State Form 4336 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

INDIANAPOLIS EPA Renins e r> OFFICE MEMORANDUM """"""""' ''''^"

DATE: March 12,2008

TO: Jaworski, IVIark, OLQ SI THRU: Vdmire, Beth, OLC Hauer, Gabriele, OLQ SI

FROM: Smitfi,Uira'R:rSlJ^NRDA /

SUBJECT: USS Lead Site, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana

The Indiana Department Environmental Management (IDEM) Natural Resource Damages Program was asked to provide information relative to the use of USS Lead site by Threatened and/ Endangered Species. This MEMO attempts to summarize information collected on or near the USS Lead site relative to habitat quality and use by State Listed species.

I preface the following discussion with these facts:

1). Endangered Species are identified and protected by law in Indiana at: IC 14-22-34 Chapter 34. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation IC 14-22-34-1 "Endangered species" defined Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "endangered species" means any species or subspecies of wildlife whose prospects of survival or recruitment within Indiana are in jeopardy or are likely within the foreseeable fiiture to become so due to any ofthe following factors: (1) The destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment ofthe habitat ofthe wildlife. (2) The overutilization ofthe wildlife for scientific, commercial, or sporting purposes. (3) The effect on the wildlife of disease, pollution, or predation. (4) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the prospects of survival or recruitment within Indiana. (5) Any combination ofthe factors described in subdivisions (1) through (4). (b) The term includes the following: (1) Any species or subspecies offish or wildlife appearing on the United States list of endangered native fish and wildlife (50 CFR 17, Appendix D). (2) Any species or subspecies of fish and wildlife appearing on the United States list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife (50 CFR 17, Appendix A).

2) Threatened Species are not defined nor protected directly by Indiana's Law, but development of rules by Indiana Department of Natural Resources (provided for in the Law) does address different definitions oi Species of Special Concern, Rare, or Threatened, The Term Threatened is defined in IDNR's Fish and Wildlife Rule as follows.

Reference #91 ^^-'- 312 lAC 9-1-14 "Threatened species" defined Authority: IC 14-11-2-1; IC 14-22-2-6 Affected: IC 14-22 Sec. 14. "Threatened species" means a species or subspecies of wild animal likely to become endangered within the foreseeable fiiture, including all species or subspecies classified as threatened by the federal government which occur in Indiana. (Natural Resources Commission; 312 lAC 9-1-14; filed May 12. 1997, 10.00 a.m.: 20 IR 2699; readopted filed Jul 28, 2003, 12:00 p.m.: 27 IR 286)

3) Species of Special Concern are defined and Rare, Threatened and Endangered plants and invertebrates are afforded protection by Non-Rule Policy adopted and amended by Indiana Natural Resources Commission at:

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION information Bulletin #2 (Fourth Amendnnent) August 1, 2007 (httD://www.in.aov/leaislative/iac/20070815-IR-312070469NRA.xml.htmn.

Exerts firom this publication follow:

"INDIANA CLASSIFICATIONS This section sets forth the classifications used in Indiana for wild animals, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. The classifications used for insects and plants are set forth in Section IV(G) and Section V respectively. "Endangered" means any animal species or subspecies whose prospects for survival or recruitment within the state are in immediate jeopardy and are in danger of disappearing from the state. This includes all species classified as endangered by the federal government that occur in Indiana. "Special Concern" means an animal species requiring monitoring because of known or suspected vulnerability, limited abundance, or distribution in Indiana or a change in legal status or required habitat ofthe species of animal has occurred.

INSECTS 1. Extirpated: An insect is considered state extirpated if any ofthe following three conditions occur: (a) A species is declared extirpated by a specialist for the species, family, or order to which the insect belongs, (b) A species has not been located in Indiana as a naturally occurring breeding population for more than 15 years, but the species exists outside Indiana as a wild population, (c) A species appears on a federal list as being extirpated in Indiana.

2. Endangered: An insect species is considered state endangered if its prospects for survival or recruitment within Indiana are in immediate jeopardy, and is in danger of disappearing from the state, where any of the following three conditions occur: (a) A species which may occur in Indiana is classified as endangered by the federal government, (b) A species is biologically dependent on a threatened or endangered plant species, (c) A species is known from fewer than five sites in Indiana. An insect is also considered endangered ifthe insect is listed as extirpated but is later rediscovered in Indiana, whether the population is endemic or believed to be recently adventive. The discovery of any life stage of an extirpated or endangered species is fiduciary evidence that a population exists. An endangered species of

2

uQ2 population in Indiana but which ranges into the state from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Kentucky, (b) A nonregulated adventive species, (c) A species regulated under IC 14-24 and 312 I AC 18-3 (including a species used for biological control).

3. Threatened: A state threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, where any ofthe following three conditions occur: (a) A species which occurs in Indiana is classified as threatened by the federal government, (b) A species is biologically dependent upon a rare or threatened plant species, (c) A species is known from six to 10 sites in Indiana. The discovery of a single life stage in situ is fiduciary evidence that a population exists. A threatened species does not include accidentals, adventive nonregulated species, nor any species subject to IC 14- 24 and 312 lAC 18-3 (including a species used for biological control).

4. Rare: A state rare insect species is a species where problems of limited abundance or distribution in Indiana are known or reasonably suspected including the following: (a) A species that is known to be rare in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Kentucky, (b) A species that is biologically dependent upon a rare plant species. A rare species references an established population. A rare species does not include accidentals, adventive nonregulated species, or other species regulated under IC 14-24 and 312 lAC 18- 3 (including species used for biological control).

VASCULAR PLANTS 1. Extirpated: A plant species that is believed to be originally native to Indiana but without any currently known populations within the state.

2. Endangered: A species of plant that is known to occur currently on five or fewer sites in Indiana.

3. Threatened: A species of plant known to occur currently on six to 10 sites in Indiana.

4. Rare: A species of plant known to occur currently on 11 to 20 sites."

Definitions outlined above are utilized in the following regarding the status of habitat known to be used by State designated endangered or threatened species.

USS LEAD SITE

The White Oak Group, Inc. (1994) completed a biological site inventory, assessment and wetland delineation during initial investigation ofthe USS Lead Refining site for remediation under RCRA corrective action; a copy of their report is appended to this MEMO (Appendix A). Their investigation found the USS Lead site was approximately 79 acres lying west of Kennedy Avenue just north of 1-90 about 3 miles south/southwest of Lake Michigan in East Chicago, Indiana. The USS Lead facility covered about Vi ofthe site originally; primarily on the northeast comer ofthe site. An outfall channel

003 connected the center ofthe facility to the Grand Calumet River to the south. Relatively undisturbed areas ofthe site qualified as natural areas and included natural habitats defined as: Marsh (south and along the river on the west side); Dune and Swale (north and northwest); Scrub Shrub Wetland (center and west) and Savanna (between the river-side marsh and the Dune and Swale zone on the west side). The habitats are fully described in the appended report. The White Oak Group, Inc. (1994) found that these habitats were fully intact and ecologically functional, with most being largely undisturbed since settlement, except for a couple of minor intrusions (a pipeline was installed through the westem portion ofthe property) (Figure 1) .

Figure 1. Aerial photo of USS Lead site in 1990 showing buildings of facility and habitat disruptions by slag disposition in wetlands on south side and disturbances in shrub-shrub wetland just west of center ofthe facility.

Habitats located on the eastem portion ofthe USS LEAD site were significantly modified by RCRA corrective action between 1996 and 2003 (Figure 2). All buildings were raised, a Corrective Active Management Unit (CAMU) was constructed; lead contaminated slag and soils from wetlands to south of CAMU were excavated and clean backfill put in place; much ofthe shrub-shrub wetland and dune and swale habitat immediately west and north ofthe facility were remediated; the canal was isolated from the Grand Calumet River, contaminated sediments were solidified and removed, and the canal backfilled

004 (capped) with clean sand. Remediated areas immediately east and west ofthe original facility were further excavated to provide a source of borrow material for CAMU cover resulting in development of several permanently flooded wetlands (Figure 2).

tSO «D tso r.k lif r

TlikwapAaailitfiituittltgalAtamul. MraMkn (finis in 4UiMvJh nid HMMfernnnHy -^1 i\Aii

Figure 2. USS Lead site after RCRA corrective action - note CAMU, isolated canal and constructed wetlands to the south, west and north. 2003 Aerial photograph ofthe site. Wetlands on Site

005 White Oak Group, Inc completed a wetland delineation ofthe USS Lead site in 1994 (Appendix A - see 1994 Aerial Photograph (page 48) for wetlands). Figure 1 from ENTACT (1996) Interim Stabilization Measures Work Plan (Appendix B) clearly depicts jurisdictional wetlands on the USS Lead site. Jurisdictional wetlands closely approximate US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps and US EPA Advanced Identified Wetiands not suitable for dredging or filling (see Figures 3 and 4).

Wetlands and Vegetation Survey Points/Transects at USS Lead

Legend

ru inaji dm mr^HDnrs J^amnnut UkUmMbmrmmwMbji^lihnfnmM^viilf

Figure 3. Wetlands associated with the USS Lead Site as identified on USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.htmn. PUBH = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded; PEMF = Palustrine Emergent Semipermanently Flooded; PEM/SSIC = Palustrine / Shrub-Shrub Broad- leaved Seasonally Flooded; PEM/UBG = Palustrine Emergent / Unconsolidated Bottom Intermittently Flooded.

006 Figure 4. Advanced Identification of Wetlands (ADID) on USS Lead Site. Wetland polygons developed from USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps. ADID maps are on the Lake RIM Website at: (http://129.79.145.5/arcims/lrim/viewer.htm)

During development ofthe Advanced Identified Wetlands shapefile fhttp://129.79.145.5/arcims/lrim/viewer.htm) the National Wetland Inventory polygon depicting wetlands along the river at the USS Lead site was obviously mislabeled. Area "B" outlined on this shapefile (see Figure 4) was mislabeled: the area depicted as ADID Wetland B (see Figure 4 and Table 1) was not wetlands on the National Wetland Inventory maps used as basis for the ADID identification. Data in Table 1 Wetiand B from "RESTPOT" through "COMMENTS" actually refer to "PEFM" wetlands along the river at south edge of USS Lead site and along the south bank river east of Kennedy Avenue (see Figure 3).

007 Table 1. Advanced Identification of Wetlands data for ADID wetlands identified in Figure

WETLAND A B C

NWI CLASSIFICATION PM/SS1C NA AREA 342700.28 895444.38 43817.11 PERIMETER 8020.74 6159.57 1092.67 SITE NO AOCB AOC 18 AOCB INDEX OTHER OTHER OTHER USGS QUAD Highland Highland Highland ACRES 84.68 221.27 10.83 CLASS Shallow marsh Marsh Shallow marsh COUNTY Lake Lake Lake WATERSHED Lake Michigan Lake Michigan Lake Michigan HQ HAB HP POLL RE HP STRMWTR REST POT high high high Restore to hemi- Restore to hemi- marsh, enhance Restore to hemi-marsh, marsh, enhance MGT ACTIVI vegetation, restore black tern habitat vegetation. THREATS Typha, Phragmites, Typha, Phragmites, Typha, Phragmites, INVAS SPP Lythrum Lythrum Lythrum SEEPS SPRI OPEN WATER 10% 10% OWNERSHIP private WILDLIFE 0 Historic black tern site CONTAMINAT RCRA SITE RCRA SITE was excav per RCRA was excav per RCRA DISTURBANC clean-up clean-up FILL

Heritage data base shows black tern nesting; Grand Calumet River larger than NWI shows; Grand Calumet River COMMENTS Marsh Corridor Gr Cal R marsh corridor Marsh Corridor STORMWATER NUTRIENT R SEDIMENT R TOWNSHIP 37N 37N 37N RANGE 9W 9W 9W SECTION 33 33 33

008 Biological Communities and Threatened and Endangered Species

The White Oak Group, Inc. assessment identified 127 vascular plants, 1 fungi, 51 birds, 5 mammals, 2 reptiles and 3 butterflies or moths utilizing the area. They calculated compromised species potential indices for Actual Compromised Species (Rare Threatened Endangered) of 12, Developmental Potential of 139.98, and Hidden Potential of 64; and a natural area rating index of 63.57 with scores above 40 indicating a Natural Area (see Appendix A).

The White Oak Group identified the following Indiana State Listed species utilizing the USS Lead site:

Perideridia americana, "eastem eulophus" - SE* (vascular plant in Dune and Swale Habitat) Bartramia longicauda, "upland sandpiper" - SE ( Foraging on site) Ardea alba, {Casmerodius albus)"great egret" - SE (Foraging on site) - now listed as SSC Cisothorus palustris, "marsh wren" - SSC (Nesting on site) - now listed as SE Gallinula chloropus, "common moorhen" - SE (Foraging on site) Nycticorax nycticorax, "black-crowned night heron" - SE (Foraging on site) [ SE = State Endangered; SSC = State Special Concem]

In a letter to Entact in January 1994, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1994) identified the black tern {Chlidonias niger), great egret {Casmerodius albiis [Ardea alba]), marsh wren {Cistothorus palustris), and Franklin's ground squirrel {Spermophilus franklinii) as occurring within !/4 mile ofthe USS Lead site. The black tem, a state endangered species, was documented as nesting within the !4 mile in 1988, the great egret, a state endangered species at that time, was recorded in 1988, marsh wren, a species of special concem in 1994, now a state endangered species was recorded in 1987, and Franklin's ground squirrel, a state threatened species in 1994, now a state endangered species, was recorded at the site in 1992.

In March 1999, Indiana Department of Environmental Management staff collected a Emydoidea blandingix, "Blanding's turtle", a state listed endangered turtle (Natural Resource Commission 2007) coming out ofthe Grand Calumet River onto the USS Lead site. Blanding's turtles normally over­ winter buried in organic muck in wetlands and shallow streams and move to sandy upland areas to breed and lay eggs (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2006; Kingsbury, 2008). This turtle (Figure 5) was moving toward the dune and swale remnants on the USS Lead site (Scott Davis and Scott Ireland, personal communication 1999).

Rothrock (2007) conducted an assessment of plant communities associated with wetland shelves (riverine wetlands) along the Grand Calumet River in June 2007. Wetland 4 of this survey was the "PEFM" wetlands on the USS Lead site and Wetland 5 was "PEFM" wetlands on south side of Grand Calumet River east of Kennedy Avenue. Rothrock (2007) found 44 plant species (37 native) in the wetlands at the USS Lead site. Mean Conservatism (Rothrock 2004) of 2.5 and Floristic Quality Index (Wilhelm and Masters 2004) of 9.5 and Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (Simon et al. 2001) of 30, indicating development of poor quality wetland community on the site. See Rothrock (2007) report (Appendix C) for a complete listing of plants observed on the site. Locations of plant community survey points (transects) are shown on Figure3 above. Carex bebbii, a state-listed threatened vascular plant (Natural Resource Commission 2007) were scattered through a shallow, channel-like areas 8 to 10

003 meters from the shore ofthe Grand Calumet River. The wetland community found on the USS Lead site did not significantly differ from that found at Wetland 5 (see Rothrock 2007, Appendix C).

Figure 5. Blanding's turtle {Emydoidea blandingii) captured at USS Lead site in March 1999.

During the 2007 wetland plant community assessment, marsh wrens {Cisothorus palustris) were observed flying from and perched on cattails at several locations along the Grand Calumet River including the USS Lead site (Smith, personal communication).

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (2007) Natural Heritage Data Base provided information on endangered, threatened and rare species found at natural areas within 4 miles ofthe USS Lead site. A total of 10 endangered, 9 threatened, 23 rare and 3 special concem species have been recorded at natural areas within 1 mile ofthe USS Lead site. Figure 6 illustrates natural areas within 1.2 miles ofthe USS Lead site.

Recent sighting of marsh wren (state endangered) and Bebb's sedge (state threatened) illustrate the continued importance of USS Lead site as habitat for sensitive species along the Grand Calumet River. The Advanced Identified Wetiand files indicate the site is an important component ofthe Grand Calumet River corridor and could provide critical habitat linking state protected natural areas. Dune and Swale remnants on the west side of this site could, with management, provide habitat for numerous rare, threatened and endangered species as do the near adjacent Seidner Dune and Swale, Tolleston Ridges and DuPont Natural Areas (Figure 6).

