Grand Trunk WD Report - Milwaukee · Grand Trunk EOC Parcel in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County,...

Wetland Delineation Report

Grand Trunk EOC Parcel in Milwaukee,

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

October 20, 2017 Updated November 29, 2017

(AES Project # 17-0772)

Prepared by: John L. Larson, Ph.D. & Mark O’Leary

Applied Ecological Services, Inc. 17921 Smith Road

Brodhead, WI 53520 (608) 897-8641

Submitted to:

The Sigma Group 1300 W. Canal Street

Milwaukee, WI. 53233

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REGULATORY DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................... 1 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION METHODS ................................................................. 2 4.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 4 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 5 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................... 6 FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map of the Grand Truck EOC Property ...................................................... 8 Figure 2. Soils Map of the Grand Truck EOC Property ............................................................ 9 Figure 3. Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Map of the Grand Truck EOC Property .................... 10 Figure 4. Topography Map of the Grand Truck EOC Property ................................................ 11 Figure 5. Data Point and Recent Fill Map of the Grand Truck EOC Property......................... 12 Figure 6. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Grand Trunk Property ............................ 13 APPENDICES Appendix A. Site Photographs ................................................................................................... 15 Appendix B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms ......................................................................... 21 Appendix C. Wetland Delineation Confirmation Request Checklist ........................................ 47

J:170772:10192017 1 Grand Trunk EOC Property WD

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION On October 9 and November 6, 2017 Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) staff evaluated an approximate 20 acre site consisting of historic fill on a parcel owned by the City of Milwaukee for evidence of wetland conditions. The Grand Trunk EOC parcel is found near the mouth of Kinnickinnic River and Lake Michigan (Figure 1). The parcel is found in Section 4, T6N, and R22E in Milwaukee County, WI. The purpose of the wetland delineation was to locate wetlands as part of a proposed restoration and re-development of the parcel by the City of Milwaukee. Wetlands have established on historic fill and due to fill depths; direct observation of “native” soils under the fill was difficult. A second field assessment in November collected additional soils data by digging additional soil pits and using a soil auger to get deeper into the fill. In most cases, an additional 8 to 14 inches of soil depth below what was sampled in October was able to be assessed using the soil auger. This report, based on examination of the growth of vegetation on the fill identified wetlands consisting of forest, scrub shrub and emergent wetlands. Based on AES’ best professional judgment and our interpretation of the land condition and using the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (2012) we delineated and flagged three wetland areas. The lead investigator, Dr. John L. Larson has a degree in biology with emphasis on wetlands ecology and has conducted over 300 wetland delineations in the past 26 years. 2.0 REGULATORY DEFINITIONS Waters of the United States “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, 1972. WOTUS is a broad term that includes territorial seas or waters that are used or could be used for interstate commerce. The WOTUS designation includes wetlands, ponds, lakes, rivers, tributary streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sloughs, and wet meadows. A “Traditional Navigable Water” (TNW) is a navigable water of the U.S. subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR 329.4). A “Relatively Permanent Water” (RPW) is a water body (i.e. tributary) with year-round flow or at least seasonally (e.g. typically 3 months) of continuous flow. A non-RPW is a water body (i.e. tributary) that does not have seasonally continuous flow. Wetlands Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Vegetation The hydrophytic vegetation criteria for wetland classification are met when greater than 50% of the dominant plant species are hydrophytes (Lichvar et al. 2016). The indicator status of plant species is expressed in terms of the estimated probabilities of that species occurring in wetland conditions

