Wetland Delineation Report

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT

STH 32 AND STH 165 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DOT ID: 3240-11-00

Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E VILLAGE OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE KENOSHA COUNTY WISCONSIN

Prepared by: Christopher Jors Jennifer Dietl Daniel Carter

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive P.O. Box 1607 Waukesha, WI 53187-1607

-2-

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT OVERVIEW (Based upon WDNR WETLAND Delineation Confirmation Request Check List)

INTRODUCTION  Who requested the delineation – Karla Leithoff, WisDOT  Why the delineation was undertaken – STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements  Date the field work was completed – September 8 and 25; and October 13, 2015  Who conducted field work –Christopher Jors, Jennifer Dietl, Daniel Carter  Statement of Qualifications

METHODS  Description of Methods  Sources Reviewed o Topographic Map – Exhibit 1 o Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) Map – Exhibit 2 o Soil Survey and Floodplain Map – Exhibit 3 o Historical Aerial Photos – Exhibits 4A- 4L (2015, 2010, 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1967, and 1963) o Sanitary Sewer Service Map – Exhibits 5A and 5B o ADID Wetland Map – Exhibit 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  Antecedent hydrologic condition analysis – Sept. 8 (normal) and Sept. 25 (wetter than normal)  Previous wetland delineation mapping – 1999 Commission wetland delineation  Existing environmental mapping (WWI mapping, Soil survey, etc.)  Description of any site specific agency guidance (site meetings, etc.) – October 13, 2015  Amount and types of wetland located within the project area  Wetland/upland boundary explanation  Disturbed and problematic areas encountered  Other water resources located in the project area  Other considerations

LITERATURE CITED Wetland Delineation Map – Exhibit 7

Vegetation Survey, Wetland Delineation Data Forms, and Site Photos  Preliminary Vegetation Survey – Exhibit 8  104th Street Mesic Prairie NA-2 Preliminary Vegetation Survey – Exhibit 9  Wetland Determination Data Forms – Midwest Region – Exhibit 10  Site Photos – Exhibit 11

Farm Service Agency Slide Review  FSA Slide Review – Areas of Concern Map – Exhibit 12  Completed wetland documentation form (NRCS form NRCS-CPA-32A) – Exhibit 13  Copies or photos of slides – Exhibit 14  Copy of the draft NRCS Wetland Inventory map – Exhibit 15

-3-

INTRODUCTION This wetland delineation report responds to a March 2, 2015, letter of request from Ms. Karla Leithoff, former Wisconsin Department of Transportation Wetland Ecologist, to identify and stake the boundaries of any wetlands within the STH 165/STH 32 intersection project area (WisDOT Project ID# 3240-11-00). The project area is located in parts of U.S. Public Land Survey Sections 19 and 30, Township 1 North, Range 23 East, Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

Statement of Qualifications

Christopher Jors, Senior Specialist-Biologist, has worked at SEWRPC since 1993, and has been part of the wetland delineation team since 1994. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Conservation Aspects of Biology from the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee in 1992. Prior to working at SEWRPC, Chris worked at the UWM Field Station at the Cedarburg Bog in Saukville, WI, where he learned methods of sampling wetland plant communities within the Bog. Chris has attended various wetland training workshops including the UW-La Crosse Basic and Advanced Wetland Delineation Workshops on August 10-15, 2015; a Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Wetland Delineation & Wetland Rapid Assessment Methodology Workshop on April 23, 2014; and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Workshop on the Midwest Supplement to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual on February 3, 2009.

Jennifer Dietl, Specialist-Biologist, earned a Bachelor’s degree in Biology and Environmental Science from Carroll University in 1992. She has worked at the Commission from 1992 to 1997 and from 2006 to the present conducting wetland delineations, primary environmental corridor delineations, and vegetation surveys. In between years of service at the Commission she worked for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation – Green Bay as an LTE Environmental Analysis and Review Specialist – and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Green Bay as an LTE Hydrologist. Jennifer attended a Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Wetland Delineation & Wetland Rapid Assessment Methodology Workshop on April 23, 2014 and the UW-La Crosse Basic and Advanced Wetland Delineation Workshops on August 10-15, 2015.

Daniel Carter, PhD, Principal Biologist, has worked at SEWRPC since 2013. He graduated with honors from Grinnell College with a Bachelor’s degree in Biology. He later received a PhD in Biology from Kansas State University. Daniel has published several plant ecology articles in peer-reviewed journals, served on the botany team for the Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan, and co-teaches the UW-La Crosse Basic Wetland Plant Identification course. He has completed both basic and advanced wetland delineation training as well as Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory training. Prior to working for the Commission, Daniel served as project coordinator for a grassland restoration project overseen jointly by the United States Department of Agriculture and The Nature Conservancy and taught high school Biology.