10

01.0 NATURAL AREAS NEAR THE USS LEAD SITE

lu AM)] dooi mr jopffiDftf a Ki^afatooMimt 0 280 500 likUmiMlffmimmmdibjnfiirnfmmBi^ion^ • Meters MiiMftii iltoiM inJM Alp h inmraaMJtr imiKr

Figure 6. Natural areas near the USS Lead Site.

References

Entact, Inc. 1996. Interim stabilization measures workplan. Volume IV: Ecological Assessment Plan for the USS Lead Refinery Site, East Chicago, Indiana. Prepared for USS Lead Refinery, Inc. 58 p.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Letter to Entact regarding rare, threatened or endangered species and high quality habitat within Vi mile of the USS Lead Refinery site. 2 p.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Letter to Site Investigation, Indiana Department of Environmental Management regarding endangered, threatened or rare species, high quality natural communities and natural areas documented near USS Lead Project Area, Lake County, Indiana. 22 p.

11

Oil

^"^ Kingsbury, B. 2008. Blanding's Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii. The Center for Reptile and Amphibian Conservation and Management. Indiana-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Web page at: http://herpcenter.ipfw.edu/index.htm?http://herpcenter.ipfw.edu/outreach/accounts/reptiles/turtles/Blandings turtle/i ndex.htm&2

Natural Resources Commission. 2007. Information Bulletin #2 (Fourth Amendment) August 1, 2007. Indiana Register (DIN: 20070815-IR-312070469NRA). 19 p. (http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20070815-IR-312070469NRA.xml.htmn.

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1989. Soil Survey of Lake County Indiana. (http://websoilsurvev.nrcs.usda.gov/app/).

Rothrock, P. E. 2007. Evaluation of plant community of seven wetland shelves at the Grand Calumet feasibility study site, Lake County, Indiana: Plant diversity and rare-threatened-endangered species. Report prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. Contract No. W912P6-07-M-0018. 22p.

Rothrock, P.E. 2004. Floristic quality assessment in Indiana: The concept, use, and development of coefficients of conservatism. Final Report for ARN A305-4-53, EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01. 96 p. Available at http: (//www.in.gov/idem/water/planbr/40 I/publications.html.)

Simon, T.P., P.M. Stewart, and P.E. Rothrock. 2001. Development of multimetric indices of biotic integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along Southern Lake Michigan. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 4:293-309.

The White Oak Group, Inc. 1994. A biological site inventory, assessment and wetland delineation. Prepared for USS Lead Refinery, 5300 Kennedy Avenue, East Chicago, Indiana. By John Sabuco, LLA, The White Oak Group, Inc. 57 p.

Wilhelm, G. and L. Masters. 2004. Floristic Quality Assessment and Computer Applications. Conservation Research Institute/Conservation Design Forum, 375 W. First Street, Elmhurst, II 60126.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Endangered Resources. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Web page located at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/factsheets/herps/Bldtur.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Advanced Identification of Wetlands (ADID) unsuitable for dredging or filling. Northwest Indiana. Located on US EPA website at: (http://www.epa.gov/R5water/wshednps/topic wetlands.htm#ADID): or on Indiana Geological Survey's Lake Rim web site: (http://129.79.145.5/arcims/lrim/viewer.htm).

12

012 APPENDIX A

USS Lead Site, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana

^•x3 Table of Contents

Title Page 1

How This Report Is Arranged 2

L Overview and Summary 3

Site Description 3 Methods and Procedures: Compromised Species Potential Indices 4 The Natural Area Rating Index 7 Final Quantification 8 Analysis 9

n. USS Lead Site Inventory and Assessment Summaries 10

Habitats 10 Species Lists: 13 Vascular Plants 13 Fungi 19 Animals 20

Assessment Summaries: 23 Compromised Species Potential 23 Natural Area Rating Index 24

IH. Analysis of Effects of Proposed Corrective Action on the USS-Lead Refinery 25

I The Construction Process 25 I Construction EfTects on the Ecosystem 26 The Final Product 30 The Final Product's Effect on the Ecosystem 31

j Summary 31

I IV. Wetland Delineation 32

Summary 32 ! Routine On-Site Determination Forms 33 Location Map 47 i Aerial Fhotograph-PIan View 48 I National Wetlands Inventory Map 49 ' USGS Soil Survey Map 50

VJ .i O 15 -L A Biological Site Inventory, Assessment and Wetland Delineation

For the Property Known As: USS Lead Refinery 5300 Kennedy Avenue East Chicago, Indiana

Receiver: Mike Balm MRRC PO Box 866 Price, Utah 84501

For the Benefit Of: Entact Inc. 1616 Corporate Court #150 Irving, Texas 75038 (214) 580-1323

Prepared By: John J. Sabuco, LLA The White Oak Group, Inc. Box 1 Flossmoor, Illinois 60422

Field Investigators: John J. Sabuco, LLA A. Paul Vicari Jesus Cazares Walter Marcisz

Legal Description: Wl/2, Sec. 33, T37N, R9W, 3 PM

Page 1

16 How This Report is Arranged

There are three major sections to this report:

Overview and Summary Site Inventory and Assessment Summaries Wetland Delineation

The Overview and Summary section discusses the subject site and results ofthe study along with parameters of analysis and the methods used to perform the research.

The Site Inventory and Assessment Summaries section provides a description of the habhats identified on site and provides a list ofthe species which characterize each. Also in this section are the comprehensive lists of species found on site, their relative values according to two evaluation systems and their ETR (endangered, threatened, or rare) listing status. At the end of this section are the mathematical summaries ofthe evaluation.

The finalsectio n ofthe report is the Wetland Delineation, produced according to Federal, State, and local guidelines using the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All ofthe forms and information necessary for a wetland application are included. In unusual cases such as the USS Lead Refining she, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) often requires a fiill assessment ofthe wetiand. Section 2 of this report provides that assessment and, therefore, this entire book should be provided to the Army Corps of Engineers and each joint reviewing agency.

The information in the subsection titled "Assessment Summaries" on page 23 and 24 duplicates the information presented in "Final Quantification", however, the manner of presentation is different to provide variety for later duplication. We have signed these pages and others titled "Analysis" and "Summary" so that they may be duplicated for use in other reports.

Page 2

17

u X t Overview and Summary

Site Description:

The USS Lead Refining Site (USS-LR) is a 79 acre tract of land on the north side ofthe Grand Calumet River. It lies on the west side of Kennedy Avenue just north of 1-90 and is about 3 miles south/southwest of Lake Michigan in East Chicago, Indiana. About one quarter ofthe site is, or was at one time, covered by the USS-LR complex of buildings or fill fi-omthei r operations. Most of this development'intmsion was on the east side and in the center ofthe site. There are two railroad spurs entering the site fi-omth e north. An outfall channel was built that connects the USS-LR complex at the center of the site to the Grand Calumet River on the southwest side of the property. The Grand Calumet is a wide river which is very old by evolutionary standards. It is in the late stages of riverine succession Avith deep meanders, but ox-bows or ox-bow lakes have not yet formed. The USS-LR property consumes most of a meander. The portion ofthe site which has not been directly impacted by fillo r human activity does show some evidence of indirect impact by leachate fi-om fill and from chemical discharges through the channel. Despite this, the relatively undisturbed areas qualify as natural areas. (See "Final Quantifications" and "Analysis") The natural areas are segregated into four distinct habitats:

Marsh (south and along the river on the west side) Dune and Swale (north and northwest) Scrub Shrub Wetland (center and west) Savanna (between the river-side marsh and the Dune and Swale zone on the west side)

These habitats are fully described under "Habitats" in Section II of this report.

These habitats are nearly fially intact and fijnctional(ecologicall y speaking). This is likely due to their size, segregation and the difficulty negotiating the dense brush or marsh waters. The western third of the site has been separated from the remainder by a fence running around the facility, but which turns south fi-omth e north property line at about the center ofthe site. The fence runs south to the channel and has prevented intrusions into the westem side ofthe site. That area has likely been largely undisturbed since settlement, except for a couple of minor intmsions.

Methods and Procedures:

The time limitations under which this report was produced allowed for one fijll pass throughout the site by the investigators. It was determined that a controlled time meander was the best approach for sampling. Data collection for the wetland delineation was compiled using the routine on-site determination method utilizing matching data points along the wetland boundary. The wetland borders are abmpt for two reasons: the fill placed in the wetlands creates steep sterile embankments in the marsh and scrub shrub areas, and the swales are contained by steep dune sides. Because of the abrupt boundaries, transects were not required.

Once the species inventory was complete, the data were analyzed by two standard evaluation

Page 3

^J X ^ techniques. The first system produces three numbers. This system is called the Compromised Species Potential Indices (CSPI). The second system was included to provide an index number for determining natural area quality. It is called the Natural Area Rating Index.

Compromised Species Potential Indices:

The CSPI was created by John J. Sabuco, Managing Partner of The White Oak Group, Inc., to help predict the presence of compromised species (ETRs) with limited site inventory time. The goal was to create a system of qualifying indices which, after a single site evaluation, could quantify the possibility of finding an ETR, or findingmor e ETRs on a site. The indices are as follows:

Actual Compromised Species (AS)

We have found that when an ETR is found on site h is extremely predictive (increases the likelihood) that another compromised species will be found on site in the future. In fact, the likelihood increases with each newly discovered ETR up to about 3. The peak number changes, however, with each habitat, depending on the rarity ofthe habhat (phytocenose). The likelihood of future discoveries decreases gradually, then, until at 10-12 ETR taxa, the chances became very poor that future ETRs will be found. Therefore: AS=number of listed ETRs on site.

Because ofthe nature of chance the AS can be wildly inaccurate on occasion, often due to factors such as difficulty in traversing the site, weather during the inventory, the season etc.

Development Potential (DP)

This equation was created in order to use the combination of two ecological values: diversity and conservatism (value), as predictors for the future assessed value of a site. The goal was to predict the likelihood of finding an ETR species or finding more ETRs in the fiiture. Several premises were accepted as given:

• The likelihood of findingadditiona l ETRs is increased by the presence of other ETRs.

• The greater the average conservatism (value) of on-she species the greater the likelihood of finding an ETR, and this effect is progressive.

• Diversity has an increasing effect on ETR potential, though it is regressive.

The progressive nature of value is greater than the increasing/regressive nature of diversity.

Page 4

19 U JL 9 Therefore if TV = Total Value AV = Average Value D= Diversity DP = Developmental Potential

Then: DP= Square root of: [TV-+-(D x 1.65)] x AV

The result ofthe DP equation consistently maintains a curve which we know to be consistent with a predictive value for the discovery of ETRs. To utilize this equation, competent biologists who are knowledgeable about the area must assign some subjective values to each species based on the following concepts and criteria:

Allochthonous adventive species are non-natives that have no predictive value whatsoever.

Examples: Glossy Buckthom European Starting

Their value rating is 0.

Autochthonous adventives are native autecological "weeds" or very non- conservative opportunists. They have some predictive value in that if they are thriving, the site is stable. These species are indicative of either a degraded or an artificial habitat.

Examples; Common Milkweed Coyote Cowbird

Their value rating is 1.

Conservative species indicate stable natural conditions which may show elements of degradation but which retain enough natural character to remain distinctly above weedy conditions.

Examples: New England Aster Brown Thrasher Muskrat

Their value rating is 4.

Rare species are those which a biologist (not a governmental body) considers to be significant, uncommon, species which may indicate a nearly

Page 5

• .Of) 20 ^' •'* '^ undisturbed habitat. The range of survival parameters for these species is narrow enough that when their habitat is lost, they do not generalize to other habitats.

Examples: Swamp Rose Black Rat Snake

Their value rating is 10. i. Endangered or Threatened or otherwise listed species have created a consensus among biologists and politicians that these species are either fatally compromised or compromised with a definite recent downturn in population stability. Only the least disturbed natural areas can support or maintain these species. This fact is augmented by such species' inability to tolerate the proximity of man, or a range of conditions which varies even slightly from their narrowly defined preferences.

Their value rating is 100.

The DP equation treats diversity to a constant increase of 1.65 based on classical studies which demonstrate that a competent site assessment performed as a one time inventory will miss about 40% of all species. The square ofthe final result regresses the final number appropriately and brings the finalinde x into a range which allows for easy conceptualization.

The range of the final index has been calibrated with completed field studies to demonstrate efficacy at the following break points. However, it should be realized that by the very nature of this index such a definition is still arbitrary and becomes increasingly meaningless at each break point. For instance the difference between a 50 and a 51 is not meaningfial despite the fact that a 50 is "low probability" and 51 is a "moderate probability" rating.

DP Index = 0-50 Low probability ofthe existence of ETRs on site

51-100 Moderate probability of ETRs on site.

Over 100 High probability of ETRs on site.

Hidden Potential (HP)

With one or only, a few visits to the site and given the mobility of species (even plant species), we have found it useful to characterize a site's habitats and discern, within a discrete area, the number of ETRs which might be able to utilize these habitats. The goal is to assess the possibility that on-site migration, periodic loafing, foraging

Page 6

21 U £m ^ by animals, inconsistent use, periodic manifestation and improved management, might increase the number of ETRs found in the fiiture.

To accomplish this, and supply a meaningful number, the habitats on site must be defined by a competent biologist. Then those ETR species known to exist within the subject county and all adjoining counties which are known to utilize those habitats are counted.

The final number adds further meaning to the AS number. For instance ifthe HP number is 12 and the AS number is 10 then the likelihood of finding two or more ETRs on the subject site is remote. However, if the AS number is 2 and the HP number is 54 then there is a significant probability that more ETRs are to be found.

The Natural Area Rating Index

The Natural Area Rating Index (NARI) was created by Floyd Swink and Gerrould Wilhelm and appeared in their book "Plants ofthe Chicago Region, 1979, Third Edition". This work is now in its fourth edition and is considered one ofthe finest taxonomic works in the world today. The NARI is accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers as the definitive assessment method in evaluating the natural character of a habitat for the purpose of wetland impacts in this region. Lake County, Indiana is within the purvey of this work. Due to hs wide acceptance, a detailed explanation of its working is not required. The purpose of NARI is to place a representative, relative rating on the habitat or ecosystem based on the subjective values of the vascular plants. We have used this system for the evaluation ofthe native character ofthe wetland on site and its associated upland, as is the custom for assessments in this area. We have altered the coefficients of conservancy of three of these taxa to reflect 15 years of new evidence and their specific condition in Indiana.

The final ratings may be construed to mean the following:

Above 40 = Natural Area

A rating of 40, given the current state of wetland mitigation science, indicates a level which cannot be attained by man's reconstruction efforts.

Page 7

22 \}(^^ Final Quantification USS Lead Refinery

Taxa found on-site:

Vascular plants 127 Fungi 1 Birds 51 Mammals 5 Hepetofauna (Reptiles and amphibians) 2 Lepidoptera (Butterflies and moths) 3

Total taxa (species) 189

Note: Despite repetition within the inventory lists, no species was counted more than once.

Compromised Species Potential Indices:

Actual Compromised Species (AS) 12 Developmental Potential 139.98 Hidden Potential 64

Natural Area Rating Index

Vascular plant taxa 127 Mean rated quality 4.39

Final Index 63.57

Respectfully Submmited,

ahfietsTLLA Managing Partner, The White Oak Group, Inc.

Pages

23 VJ <«• »> Analysis USS Lead Refinery

USS-LR, with a NARI of greater than 40 (63.57) qualifies as a significant natural area. In addition, the subject site manifested twelve listed compromised species (AS = 12). Coupled with the HP of 64, we believe additional ETRs will be found on site in future assessments. The DP of 139.98 is very high and serves as fiirtherindicatio n that additional ETRs will be found.

To the biologist the site is yet degraded, despite the high ratings. Significant adventive vegetation is found on the site, though it displaces more conservative vegetation only in the marsh (Phragmites communis).

Fire suppression is at least partially responsible for the degradation. Those species which are normally held in check by fire have proliferated (Phragmites, Typha, Populus tremuloides.) We also suspect that species of both plants and animals have been lost or neariy lost to the site due to chemical imbalances brought on by pollution. The marsh seems to be most affected by this latter impact.