J:170772:11292017 2 Grand Trunk Property WD

within a given region. Hydrophytes include all plants classified as “FAC”, “FACW” or “OBL.” The indicator categories as defined by the Corps are outlined below. Hydrology In order for an area to have wetland hydrology, it must exhibit one or more “primary indicators” and/or two or more “secondary indicators” for Corps jurisdictional and isolated wetlands. Primary indicators include either the direct presence of water as inundation or saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, or direct evidence of recent inundation, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns. Secondary indicators are conditions reflecting the presence of reducing, or anaerobic conditions produced as a consequence of saturation or inundation. Some other primary and or secondary indicators include such conditions as oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, water-stained leaves, and a positive “FAC neutral” test (i.e., the dominant vegetation is, on average, hydrophytic). Soils A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation for more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined with microbial activity in the soil, causes the depletion of oxygen which promotes certain biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation, or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in distinctive characteristics that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods, making them particularly useful for identifying hydric soils in the field. Soils were evaluated directly by digging soil-pits. In this report, soil colors are described using the Munsell color notation system. 3.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION METHODS 3.1 Map Review Several sources of information were used to evaluate the Grand Trunk parcel and identify potential wetland areas. A soil map by the U.S Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey map for Milwaukee County, WI listed this are as unmapped (Figure 2). The general topography and elevation of the site was reviewed using a one foot Milwaukee County topography map (Figure 4). Potential wetland areas were identified using a Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) map (Figure 3). In addition, a Natural Resource Inventory (AES 2013) and wetland delineation line believed to be from a 2010 SEWRPC site visit. Maps only establish the probability and approximate location of wetlands on the site; therefore, a final wetland determination was made with on-site observations and fieldwork. The following maps have been included as part of the wetland determination report.

Soil Survey Map – The NRCS Web Soil Survey Map (Figure 2) did not identify any soil series within the site boundary.

WWI Map – the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Map of the area (Figure 3) identifies a sizable forested/shrub wetland PSS1/EMBg that contains some emergent wetland areas in the central portion of the property, a portion of which extends off property to the east. A second, smaller forested/shrub wetland (PSS1/Bg) was mapped in the water way.

Milwaukee County Topography Map – The County one foot topographic map (Figure 4) shows


the general topography and elevation of the site, including a higher fill mound area in the south of the site where 8-10 feet of fill is located then sloping down to the east and north where the wetland was identified and flagged.

FIRM Map --The Flood Insurance Rate Map depicts a small area of the site as within a floodplain (Figure 6).

3.2 Site Investigation and Description The Grand Trunk area was inspected on October 9, 2017 with the intent of determining if wetlands had established on historic fill that has been placed over the entire Grand Trunk Site. The site was walked by two AES staff and paired data points collected from areas that represented the transition between wetland and upland. A second follow-up field assessment was made on November 6, 2017 to collect additional data points along the southern end of the site and the waterway connection to the KK River. In locations of data points taken in October, additional soil information was collected in soil pits and using a sol auger during the November visit. When a potential wetland area was located a paired set of data points were sampled; an upland side and wetland side of the boundary. The portion of the property where wetland conditions were evaluated is an approximate 20 acre area that comprises the south half of the site. The north portion of the site consists of industrial land uses on gravel fill and was walked and no wetlands observed. An area of fill, in excess of 10 feet, in the south central portion of the site was also walked and no wetland conditions were observed. The area had been seeded to red fescue (Festuca rubra) likely for erosion control. Additional upland species such as knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and late thoroughwort (Eupatorium altissimum) were common throughout. Rock, gravel, concrete and coal slag fill ranging from several inches to in excess of 10 feet are found on the Grand Trunk parcel. Where fill was found in lower areas, wetland vegetation dominated. These lower elevation areas and their adjacent side slopes is where our field effort was concentrated. Digging soil pits in the deepest fill upland areas and the industrial use area was not possible without a backhoe, so the least undisturbed edges of the adjacent slopes were selected as the representative upland paired points. At several areas along the west and north side of the large wooded wetland paired upland/wetland data points were sampled (Figure 5). Soil pits were dug at each of twelve (six paired) data points and one non-paired upland data point. A soil probe and/or soil auger was then used to collect additional soil information on the soil/fill depth, when possible. At each of the soil pits a Midwest Wetland Delineation data form was filled out and a determination was made for each soil test pit as to whether it was located in a wetland or upland. Once the data points were established as being in either wetland or an upland setting, the wetland boundary between the 2 points was flagged with numbered pink wire flags using best professional judgment. The vegetation; being upland or wetland served as the primary indicator for setting the flags at the wetland boundary. The eastern site boundary served as the wetland boundary. A portion of the larger wooded wetland appears to extent off property to the east in one area. Once flagging was completed, the boundary was subsequently surveyed. The electronic data was sent to AES’s geospatial/GIS staff for creating the wetland boundary map (Figure 5). Site Photographs Photographs of the site are in Appendix A. These photographs are the visual documentation of site conditions at the time of inspection. The photographs are intended to provide representative visual