METHODS Description of Methods

The wetland boundary determinations were based upon the criteria and methodologies set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; the August 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0); the March 4, 2015, Guidance for Submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Army Corps of Engineers and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; and the State of Wisconsin 2014 Wetland Plant List.

Specific methods used to field identify wetland boundaries included the U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Routine Onsite Determination Method – Plant Community Assessment Procedure. This procedure requires an initial identification of representative plant community types in the project area followed by a characterization of vegetation, soils, and hydrology for each type.

-4-

Sources Reviewed Prior to conducting field work, Commission staff reviewed the following data sources: Kenosha County’s topographic mapping (Exhibit 1), WDNR Surface Water Data Viewer - Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Mapping (Exhibit 2), Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) soil survey and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) one-percent annual probability floodplain mapping (Exhibit 3), Commission aerial photography (Exhibits 4A to 4L), Sanitary Sewer Service Area Mapping (Exhibit 5), ADID wetland map (Exhibit 6), draft NRCS Wetland Inventory map (Exhibit 15), climatological data from the NRCS “WETS” tables, and precipitation data from the Global Historical Climatology Network – Daily (GHCN-D).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Christopher Jors, lead investigator, Jennifer Dietl, and Dr. Daniel Carter, identified and staked the boundaries of the wetlands contained within the project area on September 8 and 25; and October 13, 2015. Wetland boundaries were marked with orange wire flags and ribbon. A Commission survey crew subsequently surveyed the wetland boundary markers using a survey-grade (sub-centimeter) GPS unit. Commission staff used a sub-meter GPS to locate the centerline of any wet roadside ditches and sample site locations. The results of the wetland delineation field inspection for this project area are shown on Exhibit 8, which includes staked and surveyed wetland boundaries, wet roadside ditches, sample site numbers and locations, and plant community area numbers and locations.

Antecedent Hydrologic Conditions – 2015 Climatological data were taken from the nearest WETS station(s) and GHCN Stations with relevant data.

WETS Station: KENOSHA, WI4174 GHCN-D Station: Same

Product of Sept. 9, 3 yrs. In Condition Month previous 2015 site 3 yrs. In 10 10 more Observed dry, wet, Condition weight two visit Month less than Normal than precip. normal value value columns 1st prior month August 2.68 4.19 5.04 3.44 Normal 2 3 6 2nd prior month July 2.43 3.68 4.41 2.74 Normal 2 2 4 3rd prior month June 2.28 3.59 4.33 2.99 Normal 2 1 2 sum 12 If sum is 6 - 9 drier than normal 10 - 14 normal 15 - 18 wetter than normal Conclusion Normal

-5-

Product Sept. 25 of and Oct. 3 yrs. In Condition Month previous 13, 2015 3 yrs. In 10 10 more Observed dry, wet, Condition weight two site visit Month less than Normal than precip. normal value value columns 2nd prior month August 2.68 4.19 5.04 3.44 Normal 2 2 4 3rd prior month July 2.43 3.68 4.41 2.74 Normal 2 1 2 sum 15 If sum is 6 - 9 drier than normal 10 - 14 normal 15 - 18 wetter than normal Conclusion Wetter

Previous Wetland Delineation Mapping The Commission conducted a wetland delineation along segments of the STH 32 right-of-way in 1999 per a request from WisDOT, including the portions of the STH 32 right-of-way contained within the current project area. While the 1999 report was briefly reviewed, the 1999 findings expired in 2004. Further, the Commission’s approach to wetland delineations along transportation projects has changed significantly since that time. Previously, sample sites were not recorded for most wetlands staked for transportation projects. In addition, wetlands less than 30 feet wide that were associated with roadside ditches were not identified or staked. These policies have changed and now require more extensive sample site documentation and the identification of roadside ditches with wetland, regardless of width.

Existing Environmental Mapping The Topographic Map (Exhibit 1) indicates that the project area includes elevations ranging from a high of 635 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929 adjustment (NGVD 29) on a landscape berm on the western leg of the project area to a low of about 615 feet above NGVD 29 on the eastern leg of the project area. An unnamed tributary to Barnes Creek enters the project area on the western edge while flowing in an easterly direction and then leaves the project area where it turns northward.