The lack of intrusion by man over the last decade has, however, favorably affected the conditions on site. Some species of birds were seen nesting on-site that typically abhor the proximity of man (Red-tailed hawk. Black crowned night heron). In some areas ofthe site (west and southwest) the proximity to the refinery operation is so distant that there seems to be a nearly undisturbed condition, with the exception of water quality, and this has encouraged numerous species to flourish.

With appropriate remediation and biological management it is our opinion that USS-LR could prove to be a regionally significant natural area.

Respectfully Submitted,

JohrTj. ^abttgoTLLA The White Oak Group, Inc.

Page 9

24 024 f USS Lead Site Inventory

Habitats

The subject site contains the following distinct habitats:

DUNE AND SWALE

Ridges of dunes (AKA Swells) run parallel to each other alternating with wet swales between the ridges. The tops ofthe dune ridges are usually dominated by oaks of various types with various other dry soil siliciphiles (sand loving plants). The swale areas are usually consumed by a scrub- shrub wetland that is very dense (almost impenetrable) and often inundated. The frequency of inundation is enough to prevent an understory of forbs beneath about half of all examples. The dominant plants types are:

Dune:

Quercus velutina Black Oak Quercus coccinea Scariet Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Hill's Oak Smilacina stellata Starry False Solomon's Seal Rosa blanda Eariy Wild Rose Sassafras albidum Sassafi-as Amelanchier arborea Juneberry Rhus radicans Poison Ivy Maianthemum canadense Canada Mayflower interius

Swale:

Cornus obliqua Silky Dogwood Comus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood Coraus racemosa Gray Dogwood Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder Vitis riparia River Grape n Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern Osmunda regalis Royal Fem Salix interior Sandbar Willow Dryopteris thelypteris Marsh Shield Fem pubescens

Page 10

25

0 6,0 MARSH

This marsh is approximately 20% open water in a typical year probably indicating a water depth of greater than 3'. Marsh covers the southem third ofthe subject site and the edge ofthe Grand Calumet River. The dominant vegetation is:

Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail Typha latifolia Common Cattail Phragmites communis Conimon Reed berlandieri

SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND

This habitat is approximately dead-center ofthe site on the north side ofthe outfall canal. This true scrub-shrub area is fairly flat with small rivulets criss-crossing its surface. These rivulets are 1-2' wide and deep. The tangle ofthe thicket is very difficult to move through. There are open areas within this habitat that are usually dominated by sedges and spike mshes (sedge meadows). This is one ofthe richest areas on site. The dominant species are:

Comus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fem Iris virginica shrevei Blue Flag Dryopteris thelypteris Marsh Shield Fern pubescens Carex stricta Hummock Sedge Scirpus acutus Hard-stemmed Bulrush Scirpus americanus Chairmaker's Rush Vitis riparia River Grape Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spike Rush Eleocharis palustris major Palustrine Spike Rush Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Rosa palustris Swamp Rose Salix interior Sandbar Willow

BLACK OAK SAVANNA AND PIN OAK SAVANNA

The subject site contains a wide swath of Black Oak Savanna, but it is particulariy sterile compared with other black oak savannas in the area. This type of savanna is characterized by sandy, open ground, covered with short forbs and grasses, There is about 20-30% canopy cover by depauperate oaks. Also included here are small bits of Pin Oak Savanna which are quite rare. The dominant and marker plants are:

Page 11

U 26 Black Oak Savanna

Quercus velutina Black Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Hill's Oak Andropogon scoparius Little Blue Stem Koeleria cristata June Grass Polygonatum canaliculatum Smooth Solomon's Seal Coreopsis lanceolata Sand Coreopsis Lithospermum canescens Hoary Puccoon Tradescantia ohioensis Ohio Spiderwort

Pin Oak Savanna

Quercus palustris Pin Oak Onoclea sensibilis Senshive Fem Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake Master

Page 12 Vascular Plants

We have included Illinois ratings due to the close proximity ofthe subject site to the state line and the similarity of some habitats in Illinois.

SE= Indiana State Endangered ST= Indiana State Threatened UR= Under Review by USEPA WL= Indiana Watch List IE= Illinois Endangered

Dune and Swale Habitat Common Coefficient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 0 1 Acorus calamus Sweet Flag 7 4 Alisma triviale Large Flowered Water Plantain 4 4 Allium sativum Gariic 0 1 Alnus rugosa Speckled Alder 10 100 WL Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed 0 1 elatior Amelanchier arborea Juneberry 8 10 Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem 4 4 Andropogan scoparius Little Bluestem 5 4 Arenaria lateriflora Wood Sandwort 9 10 Asclepias incamata Swamp Milkweed 4 4 Asparagus officinalis Asparagus 1 1 Aster azureus Sky Blue Aster 8 10 Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettie 2 1 Bromus tectorum Downy Brome Grass 0 1 Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Grass 3 4 Catalpa speciosa Catalpa 1 1 Coreopsis lanceolata Sand Coreopsis 7 4 Comus obliqua Silky Dogwood 5 4 Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood 1 1 Comus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood 1 1

Page 13

28 'J Co f Dune and Swale Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Eleocharis acicularis Needle Spike Rush 6 4 Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake Master 9 10 Euphorbia corollata Flowering Spurge 2 1 Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed 5 4 Eupatorium purpureum Joe Pye Weed 7 4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 2 1 subintegerrima Galium aparine Annual Bedstraw 1 1 Ipomoea purpurea Morning Glory -1 0 Iris virginica shrevei Blue Flag Iris 5 4 Helianthus grosseserratus Big-Tooth Sunflower 2 1 Koeleria cristata June Grass 7 4 Lithospermum croceum Hoary Puccoon 8 10 Lycopus americanus Common Water Horehound 5 4 Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestrife 4 4 Lysimachia thyrsiflora Tufted Loosestrife 9 10 Lonicera x bella Beautiful Honeysuckle -3 0 Maianthemum canadense Canada Mayflower 10 10 interius Morus alba Common Mulberry -1 0 Osmunda ciimamomea Cinnamon Fem 6 4 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fem 8 10 Osmunda regalis Royal Fem 8 10 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 2 1 Perideridia americana Eastem Eulophus 15 100 SE Physostegia virginiana False Dragonhead 5 4 Phytolaca americana Pokeweed 2 1

Page 14

29 i U (-.1^ Dune and Swale Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Polygonum hydropiper Water Pepper 2 1 Populus dehoides Cottonwood 2 1 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 4 4 Prunus americana American Plum 5 4 Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 1 1 Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fem 5 4 Quercus alba White Oak 4 4 Quercus coccinea Scariet Oak 6 4 Quercus ellipsoidalis Hill's Oak 4 4 Quercus velutina Black Oak 6 4 Rhus radicans Poison Ivy 1 1 Rhustyphina Staghom Sumac 3 4 Rosa blanda Eariy Wild Rose 5 4 Rosa arkansana suflilta Sunshine Rose 5 4 Rosa Carolina Pasture Rose 5 4 Rorippa islandica Marsh Cress 5 4 femaldiana Rubus flagellaris Common Dewberry 4 4 Rubus setosus Bristly Blackberry 15 100 IE Salix interior Sandbar Willow 1 1 Sassafras albidum Sassafras 6 4 Scirpus acutus Hard-stemmed Bulrush 6 4 Scrophularia marilandica Late Figwort 4 4 Smilacina stellata StaiTy False Solomon's Seal 5 4 Smilax rotundifoHa Green Briar 15 10 Smilax lasioneura Common Carrion Flower 4 4 Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod 3 4 Solidago graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod 3 4 nuttallii Solidago racemosa Dune Goldenrod 15 100 ST, gillmani

Page 15

30 0 Dune and Swale Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Spartina pectinata Prairie Cord Grass 5 4 Taraxacum erythrospermum Redseed Dandelion 2 1 Trandescantia ohioensis Spiderwort 2 1 Vitis riparia River Grape 4 4 Zizea aurea Golden Alexanders 7 4

Scrub Shrub Wetland Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Ailanthus ahissima Ailanthus 1 1 Asclepias syriacus Common Milkweed 0 1 Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettie 2 1 Caltha palustris Marsh Marigold 5 4 Carex stricta Hummock Sedge 5 4 Cirsium discolor Pasture Thistie 2 1 Comus obliqua Silky Dogwood 5 4 Comus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood 6 4 Dryopteris thelypteris Marsh Shield Fern 6 4 pubescens Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spike Rush 5 4 Eleocharis palustris Palustrine Spike Rush 5 4 major Eleocharis tenuis Slender Spike Rush 8 10 Equisetum arvense Horsetail 0 1 Equisetum fluviatile Pipes 7 4 Equisetum hyemale Smooth Scouring Rush 3 4 intermedium Eupatorium perfoliatum Borieset 6 4

Page 16 !l *-' O i Scrub Shrub Wetland Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Galium asprellum Rough Bedstraw 8 10 Galium aparine Annual Bedstraw 1 1 Impatiens capensis Jewel Weed 3 4 Iris virginica shrevei Blue Flag Iris 5 4 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 5 4 Lathyrus palustris Marsh Vetchling 8 10 linearifolius Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 2 1 Populus dehoides Cottonwood 2 1 Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen 4 4 Potentilla simplex Common Cinquefoil 4 4 Prunus americana American Plum 5 4 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fem 8 10 Osmunda regalis Royal Fem 8 10 spectabilis Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthom -3 0 Rhus typhina Staghom Sumac 3 4 Ribes cynosbati Prickly Wild Gooseberry 5 4 Robinia pseudo-acacia Black Locust -3 0 Rosa palustris Swamp Rose 9 10 Salix interior Sandbar Willow 1 1 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry 1 1 Scirpus acutus Hard-stemmed Bullmsh 6 4 Scirpus americanus Chairmaker's Rush 7 4 Scrophularia lanceolata Eariy Figwort 5 4 Smilacina stellata Starry False Solomon's Seal 5 4 Solanum dulcamara Deadly Nightshade -3 0 Solidago caesia Blue-stemmed Goldenrod 7 4

Page 17

32 u O <;• Scrub Shrub Wetland Habitat Common Coeffeicient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod 3 4 SoHdago juncea Early Goldenrod 5 4 Spartina pectinata Prairie Cord Grass 5 4 Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein 1 1 Vitis riparia River Grape 4 4

Marsh and Associated Upland Habitat Common Coefficient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Achillea millefolium Yarrow 1 1 Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle 2 1 Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle -3 0 Eleocharis tenuis Slender Spike Rush 8 10 Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spike Rush 5 4 Iris virginica shrevei Blue Flag Iris 5 4 Phragmites communis Common Reed 4 4 berlandieri Populus deltoides Cottonwood 2 1 Rhus typhina Staghom Sumac 3 4 Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaved Willow 5 4 Salix glaucophylloides Blue Willow 7 4 glaucophylla Salbc interior Sandbar Willow 1 1 Salix nigra Black Willow 4 4 Scirpus americanus Chairmaker's Rush 7 4 Solanum dulcamara De'adly Nightshade -3 0 Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod 3 4

Page 18

33

Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail 2 1 Typha latifolia Common Cattail 1 1 Vitis riparia River Grrape 4 4

Black Oak and Fin Oak SavannasHabitat Common Coefficient of CSP Value Name Conservancy

Andropogon gerardi Big Bluestem 4 4 Andropogan scoparius Little Bluestem 5 4 Asparagus officinalis Asparagus 1 1 Coreopsis lanceolata Sand Coreopsis 7 4 Lithospermum canescens Hoary Puccoon 6 4 Koeleria cristata June Grass 7 4 Polygonatum canaliculatum Smooth Solomon's Seal 3 4 Quercus alba White Oak 4 4 Quercus coccinea Scariet Oak 6 4 Quercus ellipsoidalis Hill's Oak 4 4 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 8 10 Quercus mbra Red Oak 7 4 Quercus velutina Black Oak 6 4 Rudbeckia hirta Black-Eyed Susan 2 1 Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort 5 4 Trandescantia ohioensis Spiderwort 2 1 Veronicastmm virginicum Culver's Root 6 4 Zizea aurea Golden Alexanders 7 4

Fungi Clavatia cyathiformis

Page 19

U o "Ji 34 Animals

Birds

L=Loafing SE= State Endangered F=Foraging SSC =Special Concem N=Nesting IL= Illinois State Listed FO=Fly Over WL== Watch List CSPValue

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper F 4 Agelaius phoeniceus Redwing Blackbird N 1 Anas platyrh3Tichos Mallard Duck L 1 Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron F 100 WL Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper FO 100 SE Bombycilla cedromm Cedar Waxwing F 4 Branta canadensis Canada Goose FO 1 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk N 4 Butorides striatus Green-backed Heron FO 4 Cardinalis cardinalis Northem Cardinal N 1 Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch N 1 Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch F 4 Casmerodius albus Great Egret FO 100 SE,IL Catharus fijscescens Veery FO 100 IL Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher F 4 Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift F 1 Charadrius vociferus Kildeer N 4 Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren N 100 ssc,r Colaptes auratus Northem Flicker N 4 Columba livia Rock Dove FO 1 Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay F 4 Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler N 4 i Dumetella carolinensis ,,. Gray Catbird N 1 i Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher N 4 Falco sparverius American Kestrel F 4

Page 20

35 O U o* Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen F 100 SL Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat N 10 Hirundo mstica Bam Swallow F 4 Icterus galbula Northem Oriole N 4 Iridoprocne bicolor Tree Swallow FO 4 Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull FO 4 Larus argentatus Herring Gull FO ] Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow N 4 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow N 4 Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird N 0 Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night Heron F 100 SE, DL Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle N 1 Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting N 10 Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant N 0 Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous -sided Towhee N 10 Scolopax minor American Woodcock F 4 Stelgidopterix serripennis Northem Rough-winged F 4 Swallow Sturaus vulgaris European Starting FO 0 Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow F 4 Trogolodytes aedon House Wren N 4 Toxostoma rufum Brovra Thrasher F 10 Turdus migratorius American Robin FO 1 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo N 10 Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo F 10 Vireo olivaceua Red-eyed Vireo N 4 Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove N 1

Page 21

r\ It 36 Mammals CSP Value

Canis latrans Coyote Castor canadensis Beaver Odocoileus virginianus Whitetail Deer Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Procyon lator thamnas Racoon

Herpetofauna

Chrysemus picta picta Eastem Painted Turtle 1 Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Black Rat Snake 10

Lepidoptera

Calastrina argiolus Spring Azure Blue 4 Incisalia niphon Eastem Pine Elfin 4 Calpodes ethlius Brazilian Skipper 10

Page 22

37 Compromised Species Potential

Summary USS Lead Refinery

Actual compromised Species are those found on site which are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare

AS= Number of Compromised Species On Site USS -LR Rating = 12

If HP is at least 10 and is greater than AS by a factor of 5, then probability is high that more ETRs will be found.

Development Potential indicates the likelihood of finding or findingmor e compromised species on a site with fijture assessments. (Species curtently manifest) \J(Total Value*(piversity ^\.(>5)yAverage Value

Values for taxa are: Allochthonous adventive 0 USS-LR Autochthonous adventive 1 Rating = 139.98 Conservative 4 Rare 10 Endangered or Threatened 100

If DP is5:: <50 Probability is low 51 to 100 Probability is moderate Over 100 Probability is high for finding ETRs in the future

Hidden potential includes the possibility of on-site migration, periodic loafing, inconsistent use and management enhancement. (Species not currently manifest)

HP = Number of listed ETRs, for county or an adjacent county, that might be found in the distinct habitats on site, or may utilize the distinct habitats on site. USS-LR Ratings 64

Managing Partner, The White Oak Group, Inc.

Page 23

38 ^ OO Natural Area Rating Index

Summary USS Lead Refinery

The NARI indicates whether a site qualifies as a natural area.

Vascular plants are rated from -3 to 10 with additional ratings of 15 and 20 for significant rarity.

If CC = CoeflScient of Conservancy N = Number of taxa I=Index

Then: H TotalCClN)s/{N^}.65)

Vascular plants on site 127 Mean rated quality 4.39 NARI 63.57

Numbers above 40 indicate the site is a natural area.

Respectfully Submitted,

John J.^Sabuco, LLA Managing Partner, The White Oak Group, Inc.

Page 24

39 \j %3J 9 Analysis ofthe Effects of Proposed Corrective Action on the USS Lead Refinery Ecosystem

The White Oak Group, Inc. has been asked for comments regarding the effects ofthe Corrective Action Plan on the habitats of the USS Lead Refinery site and particulariy on the ETRs (endangered, threatened or rare species) noted in the White Oak Group Biological Site Inventory. To properly analyze these effects we must divide the plan conceptually into two distinct areas: the construction process, and the finalproduct .