samples of wetlands delineated, uplands data points, or other special features found on or near the site investigated. Routine Wetland Delineation Data Forms Completed Routine Wetland Delineation Data Forms – Midwest Region for this delineation are in Appendix B. These forms are the written documentation of how the 13 Data Points meet or do not meet each of the wetland criteria. Wetland Delineation Confirmation Request Checklist A completed Confirmation Checklist form has been attached to the end of the report (Appendix C). 4.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION General Site Conditions The antecedent precipitation for the three months prior to the field delineation work (July, August, and September) was 6.2 inches with the average precipitation from these three months being 10.2 inches at the Milwaukee airport weather station. Antecedent precipitation was wetter than normal for July, but much drier than normal for August and September thus a drier than normal precipitation condition was determined to be present at the time of the wetland field work. The Grand Trunk parcel is significantly disturbed by the placement of historic fill. Fill ranged from around one foot to areas having 10 feet or more. All of the areas and data points evaluated consist of made land comprised of historic fill that has been in place for many years based on the size of the trees on the fill. Because the fill has been in place for many years we considered this as the “normal circumstance”. Historic fill contained material such as coal slag, rocks and gravels of varying depths and typically had 2-4 inches of topsoil in the lower elevation areas. It is in the areas having less fill and some topsoil where areas having a dominance of wetland plants where found and delineated. At each data point a soil pit was dug until refusal and then a soil probe or soil auger was used to collect additional soil depth information until a second refusal. In general, the soil pit and soil auger method was used at several of the data points collected in October to better evaluate soils conditions from the 8 soil descriptions made in October. Wetlands Data Points All three wetland areas on the Grand Trunk property are significantly disturbed and have established on varying depths of historic fill. Six data points (1, 3, 6, 8, 11 & 12), based on our best professional judgment and interpretation of the data sheets were found to meet the conditions for wetlands (Figure 5 and Appendix B). Even though the six wetland data points contained fill of some sort at varying depths the areas around the data points were still dominated by wetland plants and usually had water stained leaves in depressional areas. A previous Natural Resource Inventory in 2013 described the plant sub-communities within the two delineated wetlands as floodplain forest, emergent marsh, open water, wet prairie, shrub carr and warm water stream bank (AES 2013). Five wetland data points were sampled in wooded areas (1, 3, 6, 8 & 12) representing wetlands 1 and 2. Wetland 1, the largest of the three wetlands (7.13 acres) and wetland 2 (0.61 acres), located along the waterway connection to the KK river (Figure 5), were dominated by woody species such as cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), willows (Salix spp.), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and wild grape (Vitis riparia). Interior


areas of the large wetland complex (#1) labeled as (PSS1/EMBg) on the WWI map (Figure 3) contained areas dominated by narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and giant reed grass (Phragmites australis). These data points correspond quite accurately with the wetlands mapped on the WWI (Figure 3). Wetland 3 (data point 11) was taken in an open wetland containing sedges and wetland forbs (Figure 5 and Appendix B). An old monitoring well was located in this wetland area. Vegetation in the woodland understory and semi to fully open areas of wetland 3 typically were comprised of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), tall goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), white avens (Geum canadense), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), grass leaf goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia) and sedges (Carex spp.). Evidence of saturated and standing water soil conditions were found in areas containing cattail and giant reed grass. Surface water was observed as part of the wetland 2 mapped as PSS1/Bg on the WWI and delineated on Figure 5 that connects to the KK River. August and September were extremely dry months in the Milwaukee area which in part explains the lack of a soil saturation condition. Soils were typically black in color with evidence of depleted matrices in some soil pits. Uplands Data Points Seven data points (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 & 13) evaluated slopes, deeper fill areas or flat areas where the vegetation, hydrology and soil conditions provided evidence that all three wetland criteria were not met (Figure 5 and Appendix B). Collection of soil and hydrology data was made until resistance/refusal was reached by digging soils pits as deep as possible and the using a soil probe and/or a soil auger to extend the depth of soils examined. Using the existing sloped are data points it was determined that three of the five slope data points (2, 4, 5, 7 & 13) were not dominated by wetland vegetation or if there was wetland vegetation these areas were comprised of upland soils with no hydrology indicators and thus no wetlands occur where these samples were located (Figure 5). Two upland data points (9 and 10) were located in the wooded area along the southern end of the property. While wetland trees and some wetland shrubs were found, hydric soil conditions and hydrology were not evident. All data points represented by upland conditions and were sampled in disturbed woodlands and old fields/grasslands (Figure 5 and Appendix A & B). Dominant upland species were Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), crown vetch (Coronilla varia), Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) and other upland species. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the review of the WWI and topography (Figures 3 & 4), a review of previous resource studies, the previous delineation line combined with results of the on-site field determination two wetlands were located in the lower topographic interior of the parcel and associated with a drainageway to the west where it connects to the KK River. Wetland 1 is the largest wetland and is located in the central interior portion of the property. Wetland 2 is associated with a waterway connection to the KK River. A third small wetland (#3) is comprised of sedges and grass leaf goldenrod (#3) c was found in the southern portion of the property. The 2017 delineation was quite similar to the previous wetland delineation line from 2010 believed to have been completed by SEWRPC. The made land representing both upland and wetland consisted of rock, concrete and coal slag and has been in place for many years based on the tree and shrub growth and thus was considered as the “Normal Circumstance”. It is AES’ professional opinion that the lower elevation


