existing conditions provide approximately 6.15-ft of freeboard for the 50-year event with respect to the
low edge of pavement which is located along the I-294 SB entrance ramp to the Hinsdale Oasis. The
analysis indicates that there is no roadway overtopping for events up to and including the 500-year event.
Based on the proposed widening and horizontal and vertical alignment changes at the crossing, the existing
culvert provides approximately 7.05-ft of freeboard for the 50-year event with respect to the low edge of
pavement which is still located along the I-294 SB entrance ramp to the Hinsdale Oasis. Similar to existing
conditions, the analysis indicates that there is no roadway overtopping for events up to and including the
500-year.
8.2 STA 1386+54 (M.P. 26.2) – WATER CROSSING #21 [WOUS CULVERT]
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Although Water Crossing #21 is located within the project limits of I-17-4298
(C06), the hydraulics for this culvert remain unchanged from the Concept Drainage Report (CDR). A brief
summary from the CDR of the culvert has been added below:
The existing single 8’x8’ box culvert is 287’ in length and will be extended approximately 26 feet to
accommodate the proposed widening. This culvert conveys drainage from the west (southbound) I-294
ditch and from an approximately 0.72 square mile (460.80 acres) urban watershed within the Village of
Hinsdale under I-294. A short ditch and 90” CMP culvert under Creek Drive conveys the flow which
ultimately discharges into Flagg Creek.
The HEC-HMS Clark Unit Hydrograph method (Bulletin 70, Huff distributions) developed in the AES was
validated and the critical storm duration of peak flows was used for the crossing. Culvert hydraulics was
analyzed using the HEC-RAS Program which determined that flow through the culvert is inlet controlled.
The existing conditions provide approximately 5.16-ft of freeboard for the 50-year event with respect to the
low wedge of pavement along SB I-294. The analysis indicates that there is no roadway overtopping for
events up to and including the 500-year event.
Based on the proposed widening and vertical alignment change at the crossing, the extended culvert
Page 12
provides approximately 5.30-ft of freeboard for the 50-year event with respect to the low edge of pavement
along SB I-294. Similar to existing conditions, the analysis indicates that there is no roadway overtopping
for events up to and including the 500-year.
Culverts are designed in accordance with Section 7.0 of the Drainage Design Manual (2020). A summary
of key design criteria is outlined below:
CULVERT HYDRAULICS

1. Design Flood 50-Year Flows to be determined in
(2% chance of exceedance) accordance with Section 5.
“Hydrology”
2. Check Floods 10-Year (10% chance of 10-year storm design used to determine
exceedance) culvert outlet velocities.
100-Year Meet all IDNR-OWR permit criteria for all

(1% chance of exceedance) storms up to and including the 100-year
design storm, if applicable.
500-Year
(0.2% chance of exceedance) Ensure no overtopping of roadway for 500-
year design storm at low edge of pavement.
3. Minimum Diameter/Maximum Length 24” Ø / L < 200’ RCP pipe
for Roadway or Ramp Crossings
30” Ø / L > 200’
4. Minimum Diameter for Ditch Culverts 18" RCP pipe
5. Maximum Headwater for Design Flood HW/D < 1 HW/D > 1 may be allowed with prior
approval of the Illinois Tollway Project
0.5 feet of created head maximum Manager in cases where there is a
controlling tailwater condition and
increases in culvert size result in little or no
impact to the created head.
For culverts conveying watercourses,

maximum created head criteria in Table
8.0 shall apply.
Methods in FHWA HDS-5 are preferred.

HY-8 is an automation of the HDS-5
methods. HEC-RAS should be used for
major stream crossings.
6. Minimum Freeboard 3 ft. Below the low edge of pavement
7. Inlet / Outlet End Treatments As needed for hydraulics, safety The safety end treatment of culverts shall
and erosion control be applied according to Illinois Tollway
Standard Drawings.
Culvert sizing calculations and analysis is provided as Appendix D of this report.
Page 13
9.0 STORMWATER DETENTION

The volume of detention provided for Tollway runoff will maintain the existing detention volume provided
and add volume as required for new impervious surface. Detention and release rates are provided and
evaluated on a watershed basis following Tollway design criteria.
Stormwater Detention is designed in accordance with Section 10.0 of the Drainage Design Manual (2020).
A summary of key design criteria is outlined below:
STORMWATER DETENTION STORAGE

1. Water Quality Volume Capture first flush of rainfall per local USACE-Chicago District suggests 1.0 inch
requirements. of WQV. DSE shall identify required
storage by local and USACE permit
requirements.
2. Maximum Release Rate 0.04 cfs/acre for 2-year flood Must meet local requirements if more
0.15 cfs/acre for 100-year flood restrictive. (Refer to Article 2.2 for
additional information on governing
requirements).
3. Computation Method Graphic Method or a hydrograph method The critical duration storm shall be used
such as Win TR-20, HEC- HMS, POND- for detention analysis to determine peak
PACK, XP SWMM, flows.
etc.11
4. Precipitation Use ISWS Isohyetal Rainfall Depths Unless otherwise directed by Illinois
for 6 County zone only (Based on Tollway.
Circular 172).
Use Sectional Rainfall Depths for other
counties (Based on Bulletin 70).
5. Freeboard Minimum 3 foot above 100-year See Figure 10-1
To the edge of WSEL
pavement
Minimum 2 foot, above 100-year
To top of berm WSEL
6. Emergency Spillway (outlet) Must pass the 100-year flood without See Figure 10-1
overtopping basin berm or ditch if the outlet Erosion protection as needed.
structure malfunctions.
7. Orifice Size 4” (minimum) For manholes with restrictors and ditch
checks.
12” (minimum)
No manholes with restrictor plate
provided.
8. Top of Weir Elevation 6” (minimum) clearance between top of
weir and top slab.
Page 14
9.1 OUTLETS AND SUMMARY