The Construction Process:

The construction of a segregated and contained Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU) requires four potentially dismptive procedures:

1. The excavation of slag and other debris from filledarea s into the CAMU. This will require removal of fill from wetlands in the marsh and scmb shrub areas. The fill will be removed with long reach backhoes from atop the fill, and then moved into final position with dozers and dump tmcks.

2. The removal of tainted sediments from the outfall channel. These sediments would be excavated partially with long reach backhoes. We suggest the primary removal be performed with a miniature barge/backhoe which can excavate entirely from a floating platform within the channel. Low-ground-pressure (LGP) vehicles are also an option for work which must be done from whhin the wetland.

3. The constmction of a slurry wall to approximately 30' in depth below original grade to contain leachate from the CAMU dome.

4. The capping ofthe slag and debris pile with a 40 mil polyethylene membrane and clay. The final product will be vegetated with turf grasses and short prairie grasses.

All procedures would be performed with attention paid to silt entrapment, storm water capture and treatment, and visible aerosol emission (VAE) reduction using mist/vapor suppression.

Excavation would begin in Spring 1995, with the outlying fill material and proceed toward the CAMU. This means that ifthe entire project is not completed by fall then what little that is left to be done would be completed in very early spring 1996 before ground thaw (probably by late March or eariy April.) It is likely that only 30 days of work could remain at that time given the quantity of fill being removed and average daily rate of removal.

Page 25

40 Construction Effects on the Ecosystem:

The excavation itself is unlikely to transgress into non-filled areas. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that plant species could be affected. Plants must be physically damaged or have a severe change in growing conditions to be adversely affected under such conditions. Such changes might be, soil compaction, groundwater changes (height of water table), drainage changes, or chemical imbalances.

Since vehicles would be prohibited from venturing into the soft saturated soils (unless they are LGPs) it seems soil compaction is not an issue.

The subject site has a thoroughly saturated solum that is not even significantly affected by severe droughts. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the removal of fill could impact groundwater significantly.

The rearrangement of fill on site could affect in minor ways the pattern of drainage on site and thus change the species prevalence in any given small area. This is more likely to occur in close proximity to the fill border. Outlying areas are unlikely to be affected at all. We do not view such an issue as particularly significant because all ofthe compromised species on site are in excess of 100' from the fill, and the wetland hydrology is so persistent.

Chemical imbalances which might affect plants are linuted to those chemicals which plants can metabolize, or those chemicals which can prevent metabolization of nutrients or water. The contamination on site is from lead (various species of lead oxide.) There are very few plants which can metabolize lead, and lead does not inhibh metabolic processes in plants. Those that can are armuals or tuberous rooted species. These species do not seem to be affected by excesses of lead. Further, the subject site does not harbor compromised species of plants which are annuals, tuberous, or otherwise known to metabolize lead. It should also be noted that lead has existed on site for about a century. The act of moving it around is not likely to release any material which has not already leached fromth e fill or oxidized into non-leachable forms of lead. Therefore, the damage, it would seem has been done.

It should be noted that all ofthe ETRs on site are compromised due to habitat destmction as opposed to any significant sensitivities.

The effects of excavation on compromised animal species might differ for each species. To assess these affects we have provided here a list ofthe compromised species, their status, and the reasons for their current predicament.

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron

Listed status: Indiana watch list

Reason for decline: The great blue heron requires clear still shallow water for foraging, and dead tree snags for nesting.

Page 26

u' Proximity to man does not disrupt nesting. The drainage of wetlands, siltation of still ponds, and the elimination of snags have all helped to decrease the numbers of this bird. These are all considered habitat destmction. Severe droughts also take their toll on populations.

Probable effect of construction: It is unlikely that the planned corrective action will affect the Great Blue Heron. The possible temporary loss of a very small percentage of foraging areas near the east end ofthe marsh is the only likely impact.

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper

Listing status: Indiana State Endangered

Reasons for decline: The upland sandpiper was hunted nearly to extinction in the U.S. Also contributing to the decline has been the destmction of short grass habitats such as savannas and hiUtop prairies.

Probable effect of construction: No negative effect is likely. The Upland Sandpiper utilizes this site for the short grass, black oak savanna and portions of the dune tops. These areas will be wholly unaffected by constmction. Nesting is unaffected by proximity to the activities of man. In fact the most common areas for re-establishment of this species have been airports. In addition, the final product will include a large grassy knoll with short grasses of about 6-8" in height left un-mown. This will add significantly to the potential nesting area.

Casmerodius albus Great Egret

Listed status: Indiana Endangered, Illinois Endangered

Reasons for decline: Early this century over hunting by the plume trade greatly reduced numbers. An end to the hunting triggered an expansion in 1937 which continued until the 1950s. Since then egg shell thinning from DDT and other pollutants and habitat loss has caused a steady decrease in numbers until, in a three year span

Page 27

42 4 0 from 1973-1976, a drastic reduction of 80% of all living birds occurted. There has been a minor increase in number since 1990. Great Egret is completely intolerant of man during nesting, however, it is extremely tolerant of man and dismptive during foraging.

Probable effect of construction: There is no evidence that Great Egret is nesting at the subject site. The sightings of the egrets were fly­ overs. They likely use the area for occasional foraging. Constmction activity will not affect the bird whatsoever.

Catharus fuscescens Veery

Listing status: Illinois endangered

Reason for decline: The Veery's decline has been somewhat mysterious. The only known clue is the Veery's preference for acid sand flatwoods. These woods are typically dominated by black oak and pin oak which is exactly the type of savanna which occurs at the subject site.

Probable effect of construction: The savannas will be untouched and are quite distant (500') fromth e nearest excavation area. No impact is expected.

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren

Listing status: Indiana Special Concem and Illinois Endangered

Reason for decline: Unknown; wetiand loss is the most likely reason however.

Probable effect of construction: There -will be a net gain in habitat at the subject site. The nesting period for Marsh Wren is mid May to June. If they are sensitive to disturbance during this time major activity might have some impact, however by this time only the slurry wall constmction should be in progress, and this will be fairly minor activity compared to excavation. In addition, the nesting areas seem to be 600 to 800' from the closest excavation area and at least 1000' from the CAMU.

Page 28

43 Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen

Listed status: Illinois Endangered

Reasons for decline: The destmction of marshes containing open water and tall emergents (cattail and bulrushes) is the only known factor in the decline ofthe Moorhen.

Probable effect of construction: None; the Moorhen will nest in any marsh meeting those requirements listed above. They will readily accept man-made wetlands as nesting sites and are not easily disturbed. The net result of the final product will be increased marsh area so the Moorhen should thrive here in the future.

Nyctocorax nyctocorax Black-Crowned Night Heron

Listed status: Indiana Endangered and Illinois Endangered

Reason for decline: Not flilly understood; this heron has been in dramatic decline for two decades. The probably answer is the lack of suitable nesting sites. They prefer low dead trees and shmbs in the water and must have a good supply of small fish very near the nest site. This species is not likely nesting at the subject site.

Probable effect of construction: Black-Crowned Nigh Herons are likely using the site as a foraging area only, during the non-breeding season. It is not likely that construction could affect this species. Noise from the work -will be a low hum near the foraging area.

The remaining animal species on she are fairly to extremely adaptive and should not experience any difficulties due to terrestrial constmction activities.

The dredging of the channel is likely to affect only toads, frogs, and turtles temporarily. No compromised species should be affected. The herpetofauna in question are quite mobile and can easily avoid the dredging activities by temporary migration. We did not observe fish in the channel. If any dredging takes place from the sides ofthe channel, some plant life will be temporarily affected by the LGP vehicles. This, however, is the most severely degraded portion ofthe wetiand and no significant species would be affected.

Page 29

44 044 The construction ofthe cap on the CAMU and the building ofthe slurry wall are activities which will be contained on a 800 X 400' portion ofthe eastern edge ofthe site. This is the most distal are of the site from the animal habitats currently utilized on site. While visiting the site several pieces of large equipment were operating in the area. From a distance of 500' I could not hear their activity. 500' is the current closest edge ofthe fillt o the CAMU. Furthermore, this is an industrial area where significant heavy machinery and manufacturing operations have been in close proximity to the subject she for over half a century. The species on site currently have been acclimated to such conditions for a considerable period of time. We do not view this activity as having a bearing on the continued success of these species.

The Final Product:

, The finalproduc t ofthe Corrective Action Plan is a 400 X 800' dome of slag approximately 10' in height. The dome Avill be vegetated with short native turf grasses and buffalo grass in an 18" layer of soil. The grasses were selected based on several criteria:

j • Short height i • Non-invasive quality (won't colonize natural areas) i • Native character ] • Erosion control capabilities j j The mixture of grasses is as follows: 30% Festuca elatior 'Emerald III' (Emerald III Tall Fescue) 30% Agropyron cristatum 'Ephraim' (Ephraim Westem Crested Wheat Grass) 10% Bouteloua curtipendula (Side Oats Grama) 10% Andropogon scoparius (Littie Bluestem) 20% Buchloe dactyloides (Buffalo Grass; male plants only)

Around the edge ofthe dome (CAMU) will be a slurry wall which extends to approximately 30 feet below the soil surface in order to contain the groundwater beneath the dome and protect the wetlands nearby. The net effect is that of a grassy hiUtop. There will be monitoring wells placed around the outside edge ofthe CAMU to ensure water quality.

Once the surface ofthe dome is stabilized future natural area managers may wish to establish hill­ top prairie on the surface.

Page 30

,1

45 The Final Product's Effect on the Ecosystem

It would be hard to imagine that lead by-products could escape the mbber liner and clay cap particularly since the dome should be very dry inside. The grassy hiUtop will have no detrimental eflfects on existing animal life. Indeed, h should provide nearly perfect habitat for (among others) the Upland Sandpiper, which is a compromised species. The only possible problem with the plant life is that one ofthe three non-native grasses would escape into the dune areas. However, erosion is a more serious problem that must be dealt with. There are only three xeric turf grasses that form sod quickly that can also whhstand the conditions on a dome such as this, and they are being used. In the unlikely event of an escape, these grasses could not displace native vegetation. It would be unfortunate to add a non-native plant to the local spontaneous flora.

Summary

We believe the Corrective Action Plan to be sufficient as written, however, we have made three minor suggestions which might improve the interaction with the native element ofthe site. The LGP vehicles and the barge backhoe will decrease impacts to the wetlands at the edge ofthe channel. The final vegetation cover that we recommended on the dome will have better survival characteristics and will enhance the native character ofthe site.

We do not believe that the course of action written into the Corrective Action Plan will have a significant negative impact (if any negative impact at all) on the biological diversity or stabilhy of the subject site. We believe the potential for site improvement greatly outweighs the extremely slight possibility of negative impacts from the Corrective Action Plan.

Respectfully Submitte

^JdmJ^^udoJlLA (^ Managing Partner The White Oak Group, Inc.

Page 31

46 •i" r* ^.''1 A Wetland Delineation

For the Property Known As: USS Lead Refinery 5300 Kennedy Avenue East Chicago Indiana

Receiver: MRRC Mike Balm Price, Utah 84501

For the Benefit of: Entact, Inc. 1616 Corporate Court, # 150 Irving, Texas 75038 (214) 580-1323

Prepared By: John J. Sabuco, LLA The White Oak Group, Inc. Boxl Flossmoor, Illinois 60422

Field Investigators: John J. Sabuco, LLA Jesus Cazares A. Paul Vicari Walter Marcisz

Summary

The USS-LR site contains approximately 39.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the 79 acre site. The largest of these is a reed-cattail marsh in the southem third ofthe site and the Grand Calumet River which is a navigable waterway. There is also, in the center ofthe site, a scmb shmb wetiand. This scmb shmb wetiand is repeated as the swale phytocenose in the dune and swale habitat. The applicant wishes to remove fill from the wetland and generally remediate the site which has been impacted by lead refining operations. The applicant will not be placing li any fillwithi n the wetland, even temporarily. There will be no need to place equipment in the wetland. The amount of fill which the applicant wishes to remoye from the wetland can only be detennined once the procedure to remove begins.

RespectfiiUy Submittedr

John T^SahdGorl^LA Managing Partner, The White Oak Group, Inc.

Page 32

47 yj T: * ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(s): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPI Do normal environmental conditiona exiiit at the plant community? Hai the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes __^___^ No X (If no, explain on back) Yes X No fIf yes, explam on back) Slag and lead battery debris fill. Slag and lead battery debris fill. Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum l. Sterile fill IL 2. 12. 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Fill 1-12' above marsh.

Soils Series/phase: Unknown Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Fill material

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yea No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yea No X Rationale:

Jurisdictional Detennination and Rationale

Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: No criteria met. Page 33 48 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Investigator(a): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DP2 Do normal environmental conditiona exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soila, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yea X No (It no, explain on back) Yea No X (If yes, explain on back)

Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Straturr I. Typha latifolia OBL herb II. 2. Phragmites communis beLLAndieri FACW+ herb 12. 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes X No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All hydrophytes

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterize Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soila liat? Yea No Undetermined la the soil a Histoaol? Yea No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yea No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: All speciea are OBL and FACW and the wetland boundary ia abrupt.

Hydrology Ia the ground surface inundated? Yes X^ No Surface water depth: 12" Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Ia the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yea X . .- No Rationale: Inundated during a moderate drought.

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X. No Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: All criteria met. Page 34 49

I ^•"-la^ . ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD Field Inve8tigator(8): The White Oak Group. Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Nam«: DP3 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yea __^__^ No X (If no, explain on back) Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) Slag and lead battery debris fill. Slag and lead battery debria fill. Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Sterile fill 11. 2. 12. ^ ^^^^ 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant speciea that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC la OBL + FACW > FAC? Yea No la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea No X Rationale: Fill 4-5' above marsh

Soils Series/phase: Unknown Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Fill material

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yea No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale:

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: No criteria met. Page 35 50

U v> \J ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Investigator(s): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake p Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DP4 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ^_^^_^ No X (If no, explain on back) Yes X No fIf yes, explain on back) Slag and lead battery debris fill. Slag and lead battery debris fill. Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratui 1. Typha latifolia OBL herb 11. 2. Typha angustifolia OBL herb 12. 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. I Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes X No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All hydrophytes

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterise Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric aoila list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Hiatic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yea No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: All OBL dominants

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: Approximately 18" Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X. f No Rationale: Inundated during a moderate drought

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: All criteria met Page 36 51 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(s): The White Oak Group, Ine. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead state Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPS Do normal environmental conditiona exiat at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X _ (If no, explain on back) Yes X No _ (If yes, explain on back) Probable fill. Probable fill. Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Populus deltoides FAC+ tree 11. 2. Vitis riparia FACW vine 12. 3. Phalaris arundinacea FACW+ herb 13. 4. Phragmites communis beLLAndieri FACW+ herb 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% la OBL + FACW > FAC? Yea X No la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All hydrophytes

Soils Series/phase: Diaturbed sand/urban Subgroup: la the aoil on the hydric aoils list? Yes No Undetermined X Is the aoil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: fill material and sand

Hydrology la the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: la the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: None

List other field evidence of surface inundation or aoil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: This ia a sandbar type community

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale la the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Not all criteria met. Page 37

52 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(B): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: PP6 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ___^__^ No X (If no, explain on back) Yes X No yes, explain on back) Slag and lead battery debris fill. Slag and lead battery d FAC? Yes X No la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All hydrophytes

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterise Subgroup: la the aoil on the hydric aoila list? Yes No Undetermined Is the aoil a Histosol? Yes No Hiatic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: la the hydric aoil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All vegetation ia OBL or FACW and the wetland boundary ia abrupt.

Hydrology Ia the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: _V_ Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or aoil aaturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X r No Rationale: Inundated during a moderate drought.