areas and the waterway connecting to the KK River while composed of historic fill contain areas of highly degraded wetlands (Figure 5) and closely approximates the WWI mapped wetland (Figure 3). 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Applied Ecological Services (AES). 2013. Natural Resource Inventory Grand Trunk Wetland, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Milwaukee Strategic Planning Manager. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner & N.C. Melvin. 2016. Midwest 2016 Midwest Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016-30-1-17. No. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USDA. 2016. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States; a Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.0, 2016. Edited by, L.M. Vasilas, G.W Hurt and J.F. Berkowitz.


FIGURES

J:17-096410202017 8 Grand Trunk Property WD

Figure 1. Location Map of the Grand Trunk Property


Figure 2.Unmapped Soils Map of the Grand Trunk Property


Figure 3. Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map of the Grand Trunk Property


Figure 4. Topography Map of the Grand Trunk Property


Figure 5 Data Point and Wetland Boundary of the Grand Trunk Property


Figure 6. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of the Grand Trunk Property.


EXHIBITS

APPENDICES


Appendix A. Site Photographs

Photograph 1. Shrub and forest wetland near data point 1.

Photograph 2. Upland slope near data points 2 and 4 dominated by Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis).


Photograph 3. Semi open wetland swale near data point 3.

Photograph 4. Upland slope near data point 5.


Photograph 5. Wetland dominated by giant reed grass near data point 6.

Photograph 6. Upland Box elder Woodland near data point 7 at south end of the property with Canada goldenrod a dominant in the understory


Photograph 7. Wetland area near data point 8 dominated with Tall goldenrod (Solidago gigantea) and wetland woody species.

Photograph 8. Upland old field area near data point 9.


Photograph 9. Upland fill area near data point 10.

Photograph 10. Wetland 3 in southern portion of the site (data point 11).


Photograph 11. Wetland along edge of waterway near wetland data point 12.

Photograph 12. Disturbed upland with mugwort (Artemesia vulgaris) near upland data point 13.


Appendix B. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region

Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Lat: NA Long: NA Datum: NA Soil Map Unit Name: made land NWI classification: PSS1/EmBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”

Present? Yes No Is Naturally Problematic: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? If needed, explain in remarks SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks: on old coal slag; Aug and Sept very dry fill in place for many years now normal circumstance VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants

Tree Stratum (Plot size): Absolute % Cover

DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus

Dominance Test Worksheet:

1. Populus deltoides 25 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total number of dominant species across all strata: 5 (B) % Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)

2. Fraxinus pensylvanica 5 No FACW 3. Salix nigra 20 Yes FACW 4. 5. 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):

Prevalence Index Worksheet:

1. Cornus amomum 50 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rhamnus cathartica 5 No FAC OBL Species X 1 =

3. Salix interior 10 No FACW FACW Species X 2 =

4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 65 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago gigantea 10 Yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Geum canadense 2 No FAC 3. Lythrum salicaria 10 Yes OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Equisetum arvense 2 No FAC Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Vitis riparia 2 No FAC Dominance Test is >50% 6. Carex sp. 1 No NI Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 9. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 27 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size):

1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet).