The WDNR Surface Water Data Viewer – Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) map (Exhibit 2) indicates portions of forested (T3K) and forested/emergent-wet meadow (T3/E1K) wetlands are mapped on the north and south sides, respectively, of the western leg of the project area. Further scrub-shrub (S3K) and scrub- shrub/emergent-wet meadow (S3/E2K) wetlands are mapped on the north and south sides of the eastern leg of the project area. A filled scrub-shrub wetland ($S3K) is mapped on the north side of eastern leg of the project area. The unnamed tributary to Barnes Creek noted above is also identified on Exhibit 2. This waterway is identified by WDNR as a 1st order stream. General condition information is not available for this waterway.

The NRCS Soil Survey map (Exhibit 3) shows the following soils in the project area:

% Soil Coverage in Soil Name Slope % Hydric Rating Project Area Sample site(s) Ashkum silty clay loam (AtA) 0-3% Predominantly Hydric 13.5% 4, 5, 6 Boyer sandy loam (BnB) 2-6% Non-hydric 43.9% Colwood silt loam (Cw) 0-2% Hydric 12.9% 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 Granby fine sandy loam (GnA) 0-3% Predominantly Non-hydric 4.5% 11, 12, 13 Hebron sandy loam (HbB) 2-6% Non-hydric 21.2% 1, 2 Symerton loam (SzA) 0-2% Non-hydric 4.0% 3

-6-

Exhibit 3 also indicates that FEMA-mapped one-percent-annual-probability floodplain is contained within the project area associated with the unnamed tributary to Barnes Creek.

Historical aerial photos of the project area were reviewed going back to 1963. Orthophotographs (2015, 2010, 2005, 2000, and 1995) and aerial photos (1990, 1985, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1967, and 1963) are attached (see Exhibits 4A-4L). This review is summarized in the table below.

CHANGES IN LAND USE OBSERVED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FROM 1941 TO 2015

Year 1963 Land use in the project area west of STH 32 is very similar to what exists today – mostly agricultural and some residential. Lands in the northeast quadrant of the project have been platted and residential development is underway. A farmstead exists in the southeast quadrant including a barn, pasture and cropland. 1967 Some mobile homes removed along the south side of the STH 165 right-of-way. 1970 STH 165/STH 32 intersection improvements including removal of woody vegetation at NW corner. 1975 Agricultural lands east of mobile home park appear fallow. 1980 No major changes. 1985 No major changes. 1990 No major changes. 1995 Farmstead buildings in SE quadrant of project area have been razed and land is fallow. New residence on east side of STH 32, north of STH 165 2000 No major changes. 2005 Village water tower facility built at SE corner of STH 165/STH 32. Additional residential development on east side of STH 32, north of STH 165. 2010 Cellular tower with maintenance driveway added near water tower facility. Additional residential development on east side of STH 32, north of STH 165. 2015 No major changes.

SEWRPC’s sanitary sewer service area mapping (Exhibits 5A & 5B) indicates that the project area is located within the sewer service area for the Greater Kenosha Area. It should be noted that the environmental corridor mapping has changed significantly in the vicinity of the project area since the adoption of the sewer service area plan in 2001, due to updated floodplain and wetland mapping.

The ADID (Advanced Identification) wetland mapping (Exhibit 6) indicates that wetlands within the primary environmental corridor in the southeast quadrant of the intersection are designated as ADID wetland under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act. The subject wetlands are deemed generally unsuitable for the discharge of dredge and fill material.

Description of any site specific agency guidance During the initial field inspection by the Commission staff on September 8, 2015, two sample sites (Sample Site Numbers 11 and 13, Exhibit 7) were chosen in an area of concern within the project area known as the 104th Street Mesic Prairie Natural Area. While Sample Site Number 11 did not meet any of the three wetland parameters, Sample Site Number 13 was not as clear-cut. Site 13 met a hydrophytic vegetation indicator by the dominance test. Because of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, the site passed the FAC-Neutral test, a secondary indicator of wetland hydrology. Because two secondary wetland hydrology indicators are required to meet the wetland hydrology parameter, another secondary indicator (Geomorphic Position) was considered but an agreement could not be reached. Further, Site 13 did not meet an indicator of hydric soil. Given the importance of these Natural Area lands, it was decided that another opinion should be sought to determine if the geomorphic position indicator is met, and if so, could problematic hydric soils be present at Site 13.

Accordingly, Mr. Neil Molstad, Wetland Identification Specialist with WDNR, accompanied the Commission staff during a second field inspection on October 13, 2015. Mr. Molstad inspected Sample Site 13 and agreed that

-7-

a hydric soil, problematic or otherwise, was not present. Further, Mr. Molstad determined that the geomorphic position indicator of wetland hydrology was not present. Mr. Molstad concluded that Site 13 was not situated in a wetland.