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: All criteria met. Page 38 53

ij KJ O ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Investigator(s): The White Oak Group. Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPT Do nonnal environmental conditiona exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soib, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ____^^_ No X (If no, explain on back) Yea X No (If yes, explain on back) Fill material Fill material Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Sterile fill H. 2. ., 12. ~ 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: No vegetation

Soils Series/phase: Fill material Subgroup: Is the aoil on the hydric aoila liat? Yea No 3^ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No la the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric aoil indicators: la the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: •

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yea No X_ Rationale: This ia a fill area about 4' above the wetland

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale la the plant community a wetland? Yes No X_ Rationale for juriadictional decision: No criteria met. Page 39

KJ *J -i: ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(a): The White Oak Group. Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead state Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPS Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soila, or hydrology been significantly diaturbed? Yes No X (If no, explain on back) Yes X No (If yes, explain on back)

Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratur 1. Cornus racemosa FACW- shrub 11. 2. Cornus stolonifera FACW shrub 12. 3. Eleocharis obtusa OBL herb 13. 4. Carex stricta OBL herb 14. 5. Lathyrus palustris OBL herb 15. 6. Scirpus americanus OBL herb 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% la OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes X No la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea X No Rationale: All hydrophytea

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterise Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All vegetation is FACW or OBL and the wetland boundary is abrupt. i' Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes X No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 3"

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or aoil aaturation.

Ia the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yea X No Rationale: Saturated within 18" during a moderate drought

Jurisdictional Detennination and Rationale la the plant community a wetland? Yea X No Rationale for juriadictional decision: All criteria met. Page 40

55 U vJ v> ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(s): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead state Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DP9 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly diaturbed? Ye» 2? No (If no, explain on back) Yea No X (If yea, explain on back)

Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Quercus veludna UPL tree 11. 2. Maianthemum canadense interius FAC herb 12. 3. Smilacina stellata FAC- herb 13. 4. Rhus radicans FACU vine 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant apecies that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 50% la OBL + FACW > FAC? Yea No X la the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea No X Rationale: Average wetland coefficient of 2.25. Positive intergers indicate upland.

Soils Series/phase: Oakville 0-6% alope Subgroup: mesic typic udipsamments Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No x Undetermined la the soil a Histosol? Yea No x_ Hiatic epipedon present? Yes No X la the aoil: Mottled? Yea No x Gleyed? Yea No x Matrix Color: lOYR 2/1 to2" lOYR 6/4 to 18" Mottle Colora: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric aoil criterion met? Yea No X Rationale: not on hydric aoil liat

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: No evidence of saturation

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale

la the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: No criteria met. Page 41

56 viO'O L_ ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(a): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPIO Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes __^^_^_^ No X (If no, explain on back) Yea X No (If yea, explain on back) Slag and lead battery debria fill. Slag and lead battery debria fill. Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratu 1. Onoclea sensibilis FACW herb 11. 2. Cornus stolonifera FACW shrub 12. 3. Cornus racemosa FACW- shrub 13. 4. Vitis riparia FACW- vine 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant speciea that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yea X No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea X No Rationale: All hydrophytea ^_^__

Soils Seriea/phase: No need to charactarise Subgroup: la the soil on the hydric soils list? Yea No Undetermined Is the soil a Histoaol? Yea No Histic epipedon present? Yes No la the aoil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All vegetation is OBL and FACW and the wetland boundary is abrupt.

Hydrology la the ground aurface inundated? Yea No X Surface water depth: Is the soil aaturated? Yea JC No Depth to free-standing water in pit/aoil probe hole: 2"

Liat other field evidence of aurface inundation or aoil aaturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yea X, No Rationale: Usually inundated but atill saturated in the drought.

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale la the plant community a wetland? Yea 2^ No Rationale for juriadictional deciaion: All criteria met. Page 42

57 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Investigator(s): The White Oak Group, Ine. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DPll Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Hai the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Yea No X (If yes, explain on back)

Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Quercus velutina UPL tree 11. 2. Quercus ellipsoidalis UPL tree 12. 3. Koeleria cristata UPL herb 13. 4. Andropogon scoparius FACU- herb 14. 5. Lithospermum canescens UPL herb 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 0% Ia OBL + FACW > FAC? Yea No X Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: No hydrophytes

Soils Seriea/phase: Oakville 0-6% slope Subgroup: mesic typic udipaammenta Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined la the aoil a Hiatosol? Yes No x_ Histic epipedon present? Yes No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No x Gleyed? Yes No x Matrix Color: 10 YR 2/1 to 2" lOYR 6/4 to 18" Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yea No X Rationale: not on hydric soil liat

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil aaturated? Yes No X Depth to free-etanding water in pit/aoil probe hole:

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X_ Rationale: Not aaturated within 18* of the soil surface.

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale

Is the plant community a wetland? Yea No X Rationale for jurisdictional deciaion: No criteria met. Page 43 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field tnveatigator(a): The White Oak Group. Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6. 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DP12 Do normal environmental conditiona exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Yes No X (If yea, explain on back)

Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratu 1. Typha latifolia OBL herb 11. 2. Typha angustifolia OBL herb 12. 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes X No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea X_ No Rationale: All hydrophytea

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterise Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Hiatosol? Yea No Hiatic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yea No Matrix Color: 10YR 2/1 Mottle Colora: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yea 2^ No Rationale: All vegetation is OBL.

Hydrology la the groiind aurface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes X No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: 2"

Liat other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Xr No Rationale: Saturated within 18" of the soil surface

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale la the plant community a wetland? Yea X No Rationale for juriadictional deciaion: All criteria met. Page 44

59

t/ O 3 ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Inveatigator(s): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco. LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake Applicant/Owner: MRRC Plant Community #/Name: DP13 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? "'«» 2? No (If no, escplain on back) Yes No X (If yes, explain on back)

Vegetation

Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Quercus velutina UPL tree 11. 2. Lithospermum canescens UPL herb 12. 3. Coreopsis grandif lora UPL herb 13. 4. Smilacina stellata FAC- herb 14. 5. Amelanchier arborea FACU tree 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant speciea that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 20% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes No X Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yea No X Rationale: Dominance by xerophytea.

Soils Series/phase: Oakville 0-6'% tlapt Subgroup: mesic typic udipsamments Is the soil on the hydric soils liat? Yea No x_ Undetermined Is the aoil a Hiatoaol? Yea No 2C_ _ Hiatic epipedon preaent? Yes No X la the aoil: Mottled? Yea No x Gleyed? Yes No x Matrix Color: 10 YR 2/1 to 2" lOYR 6/4 to 18" Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: Not on hydric soil liat.

Hydrology Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the aoil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole:

List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Not saturated

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale

Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: No criteria met. Page 45

60

vJ '0 ''J ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD

Field Investigator(s): The White Oak Group, Inc. - John J. Sabuco, LLA Date: June 1-6, 1994 Project/Site: USS Lead State Indiana County: Lake r Applicant/Owner: MRRC _^__ Plant Community #/Name: DP 14 Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Has the vegetation, soils, or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Yes No X (If yes, explain on back)

Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratui 1. Salix interior OBL shrub 11. 2. Osmunda regalis spectabilis OBL herb 12. 3. Onoclea sensibilis FACW herb 13. 4. Cornus obliqua OBL shrub 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100% Is OBL + FACW > FAC? Yes X No Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: All hydrophytes

Soils Series/phase: No need to characterise Subgroup: Is the soil on the hydric soils Ust? Yes No Undetermined Is the aoil a Hiatoaol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the aoil: Mottled? Yea No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Mottle Colors: Other hydric aoil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: All species are OBL and FACW and the wetland boundary ia abrupt.

Hydrology Is the ground aurface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: la the aoil aaturated? Yes X No Depth to free-atanding water in pit/soil probe hole: 4"

Liat other field evidence of aurface inundation or aoil aaturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Saturated within 18' of the soil surface.

Jurisdictional Determination and Rationale Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for juriadictional decision: All criteria met. Page 46

61 n -f. uO-. Aerial Photograph - 1994

62 v)Qi National Wetlands Inventory

PAb4F

;; pew -

USS Lead Refinery Site 5300 Kennedy Avenue East Chicago, Indiana

Wl/2, Sec. 33, T37N, R9W, 3PM

63

-fc^^f - USGS SoU Survey Map

USS Lead Refinery Site 5300 Kennedy Avenue East Chicago, Indiana

Wl/2, Sec. 33, T37N, R9W, 3PM

64 • P 4 Corrective Action Management Unit

CAMU & Remediation Areas

USS Lead Refinery, Inc. East Chicago, Indiana

LEGEND

[] CAMU AREA

REMEDIATION AREA

I I REGULATED UNITS

Corrective Action MaJiagement Unit c (CAMU) CD Proposed Cap Design

USS Lead Refinery, Inc. East Chicago, Indiana

•XAHU OP TYPiCAL HOMTOfUNa WBX

CMaa^fWafimtlU Onut

LEGEND ® Proposed Monrtoring WeU Location

> EXACT SIZE t UXAIKM OF CONTAINUEKT AREA WLL BE DETERMINED UPON UOeiUZATION ANO S(TE SURVET

CO Cap Design Details

USS Lead Refinery, Inc. East Chicago, Indiana

6 ox NON WOVEN HONITORING / 1.5" OF GEOTCXTILE •RECDVERV WELL COMPACTED CLAY CON9RETE FOUr^OATION r TOPSOIL ! SUIRRY WALL CAP jbsurface Slurry Wail • WLL INTEGRATE MONITORING/ INTO CAP /- RECOVERY WEU SYSTEM

•jsr ^y Approximately 35'

WAOSWORTH TILL Gcncril Notes: Approximately 2,400 If of subsurfa.cc slurry wall will be installed around perimeter of CAMU. The exact location and dimensions will be determined upon mobilizacion to facility. Slurry wall will be 3' wide and will extend and key into Wadsworth Till formatian (33' -43' deep). All concuninated soil (above 500 mg/kg lead) will be re­ iNTAU ArVtOMMATILY 1400 IT Of moved from slurry wall patK prior to trench excavatioji. wMWFAca •tumv WMX. MJUWIY WAU. WU. U AmiOXMATB-V r WM Contaminated soil will be placed in CAMU. Clean soil AND ^mx wnm r wre WAMummi rcmcrvedduringslurfy trench installation will be used as backfill in TU. lur.^ti' MVI excavation areas or .stockpiled on site. Sluriy wall will extend approximately 20' at all 90 turns to insure sufRcicni overlap. All undergroundpipingorconuitsin the slurry wall path will be removed prior to slurry tranch excavation.

SUHTY «AU SHMX IE KTia s WTO iMijifWJM mi uinx

CORRECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT UNIT (CAMU)

VUOfWCWtHTU t'^iiArii >'

VDICU AOCCM utm TYPWAl 8UURBY WAU KEY DETABi •n DCTA*.

coviem cuY! s-u n yano^ranoMjun (OKinu rMno—Ti* aoa or - r one CF coMwioN trmox, rwiMHaKor I*MX to. eemnnuFMne— mMJBD UNO—i CACH «* 1HGK I wc iw> cr iMM untM AK iMfn or (ZucNT tn ar mtam: aMMoHT on MO utmD mn MIX «.r. uvott or t OL DC or cuAvitinH Armotc r QconxmxrMno OH CMM tu OF IMIIOH Proposed Slurry suiMr Wall Design our-orr wu NOTCl SLUHtY' WU. SWU. U KCHD 3r MIO wonanM lu. LA>rBt USS Lead Refinery, Inc. East Chicago, Indiana VCHICLB ACCESS CAP TYPICAL SLURRY WALL CAP DETAIL UimER RAW ABBA« GO TYPICAW tUVRRY WALL CAP PBTAIL H Clearwater A Division of The White Oak Group, Inc. (708) 755-9700 Fax (708) 755-9730

RE: USS Lead Refinery Site 5300 Kennedy Avenue East Chicago, Indiana

Applicant: Entact, Inc. NOV 7 1994 1616 Corporate Court - #150 Irving, Texas 75038 Attn: Tina Anguiano or Sherry Pierce (214) 580-1323

To Whom it May Concern,

Thcwcdand delineation and habitat delineation drawing for the above referenced site is being sent under separate cover. All othe.-- necessaiy docufnentation is enclosed with this package.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (708) 755-9700.

Sincerely,

^Lh^rrnjjc^'ilhiii(^

Aniigelia Richcer Partner The White Oak Group, Inc.

Consultants on Environment df Conservation Box 1. Flossmoor, ^fl 60422 ^G9 A--

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003 ^33 CFR 325) Explras 30 Sopiombor 1992 ( PubSe niparlri9i>jiamyvW»tti'ma'iondl\riomticn'»wvlirm^ Marehino uittng data toucM, gatfwring «nd iminluibg th* daU naadirt. and oompiating and »ti«wlng tw edacton o< hiannalian. Applieafoia fer tepar or mora eoiviax pn3i«:tt, cr 9waa In acsiogiealy landltM araaa, C(»M tilM up 10 SOO hctf*. Sand oonwnaids i»eardir)0 »i» bur^ inckK»Q»uqgaitlonaler>aduelngW»butiaa»oOapafWwUolDa»n»a.WaihlnBfc»>HaadquaflariSarvicaa.Ditaew«la)crlnk»^^ 1215 Jalfaraon Davit Hgtway. SUM 120«. Aiiinglon, VA 2Z2Q2-U02: andto h a OffiM ol MifMOwnant ifKl BudgM, Piparwafc Raductert P^ NOT FETUFM vou -

The Oepartmeni o< ihe Army permit program is autftorized by Section 10 of ihe Rivers and Hartnrs Act ot 1899, Section 404 ot the Clean Water Act and Section 103 o( the Marine. Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act These laws require permits authonzing activities in or atiectino navigable waters ol the United Stales, the discharge ol dredged or (il material into waters ol the United Stales, and the transportation ol dredged material for the purpose ol dumping It into ocean waterSL Inlormalion provided on this lonn wi* be used in evaluating the application lor a pemiiL Iniormation in this application is made a matter ol public record through issuance ol a public notica. Disclosure ol Ihe informalion requested is voluniary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicani and to evaluate the permit apptcatioa II necessary iniormation is not provided, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued

One set ol origirtal drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character ol the proposed activity must be attached to this application fsee sample drawings and mstrudons) tt

I. WPVCXnon NUUBER (To b» uiignttt bf Cona) 3. NAME. AOORESS. ANO TITLE OF AUTHORIZEO AGENT John J, Sabuco, RLA The White Oak Group, Inc.

^^fali act in my Attn: Tina Anguiano batiall IS my ipani in tha procMano ol lilts pannit application and to Talaphona no. during buantea houn himish, upon raquesl. supptamanlal inlonnaiion in support ol tha application. A«( ). n/a _ (Rajidanca) SUTURE DATE AA:{214» ^^o-t--^?--^ "(aiiea> l/^l<>VAAiZ:> DETAlLaa 06SCWPTI0N OF PROPOSED ACTMTY 4a. Acnvrrr The applicant wishes to remove 9.5 acres of contaminated fill from wetlands on the subject site. This will involve: (SEE ATTACHMENT A)

The trustee is under the U.S. EPA Region V Administration Order/Decree to the clean the subject site.

4ti. PURPOSE To restore the original habitat of the site and protect the wetland and the Grand Calumet from lead leachate.

4C. OlSCHAROE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERUL n/a

70 axnON OF APH sa IS OBSOLETE (Proponant CECW-ON) ENG FORM 4345, Jan 91 APPENDIX B

USS Lead Site, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana

71 !•=•) < \J I iEN6i»AL WOTCS

APPHOXBMTTLV IMO LF OF SEOneHAVOtl BEUI MU. AC naTALieo ALOMS nc PE^mUETEII OF me V/eTlAHDa. TWS "EJW Wrtl. S£PAKAT£ POTtttrULLY tOHTAMOUTEB HtMOPF PffOM COMTAmiAriHQ WSTLAMO AAEA.

AT TNE VfTEIIFACe OP HHCDMrfOV >IAfAS AW WCTLAWA A BERM APPHOX- »U7ELY r Mat AUD F WKK WAX BS tMSrULEO VBIHG CLEAN FJIX MATEflHL lAPPfTox «Qo cn

KNERff POSSieU THE BEKM WU. BE WSTALUD USIMO A TIUCICNOE POSITIOHED ATOP THE AEMEDUTXM AJIEAS. THW HU. HELP A«MH2V Cj^JUAOE TO THE WET- UHD AnEA&

L_E_C_C MP,

SUGPeaATtOH BEMI

HCTUJtt pajNEAnoH WAB fERFODMEP Oif JW£ « 199* ir JOHN SABU:0: ALA, nc tlMTB OAK enow, H.O*SHOOI^ IL.

flEUCaUTWN AA£4a

ENCLOSURE NO. 1.