For the purposes of evaluating the outlet, the tributary off-site area was not included and only the drainage
area within or immediately adjacent to the Tollway right-of-way was accounted for in order to accurately
compare the existing and proposed conditions. When including tributary off-site areas, the change in flows
with respect to the Tollway improvements are lessened by the longer time of concentrations for the tributary
off-site areas.
While proposed flows exceed the allowable release rates for some of the individual outlets, the overall
discharge to Flagg Creek is less than the allowable release rate across the entire watershed. This is due
to the inability to provide stormwater detention facilities within the sub-area of some of the individual outlets.
See Appendix F for the outlet evaluation and calculations.
9.1.1 Flagg Creek Watershed
9.1.1.1 Outlet 25A
Outlet 25A drains 21.14 acres area within or immediately adjacent to the Tollway right-of-way to the 7’x5’
box culvert (Water Crossing 20) which outlets the Tollway ROW and ultimately drains to Flagg Creek via a
short section of ditch. There is no detention in the existing condition and no detention will be provided in
the proposed condition.
9.1.1.2 Outlet 25B
A majority of the existing Tollway drainage area for Outlet 25B will be diverted to Outlet 25D. However, a
small area between the noise abatement wall along the Tollway and the backyards of the residential area
cannot be diverted and will continue to drain to Outlet 25B in the proposed condition.
9.1.1.3 Outlet 25C
Outlet 25C will be not be utilized in the proposed condition and will be abandoned. The area which
previously drained to the outlet will be diverted to Outlet 26A. In the existing conditions, Outlet 25C collected
stormwater runoff from NB I-294 within an existing ditch along the Tollway right-of-way that ultimately
discharged into Flagg Creek via a 15” RCP under Commonwealth Avenue.
9.1.1.4 Outlet 25D
Outlet 25D is a new outlet and is comprised of portions of areas which were previously tributary to existing
Outlets 25A, 25B, and 26A. This outlet drains 53.34 acres through the proposed Tollway detention pond
where stormwater runoff will be detained before outletting into Flagg Creek. The proposed detention pond
will help achieve the required detention volume within the Flagg Creek watershed and will reduce peak
flows to ensure that the total peak discharge to Flagg Creek within the entire watershed is equal to or less
than the allowable release rate.
9.2.1.1 Outlet 26A
Outlet 26A drains 173.66 acres in the existing condition through the Tollway ditch and 134.60 acres in the
Page 15
proposed condition before outletting into the 8’x8’ box culvert (Water Crossing 21) which flow leaves the
Tollway right-of-way before ultimately draining to Flagg Creek. A portion of the stormwater runoff from the
134.60 acres is detained prior to reaching the outfall. For the purposes of evaluating Outlet 26A, two
separate analyses were completed. The initial analysis accounted for only the drainage area within or
immediately adjacent to the Tollway right-of-way while the second analysis included the portion of the
tributary off-site area which is routed through the Tollway stormwater detention facilities and storm sewer
system. This analysis was completed to ensure that the Tollway drainage system, including the design of
the detention pond control structure, would be adequately sized.
Page 16
9.3 DETENTION SUMMARY – OVERALL FLAGG CREEK WATERSHED

Per the Concept Drainage Report, the required detention for the entire Flagg Creek Watershed is provided within Contracts C04, C05, C06, and
C07. A summary of the required volume and where it is being provided throughout the four contracts is included below.
Table 2. Detention Basin Summary Table - Overall Flagg Creek Watershed

FLAGG CREEK DETENTION SUMMARY
*
Required Design
Provided Date
Location Detention Firm Notes
Detention Updated
(ac-ft) Responsibility
(ac-ft)
Required Detention
Stantec / Updated to
Additional Impervious (Sta. 1216+00 - Flagg Creek Ridge
13.80 BLA/TSC/ reflect 60% 4/18/2019
South of Ogden Avenue (approx. Sta. 1437+00))
Fluid Clarity Plans
Outlet 23B.1 0 5/2/2019
Outlet 23C (existing ditch - Sta. 1239+00 LT) 0.57 Stantec 5/2/2019
Outlet 23D 0 5/2/2019
From
Outlet 24B (existing pipe - Sta. 1284+00 RT) 0.05
BLA Master Plan
Outlet 24C (existing pipe - Sta. 1288+00 RT) 0.08
Outlet 25B (existing ditch - Sta. 1353+00 RT) 0.3
TSC
Outlet 25C (existing ditch - Sta. 1367+00 RT) 0.3
Outlet 26F (existing ditches - Sta. 1411+00 LT & RT) 0.52
Outlet 26D (existing ditch - Sta. 1406+00 RT) 0.04
Page 17
FLAGG CREEK DETENTION SUMMARY