Amount and Types of Plant Community Areas in the Project Area

Four wetland plant community areas and one upland plant community area were identified within the project area. A list of vascular plant species observed during the field inspections was prepared for each plant community area as well as plant community type(s), dominant plant species, disturbances, and any critical plant and animal species (Exhibit 8). The table below summarizes characteristics for each plant community area.

Critical Species E=State Endangered PCA Plant Community T=State Threatened Number Acreage Type(s) Dominant Species SC=State Special Concern Carex pellita-Woolly sedge Shallow marsh, fresh Helianthus grosseserratus—Sawtooth 1.32 (wet) meadow farmed 1 sunflower None 0.16 wetland, and Salix interior-Sandbar willow degraded low prairie. Typha angustifolia—Narrow-leaved cat-tail Shallow marsh, fresh (wet) meadow, and Phalaris arundinacea-Reed canary grass 2 0.91 lowland hardwoods None Typha angustifolia—Narrow-leaved cat-tail with farmed wetland on the edge. Carex pellita-Woolly sedge Fresh (wet) meadow Echinocystis lobata-Wild cucumber and second growth, Helianthus grosseserratus—Sawtooth 3 0.89 Southern wet to wet- None sunflower mesic lowland Poa pratensis-Kentucky bluegrass harwoods. Populus deltoides-Cottonwood Carex pellita-Woolly sedge Cornus racemosa-Grey dogwood Eleocharis compressa-Flat-stemmed spike- Phlox glaberrima-Smooth rush phlox (E) Pycnanthemum virginianum-Mountainmint Eleocharis compressa-Flat- Mesic and wet-mesic Schizachyrium scoparium-Little bluestem 4 0.1 stemmed spike-rush (SC) prairie Solidago gigantea-Giant goldenrod Liatris spicata-Marsh Sorghastrum nutans-Indian grass blazing-star (SC) Symphyotrichum oolentangiense-Sky-blue

aster Vitis riparia-Riverbank grape Zizia aurea-Golden Alexanders Agrostis gigantea-Redtop grass Fresh (wet) meadow Cornus alba-Red-osier dogwood and recovering low Daucus carota-Queen Anne’s lace Cyrtorhyncha cymbalaria- prairie with small Helianthus grosseserratus—Sawtooth Alkali buttercup (T) 5 0.60 stands of shallow sunflower Observed during a previous marsh and Southern Juncus torreyi-Torrey’s rush inspection. sedge meadow. Sorghastrum nutans-Indian grass

In addition to the species listed in Exhibit 8 for plant community area number 4, a more comprehensive vegetation survey has been included (see Exhibit 9) for the 104th Street Mesic Prairie as a whole. 104th Street Mesic Prairie is identified as a Natural Area of Countywide or Regional significance (NA-2).

-8-

Wetland/Upland Boundary Explanation Fourteen representative sample sites were identified within the project area during the field inspections. The Wetland Determination Data Forms describing the findings at each sample site are attached as Exhibit 10. The locations of the sample sites are shown on Exhibit 7. The wetland boundaries shown on Exhibit 7 were determined using changes in vegetation composition, visual identification of wetland hydrology, the presence of hydric soils, and breaks in topography.

Disturbed and Problematic Areas Encountered Sample Site Number 10 was determined to have “significantly disturbed” soils due to recent filling and grading activities for a driveway construction leading to a nearby cell tower. Due to this recent disturbance, Commission staff determined that Sample 10 was wetland based upon the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. Sample Site Number 12 was determined to have “naturally problematic” hydrology due to seasonal wetland hydrology where indicators are lacking later in the growing season and “naturally problematic” hydric soils which met the Dark Surface (S7) indicator. Based upon the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and “naturally problematic” hydric soils and wetland hydrology, Sample 12 was determined to be wetland.

Other Water Resources Located in the Project Area None

Farm Service Agency Slide Review A Farm Service Agency slide review was conducted for potential farmed wetland areas within the project area. A map of the areas of concern is attached as Exhibit 12. The results of the review are provided on Exhibit 11. Available slides of these areas from 1990 to 2013 were reviewed. Slides from years with normal precipitation have been included in this report (2006, 2003, 2001, 1998, 1995, 1993, 1991, and 1990) as shown in Exhibit 14.

Areas A was found to have wetness signatures in 5 out of 8 (63%) normal precipitation years indicating the presence of farmed wetland based upon the slide review. Area A includes the farmed wetland portions of plant community area (PCA) 3 shown on Exhibit 7. Area B was found to have wetness signatures in 4 out of 8 (50%) normal precipitation years indicating an inconclusive slide review. Based upon the field inspection, portions of Area B were found to contain farmed wetland (see PCA 1 on Exhibit 7). Areas C and D were found to have wetness signatures in 5 out of 8 (63%) normal precipitation years indicating the presence of farmed wetland. The presence of farmed wetland was confirmed in Areas C and D as shown on Exhibit 7 (see PCA’s 1 and 2).