Figure 1

U.S.S. IZAD SEFIKBHY. INC. CONSTRUCTION OF '&ST CHICAGO. INDIAN.* SEGREGATION BERMS ENTACT ro APPENDIX C

USS Lead Site, East Chicago, Lake County, Indiana

73

,'.70 REPORT

EVALUATION OF PLANT COMMUNITY OF SEVEN WETLAND SHELVES AT THE GRAND CALUMET FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA: PLANT DIVERSITY AND RARE-THREATENED-ENDANGERED SPECIES

by

Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Department of Earth and Environmental Science

July 3, 2007

RQP: W81G6671341507 CONTRACT NO: W912P6-07-M-0018 In preparation for dredging of contaminated sediments from the lower reaches of the Grand Calumet River in Lake County, Indiana, an evaluation of potentially affected plant communities was executed. An earlier report (Rothrock 2007) considered the river channel and shore-line vegetation along much ofthe length ofthe Grand Calumet River. The focus of this report was upon wetland shelves - broad, periodically flooded marsh zones inland from the river's channel - in the lower reaches of the River. We specifically sought to address the question of whether these habitats harbored rare- threatened-endangered plant species or other noteworthy plant diversity.

METHODOLOGY

Seven wetland shelf complexes were visited on June 26-28, 2007. The extreme density of marsh vegetation (dominated by Typha spp. and Phragmites australis) provided special challenges for thorough search and evaluation of each wetland complex. The strategy adopted was to examine inland from each shoreline segment where there were probable signs of openings in the dominant vegetation. When no such signs were visible, points along the shore were chosen at more or less regular intervals. Each of the seven wetland sites was examined from 5-11 shoreline entry points. The number varied with wetland size, the number of separate parcels included in the wetland complex, and proximity to biologically sensitive sites. At each entry point, a transect path was traversed from shore-edge to an inland distance of at least 20m in order to assess the area likely to be affected by future dredging operations. In addition to shore entry, wetland 1 (across from Roxana Marsh) and wetland 2 (Roxana Marsh) were entered from the landward side. A particular effort was made to penetrate deep into the interior of Roxana Marsh in order to determine whether any remnant of a historic mudflat community persisted. Each transect was searched for rare-threatened- endangered plant species, conservative species, and general plant diversity. State RTE species were based upon the most recent posting at http://www.in.aov/dnr/natureDr/endanaer/Dlant.html. Conservative species were defined as those with a coefficient of conservatism (C value) of 7-10 (Rothrock 2004). General plant diversity was analyzed by means of Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) (Wilhelm and Masters 2004) and a riverine Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (PlBI)(Simon et al. 2001).

RESULTS

Table 1-2 and the following Community Descriptions summarize the results of a survey of 7 wetland sites.

Site Community Descriptions

W1 - across from Most of the site was densely dominated by Phragmites Roxana Marsh australis which, in many areas, formed a virtual monoculture. Typha x glauca dominated the east end at the

75 base of steep bank. The native species diversity and quality were low throughout. No RTE or conservative species were observed.

W2 - Roxana Most of the site was densely dominated by Phragmites Marsh australis. Typha spp. dominated inlets and a natural drainageway that runs from the E-edge through to the NW corner of the Marsh. In spite of intensive search deep into the Marsh, native species diversity and quality was low throughout. Only 11 native species and no RTE or conservative species were observed.

W3 - south shore Most areas were dominated by Phragmites australis and of River near Typha spp. However, Carex bebbii was observed at confluence with transect 6 (N41.61626 W87.46823), the inlet to the pond Indiana Harbor (N41.61553 W87.46799), and in the SW portion ofthe Canal pond. These same areas supported some diversity of common native hydrophytes and included very small populations of 3 conservative species {Carex aquatilis, Cicuta bulbifera, Thelypteris palustris).

W4 - west of Most areas (and especially the eastern quarter of the site) Kennedy Avenue were dominated by Phragmites australis. The central portion of the wetland supported sparse cover of common native hydrophytes in shallow, channel-like areas 8-10 m back from the shore. A few Carex bebbii were scattered through this zone and a single clump of Cicuta bulbifera was noted.

W5 - adjacent to The site was mostly dominated by Typha spp. and Seidner Dune and Phragmites australis. One station (N41.61641 W87.45523) Swale Nature had a presence of Carex bebbii in a low diversity mix of Preserve common hydric species. A second (N41.61681 W87.45893) had a few plants of Cicuta bulbifera. A complete shore-to-upland transect was completed at the east end of the wetland in vicinity of the Nature Preserve. It contained a broad zone of Typha spp., a small colony of Bolboschoenus fluviatilis, and low diversity of common native species.

W6 - adjacent and The north shore sites were dominated by Typha x glauca at across river from 3 transects and Phragmites australis at 2 transects. Each Dupont Tract had low native hydrophyte diversity and lacked RTE and conservative species.

The south shore sites were dominated by Phragmites

76 u t 0 australis or Typha x glauca. Native hydrophyte diversity was very low and no RTE species were observed.

W7 - adjacent and The north shore bordering the Gary Airport property was across river from dominated by Typha spp. in wettest zones and Phragmites the Gary Airport australis in drier zones. A noteworthy slough containing a sedge meadow was uncovered (N41.61012 W87.40314). The area is an estimated 35 x 12 m and is oriented parallel to the River shoreline. It was the only site that recorded remnant natural quality (i.e., mean C > 3.5) and a PIBI above the poor level. At least 12 native hydrophyte species were observed including these conservative species: Carex aquatilis, C. utriculata, Scirpus cf pedlcellatus, and Thelypteris palustris. Moreover, it had a colony of Carex atherodes, a species listed as state endangered.

The south shore of W7 was variously dominated by Typha spp. and Phragmites australis. An occasional individual plant belonging to a conservative species was observed. These included Cicuta bulbifera and Rumex orblculatus; but overall native diversity was low.

Further site by site species lists and a more detailed tabulation of PIBI / FQA metrics are included in the report Appendix.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The seven wetland shelves were consistently of very low floristic quality with most areas supporting a dense cover of non-native species - Phragmites australis and Typha spp. No federally listed plant species were observed. Two Indiana listed species were observed. Carex bebbii, was seen in small numbers at three of the study sites. Carex atherodes was located at W7 at the south edge of the Gary Airport. A small number of conservative species, usually as very small populations, were recorded at four of the sites.

Recommendation 1 - Carex bebbii was scattered sparsely in the study area. This species has a northerly transcontinental distribution and is at its southern range limit in Indiana (Mastrogiuseppe et al. 2002). It readily germinates from seed and commercial seed sources are available, including from geographically proximal regions such as Michigan and Wisconsin. I would recommend that dredging should not attempt to avoid the scattered, existing population of Carex bebbii on the Grand Calumet wetland shelves but that consideration be given to including this species in seed mixes or plantings used in post-dredging restoration.

77

^ I Recommendation 2 - One locality, a sedge meadow slough at the edge of Gary Airport (N41.61012° W87.40314°), had a modest concentration of conservative species. It also had a single colony of Carex atherodes, a state endangered species. Avoiding impact to this site by dredging would be desirable.

LITERATURE CITED

Mastrogiuseppe, J., P.E. Rothrock, A.C. Dibble, and A.A. Reznicek. 2002. Genus Carex, section Ovales. Pp. 332-378 in The Flora of North America, volume 23, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Rothrock, P.E. 2007. Status of plant communities along the Grand Calumet River, Lake County, Indiana based upon two rapid assessment methodologies. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bloomington, Indiana.

Rothrock, P.E. 2004. Floristic quality assessment in Indiana: The concept, use, and development of coefficients of conservatism. Final Report for ARN A305-4-53, EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01. 96 p. Available at http://www.in.aov/idem/water/planbr/401/publications.html.

Simon, T.P., P.M. Stewart, and P.E. Rothrock. 2001. Development of multimetric indices of biotic integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along Southern Lake Michigan. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 4: 293-309.

Wilhelm, G and L. Masters. 2004. Floristic Quality Assessment and Computer Applications. Conservation Research Institute/Conservation Design Forum, 375. W First Street, Elmhurst, IL 60126.

78 •.70 y-' I o Table 1. Quantitative summary of seven wetland shelves along the Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., Indiana # conservative # native # adventive #RTE Wetiand site species species species species (c = 7-10) 1 16 6 0 0 2 11 7 0 0 3 49 11 r 4 4 37 7 1^ 2 5 23 9 1^ 2 6 15 8 0 0 7 26 7 1^ 7

a = Carex bebbii, which is listecJ as state threatened. b = colony of Carex atherodes, which is listed as state endangered

Table 2. Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) Summary Metrics and Floristic Quality Assessment.

Range of Range of Overall Overall Wetland mean 0 native FQI native PIBI mean C native site across FQI native across (mean C total) (FQI total) transects transects 24 1 (very 1.7(1.2) 0.0-2.0 6.8(5.8) 0.0-5.7 poor/poor) 26 2 (poor/very 2.0(1.2) 0.0-2.3 6.6(5.2) 0.0-4.1 poor) 34 3 2.9 (2.4) 1.3-3.5 (poor) 21.3(19.2) 2.1-15.0 30 4 2.8 (2.4) 1.4-3.1 17.3(15.8) 3.1-13.1 (poor) 26 5 (poor/very 3.1 (2.2) 1.5-3.5 14.8(12.6) 3.0-11.5 poor) 28 6 2.3(1.5) 0.0-3.0 8.8(7.1) (poor) 0.0-7.3 7 38 (fair/poor) 4.0(3.2) 1.5-5.2 20.8(18.5) 2.1-17.2

iW

079 Figures

I "^ s

1^ ».-'*^^"^^

^.^

T"

'i 'W^fe/** II m Aerial photo showing locations of study sites along the Grand Calumet River.

u80 Wetland 1 - dominated by Phragmites australis except at east end where narrow wetland margin is dominated by Typha x glauca.

Wetland 2 - Roxana Marsh: largely dominated by Phragmites australis. Aerial photo showed scattered dark areas and a drainage line. On the ground these were areas dominated by Typha angustifolia and Typha x glauca with Urtica dioica and Calystegia sep/tv/77 as additional common species. Overall diversity was very low (11 native species) and no RTE species were located.

Bi '81 Wetland 3 - south shore of Grand Calumet River near confluence with Indiana Harbor Canal. Mostly dominated by Phragmites australis and Typha spp. However, one transect (#6) supported both Carex bebbi (a state threatened species) and C. aquatilis (a conservative species). Additional C. bebbii was observed at the pond inlet. The shore of the pond (right photo) was of low quality, mostly dominated by Phragmites australis.

Wetland 4 - north shore of Grand Calumet River west of Kennedy Avenue. As seen in transects 4-6, a narrow area with some diversity paralleled the shore inland approximately 8-10 meters. One to three Carex bebbii clumps were observed at each of these transects.

82

vJoc Wetland 5 - adjacent to Seidner Dune and Swale Nature Preserve. Several Cicuta bulbifera (a conservative species) were observed in vicinity of the clump of Iris virginica (transect 3). Transect 5 had small numbers of Carex bebbii. Transect 6, explored to the upland boundary of Seidner D&S NP, was dominated by Typha spp. and only had a total diversity of 10 common hydric species.

Wetland 6 - adjacent to Dupont Tract. Each of 7 transects was dominated by either Phragmites australis or Typha x glauca. No RTE or conservative species were observed and species richness was very low (10 or fewer common native species per transect).

83 10

OS 3 Wetland 7 - the south shore of the Grand Calumet River was consistently dominated by Phragmites australis and Typha spp. (top left and top middle). A very limited number of plants considered conservative were observed: Rumex orbiculatus at transect 1; Cicuta bulbifera at transect 4. The north shore included a slough parallel to the shore and near the fencing of the Gary Airport (top right). It contained a diversity of sedge species: state endangered Carex atherodes, a non-flowering bulrush that may be S. pedlcellatus (left), Carex aquatilis (middle), and C. utriculata (right) as well as marsh fern, Thelypteris palustris.

es4 11 APPENDIX

Site: Wetlanci 1 - across from Roxana Marsh Locale: Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: P. Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\studies\Granci Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland l.tra Notes: N41.61649 W87.49048 - W-segment N41.61687 W87.48978 - W-segment N41.61782 W87.49025 - landward side of W-segment N41.61843 W87.48926 - E-segment N41.61832 W87. 48909 - E-segraent N41.61875 W87.48896 - E-segment N41.61868 W87.48849 - E-segment N41.61900 W87. 48715 - E-segment N41.61907 W87.48656 - steep bank with narrow wetland zone along river

TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.0 -3.5 -2.7 2 4 -2.6 -2.5 2 1.7 1.3 2.9 2.5 -1.7 -2.2 3 4 -2.0 -1.9 3 1.0 0.8 2.0 1.8 -0.7 -0.6 4 5 -1.9 -2.0 4 2.0 2.0 5.7 5.7 -3.2 -3.2 8 8 -2.7 -2.6 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.0 -4.0 1 1 -3.0 -2.9 6 1.4 1.3 4.4 4.2 -1.7 -1.5 10 11 -3.1 -3.0 7 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 -3.5 -3.5 2 2 -2.0 -1.9 8 1.0 0.8 2.0 1.8 -0.7 -0.6 4 5 -2.0 -2.0 9 2.0 0.9 3.5 2.3 -1.7 -2.0 3 7 -1.2 -1.3

AVG 1.2 0.9 2.6 2.3 -2.3 -2.3 4.1 5.2 STD 0.6 0.6 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.2 3.0 3.1

C NUMBER 16 NATIVE SPECIES 0 2 22 TOTAL SPECIES 1 6 1 .7 NATIVE MEAN C 2 3 0 to 3 1 .2 W/Adventives 3 5 100.0% 6 .8 NATIVE FQI 4 0 5 .8 W/Adventives 5 0 -2 .1 NATIVE MEAN W 6 0 4 to 7 -1 .9 W/Adventives 7 0 0.0% 8 0 9 0 8 to 10 10 0 0.0%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 1. Number of native species medium 2. Number of Carex species poor 3. Number of submergent species 4. Number of perennial species 5. Number of weed species

Species Tolerance 6. Number of sensitive species 7. Number of tolerant species 8. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 9. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance

TOTAL PIBI SCORE very poor/poor

85 12

V,' O \J ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME w WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME ACENEG 1 Acer negundo •2 FACW- Nt Tree BOXELDER ACESAI Acer saccharinum 3 FACW Nt Tree SILVER MAPLE APIAME Apios americana •3 FACW Nt H-Vine GROUND NUT CALSEP Calystegia sepium 0 FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED IMPCAP Impatiens capensis •3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT LEMMIR Lemna minor •5 OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb PURP LOOSESTRIFE MORALE 0 MORUS ALBA 0 FAC Ad Tree WHITE MULBERRY PARVIT 2 Parthenocissus vitacea 3 FACU Nt W-Vine THICKET CREEPER PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides •5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PHAARU 0 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA 4 rACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis •4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED POPDEL 1 Populus deltoides 1 FAC+ Nt Tree EAST COTTONWOOD RANSCE 3 Ranunculus sceleratus •5 OBL Nt A-Forb CURSED CROWFOOT SAMNIC 2 Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE STAASP 0 Stachys aspera •4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb RG HEDGENETTLE TYPGLA 0 TYPHA X GLAUCA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL ULMAME 3 Ulmus americana •2 FACW- Nt Tree AMERICAN ELM ULMPUM 0 ULMUS PUMILA 5 UPL Ad Tree SIBERIAN ELM URTDIG 1 Urtica dioica s. gracilis •1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb STINGING NETTLE VITRIP 1 Vitis riparia 2 FACW- Nt W-Vine RIVERBANK GRAPE

Site: wetland 2 - Roxanna Marsh Locale: Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: P. Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\3tudies\Grand Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 2 - Roxanna Marsh.tra Notes: 1. N41.61751 W87.48875 W-segment 2. N41.61839 W87.48703 entered from River 3. N41.61815 W87.48693 entered from River 4. N41.61847 W87.48585 entered from River 5. N41.61781 W87.48472 entered from River 6. N41.61736 W87.48373 entered from River 7. N41.61645 W87.48310 channel at east edge of Marsh 8. N41.61757 W87.48674 entered from power tower S access road on W-side 9. N41.61654 W87.48698 entered from landward side on N 10. N41.61667 W87.48559 entered from landward side on N 11. N41.61650 W87.48355 entered from woods on NE side