*
Required Design
Provided Date
Location Detention Firm Notes
Detention Updated
(ac-ft) Responsibility
(ac-ft)
Provided Detention
Detention Basin - Sta. 1250+00 LT (Pond PR-23D) 0.88 5/2/2019
Detention Basin - Sta. 1262+00 RT (Pond PR-23H) 3.99 5/2/2019
Detention Basin - Sta. 1223+00 LT (Pond PR-23A) 0.21 I-17-4298 5/2/2019
Stantec
Ditch - Sta. 1226+00 RT (Ramp J infield) 0 (C04) 12/7/2018
Detention Basin - Sta. 1231+00 RT (Pond 23C) 1.88 5/2/2019
Ditch - Sta. 1254+00 RT (Pond 23E) 0 5/2/2019
I-17-4298
Detention Basin - Sta. 1302+00 RT (Pond 13A) 3.63 BLA 2/18/2019**
(C05)
Detention Basin - Sta. 1349+00 RT (Commonwealth) 1.77
I-17-4298
Detention Basin - Sta. 1367+00 LT (Harding Road) 1.60 TSC 7/31/2020
(C06)
Detention Basin - Sta. 1378+00 RT (Commonwealth) 1
I-17-4298
Detention Basin - Sta. 1425+00 LT (Pond 14A) 1.4 12/20/2018
Fluid Clarity (C07)
Total= 15.66 16.36
Surplus = 0.70
* Note that within the Flagg Creek watershed, stormwater detention must be provided above the 10-year Flagg Creek floodplain elevation
The Tollway typically requires detention to be provided above the 100-year floodplain elevation; however, due to the proximity of Flagg
Creek this is not feasible. If detention is placed above the 10-year floodplain elevation, a backflow preventer (Tideflex (duckbill type inside
a concrete structure) on the outlet pipe of the detention pond is required.
** Verified with HEC-HMS
Page 18
Table 3. Detention Summary within C06 limit
Detention Storage Detention Storage

On-Site Volume Required Volume Provided
Basin
Drainage (ac-ft) (ac-ft)
Identification
Area ID
2-Year 100-Year 2-Year 100-Year
MP 25.5 NB
25D-01 0.60 1.77
(55th St Pond)
MP 25.83 SB
26A-06 2.72 7.15 0.10 1.60
(Harding Rd)
MP 26.04NB
26A-01 0.30 1.00
(Commonwealth)
Total = 2.72 7.15 1.00 4.37
10.0 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Stormwater quality is a component of drainage design. Stormwater quality practices incorporated into the
drainage design shall not impact traffic safety and shall be cost effective. Infrastructure to improve water
quality is also proposed as part of the overall improvements.
Water Quality is provided by increasing the retention time of collected run-off. The Water Quality Volume is
provided within proposed detention ponds and stormwater treatment structures which are sized to
accommodate the “first flush” consisting of 1.0" of rainfall volume over the impervious area of the entire
tributary watershed within the Cook County limits. The water quality volume provided is for new impervious
surfaces only.
The Water Quality Volume (WQV) must be captured, retained, infiltrated, and/or evaporated and this runoff
volume is not to be released from the site. The WQV will be provided in swales, ditches, infiltration areas,
and/or basins. Rock may be used in the basins to limit exposed/open water and to meet FAA 48-hour draw-
down requirements. The overall BMP concept plan will be used as a guide for these locations. Where
infiltration is not possible due to subsurface soil conditions, water quality treatment structures are proposed.
Page 19
10.1 WATER QUALITY SUMMARY

Table 3. Water Quality Volume Summary Table
Change of
Total
Impervious Required WQ Volume
Basin Impervious
Area (Exist. to WQV Provided
Identification Area
Prop.)
(acres) (acres) (Cu. ft.) (Cu. ft.)
MP 25.5 NB
(55th St Pond)
MP 25.83 SB
(Harding Rd) Will be
provided in
MP 26.04NB 50.20 13.62 49,660
100%
(Commonwealth) submittal
Stormwater
Treatment
Structures
11.0 FLAGG CREEK FLOODPLAIN

Flagg Creek lies within the limits of the proposed improvements. Flagg Creek parallels the entire project
limits and is mapped as a Zone AE floodplain with elevations determined and a designated floodway.
According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 17031C0466J (Revised on August 19, 2008), the
I-294 Bridge over Flagg Creek located north of 47th Street and upstream creek area is mapped as Zoned X
with no base flood elevation determined. The unsteady HEC-RAS model prepared for the MWRD’s Detailed
Watershed Plan (DWP) for the Lower Des Plaines River Watershed, dated February 28, 2011 was reviewed
for additional information on Flagg Creek. It was agreed through coordination with IDNR-OWR that the
hydrologic and hydraulic flood elevations, information, and related modeling included in the DWP will be
utilized as the basis of design and permitting analysis of Flagg Creek. Based on the MWRD model, the 100-
year floodplain elevation for the face of the upstream and downstream of I-294 Bridge over Flagg Creek is
approximately 642.48.
There are no floodplain or floodway encroachments proposed as part of the current phase of construction.
Page 20
12.0 COMPENSATORY STORAGE

The IDNR-OWR requires that compensatory storage be provided for any regulatory floodway storage
volume lost due to the proposed work on this project. Any storage volume lost between the Normal Water
Level and the 10-year flood elevation is required to be placed below the 10-year elevation and any storage
volume lost between the 10-year and the 100-year flood elevation is required to be placed within the same
range of elevations.
A floodplain fill and compensatory storage analysis has been performed for Flagg Creek to compare the
effects of the proposed improvements to existing storage volumes based on the hydraulic models. This
includes impacts related to the proposed roadway widening, I-294 Bridge over Flagg Creek, pedestrian
bridge over I-294 location just north of 47th Street, and BNSF Railroad Bridge over I-294.
Compensatory storage for the floodplain fill is proposed as excavation of existing material in the southeast
corner of 47th Street Bridge over I-294 and is located downstream of the Flagg Creek Bridge over I-294
north of 47th Street.
12.1 COMPENSATORY STORAGE SUMMARY