Draft NRCS Wetland Inventory Maps Draft NRCS wetland inventory maps (Exhibits 15A & 15B) were reviewed. NRCS mapped features within the project area include Wetlands (W), Not Inventoried (NI) areas, and Prior Converted (PC) areas. According to NRCS, PC is defined as wetland converted to cropland before December, 1985, and does not meet farmed wetland hydrology.

Other Considerations Please be advised that no Federal or State regulatory jurisdiction determinations relative to any wetland permits or certifications are made under this report. The wetlands located within the recorded Primary Environmental Corridor (PEC) as shown on Exhibit 7, have been designated as Advanced Delineation and Identification (ADID) wetlands under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act and are deemed generally unsuitable for the discharge of dredge and fill material. In addition, recent revisions of the nonagricultural performance standards set forth in Section NR 151.125 of the Wisconsin Statutes, requires establishment of a 75-foot impervious surface protective area to protect the higher quality wetlands in PCA’s 4 and 5. PCA Number 1 requires establishment of a 50-foot protective area due to the presence of a USGS-mapped waterway. PCA Numbers 2 and 3 require establishment of a 50-foot protective area due to the presence of forested wetlands with early successional species and fresh (wet) meadow. Note that the wet ditch portions of PCA Numbers 1 and 2 are exempt from protective area performance standards since they were designed for stormwater conveyance

-9-

purposes. This designated protective area boundary is measured horizontally from the delineated wetland boundary to the closest impervious surface. The protective area requirements should be taken into consideration for any planned improvements adjacent to the wetland and it is suggested that WisDOT staff contact WDNR regarding approaches to meet the requirements.

Please note that the eastern leg of the project area includes a portion of a Natural Area known as the 104th Street Mesic Prairie, located on the north side of 104th Street, east of 11th Avenue (see Exhibit 7). The 104th Street Mesic Prairie is identified as a Natural Area of countywide or regional significance (NA-2) in the Commission’s Amendment to the Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, dated December, 2010. Several critical species were found within the Natural Area portion of the project area (see Exhibit 8, PCA 4). For that reason, it is recommended that the intersection improvements are planned appropriately to avoid impacts to the Natural Area lands, including not parking equipment or stockpiling materials on the Natural Area lands.

Finally, based upon the identification of a State-designated Threatened species, Alkali buttercup (Cyrtorhyncha cymbalaria), within PCA Number 5, the Commission staff proposes to designate lands south of 104th Street, including a portion of the project area, as a Critical Species Habitat. To be named the Carol Beach Recovering Prairie and Wetland (see Exhibit 7), impacts to this area should be avoided during reconstruction of the subject intersection.

LITERATURE CITED U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2015, Special Public Notice: Guidance for Submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 2015.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2014, State of Wisconsin Wetland Plant List

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, January 2012.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, National Food Security Act Manual, Fifth Edition, Part 514.60, November 2010.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 2010, Amendment to the Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, December 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.

WDNR, Surface Water Data Viewer, website at http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/sl/?Viewer=SWDV

CJJ/JLD/kmd CA106-415 STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements WD Report (00227800).DOC 490-1060

EXHIBIT 5A. Sanitary Sewer Service Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Project Area

EXHIBIT 5B. Sanitary Sewer Service Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Project Area

EXHIBIT 6. Advanced Identification (ADID) Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Project Area Limits

Janice Prairie

Unnamed Tributary to Barnes Creek E !"3 101st Street

")1

")21

11th Avenue 104th Street Mesic Prairie NA-2

!"4 1 ")61 111 ")5 ") ")131 !"1 1 1 " ")7 ")9 1 !1 104th ")14 Street STH 165 " " ")31 " !2 !5 !2 1 ")10 ")121 ")41 ")81

Carol Beach Recovering Prairie and Wetland

STH 32 Carol Beach Prairie NA-2

Exhibit 7. Wetland Delineation Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Legend Project Area Primary Environmental Corridor Secondary Environmental Corridor Isolated Natural Resource Area Natural Areas Critical Species Habitat Sites Wetland Boundary Staked and Surveyed by SEWRPC on 9/8/15 and 10/13/15 Wetland !" Plant Community Number Soil Sample Location ³ "1 Soil Sample Number 0 140 280 Wet Ditch Feet

Surface Water Source: SEWRPC Date of Photography: 2015 E Flow Direction CA#106-415

EXHIBIT 8. PRELIMINARY VEGETATION SURVEY

STH 32 AND STH 165 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS DOT ID: 3240-11-00