SOILS Sampling Point 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist) %

Redox Features Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc 2

Texture

Remarks

0-21 Gley 1 2.5/2

100 M Silty loam A lot of black slag material – masking redox

Soil dry

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils comprised of coal slag to depth 21” then refusal. Some slag chunks appear to have redox features (rusty chunks) marginal made land with redox features? Redox may be masked by slag so determined area as being a wetland

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply). Secondary Indicators (minimum of 2

required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living

Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial

Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled

Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)

Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Professional judgment due to dominance of hydrophytes and problem soils map/delineated as wetland. Past 2 months very dry so few hydro indicators

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0


WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region

Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) made slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 1-2 Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: made land NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”

Present? Yes No Is Naturally Problematic: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? If needed, explain in remarks

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?




Remarks: Old fill been in place many years – so now normal. Past 2 months very dry VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus


1. Acer negundo 5 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total number of dominant species across all strata: 4 (B) % Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)

2. Populus deltoides 2 Yes FAC 3. 4. 5. 7 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species0 X 1 = 0 3. FACW Species4 X 2 = 8 4. FAC Species7 X 3 =21 5. FACU Species95 X 4 =380 = Total Cover UPL Species2 X 5 =10 Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: 118 A) 419 (B) 1. Solidago canadensis 25 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.55 2. Coronilla varia 50 Yes FACU 3. Dipsacus sylvestris 20 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Juncus dudleyi 2 No FACW Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Achillea millefolium 2 No UPL Dominance Test is >50% 6. Agrostis alba 2 No FACW Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting







Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-12 10 YR 4/2 M Silty sand Refusal at foot





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: No redox – refusal at 12”








Yes No


Remarks: edge of wetland on fill and on a slight 1-2% slope




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Local relief (concave, convex, none): slightly concave swale Slope (%): Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: made land NWI classification: PSS1/EmBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: Historic fill – swale; August & September were dry months VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus



2. 3. 4. 5. 40 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Rhamnus cathartica 25 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Cornus amomum 5 No FACW OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 30 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Apocynum cannabinum 15 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Lythrum salicaria 10 Yes OBL 3. Carex cristatella 5 No OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phalaris arundinacea 10 Yes FACW Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Poa pratensis 5 No FAC Dominance Test is >50% 6. Vitis riparia 5 No FACW Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Fraxinus pensylvanica 2 No FACW Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting







Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-6 10 YR 5/2 90 10 YR 5/4 2 C M Sandy silt loam

Rocks





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Refusal at 6” – old historic fill








Yes No


Remarks:




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 & 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Gentle slope Slope (%): 1-2 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: made land NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: On fill – August & September were dry months VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Cornus amomum 2 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 2 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago canadensis 50 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Geum canadense 1 No FAC 3. Euthamia graminifolia 1 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Coronilla varia 2 No FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Festuca rubra 2 No UPL Dominance Test is >50% 6. Daucus carota 2 No UPL Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting







Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-6 10 YR 4/3 100 M Silty sandy loam





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: refusal at 6” - rocks








Yes No


Remarks: data point on slope comprised of fill



WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwuakee State: WI Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Fill Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): slope Slope (%): 2 Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: Made land NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”

Present? Yes No Is Naturally Problematic: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? If needed, explain in remarks

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?




Remarks: Historic fill VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus


1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total number of dominant species across all strata: 2 (B) % Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B)

2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Salix interior 5 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species 2 X 1 = 2 3. FACW Species 11 X 2 = 22 4. FAC Species 7 X 3 = 21 5. FACU Species 85 X 4 =340 = Total Cover UPL Species 4 X 5 =20 Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: 1.09

A) (B) 405

1. Eupatorium altissimum 5 No FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.72 2. Poa compressa 60 Yes FACU 3. Solidago canadensis 20 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Euthamia graminifolia 5 No FACW Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Geum canadense 2 No FAC Dominance Test is >50% 6. Daucus carota 2 No UPL Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Cirsium arvense 1 No UPL Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 8. Sonchus arvensis 1 No UPL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 9. Cornus amomum 1 No FACW 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Lythrum salicaria 2 No OBL 11. Poa pratensis 5 No FAC 104 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size):