Table 4. Compensatory Storage Summary Table
4298 Flagg Creek Watershed Floodplain Compensatory Storage Summary
Floodplain Fill
(AC-FT) Design Firm
NWL to 10‐yr to Responsibility
Total
Fill Location 10‐yr 100‐yr
Mainline NB, Sta. 1386+00 to 1398+00 1.22 1.22 TSC C‐06
Mainline SB, Sta. 1400+00 to 1405+00 0.000 Fluid Clarity C‐07
Mainline SB, Sta. 1410+60 to 1423+00 0.150 1.620 1.770 Fluid Clarity C‐07
Mainline NB, Sta. 1405+00 to 1409+00 0.000 0.140 0.140 Fluid Clarity C‐07
Flagg Creek Bridge WC‐22 0.000 0.300 0.300 Fluid Clarity C‐07
Pedestrian Bridge I‐18‐4424 0.124 0.282 0.406 Contract 4424
BNSF RR Bridge 4222 0.170 0.660 0.830 Contract 4222
Fill Total= 0.444 4.222 4.666
Required Comp. Storage

5.133
at 1.1:1 or 110%
Page 21
Compensatory Storage (ac‐ft)

Design Firm
NWL to 10‐yr to Total Responsibility
Compensatory Storage Location 10‐yr 100‐yr (ac‐ft)
Mainline NB, Sta. 1411+00 Pipe CS‐1 0.130 0.420 0.550 Fluid Clarity C‐07
BNSF 4222 SB, Sta 1407+00
0.370 0.730 1.100 4222
Basin CS‐2
Mainline NB, Sta. 1402+00 Basin CS‐3 0.000 0.275 0.275 Fluid Clarity C‐07
Mainline NB, Sta. 1395+00 Basin CS‐4 4.430 3.110 7.540 TSC C‐06
Ped Bridge Sta. 1400+00 I‐18‐4424 0.024 0.026 0.050 4424
Comp. Storage Total= 4.954 4.561 9.515
Comp. Storage % of Fill= 1116% 108% 204%

Table prepared by Fluid Clarity (6/25/20)
Table 5. Compensatory Storage - Provided Volume (within C06) Calculation Table

Within C06 Project Limits - Basin CS-4
HWL Area Avg Area Depth Volume ∑ Volume ∑ Volume
Elevation
Freq. (SQ FT) (SQ FT) (FT) (CU FT) (CU FT) (AC-FT)
NWL 632.40 1,274 0
634.00 6,793 3,670 1.60 5,871 5,871 0.13
636.00 28,950 16,589 2.00 33,178 39,049 0.9
638.00 67,330 46,810 2.00 93,620 132,669 3.05
10-yr 638.86 72,552 69,925 0.86 60,135 192,804 4.43
640.00 77,060 74,795 1.14 85,266 278,070 6.38
641.00 81,672 79,355 1.00 79,355 357,425 8.21
642.00 86,389 84,019 1.00 84,019 441,444 10.13
100-yr 642.40 88,490 87,437 0.40 34,975 476,419 10.94
NWL - 10 yr 4.43
Incremental Basin Volume
10yr - 100 yr 6.51
Existing compensatory storage per Western Springs record information

to be provided by the Tollway per letter from Western Springs. 10yr - 100 yr 3.40
(Assumed it was all to be provided within this range)
NWL - 10 yr 4.43
Remaining compensatory storage to mitigate for floodplain impacts
10yr - 100 yr 3.11
related to Tollway improvements
Total 7.54
Page 22
13.0 PERMITS
The following permits are identified for Contract I-17-4298 (C06).
13.1 MWRDGC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PERMIT FOR DIRECT

OUTLETS TO FLAGG CREEK
The MWRD Watershed Management Permit is required for stormwater outfalls to Flagg Creek. Four outfall
locations are identified for the I-17-4298 (C06) limits and are included in the WMO Permit Application
submittal:
• Outfall #25A, Water Crossing #20 (Existing 7’x5’ Box Culvert): The 7’x5’ box culvert is an
existing outfall that discharges stormwater from I-294 and off-site tributary area to Flagg Creek. The
10-year peak discharge velocity is 6.31 ft/sec. No permanent erosion control measures have been
provided downstream of the culvert.
• Outfall #25B, Outfall Pipe to Flagg Creek (Existing 15” RCP Pipe): The 15” RCP is an existing
outfall that discharges stormwater from a swale along I-294 and adjacent back yards of a residential
area. A significant amount of the existing drainage area for Outfall #25B will be diverted to Outfall
#25D for detention and water quality purposes with a very small remaining area continuing to drain
to this outfall in the proposed condition. The outlet discharges directly to Flagg Creek and the outlet
elevation is set above the 10-year flood elevation of the waterway. There will be no any changes
to the existing pipe or construction work proposed outside of the Tollway right-of-way except for
pipe cleaning. Therefore, the downstream side of the outfall beyond the right-of-way will remain
unchanged in the proposed condition. No permanent erosion control measures have been provided
downstream of the pipe.
• Outfall #25D, Flagg Creek Detention Basin (P327): Outfall #25D is a proposed 48” RCP which
drains area which is diverted from existing Outfalls 25A, 25B, 25C, and 26A. The proposed pipe
discharges stormwater runoff from the proposed detention basin located at MP 25.5 NB (55th Street
Pond) to Flagg Creek. This detention basin and outfall are designed to detain stormwater runoff
from the roadway widening and some off-site tributary area. The outlet discharges directly to Flagg
Creek and the outlet elevation is set above the 10-year flood elevation of the waterway. A check
valve is proposed downstream of the control structure to eliminate inflow from Flagg Creek backing
up into the Tollway stormwater facilities due to elevated flood stages. The 100-year peak release
rate from the basin is 71.1 cfs and is discharged directly to Flagg Creek. Therefore, no permanent
erosion control measures have been provided downstream of the pipe.
• Outfall #26A, Water Crossing #21 (Existing 8’x8’ Box Culvert): The 8’x8’ box culvert is an
existing outfall that discharges stormwater from I-294 and off-site tributary area to Flagg Creek. The
10-year peak discharge velocity is 3.8 ft/sec. No permanent erosion control measures have been
provided.
Page 23
13.2 IDNR-OWR FLOODWAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT

The IDNR-OWR Part 3708 - Floodway Construction in Northeastern Illinois rules are applicable in identified
floodways and a permit is required for “all construction activities within the floodway of streams draining
one square mile or greater in an urban area …must be permitted by the Division prior to construction.”
Flagg Creek has a designated floodplain and floodway located within the project site and the drainage area
tributary to the proposed crossing is approximately 3.536-square miles. Flagg Creek is not a publicly
navigated waterway. Therefore, this project does fall under jurisdiction of the IDNR-OWR and a permit is
required for the planned improvements. In general, the applicant must demonstrate that the appropriate
use will not reduce floodway conveyance or storage and will not increase velocities and flood heights.
In addition, the proposed work provides compensatory storage volume for fill placed in the
floodplain/floodway meeting the requirements under 3708.70 d) 6) and meets the floodway velocity
requirements under 3708.70 b) 2) and 3708.70 d) 7).
Based on the above summary, it is demonstrated that the proposed project meets all requirements for
floodway construction under the Part 3708 Rules.
Page 24
EXHIBITS
Supporting Exhibits
0 1000 2000 3000
SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT LOCATION
= $FILEL$
FILE NAM E
EXHIBIT 1
= $DATE$
= $TIM E$
REVISIONS
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY CONTRACT NO. I-17-4298_C06
SB 8/10/2020 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
PLOT DATE
DRAWN BY DATE
PLOT TIM E
GENERAL LOCATION DRAINAGE MAP
k
DRAWING NO.
e
0
+0
1
65
14
e
EXHIBIT 2
0
.4
78
63+
14
PT
Cr
t
Sal
OF
0
+0
60
14
NGS ROAD
3000
1455+00
1
1450+00
HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATIONS ATLAS MAP
70
PC 1448+ 62.
2000
HINSDALE OASIS TO 47TH STREET

1445+00
1440+00
OW SPRI
SCALE IN FEET
CONTRACT NO. I-17-4298

NGS ROAD
1000
1435+00
OW SPRI
47TH ST
48
PT 1433+ 36.
L
WIL
1430+00
1425+00
0
83
09.
24+
14
PC
L L
1420+00
WI
FLOODS IN HINSDALE QUADRANGLE, ILLINOIS

1415+00
ek
Cre
1410+00
Flagg
1405+00
D
HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATIONS
OA
ILR
RA
1400+00
A
TR
ME
DESCRIPTION
1395+00
SF
BN
ATLAS HA-86
1390+00
REVISIONS
F ROAD
1385+00
03
07.
81+
13
PT
1380+00
Flagg Creek
DATE
1375+00
WOL
55TH ST
1370+00
NO.
84
PC 1366+ 20.
1365+00
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

1360+00
1355+00
A V E N U E
1350+00
G R O V E,
6 0 5 1 5
200+00
PROJECT LOCATION
PO T 200+ 00.
00
1345+00
Sta 1345+ 03.

43 AH 20
PT 1345+ 00.
Sta 1345+ 00.
20 BK =
EQ U ATI
O N:
205+00
1340+00
PC 205+ 44.
84
O G D E N
I L L I N O I S
D O W N E R S
210+00
1335+00
20
PC 1335+ 00.
PT 211+ 16.
69
215+00
1330+00
20
PT 1327+ 93.
PC 217+ 75.
99
2 7 0 0
T
220+00
tch
reet Di
1325+00
E
h St
79
3.
PT 66+ 7
79
3. PT 66+ 7
59t
SON STRE
65+00
225+00
1320+00
62
PI 62+ 88.
85
PC 1317+ 90.
PT 227+ 75.
99
60+00
230+00
PC 59+
PC 3.
59+003.17
17
17
PC 59+ 03.
1315+00
55+00
235+00
TOLLWAY I-294
1310+00
50+00
h
240+00
tc
HINSDALE
1305+00
MADI
Di
t
OASIS
45+00
e
245+00
re
.89
67
5+
1300+00
51
T
0
0
PO
19.
15+
5
PT
00
515+
St
40+00
00
510+
rd
250+00
1295+00
.14
24
6+
50
PC
63
00
+
505
29
PT 132+ 29.
07
PT 36+ 93.
07
PT 36+ 93.
1293+25
19
PT 1293+ 29.
19
PT 1293+ 29.
PC 252+ 37.
65
1293+00
1292+75
1292+50
CURVE = RPO N-2-C-000_5

1292+25
PI STA. = 129+ 60.

34
00
0+
1292+00
50
R = 2,
850.
79'
1291+75
T = 270.
58'
35+00
L = 539.
53'
E = 12.
81'
1291+50
PC STA. = 126+ 89.

76
PT STA. = 132+ 29.
29
1291+25
PI 12
9+ 60.
34
1291+00
255+00
1290+75
1290+50
1290+00
1290+00 1290+25
PI 33+
1290+00
74.
00 93
5+
49
1289+75
1289+50
1289+25
1289+00
76
89.
1288+75
126+
00
PCC
.
00
1288+50
1+
49
1288+25
POT

PI STA. = 125+ 41.
17
1288+00
1287+75
R = 2,
510.
00'
T = 148.
94'
CURVE = I
294-2-C-SG2_9
L = 297.
52'
1287+50
PI STA. = 1286+ 70.