Dates: September 8 and 25; and October 13, 2015

Observers: Daniel L. Carter, Ph.D., Principal Biologist Christopher J. Jors, Senior Biologist Jennifer Dietl, Biologist Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

Location: Village of Pleasant Prairie in parts of U.S. Public Land Survey Sections 19 and 30, Township 1 North, Range 23 East, Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

Species List: Plant Community Area No. 1 – Native Plant Species Co-dominant species

Allium canadense--Wild garlic Ambrosia artemisiifolia--Common ragweed Ambrosia trifida--Giant ragweed Apios americana--Ground nut Asclepias syriaca--Common milkweed Bidens frondosa--Common beggars-ticks Carex pellita--Woolly sedge Cicuta maculata--Spotted water-hemlock Cyperus esculentus--Chufa Euthamia graminifolia--Grass-leaved goldenrod Fraxinus pennsylvanica--Green ash Helianthus grosseserratus--Sawtooth sunflower Hypericum punctatum--Spotted St. John's wort Leersia oryzoides--Rice cut grass Monarda fistulosa--Wild bergamot Oenothera biennis--Evening-primrose Panicum capillare--Witch grass Persicaria lapathifolia--Heart's-ease Populus deltoides--Cottonwood Rosa blanda--Wild rose Rosa carolina--Prairie rose Salix discolor--Pussy willow Salix eriocephala--Missouri River willow Salix interior--Sandbar willow Sambucus nigra--Elderberry Silphium terebinthinaceum--Prairie-dock Smilax lasioneura--Greenbrier Solidago altissima--Tall goldenrod Solidago gigantea--Giant goldenrod Spartina pectinata--Prairie cordgrass Symphyotrichum drummondii--Drummond's aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum--Marsh aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae--New England aster Symphyotrichum pilosum--Frost aster Verbena hastata--Blue vervain Verbena urticifolia--White vervain 2

PCA No. 1 cont. Native Plant Species

Veronicastrum virginicum--Culvers-root Vitis riparia--Riverbank grape Zizia aurea--Golden Alexanders

NON-Native Plant Species

Abutilon theophrasti--Velvet-leaf Agrostis stolonifera--Creeping bentgrass Cirsium arvense--Canada thistle Echinochloa crusgalli--Barnyard grass Elymus repens--Quack grass Persicaria maculosa--Lady's thumb Phalaris arundinacea--Reed canary grass Poa compressa--Canada bluegrass Poa pratensis--Kentucky bluegrass Portulaca oleracea--Purslane Solanum dulcamara--Deadly nightshade Typha angustifolia--Narrow-leaved cat-tail

Total number of plant species: 51 Number of alien, or non-native, plant species: 12 (24 percent)

These approximately 1.32 and 0.16-acre plant community areas are associated with an unnamed tributary to the Barnes Creek floodplain-wetland complex and consist of shallow marsh, fresh (wet) meadow, atypical (farmed) wetland, and degraded low prairie. Disturbances to the plant community areas include filling, mowing, side casting of dredge spoil material, siltation and sedimentation due to stormwater runoff from adjacent lands, water level changes due to ditching and draining, and agricultural land management activities such as plowing. No Federal- or State-designated Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered species were observed during the field inspection.

Plant Community Area No. 2 – Native Plant Species

Acer negundo--Boxelder Acer saccharinum--Silver maple Allium canadense--Wild garlic Ambrosia artemisiifolia--Common ragweed Ambrosia trifida--Giant ragweed Andropogon gerardii--Big bluestem Asclepias incarnata--Marsh milkweed Bidens frondosa--Common beggars-ticks Carex pellita--Woolly sedge Equisetum arvense--Common horsetail Erigeron philadelphicus--Marsh fleabane Euthamia graminifolia--Grass-leaved goldenrod Fraxinus pennsylvanica--Green ash Geum aleppicum--Yellow avens Helianthus grosseserratus--Sawtooth sunflower Panicum capillare--Witch grass Prunella vulgaris--Selfheal Ranunculus sceleratus--Cursed crowfoot Ribes americanum--Wild black currant Rubus idaeus--Red raspberry Sambucus nigra--Elderberry Scirpus pendulus--Red bulrush Solidago altissima--Tall goldenrod 3

PCA No. 2 cont. Native Plant Species

Solidago gigantea--Giant goldenrod Symphyotrichum lanceolatum--Marsh aster Thalictrum dasycarpum--Tall meadow rue Verbena hastata--Blue vervain Viburnum lentago--Nannyberry Vitis riparia--Riverbank grape Zizia aurea--Golden Alexanders