TRANSECT DATA, QUADRAT TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 -4.5 -4.5 2 2 -3.2 -3.5 2 1.7 1.0 4.1 3.2 -1.8 -2.5 6 10 -3.4 -3.7 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.0 -4.0 1 1 -2.1 -2.8 4 1.0 0.7 1.4 1.2 -0.5 -2.0 2 3 -2.4 -2.8 5 1.0 0.5 1.7 1.2 -2.7 -2.5 3 6 -1.7 -2.2 6 1.3 0.7 2.3 1.6 -2.0 -2.2 3 6 -3.0 -3.0 7 2.0 1.6 4.0 3.6 -4.2 -4.4 4 5 -3.6 -3.8 8 2.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 -4.7 -4.7 3 4 -3.6 -3.9 9 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.4 -2.0 -2.5 4 8 -3.6 -3.9 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -4.0 -4.5 1 2 -3.6 -3.9 11 2.3 1.8 4.0 3.5 -4.7 -4.7 3 4 -4.3 -4.6

AVG 1.3 0.9 2.3 1.9 -3.2 -3.5 2.9 4.6 STD 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.4 2.7

C NUMBER 11 NATIVE SPECIES 0 1 18 TOTAL SPECIES

86 13

K/O 6 1 3 2.0 NATIVE MEAN C 2 3 0 to 3 1.2 W/Adventives 3 3 90.9% 6.5 NATIVE FQI 4 1 5.2 W/Adventives 5 0 -2.9 NATIVE MEAN W 6 0 4 to 7 -2.8 W/Adventives 7 0 9.1% 8 0 9 0 8 to 10 10 0 0.0%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 10. Number of native species 3 = medium 11. Number of Carex species 1 = poor 12. Number of submergent species 3 13. Number of perennial species 3 14. Number of weed species 3

Species Tolerance 15. Number of sensitive species 16. Number of tolerant species 17. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 18. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species good 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance 3

TOTAL PIBI SCORE 26 poor/very poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME w WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME ACESAI 1 Acer saccharinum 3 FACW Nt Tree SILVER MAPLE BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica 5 OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE CALSEP 1 Calystegia sepium 0 FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED CIRARV 0 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 3 FACU Ad P-Forb FIELD THISTLE IMPCAP 2 Impatiens capensis •3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT LEMMIR 3 Lemna minor 5 OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb PURP LOOSESTRIFE PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides •5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PHAARU PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA •4 FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS Phragmites australis •4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED RORPAF Rorippa palustris s. femaldiana •5 OBL Nt A-Forb YELLOW CRESS SAMNIC Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SCHTAB Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani •5 OBL Nt P-Sedge GREAT BULRUSH SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE SOLSEM 0 SOLIDAGO SEMPERVIRENS •2 FACW- Ad P-Forb SEASIDE GOLDENROD TYPANG 0 TYPHA ANGUSTIFOLIA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb NARW-LVD CATTAIL TYPGLA 0 TYPHA X GLAUCA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL URTDIG 1 Urtica dioica s. gracilis •1 FAC + Nt P-Forb STINGING NETTLE

Site: wetland 3 - confluence Grand Calumet with Indiana Harbor Canal Locale: Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: P. Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\studies\Grand Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 3.tra Notes; 1. N41.61547 W87.47377 2. N41.61731 W87.47307 3. N41.61762 W87.47225

87 14

-, •«, ^/O 4. N41.61734 W87.46961 inlet 5. N41.61666 W87.46851 6. N41.61626 W87.46823 7. N41.61553 W87.46799 pond inlet area overall pond edge N41.61449 W87.46748

TRANSECT DATA, QUADRAT TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 1.3 1.3 2.5 2.5 -3.2 -3.2 4 4 -2.6 -2.6 2 1.9 1.9 5.3 5.3 -2.0 -2.0 8 8 -2.6 -2.7 3 1.4 0.9 3.1 2.5 -2.6 -2.9 5 8 -2.3 -2.4 4 2.7 2.0 10.2 8.7 -2.4 -2.4 14 19 -3.2 -3.3 5 1.5 1.0 2.1 1.7 -4.5 -4.7 2 3 -3.2 -3.1 6 3.1 2.4 13.6 12.2 -2.6 -2.3 20 25 -3.7 -3.6 7 3.3 2.9 15.0 14.2 -4.1 -3.9 17 19 -3.1 -3.0 8 3.5 3.1 13.1 12.3 -2.6 -2.8 14 16 -2.6 -2.8 9 1.9 1.5 6.0 5.3 -1.1 -1.6 10 13 -1.8 -2.2

AVG 2.3 1.9 7.9 7.2 -2.8 -2.9 10.4 12.8 STD 0.9 0.9 5.1 4.8 1.0 1.0 6.2 7.5

C NUMBER 49 NATIVE SPECIES 0 8 50 TOTAL SPECIES 1 7 2 .9 NATIVE MEAN C 2 6 0 to 3 2 .4 W/Advent:ive s 3 8 61.2% 21 .3 NATIVE FQI 4 8 19 .2 W/Advent:ive s 5 6 -2 .9 NATIVE MEAN W 6 1 4 to 7 -2 .6 W/Advent:ive s 7 2 34.7% 8 2 9 0 8 to 10 10 0 4.1%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 19. Number of native species 5 = good 20. Number of Carex species 3 = medium 21. Number of submergent species 1 = poor 22. Number of perennial species 5 23. Number of weed species 3

Species Tolerance 24. Number of sensitive species 25. Number of tolerant species 26. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 27. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance 3

TOTAL PIBI SCORE 34 poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME W WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME ACESAI 1 Acer saccharinum. 3 FACW Nt Tree SILVER MAPLE ACHMIL 0 Achillea millefolium 3 FACU Nt P-Forb COMMON MILFOIL AGRALA 0 AGROSTIS GIGANTEA •3 FACW Ad P-Grass RED TOP BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica 5 OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE BOLFLU 4 Bolboschoenus fluviatilis 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge RIVER BULRUSH BROINE 0 BROMUS INERMIS 5 UPL Ad P-Grass HUNGARIAN BROME CALCAN 5 Calamagrostis canadensis •5 OBL Nt P-Grass BLUE JOINT GRASS

88 15

\JOO CALSEP 1 Calystegia sepium 0 FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED CXAQUA 8 Carex aquatilis v. substricta 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge Lb TUSSOCK SEDGE CXBEBB 7 Carex bebbii 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge BEBBS OVAL SEDGE CXCOMO 6 Carex comosa 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge BRISTLY SEDGE CICBUL 8 Cicuta bulbifera •5 OBL Nt P-Forb BBL WATERHEMLOCK CIRARV 0 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 3 FACU Ad P-Forb FIELD THISTLE CORSER 4 Cornus sericea •3 FACW Nt Shrub REDOSIER DOGWOOD CYPODO 1 Cyperus odoratus •5 OBL Nt A-Sedge RUSTY NUT SEDGE CYPSTR 0 Cyperus strigosus 3 FACW Nt P-Sedge L-SCALE NUTSEDGE ECHLOB 3 Echinocystis lobata •2 FACW- Nt H-Vine WILD CUCUMBER ELEERY 2 Eleocharis palustris •5 OBL Nt P-Sedge REDRT SPIKERUSH EUPMAC 5 Eupatoriadelphus maculatus •5 OBL Nt P-Forb SPOT JOEPYE WEED EUPPER 4 Eupatorium perfoliatum •4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb COMMON BONESET EUPSER 0 Eupatorium serotinum •1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb LATE BONESET EUTGRA 3 Euthamia graminifolia •2 FACW- Nt P-Forb GR-LVD GOLDENROD FRAALN 0 FRANGULA ALNUS •1 FAC+ Ad Shrub GLOSSY BUCKTHORN GALAPA 1 Galium aparine 3 FACU Nt A-Forb ANNUAL BEDSTRAW HETDUB 4 Heteranthera dubia •5 OBL Nt P-Forb WATER STAR GRASS IMPCAP 2 Impatiens capensis •3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT LEEORY 2 Leersia oryzoides •5 OBL Nt P-Grass RICE CUT GRASS LEMMIR 3 Lemna minor •5 OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYCAME 3 Lycopus americanus -5 OBL Nt P-Forb WATER HOREHOUND LYCUNI 5 Lycopus uniflorus •5 OBL Nt P-Forb NORTH BUGLE WEED LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb PURP LOOSESTRIFE ONOSEN 4 Onoclea sensibilis -3 FACW Nt Fern SENSITIVE FERN PARVIT 2 Parthenocissus vitacea 3 FACU Nt W-Vine THICKET CREEPER PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides -5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PERLAP 0 Persicaria lapathifolia -4 FACW+ Nt A-Forb CURLY LADYSTHUMB PHAARU 0 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA -4 FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis -4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED PILPUM 2 Pilea pumila -3 FACW Nt A-Forb CANADA CLEARWEED POPDEL 1 Populus deltoides -1 FAC+ Nt Tree EAST COTTONWOOD POTNOR 0 Potentilla norvegica 0 FAC Nt A-Forb ROUGH CINQUEFOIL RHACAT 0 RHAMNUS CATHARTICA 3 FACU Ad Shrub COMMON BUCKTHORN RIBAME 5 Ribes americanum -3 FACW Nt Shrub BLACK CURRENT RORPAF 2 Rorippa palustris s. femaldiana -5 OBL Nt A-Forb YELLOW CRESS SALERI 4 Salix eriocephala -3 FACW Nt Shrub HEART-LV WILLOW SALINT 1 Salix interior -5 OBL Nt Shrub SANDBAR WILLOW SALNIG 3 Salix nigra -5 OBL Nt Tree BLACK WILLOW SAMNIC 2 Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SCHPUN 3 Schoenoplectus pungens -5 OBL Nt A-Sedge 3-SQUARE BULRUSH SCHTAB 4 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani -5 OBL Nt P-Sedge GREAT BULRUSH SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE SOLCAN 0 Solidago canadensis 3 FACU Nt P-Forb CANADA GOLDENROD SOLGIG 4 Solidago gigantea -3 FACW Nt P-Forb LATE GOLDENROD SOLSEM 0 SOLIDAGO SEMPERVIRENS -2 FACW- Ad P-Forb SEASIDE GOLDENROD SPHOBO 5 Sphenopholis obtusata v. obtusata 0 FAC Nt P-Grass PRAIR WEDGEGRASS STAASP 0 Stachys aspera -4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb RGH HEDGENETTLE THEPAP 7 Thelypteris palustris v. pubescens -4 FACW+ Nt Fern MARSH SHIELDFERN TILAMA 5 Tilia americana v. americana 3 FACU Nt Tree AMERICAN LINDEN TYPANG 0 TYPHA ANGUSTIFOLIA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb NRW-LVD CATTAIL TYPGLA 0 TYPHA x GLAUCA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL URTDIG 1 Urtica dioica s. gracilis -1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb STINGING NETTLE

Site: wetland 4 - west of Kennedy Avenue Locale: Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: Paul Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\studies\Grand Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 4. Notes: N41.61513 W87 46726 N41.61456 W87 46710 opening in a extensive Phragmites stand N41.61366 W87 46647 N41.61340 W87 46552 N41.61314 W87 46436 reached via a extensive swath of Phragmites

89 16

•o9 TRANSECT DATA, QUADRAT TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 1.4 1 .0 3.1 2.. 6 -1,. 2 -1 .0 5 7 -1.9 -1.8 2 3.1 2 .6 12.3 11 .2 -2 .6 -2 .7 16 19 -2.2 -2.0 3 2.4 1 .9 9.5 8,. 5 -2 .9 -2 .5 16 20 -3.2 -2.8 4 2.9 2 .1 9.6 8,. 3 -4 .1 -3 .4 11 15 -3.4 -2.9 5 2.9 2 .2 13.1 11,, 5 -3 .4 -2 .7 21 27 -3.7 -3.1

AVG 2.5 2 .0 9.5 8,, 4 -2,. 8 -2 .4 13.8 17.6 STD 0.7 0 .6 3.9 3,, 6 1,. 1 0 .9 6.1 7.3

C NUMBER 37 NATIVE SPECIES 0 6 44 TOTAL SPECIES 1 5 2 .8 NATIVE MEAN C 2 7 0 to 3 2 . 4 W/Adventives 3 6 64.9% 17 .3 NATIVE FQI 4 4 15 .8 W/Adventives 5 5 -3 .4 NATIVE MEAN W 6 2 4 to 7 -3 .0 W/Adventives 7 1 32.4% 8 1 9 0 8 to 10 10 0 2.7%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 28. Number of native species 5 = good 29. Number of Carex species 3 = medium 30. Number of submergent species 3 31. Number of perennial species 5 32. Number of weed species 1 = poor

Species Tolerance 33. Number of sensitive species 34. Number of tolerant species 35. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 36. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance 3

TOTAL PIBI SCORE 30 poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME w WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME ASCINC 4 Asclepias incarnata •5 OBL Nt P-Forb SWAMP MILKWEED BIDCER 2 Bidens cernua •5 OBL Nt A-Forb NOD BUR MARIGOLD BIDFRO 1 Bidens frondosa •3 FACW Nt A-Forb BEGGAR'S TICKS BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica •5 OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE CALSEP 1 Calystegia sepium 0 FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED CXBEBB 7 Carex bebbii -5 OBL Nt P-Sedge BEBBS OVAL SEDGE CXCOMO 6 Carex comosa •5 OBL Nt P-Sedge BRISTLY SEDGE CXSTIS 2 Carex stipata v. stipata •5 OBL Nt P-Sedge COMMON FOX SEDGE CEPOCC 5 Cephalanthus occidentalis •5 OBL Nt Shrub BUTTONBUSH CICBUL 8 Cicuta bulbifera •5 OBL Nt P-Forb BBL WATERHEMLOCK CIRLUC 2 Circaea lutetiana s. canadensis 3 FACU Nt P-Forb ENCH NIGHTSHADE CIRARV 0 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 3 FACU Ad P-Forb FIELD THISTLE CUSGRO 2 Cuscuta gronovii •3 FACW Nt A-Forb COMMON DODDER CYPODO 1 Cyperus odoratus •5 OBL Nt A-Sedge RUSTY NUT SEDGE ECHMUR 1 Echinochloa muricata •5 OBL Nt A-Grass BARNYARD GRASS ECHLOB 3 Echinocystis lobata •2 FACW- Nt H-Vine WILD CUCUMBER EUPMAC 5 Eupatoriadelphus maculatus -5 OBL Nt P-Forb SPOT JOEPYE WEED EUPPER 4 Eupatorium perfoliatum -4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb COMMON BONESET

90 17

\J 80 EUPSER 0 Eupatorium serotinum 1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb LATE BONESET FRAALN 0 FRANGULA ALNUS 1 FAC+ Ad Shrub GLOSSY BUCKTHORN IMPCAP Impatiens capensis 3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT IRIVIR Iris virginica 5 OBL Nt P-Forb SOUTH BLUE FLAG JUNTEN Juncus tenuis 0 FAC Nt P-Forb PATH RUSH LONMOR LONICERA MORROWII 5 UPL Ad Shrub HONEYSUCKLE LYCAME Lycopus americanus 5 OBL Nt P-Forb WATER HOREHOUND LYCUNI Lycopus uniflorus •5 OBL Nt P-Forb NORTH BUGLE WEED MENARV Mentha arvensis v. villosa 3 FACW Nt P-Forb WILD MINT PERHYS Persicaria hydropiperoides 5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PERLAP Persicaria lapathifolia 4 FACW+ Nt A-Forb CURLY LADYSTHUMB PHAARU PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA •4 FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis •4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED RANPEN 6 Ranunculus pensylvanicus •5 OBL Nt A-Forb BRISTLY CROWFOOT RIBAME Ribes americanum •3 FACW Nt Shrub BLACK CURRENT RORPAF Rorippa palustris s. femaldiana •5 OBL Nt A-Forb YELLOW CRESS SALNIG Salix nigra •5 OBL Nt Tree BLACK WILLOW SAMNIC Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SCUGAL Scutellaria galericulata •5 OBL Nt P-Forb MARSH SKULLCAP SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE SOLCAN 0 Solidago canadensis 3 FACU Nt P-Forb CANADA GOLDENROD STAASP 0 Stachys aspera •4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb RGH HEDGE NETTLE TYPANG 0 TYPHA ANGUSTIFOLIA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb NRW-LVD CATTAIL TYPGLA 0 TYPHA X GLAUCA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL URTDIG 1 Urtica dioica s. gracilis •1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb STINGING NETTLE VERHAS 3 Verbena hastata •4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb BLUE VERVAIN