02
E = 4. 41
41'
53. 41
30+
PC PC STA. = 123+ 92.
24 53.
1287+25
PT STA. = 126+ 89.

59
76 30+
125+00
R = 4,
950.
00' PI
125
+4
PC 10
.
25+
T 1
1287+00
T = 667.
16' 1.
17
PO
L = 1,
326.
33'
E = 44.
76'
30+00
1286+75
PC STA. = 1280+ 02.

86
PT STA. = 1293+ 29.
19
1286+50
PI 12
86+
PI 128 70.
02
6+ 70.
02
1286+25
1286+00
.24
92
260+00
123+
PRC
1285+75
1285+50
1285+00
1285+00
1285+25
1285+00
1284+75
.62
65
2+
12
PT
h
1284+50
1284+25
1284+00
1283+75
PT
261
+ 88.
1283+50
33
tc
1283+25
1283+00
1282+75
15
78.
25+
1282+50
15
78.
PT
PT
25+
120+00
1282+25

PI STA. = 119+ 23.
61
1282+00
25+00
1281+75
R = 8,
166.
00'
Di
T = 469.
66'
1281+50
L = 938.
29'
E = 13.49' 61
23.
119+
PC STA.
PI = 114+ 53. 95
1281+25
PT STA. = 123+ 92.

24
1281+00
265+00
1280+75
1280+50
1280+00
1280+00
1280+25
86
02.
1280+
1280+00
C 1
28
0+
02PCC
.86
PC
1279+75
1279+50
1279+25
1279+00
1278+75
1278+50
d
1278+25
PC
267
1278+00
+ 31.
01
1277+75
a
1277+50
1277+25
115+00
1277+00
1276+75
.51
+ 67
20+00
114
PRC
PI 20+
Ro
.95
+ 53
1276+50
PRC
114 69.
05
1276+25
1276+00
1275+75
270+00
1275+50
0
0
+0
5+0 1275+25
75
27
12
1
1275+00
1274+75
1274+50
1274+25
d
1274+00
iel 1273+75
1273+50
1273+25

1273+00
PI STA. = 110+ 37.

20
1272+75
R = 3,
300.
00'
1272+50
T = 421.
28'
L = 838.
03'
1272+25
E = 26.
78'
nf
PC STA. = 106+ 15.
92
00
1272+00
PT STA. = 114+ 53.