NON-Native Plant Species

Abutilon theophrasti--Velvet-leaf Arctium minus--Common burdock Cirsium arvense--Canada thistle Cirsium vulgare--Bull thistle Daucus carota--Queen Anne's lace Digitaria sanguinalis--Hairy crab grass Echinochloa crusgalli--Barnyard grass Frangula alnus--Glossy buckthorn Glechoma hederacea--Creeping Charlie Hesperis matronalis--Dames rocket Persicaria maculosa--Lady's thumb Phalaris arundinacea--Reed canary grass Poa pratensis--Kentucky bluegrass Rhamnus cathartica--Common buckthorn Taraxacum officinale--Common dandelion Typha angustifolia--Narrow-leaved cat-tail Viburnum opulus--European highbush-cranberry

Total number of plant species: 47 Number of alien, or non-native, plant species: 17 (36 percent)

This approximately 0.91-acre plant community area is part of a larger wetland complex which drains to an unnamed tributary to the Barnes Creek floodplain-wetland complex and consists of shallow marsh, fresh (wet) meadow, and second growth, Southern wet to wet-mesic lowland hardwoods with atypical (farmed) wetland on the edge. Disturbances to the plant community area include mowing; side casting of dredge spoil material; water level changes due to ditching, draining, and stream channel realignment; siltation and sedimentation due to stormwater runoff from adjacent lands; and agricultural land management activities such as plowing. No Federal- or State-designated Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered species were observed during the field inspection.

Plant Community Area No. 3 – Native Plant Species

Andropogon gerardii--Big bluestem Carex pellita--Woolly sedge Echinocystis lobata--Wild cucumber Euthamia graminifolia--Grass-leaved goldenrod Helianthus grosseserratus--Sawtooth sunflower Juncus dudleyi--Dudley's rush Parthenocissus quinquefolia--Virginia creeper Populus deltoides--Cottonwood Quercus palustris--Pin oak Scirpus pendulus--Red bulrush Solidago altissima--Tall goldenrod Solidago gigantea--Giant goldenrod Symphyotrichum ericoides--Heath aster 4

PCA No. 3 cont. Native Species

Symphyotrichum pilosum--Frost aster Tilia americana--Basswood Vitis riparia--Riverbank grape

NON-Native Plant Species

Poa pratensis--Kentucky bluegrass Rhamnus cathartica--Common buckthorn Robinia pseudoacacia--Black locust

Total number of plant species: 19 Number of alien, or non-native, plant species: 3 (16 percent)

This approximately 0.89-acre plant community area is part of a larger wetland complex and consists of fresh (wet) meadow and second growth, Southern wet to wet-mesic lowland hardwoods. Disturbances to the plant community area include filling, mowing, and agricultural land management activities such as plowing. No Federal- or State-designated Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered species were observed during the field inspection.

Plant Community Area No. 4 – Native Plant Species

Achillea millefolium--Yarrow Allium cernuum--Nodding wild onion Asclepias longifolia--Tall green milkweed Carex granularis--Pale sedge Carex pellita--Woolly sedge Cirsium discolor--Field thistle Coreopsis tripteris--Tall coreopsis Cornus alba--Red-osier dogwood Cornus racemosa--Grey dogwood Desmodium canadense--Showy tick trefoil Eleocharis compressa--Flat-stemmed spike-rush (State-designated Special Concern) Equisetum arvense--Common horsetail Euthamia graminifolia--Grass-leaved goldenrod Fragaria virginiana--Wild strawberry Gentianopsis crinita--Fringed gentian Helianthus grosseserratus--Sawtooth sunflower Lespedeza capitata--Prairie bush-clover Liatris spicata--Marsh blazing-star (State-designated Special Concern) Monarda fistulosa--Wild bergamot Oxypolis rigidior--Cowbane Pedicularis canadensis--Wood-betony Phlox glaberrima--Smooth phlox (State-designated Endangered) Prunella vulgaris--Selfheal Pycnanthemum virginianum--Mountainmint Ratibida pinnata--Grey-headed coneflower Rhus glabra--Smooth sumac Rosa carolina--Prairie rose Rudbeckia hirta--Black-eyed Susan Schizachyrium scoparium--Little bluestem Silphium terebinthinaceum--Prairie-dock Solidago altissima--Tall goldenrod Solidago gigantea--Giant goldenrod Solidago nemoralis--Grey goldenrod Solidago riddellii--Riddell's goldenrod 5

PCA No. 4 cont. Native Plant Species

Solidago rigida--Stiff goldenrod Sorghastrum nutans--Indian grass Symphyotrichum ericoides--Heath aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae--New England aster Symphyotrichum oolentangiense--Sky-blue aster Thalictrum dasycarpum--Tall meadow rue Toxicodendron rydbergii--Poison ivy Viburnum lentago--Nannyberry Vitis riparia--Riverbank grape Zizia aurea--Golden Alexanders