Site: wetland 5 - near Seidner Dune & Swale NP Locale Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: Paul Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\studies\Grand Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 5 Seidner D&S NP.tra Notes: 1. N41.61542 W87.46033 2. N41.61630 W87.45982 3. N41.61681 W87.45893 4. N41.61704 W87.45692 5. N41.61641 W87.45523 N41.61322 W87.45233 - complete transect to upland border

TRANSECT DATA, QUADRAT TRANSECT MC W/i hd FQI W/Ad MW W/J =id NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 2.4 1 .5 7.3 5. .7 -3, .6 -3 .5 9 15 -3.4 -3.4 2 1.5 0 .9 3.0 2. ,3 -3, ,2 -3 .3 4 7 -3.3 -3.2 3 3.0 2 .0 9.5 7, .7 -3 .2 -2 .9 10 15 -3.7 -2.8 4 2.0 1 .0 3.5 2 .4 -4 .7 -2 .3 3 6 -3.7 -2.8 5 3.5 2 .5 11.5 9. .8 -3, .1 -3 .1 11 15 -3.9 -3.2 6 2.6 1 .9 7.4 6, .3 -4, .0 -4 .3 8 11 -3.5 -3.7

AVG 2.5 1 .6 7.0 5, ,7 -3 .6 -3 .2 7.5 11.5 STD 0.7 0 .6 3.3 3. .0 0. .5 0 .6 3.3 4.2

C NUMBER 23 NATIVE SPECIES 0 2 32 TOTAL SPECIES 1 3 3.1 NATIVE MEAN C 2 5 0 to 3 2.2 W/Adventives 3 4 60.9% 14.8 NATIVE FQI 4 4 12.6 W/Adventives 5 3 -3.6 NATIVE MEAN W 6 0 4 to 7 -3.0 W/Adventives 7 1 34.8% 8 1 9 0 8 to 10 10 0 4.3%

91 18

'U «J j^ PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 37. Number of native species 3 = medium 38. Number of Carex species 1 = poor 39. Number of submergent species 3 40. Number of perennial species 5 = good 41. Number of weed species 1

Species Tolerance 42. Number of sensitive species 43. Number of tolerant species 44. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 45. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance 3

TOTAL PIBI SCORE 26 poor/very poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME W WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME AGRALA 0 AGROSTIS GIGANTEA -3 FACW Ad P-Grass RED TOP AILALT 0 AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA UPL Ad Tree TREE-OF-HEAVEN ASCINC 4 Asclepias incarnata OBL Nt P-Forb SWAMP MILKWEED BIDCOM 2 Bidens comosa OBL Nt A-Forb SWAMP TICKSEED BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE BOLFLU 4 Bolboschoenus fluviatilis OBL Nt P-Sedge RIVER BULRUSH CALSEP 1 Calystegia sepium FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED CXBEBB 7 Carex bebbii OBL Nt P-Sedge BEBBS OVAL SEDGE CICBUL 8 Cicuta bulbifera OBL Nt P-Forb BBL WATERHEMLOCK CUSGRO 2 Cuscuta gronovii FACW Nt A-Forb COMMON DODDER EQUARV 1 Equisetum arvense 0 FAC Nt Fern COMMON HORSETAIL EUPMAC 5 Eupatoriadelphus maculatus -5 OBL Nt P-Forb SPOT JOEPYE WEED EUPPER 4 Eupatorium perfoliatum -4 FACW+ Nt P-Forb COMMON BONESET FALSCD 0 FALLOPIA SCANDENS v. DUMETORUM UPL Ad H-Vine FALSE BUCKWHEAT FRAALN 0 FRANGULA ALNUS FAC+ Ad Shrub GLOSSY BUCKTHORN IMPCAP 2 Impatiens capensis FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT IRIVIR 5 Iris virginica OBL Nt P-Forb SOUTH BLUE FLAG LEEORY 2 Leersia oryzoides OBL Nt P-Grass RICE CUT GRASS LEMMIR 3 Lemna minor OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYCAME 3 Lycopus americanus OBL Nt P-Forb WATER HOREHOUND LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA OBL Ad P-Forb PURP LOOSESTRIFE PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PERLAP 0 Persicaria lapathifolia F.ACW+ Nt A-Forb CURLY LADYSTHUMB PHAARU 0 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED RIBAME 5 Ribes americanum FACW Nt Shrub BLACK CURRENT SAMNIC 2 Sambucus nigra s. canadensis FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SCUGAL 4 Scutellaria galericulata OBL Nt P-Forb MARSH SKULLCAP SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE TYPANG 0 TYPHA ANGUSTIFOLIA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb NRW-LVD CATTAIL TYPGLA 0 TYPHA x GLAUCA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL URTDIG 1 Urtica dioica s. gracilis -1 FAC+ Nt P-Forb STINGING NETTLE

Site: wetland 6 - near Dupont Tract Locale: Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: Paul Rothrock

92 19 u o (-^ File: cc:\Progra: \Programm Files\FQA\studies\GranFi les\lfQAXst i d Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 6 - Dupont Tract,, tra Notes;: 1. N41.61306 W87 .43384 south shore, east portion 2. N41.61305 W87 .43530 south shore, west portion 3. N41.61280 W87 .43835 south shore, west portion 4. N41.61366 W87 .43583 north shore, east portion 5. N41.61262 W87 .44147 north shore, mid-portion 6. N41.61208 W87 .44405 north shore, mid-portion 7. N41.61256 W87.45100 - north shore, west portion

TRANSECT DATA, QUADRAT TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/J^ d 1 1.7 1,. 0 4.1 3. 2 -2., 5 -2., 5 6 10 -3.5 -3., 0 2 1.5 0 .6 2.1 1. 3 -4., 5 -3,. 6 2 5 -3.8 -2., 9 3 1.5 0 .8 2.1 1. 5 -4., 5 -2,. 7 2 4 -4.7 -3,, 7 4 3.0 0 .8 3.0 1,, 5 -5 .0 -4 .7 14 -4.2 -3 .3 5 2.3 1 .5 7.3 5.. 9 -3 .1 -2 .5 10 15 -2.7 -2 .4 6 1.3 0 .7 2.5 1,. 9 0 .0 0 .14 7 -2.4 -1 .4 7 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0,. 0 -4 .0 -2 . 0 1 2 -2.0 -0 .9

AVG 1.6 0 .8 3.0 2,. 2 -3 .4 -2 .6 3.7 6.7 STD 0.9 0 .5 2.2 1 .9 1 .7 1 .5 3.3 4.5

C NUMBER 15 NATIVE SPECIES 0 1 23 TOTAL SPECIES 1 5 2.3 NATIVE MEAN C 2 2 0 to 3 1.5 W/Adventives 3 4 80.0% 8.8 NATIVE FQI 4 2 7.1 W/Adventives 5 1 -2.4 NATIVE MEAN W 6 0 4 to 7 -1.7 W/Adventives 7 0 20.0% 8 0 9 0 8 to 10

10 0 0.0%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 46. Number of native species 3 = medium 47. Number of Carex species 1 = poor 48. Number of submergent species 3 49. Number of perennial species 5 = good 50. Number of weed species 3

Species Tolerance 51. Number of sensitive species 52. Number of tolerant species 53. Number of exotic species

Guild Structure 54. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance

TOTAL PIBI SCORE poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME W WETNESS PHYSIOGNOMY COMMON NAME BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica -5 OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE BOLFLU 4 Bolboschoenus fluviatilis -5 OBL Nt P-Sedge RIVER BULRUSH CALSEP 1 Calystegia sepium 0 FAC Nt P-Forb AMER BINDWEED CEPOCC 5 Cephalanthus occidentalis -5 OBL Nt Shrub BUTTONBUSH

93 20

U U KJ CIRARV 0 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 3 FACU Ad P-Forb FIELD THISTLE CORSER 4 Cornus sericea 3 FACW Nt Shrub REDOSIER DOGWOOD EQUARV 1 Equisetum arvense 0 FAC Nt Fern COMMON HORSETAIL FALSCD 0 FALLOPIA SCANDENS v. DUMETORUM 5 UPL Ad H-Vine FALSE BUCKWHEAT FRAALN 0 FRANGULA ALNUS 1 FAC+ Ad Shrub GLOSSY BUCKTHORN GALAPA 1 Galium aparine 3 FACU Nt A-Forb ANNUAL BEDSTRAW IMPCAP 2 Impatiens capensis 3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT LEMMIR 3 Lemna minor 5 OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYCAME 3 Lycopus americanus 5 OBL Nt P-Forb WATER HOREHOUND LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA 5 OBL Ad P-Forb PURPLOOSESTRIFE PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides 5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PHAARU 0 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA 4 FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis 4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED POPDEL 1 Populus deltoides •1 FAC+ Nt Tree EAST COTTONWOOD RHACAT 0 RHAMNUS CATHARTICA 3 FACU Ad Shrub COMMON BUCKTHORN SAMNIC 2 Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COMELDERBERRY SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE TYPGLA 0 TYPHA X GLAUCA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL VITRIP 1 Vitis riparia 2 FACW- Nt W-Vine RIVERBANK GRAPE

Site: wetland 7 - Gary Airport Locale Grand Calumet River, Lake Co., IND By: Paul Rothrock File: c:\Program Files\FQA\studies\Grand Calumet sitesXGrand Calumet 2007\wetland 7 - Gary Airport.t ra Notes : 1. N41.60863 W87.39799 south shore 2. N41.60897 W87.39937 south shore 3. N41.60923 W87.40082 south shore 4. N41.60949 W87.40216 south shore 5. N41.60982 W87.40467 south shore 6. N41.60948 W87.40006 - north shore, E portion 7. N41.61012 W87.40314 - north shore. E portion; small {ca 35xl2m) sedge meadow slough m from shore 8. N41.61031 W87.40743 - north shore, E portion 9. N41.60941 W87.41179 - north shore, W portion 10. N41.60999 W87.41621 - north shore, W portion 11. N41.61053 W87.42041 - north shore, W portion

TRANSECT DATA TRANSECT MC W/Ad FQI W/Ad MW W/Ad NS TS MW SEQ W/Ad 1 3.0 2.0 8.5 6.9 -4.4 -4.1 8 12 -4.3 -4.3 2 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.8 -4.2 -4.5 4 8 -4.5 -4.4 3 2.5 1.4 5.0 3.8 -4.7 -4.7 4 7 -4.7 -4.7 4 5.0 2.9 10.0 7.6 -5.0 -4.9 4 7 -4.8 -4.6 5 2.5 1.3 5.0 3.5 -4.7 -4.2 4 8 -4.7 -4.6 6 1.5 0.8 2.1 1.5 -4.5 -4.7 2 4 -4.6 -4.4 7 5.2 3.8 17.2 14.7 -4.5 -4.2 11 15 -4.4 -4.5 8 2.3 1.6 5.7 4.7 -4.2 -4.4 6 9 -4.4 -4.5 9 1.5 0.6 2.1 1.3 -4.5 -4.8 2 5 -4.4 -4.6 10 3.6 3.0 8.0 7.3 -4.4 -4.5 5 6 -3.9 -4.1 11 3.0 1.7 6.7 5.0 -2.8 -2.9 5 9 -3.6 -3.7

AVG 2.9 1.8 6.8 5.4 -4.4 -4.4 5.0 8.2 STD 1.2 1.0 4.3 3.8 0.6 0.6 2.6 3.1

C NUMBER 11 NATIVE SPECIES 0 1 34 TOTAL SPECIES 1 3 4 .0 NATIVE MEAN C 2 3 0 to 3 3 .2 W/Adventives 3 6 48.1% 20 .8 NATIVE FQI 4 5 18 .5 W/Adventives 5 2 -4 .0 NATIVE MEAN w 6 1 4 to 7 -3 .6 W/Adventives

94 21

\J J 'i 40.7?

9 0 8 to 10 10 0 11.1%

PLANT INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY Species Richness and Composition 55. Number of native species good 56. Number of Carex species medium 57. Number of submergent species 58. Number of perennial species 59. Number of weed species

Species Tolerance 60. Number of sensitive species 61. Number of tolerant species 1 = poor 62. Number of exotic species 3

Guild Structure 63. Percent emergent species 10. Percent obligate wetland species 11. Percent pioneer/weed species

Abundance 12. Mean abundance

TOTAL PIBI SCORE fair/poor

ACRONYM C SCIENTIFIC NAME w WETNESS PHI fSIOGNOM: COMMON NAME ACESAI 1 Acer saccharinum 3 FACW Nt Tree SILVER MAPLE BOECYC 3 Boehmeria cylindrica 5 OBL Nt P-Forb FALSE NETTLE BOLFLU 4 Bolboschoenus fluviatilis 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge RIVER BULRUSH CALCAN 5 Calamagrostis canadensis 5 OBL Nt P-Grass BLUE JOINT GRASS CXAQUA 8 Carex aquatilis v. substricta 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge TUSSOCK SEDGE CXPELL 2 Carex pellita 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge COM WOOLY SEDGE CXATHE 6 Carex atherodes •5 OBL Nt P-Sedge HR-LV LAKE SEDGE CXUTRI 8 Carex utriculata 5 OBL Nt P-Sedge YELL LAKE SEDGE CEPOCC 5 Cephalanthus occidentalis 5 OBL Nt Shrub BUTTONBUSH CICBUL 8 Cicuta bulbifera •5 OBL Nt P-Forb BBT WATERHEMLOCK CIRARV 0 CIRSIUM ARVENSE 3 FACU Ad P-Forb FIELD THISTLE ECHLOB 3 Echinocystis lobata 2 FACW- Nt H-Vine WILD CUCUMBER HIBMOM 4 Hibiscus moscheutos v. moscheutos •5 OBL Nt P-Forb SWAMP ROSEMALLOW IMPCAP 2 Impatiens capensis •3 FACW Nt A-Forb TOUCH-ME-NOT LEMMIR 3 Lemna minor •5 OBL Nt A-Forb SMALL DUCKWEED LYTSAL 0 LYTHRUM SALICARIA •5 OBL Ad P-Forb PURP LOOSESTRIFE PERHYS 3 Persicaria hydropiperoides •5 OBL Nt P-Forb MILD WATERPEPPER PHAARU 0 PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA •4 FACW+ Ad P-Grass REED CANARYGRASS PHRAUS 0 Phragmites australis •4 FACW+ Nt P-Grass COMMON REED POAPRA 0 POA PRATENSIS 1 FAC- Ad P-Grass KENT BLUEGRASS POPDEL 1 Populus deltoides •1 FAC+ Nt Tree EAST COTTONWOOD RUMORB 7 Rumex orbiculatus v. borealis •5 OBL Nt P-Forb GREAT WATER DOCK SAGLAT 3 Sagittaria latifolia •5 OBL Nt P-Forb COMMON ARROWHEAD SALERI Salix eriocephala •3 FACW Nt Shrub HEART-LVD WILLOW SALINT Salix interior •5 OBL Nt Shrub SANDBAR WILLOW SALNIG Sali.x nigra •5 OBL Nt Tree BLACK WILLOW SAMNIC Sambucus nigra s. canadensis 4 FACU- Nt Shrub COM ELDERBERRY SCICYP Scirpus cf pedlcellatus -5 OBL Nt P-Sedge WOOL GRASS SCUGAL Scutellaria galericulata •5 OBL Nt P-Forb MARSH SKULLCAP SOLDUL 0 SOLANUM DULCAMARA 0 FAC Ad W-Vine BTRSW NIGHTSHADE SOLGIG 4 Solidago gigantea -3 FACW Nt P-Forb LATE GOLDENROD THEPAP 7 Thelypteris palustris v. pubescens -4 FACW+ Nt Fern MARSH SHIELDFERN TYPANG 0 TYPHA ANGUSTIFOLIA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb NRW-LVD CATTAIL TYPGLA 0 TYPHA X GLAUCA -5 OBL Ad P-Forb HYBRID CATTAIL

95 22