95
0+
PI
11
110
1271+75
+ 37
.20
PC
15
1271+50
+
41
ai
.0
6
1271+25
PR
C
1271+00
14+
Pl
1270+75
92.
03
1270+50
0
0
5+0
00
+0
0+ 1270+25
70
27
27
12
1
1270+00
1269+75
1269+50
10
46.
1269+25
12+
1269+00
10
PI
39.
1268+75
276+
PT 00
63.
1268+50
+
106
C
PC
1268+25
92
15.
1268+00
+
106
PCC
1267+75
1267+50
1267+25
1267+00
84
00
36.
5+
+
1266+75
00
278
10
POT
+
10
1266+50
PC
1266+25
10+
00
1266+00
.0
0
1265+75
PI STA. = 103+ 08.
25
1265+50
00
0
1265+25
0
R = 5,
800.
00'
+
5+
65
T = 308.
25'
26
12
1
1265+00
.84 L = 615.
92'
73
+ E = 8.
19'
PT
1264+75
37
PC 8+ PC STA. = 100+ 00.
00
PC 43.
47 PT STA. = 106+ 15.
92
1264+50
8+
26 PI
.3 10
2 3+
1264+25
08
.2
5
1264+00
I-55
1263+75
1263+50
1263+25
1263+00
1262+75
1262+50
40+00
1262+25
1262+00
0
.0
0
00
1261+75
0+0
100+
10
PC
1261+50
1261+25
1261+00
31
1260+75
6.
9
98+
1260+50
PC
00
1260+25
0
0
+
60+
0
126
12
1260+00
1259+75
1259+50
1259+25
1259+00
1258+75
1258+50
1258+25
1258+00
1257+75
1257+50
1257+25
1257+00
1256+75
1256+50
00
1256+25
CURVE = I
294-2-C-SG2_8
+
45
PI STA. = 1256+ 75.
59
1256+00
1255+75
R = 5,
700.
00'
T = 2,
675.
17'
1255+50
L = 5,
002.
44'
+ 00
0
1255+25
E = 596.
55'
0
55+
PC STA. = 1230+ 00.
42
1125
25
1255+00
PT STA. = 1280+ 02.
86
1254+75
1254+50
P
1254+25
T
46
P
68+25
OT
+
1254+00
6
8+
5
3
0
3
.3
2
.9 68+00
9
1253+75
67+75
1253+50
67+50
1253+25
67+25
1253+00
67+00
1252+75
66+75
66+50
1252+50
66+25
1252+25
66+00
1252+00
65+75
65+50
1251+75
65+25
1251+50
65+00
00
1251+25
+
50
64+75
1251+00
64+50
1250+75
64+25
PT
1250+50
64+18.86
P
64+00
T
0
00
6
+ 0
4+1
1250+25
0+ 63+75
8
125
1250 1250+00
.86
63+50
1249+75 63+25
63+00
1249+50
PI 62+75
1249+25
1
PI
2
62+71.58
P
56 62+50 CURVE = JO LI
-2-C-000_5
I
6
1249+00
+
PI STA. = 62+ 71.
58
2
75
+
62+25
.5
7
1248+75
9
1.
62+00
58
1248+50
61+75 R = 5,
000.
00'
1248+25 T = 147.
37'
61+50
L = 294.
66'
1248+00
61+25
E = 2.
17'
PC
61+24.21
PC
1247+75 61+00 PC STA. = 61+ 24.
21
6
PT STA. = 64+ 18.
86
1
60+75
+
1247+50
2
4
60+50
.
1247+25
2
1
0
0 60+25
+ '
0 45
1247+00
6
7.
60+00
1246+75
21
59+75
1246+50
59+50
1246+25
59+25
1246+00
59+00
PT
00
59+06.76
PT
1245+75
5+
58+75
5
5
9
+
58+50 1245+50
0
6
000
.
+ 0
7
58+25 1245+25
6
455+
24
PI
58+00 112
58+11.38
PI
1245+00
CURVE = JO LI
-2-C-000_2
5
57+75
PI STA. = 58+ 11.
8
38 1244+75
+
1
57+50
1
1244+50
.3
8
57+25
R = 10,
000.
00'
1244+25
PCC
57+00
PC
57+15.99
T = 95.
39' 1244+00 83
PO T 14+ 06.
14+00
C
83
PO T 14+ 06.
56+75
L = 190.
77'
5
1243+75
7
E = 0.
45'
+1
56+50
13+75
PC STA. = 57+ 15.
99
5
1243+50
.
56+25
9
PT STA. = 59+ 06.
76 14
9
1243+25
36.
56+00 0+
13+50
12
PI
1243+00
55+75
1242+75
13+25
55+50
1242+50
00 55+25
+
55
13+00
1242+25
55+00
1242+00
54+75
POT 108+21.37
CURVE = EX-RAM P-N_3
PT 107+06.43
CURVE = EX-RAM P-J_5
69
12+75
54+50
1241+75
PI STA. = 105+ 66.
69
.
PI STA. = 19+ 27.
33
66
54+25 1241+50
5+
12+50
10
54+00
PI 19+27.33
1241+25
R = 340.
00' R = 300.
00'
PI
53+75 1241+00 80
T = 161.
02'
12+25
2. T = 49.
84'
9
53+50 1240+75 L = 300.
76' L = 98.
78'
PI
53+58.04
PI
CURVE = JO LI
-2-C-000_1 17+
53+25
E = 36.
20' E = 4.
11'
12+00
94'
114.
1240+50 I
53
PI STA. = 53+ 58.
04 P
0 PC STA. = 104+ 05.
67 PC STA. = 18+ 77.
49
+
53+00
0
001240+25
0+
58
+
PT STA. = 107+ 06.
43 PT STA. = 19+ 76.
27
24
11+75
.
1
PCC 18+77.49
52+75
04
1240+00
1240
00
52+50
R = 18,
290.
00' 1239+75
5+
10 20
00
T = 358.
04' + 00
PC
11+50
+
52+25 1239+50
C
L = 715.
99'
6
67
19
52+00 1239+25
E = 3.
50' 05. CURVE = EX-RAM P-J_4
11+25
+7
51+75
PC STA. = 50+ 00.
00 1239+00
4+ PI STA. = 17+ 92.
80 CURVE = EX-RAM P-J_6
0
1
6.
51+50 PT STA. = 57+ 15.
99 1238+75
PI STA. = 23+ 10.
26
27
PC
11+00
26
51+25 1238+50
.
R = 150.00'
10
51+00 1238+25 PI STA. = 15+ 91.
60
T = 167.00'
10+75
R = 1,
910.
00'
+
23
50+75 1238+00
L = 251.
69' T = 333.
99'
PI
50+50
1237+75
E = 74.48' L = 661.
30'
10+50
R = 250.00'
00 PC STA. = 16+ 25.79 E = 28.
98'
1237+50
50+25
+ T = 34.63'
25.79
50 PCC 16+PT STA. = 18+ 77.
49 PC STA. = 19+ 76.
27
L = 68.
82'
1237+25
50+00
10+00 10+25
PC
PT STA. = 26+ 37.
57
50+00.00
E = 2.
39'
PC
1237+00
PC STA. = 15+ 56.
97
50
1236+75
10+00
PT STA. = 16+ 25.
79
+
1236+50
00
PI 15
+ 91. 97
6.
+5
60
.
1236+25
00
15
1236+00
PCC
1235+75
4
1235+50
05
0
0
000
.6
+0
1235+25
5+
7
5+
'
15
123
123 1235+00
1234+75 PI STA. = 14+ 03.
58 25+
1234+50 00
1234+25
R = 520.
00' PI STA. = 26+ 80.
32
1234+00
1233+75
T = 163.
58'
1233+50
L = 316.
97'
E = 25.12' R = 300.
00'
1233+25
0
.0 00
PC STA. = 12+ 40. T = 42. 76'
1233+00
00 32
P L = 84. 94'
T
O
1232+75
PT STA. = 15+ 56.97 80.
+03'
00
64 100+ E = 63.
P
1232+50
T 2
CC
0+
+
P PC
PISTA. = 26+ 37.
57
1 PO
0
9. 1232+25 I
2
1
1 PT STA. = 27+ 22.
51
6
1 4+
+
2 1232+00
03
3
42
7
1231+75 .58
.5
0.
11
PO T 29+ 98.
00
0
+5
7
1231
0.
+0
+ 25
31
4
12
30
+
1+
00 PCC
2
123
1
12
75 27+
0+
123
PI STA. = 11+ 20.
52
C
0 22.
C
+5
PC 1230+00.42
1230
P
50 51
+2
12
30
+000
1,406.83'
00+
PC
0
+0
123 30
123 12
29
+7
5 R = 1,
060.
00'
12
12
29
+5
0
T = 120.
52'
12
29
+2
5
L = 240.
00'
0
+0
E = 6.
83'
12
29
28
+7
5
PC STA. = 10+ 00.
00
I-55
00
12
0 PI 28+
+5
48 85
0.
PT STA. = 12+ 40.
00 CURVE = EX-RAM P-J_.
28
12
5
8
+2
+0
28
12
0
PI STA. = 28+ 48.
85
PI
+0
28
10
12
5
+7
11
27
.51
12
PC
0
+
+5
27
12
2
20
3
27
+2
5
00 R = 150.
00'
9+
12
53
.
10+
52
0
+0
T = 126.
34'
2
8.
27
12
C
5
+7
26
L = 210.
00'
30+1
C
12
P
PT 31+25.00
0
+5
26
12
E = 46.
12'
12
26
+2
5
CURVE = I
55-2-C-0002
PC STA. = 27+ 22.
51
0
PI STA. = 641+ 57.
54
CC
+0
26
12
+7
5
PT STA. = 29+ 32.
51
P
25
PI 641+57.54
12
0
+5
12
25
PI
30+
25 00
+2
5
0 00
5+00
12
+0
5+ PI STA. = 29+ 76.
40 R = 11,
489.
22'
29
25
122 25
+0
0
12 12
+
T = 491.
80'
PI 30+71.84
5
+7
76
24
12
L = 982.
99'
Creek
0
PI STA. = 30+ 71.
84
.
+5
24
40
12
24
+2
5 R = 175.
00' E = 10.
52'
PI 623+75.71
12
1, T = 43.
90' PC STA. = 636+ 65.
75
18
0
+0
24
12
1. 640+ 00
05 +7
5
L = 86.
02' PT STA. = 646+ 48.
74
' 12
23
R = 835.00'
0
635+ 00 645+ 00
12
23
+5
E = 5.
42'
T = 53.
31'
PC 636+65.75
5
+2
12
23
PC STA. = 29+ 32.
51
630+ 00 L = 106.
47'
PT 646+48.74
0
+0
04'
040.
1, 12
23
PT STA. = 30+ 18.
53
+7
5
E = 1.
70'
625+ 00
22
12
PC STA. = 30+ 18.
53
0
+5
22
12
PT 626+25.71
5
+2
620+ 00 CURVE = I
55-2-C-0001 12
22
PT STA. = 31+ 25.
00
0
+0
22
PC 621+25.71
PI STA. = 623+ 75.
71
12
08
615+ 00
5
+7
21
.
12
78'
016.
54
1, 12
21
+ 50
4+
5
+2
21
12
R = 115,
804.
00'
51
+ 00
POT 611+08.93
21
12
T = 250.
00' +7
5
PI
20
12
POT 519+25.00
L = 500.
00' 20
+5
0
80'
293.
12
+2
0
5
00
E = 0.
27' +0
PT 516+31.20
12
0
20
00 515+
0+
37
0
+0
20
PC STA. = 621+ 25.
71 122
122 12
9.
CURVE = RM PE-2-C-0001 19
+7
5
12
PT STA. = 626+ 25.
71
PI 18+90.78
+1
PI STA. = 18+ 90.
78
25+00
+ 50
19
12
CURVE = EX-RAM P-A1_5
18
5
+2
19
12
PI STA. = 514+ 54.
08
12
+ 00
19
12
5
+7
R = 2,
885.
00' 12
18
PI 1218+19.37
0
+5
18
T = 440.
78' 12
+ 25 R = 705.
00'
PI
18
L = 874.
80'
12
8+
00
T = 185.
32'
15+ 00
121
E = 33.
48' 75