1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). Prevalence index > 3




Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-4 10 YR 3/2 100 M Silt loam 4-8 10 YR 4/3 100 M Silty sandy

loam





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: refusal at 8 inches








Yes No


Remarks: No indicators




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 6 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: Made land NWI classification: PSS1/EmBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Salix SP. 20 Yes NI Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Cornus amomum 5 No FACW OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 25 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Typha angustifolia 25 Yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Lythrum salicaria 25 Yes OBL 3. Poa compressa 2 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Phragmites australis 15 Yes FACU Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Carex sp. 2 No NI Dominance Test is >50% 6. Lycopus americanus 2 No OBL Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Euthamia graminifolia 2 No FACW Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 8. Juncus torreyi 2 No FACW Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 9. Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

2 No FACW 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

10. 77 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size):





Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-8 10 YR 3/1 90 10 YR 4/6 2 C M Silt loam Not much fill 8-12 10 YR 4/2 95 10 YR 4/6 5 C M Silty loam





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Resistance at 12”








Yes No


Remarks:



WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 & 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 7 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat woods Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: made land NWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: Old fill, dry August and September VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus



2. Populus deltoides 5 No FAC 3. 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Rhamnus cathartica 5 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Acer negundo 5 Yes FAC OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 10 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago canadensis 50 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Eupatorium altissimum 5 No FACU 3. Poa compressa 40 Yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Daucus carota 5 No UPL Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 10. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size):

1. Vitis riparia 3 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). Woods to south is box elder dominated w/understory of other non-dominant sp. Achillea millefolium, Eupatorium rugosum, Rhus typhina, Apocynum cannabinum




Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-4 10 YR 3/3 100 M Sandy silt loam

4-16 10 YR 4/4 100 M Sandy silt loam





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Rocks common – some are 4” diameter. Soil dry powdery







Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 10/9/17 Applicant/Owner: Milwaukee State: WI Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Mark J. O’Leary Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0 Lat:NA Long:NA Datum:NA Soil Map Unit Name: Made land NWI classification: PSS1/EmBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”

Present? Yes No Is Naturally Problematic: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? If needed, explain in remarks SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site amp showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?




Remarks: dry August and September, made land VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus


1. Acer saccharinum 10 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A) Total number of dominant species across all strata: 6 (B) % Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)

2. Populus deltoides 10 Yes FAC 3. Salix nigra 10 Yes FACW 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Cornus amomum 75 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC OBL Species X 1 = 3. Acer negundo 5 No FAC FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 82 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago gigantea 25 Yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC 3. Cornus amomum 2 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 29 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size):

1. Vitis riparia 8 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 8 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). Occasional Viburnum opulus




Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-3 10 YR 3/3 M Sandy silt loam

3-8 10 YR 3/2 M Sandy silt loam





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Refusal at 8” made land based on vegetation and hydrology and mapped wetlands called this area wetland








Yes No


Remarks: Because fill prevented adequate soil depth no water table or saturation evaluated below 8 inches, some stained leaves




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Josh Kraemer Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): none Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Made land WWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”







DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Cornus amomum 5 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 5 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago canadensis 70 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Viburnum opulus 3 No FACW 3. Linaria vulgaris 2 No UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Poa compressa 2 No FACU Dominance Test is >50% 6. Agrostis alba 2 No FACW Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting



1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet).



Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-8 10 YR 2/2 100 M Silt loam Sandy silt loam 8-16 10 YR 3/3 100 M Silt loam Rocks 2”dia. 16-20 10 YR 4/2 100 M Silt loam Fill throughout profile





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils dark with no redox







Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):>20 Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):>20 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):>.20 (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: No evidence of past or recent hydrology.




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 10 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Josh Kraemer Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) raised fill Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): flat Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: WWI classification: PSS1/EMBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: Fill dry antecedent precip VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus


1. Populus deltoides 10 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total number of dominant species across all strata: 5 (B) % Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80 (A/B)

2. Salix nigra 10 Y OBL 3. Acer negundo 10 Y FAC 4. 5. 30 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size):


1. Rhamnus cathartica 5 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 5 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Solidago canadensis 70 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Solidago gigantea 10 No FACW 3. Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting



1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). Fill couple feet



Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-8 10 YR 3/2 100 M Sandy silt loam 8-18 10 YR 3/2 95 10 YR 4/6 4/5 C M Rocks Fill throughout





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks:







Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):> 18 Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):>18 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):>18 (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: No evidence of recent or past hydrology; flat area of fill that is 1-2 feet above adjacent wetland.




Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 11 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Josh Kraemer Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Local relief (concave, convex, none): slightly concave Slope (%): none Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: made land WWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”





Remarks: not attached to wetland 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants


DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Cornus stolonifera 75 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC OBL Species X 1 = 3. Salix interior 5 No FACW FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 82 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Equisetum arvense 2 No FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Solidago canadensis 30 Yes FACU 3. Solidago gigantea 30 Yes FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Geum canadense 2 No FAC Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Carex pellita 10 No OBL Dominance Test is >50% 6. Euthamia graminfolia 15 No FACW Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Carex sp. 5 No NI Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on separate sheet) 8. Poa pratensis 10 No FAC Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 9. Eupatorium altissimum 2 No FACU 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Daucus carota 4 No FACU 11. Achillea millefolium 2 No FACU 112 = Total Cover 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). Couple of upland small mounds not detected around.




Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-8 10 YR 3/1 100 M Silty sandy loam

8-20 10 YR 3/1 99 10 YR 4/6 1-2 C M Silty sandy loam with fill





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks:







Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Moist (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Secondary indicators



WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 12 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Josh Kraemer Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace, etc.) Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): Flat Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Made land WWI classification: PSS1/EMBg Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”







DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Viburnum opulus 10 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL Species X 1 = 3. FACW Species X 2 = 4. FAC Species X 3 = 5. FACU Species X 4 = 10 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: A) (B) 1. Impatiens capensis 15 Yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

10 Yes FACW

3. Eupatorium rugosum 5 No UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Solanum dulcamara 5 No FAC Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Phalaris arundinacea 15 Yes FACW Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting



1. Vitis riparia 5 Yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet).




Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-16 10 YR 3/1 98 5 Y 4/6 2 C M Silty loam Some rocks and fill





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Scattered pockets of reddish redox








Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 20” Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):<12 (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Surface water – to south saturation



WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project Site: Grand Trunk City/County: Milwaukee Sampling Date: 11/6/17 Applicant/Owner: Sigma State: WI Sampling Point: 13 Investigator(s): John L. Larson, Josh Kraemer Section, Township, Sec 4, T6N, R22E Landform (Hillslope, terrace) Part of hill slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1-2 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Madeland WWI classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in remarks) Is Significantly Disturbed: Vegetation? Soil? Hydrology? Are “Normal Circumstances”







DominantSpecies?

IndicatorStatus





1. Prunus virginiana 5 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Viburnum opulus 3 Yes FACW OBL Species 0 X 1 = 0 3. FACW Species 3 X 2 = 6 4. FAC Species 55 X 3 =165 5. FACU Species 20 X 4 =80 8 = Total Cover UPL Species X 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size): Column Totals: 78 A) 251 (B) 1. Solanum dulcamara 2 No FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.2 2. Artemisia vulgaris 15 Yes FACU 3. Daucus carota 5 Yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Euthamia graminfolia 1 No FACW Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. Circaea lutetiana canadensis

2 No FACU Dominance Test is >50%

6. Cornus stolonifera 2 No FACW Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. Ambrosia artemisiifolia elatior

2 No FACU Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on separate sheet)

8. Arctium minus 2 No UPL Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 9. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must


1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet). PI > 3.0



Depth (inches)



Texture

Remarks

0-12 10 YR 3/2 90 7.5 YR 5/4

10 C M Sandy silt loam

Made land – gravel fill, some clay

12-18 10 YR 2/1 99 10 YR 4/4 1 C M Sandy clay loam

Made land – gravel fill, some clay





Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Made land next to waterway, fill and lack of hydrology.







Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes No

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): >16” (includes capillary fringe) Described Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:



Appendix C. Wetland Delineation Confirmation Request Checklist

Grand Trunk WD Report - Milwaukee · Grand Trunk EOC Parcel in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County,...

Documents

Transcript of Grand Trunk WD Report - Milwaukee · Grand Trunk EOC Parcel in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County,...