Report To Western Springs On Interstate 294 Project's Effects and Email With Resident's Concerns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report To Western Springs On Interstate 294 Project's Effects and Email With Resident's Concerns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mallory A.

From: Ziegler, Jill <JZiegler@getipass.com>

From: Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com>

Begin forwarded message:

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 12, 2022, at 7:20 PM, Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com> wrote:

On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Fulghum <dave.fulghum@att.net>

Subject: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance

Note the special credit given to attorney Bill Ryan. He is

For those of you who don’t know who I am, I have

Before I talk about the engineering report, my bank just

Patrick Engineering does millions of dollars of business

Let’s start with the bottom line. There is a significant

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)

Page 3 of the attachment to the subject Patrick report

A quick calculation of the numbers in the chart on that

The Patrick report says during a big storm, the flood

I have a friend in Ft Meyers, they only got a few inches

I asked our HOA board to partner with Hinsdale and our

<Hinsdale tollway agreement.pdf>

From: Zucchero, Rocco <rzuccher@getipass.com>

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com>

Begin forwarded message:

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Fulghum <dave.fulghum@att.net>

We have not had any recent update on our HOA

Note the special credit given to attorney Bill Ryan. He is

For those of you who don’t know who I am, I have

Before I talk about the engineering report, my bank just

Let’s start with the bottom line. There is a significant

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)

Page 3 of the attachment to the subject Patrick report

A quick calculation of the numbers in the chart on that

I have a friend in Ft Meyers, they only got a few inches

I asked our HOA board to partner with Hinsdale and our

<Hinsdale tollway agreement.pdf>

From: Alice F. Gallagher

Begin forwarded message:

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 12, 2022, at 7:20 PM, Alice F. Gallagher <agallagher@wsprings.com> wrote:

Thank you for forwarding.

On Dec 9, 2022, at 4:47 PM,

Sent from my iPad

From: David Fulghum <dave.fulghum@att.net>

Subject: Tollway Update and Flood Insurance

We have not had any recent update on our HOA

Note the special credit given to attorney Bill Ryan. He is

For those of you who don’t know who I am, I have

Before I talk about the engineering report, my bank just

Patrick Engineering does millions of dollars of business

Let’s start with the bottom line. There is a significant

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD)

Page 3 of the attachment to the subject Patrick report

A quick calculation of the numbers in the chart on that

The Patrick report says during a big storm, the flood

I have a friend in Ft Meyers, they only got a few inches