NON-Native Plant Species

Frangula alnus--Glossy buckthorn Malus pumila--Apple Poa pratensis--Kentucky bluegrass

Total number of plant species: 47 Number of alien, or non-native, plant species: 3 (6 percent)

This approximately 0.1-acre upland plant community area is part of the 104th Street Mesic Prairie Natural Area (NA-2) and consists of mesic prairie and wet-mesic prairie. Disturbances to the plant community area include mowing along the prairie edge. Smooth phlox (Phlox glaberrima), a State-designated Endangered species, and Flat-stemmed spike-rush (Eleocharis compressa) and Marsh blazing-star (Liatris spicata), both State-designated Special Concern Species, were observed during the field inspection. A preliminary vegetation species list for the 104th Street Mesic Prairie Natural Area (NA-2) as a whole, is attached as Exhibit 9.

Plant Community Area No. 5 – Native Plant Species

Agalinis purpurea--Pink gerardia Carex aquatilis--Aquatic sedge Carex pellita--Woolly sedge Cornus alba--Red-osier dogwood Cornus obliqua--Silky dogwood Euthamia graminifolia--Grass-leaved goldenrod Helianthus grosseserratus--Sawtooth sunflower Juncus dudleyi--Dudley's rush Juncus torreyi--Torrey's rush Panicum capillare--Witch grass Ratibida pinnata--Grey-headed coneflower Salix eriocephala--Missouri River willow Schizachyrium scoparium--Little bluestem Scirpus pendulus--Red bulrush Solidago altissima--Tall goldenrod Solidago gigantea--Giant goldenrod Sorghastrum nutans--Indian grass Symphyotrichum lanceolatum--Marsh aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae--New England aster Symphyotrichum oolentangiense--Sky-blue aster Viburnum lentago--Nannyberry

NON-Native Plant Species

Agrostis gigantea--Redtop grass 6

PCA No. 5 cont. NON-Native Plant Species

Agrostis stolonifera--Creeping bentgrass Daucus carota--Queen Anne's lace Phalaris arundinacea--Reed canary grass Poa pratensis--Kentucky bluegrass Typha angustifolia--Narrow-leaved cat-tail

Total number of plant species: 27 Number of alien, or non-native, plant species: 6 (22 percent)

This approximately 0.60-acre plant community area is part of a larger wetland complex and consists of fresh (wet) meadow and recovering low prairie with small stands of shallow marsh and Southern sedge meadow. Disturbances to the plant community area include mowing along the wetland edge. While no Federal- or State-designated Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered species were observed during the field inspection, Alkali buttercup (Cyrtorhyncha cymbalaria), a State-designated Threatened species has been observed in this plant community area during previous inspections. It is proposed to add this area as the Carol Beach Recovering Prairie and Wetland Critical Species Habitat (CSH) in a forthcoming update to SEWRPC Planning Report No. 42, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.

SVY4228 CA106-415 EXHIBIT 9. PRELIMINARY VEGETATION SURVEY

104th Street Mesic Prairie

Dates: September 22, 1992; June 1, 1994; July 14, 1995; April 16, 2004; August 7, 2013; and September 9, 2015

Observers: Daniel Carter, Principal Biologist Christopher J. Jors, Senior Biologist Jennifer L. Dietl, Biologist Zofia Noe, Biologist

Donald M. Reed, Former Chief Biologist Lawrence A. Leitner, Former Principal Biologist Laurie M. Gawin, Former Research Analyst

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

Location: Kenosha County; T1N R23E SW SE 19 (# south of 104th in NW NE 30)

Plant Communities: (5095) Lakeplain Wet-Mesic Tallgrass Prairie (5096) Mesic Sand Tallgrass Prairie

Ecoregion: (222KG) Kenosha—Lake Michigan Plain and Moraines

Species List (dominant species; alien species; # species observed south of 104th street outside of natural area boundary)

Achillea millefolium—Yarrow Carex pellita—Wooly broad-leaved sedge Agalinis purpurea—Purple false foxglove Carex stricta—Tussock sedge Agrimonia gryposepala—Common agrimony Circaea lutetiana—Enchanter’s nightshade Agrostis gigantea—Redtop Cirsium arvense—Canadian thistle Alisma subcordatum—Common mud plantain Cirsium discolor—Field thistle Allium cernuum (U)—Nodding Onion Cirsium muticum—Swamp thistle Andropogon gerardii—Big bluestem Coreopsis tripteris (U)—Tall coreopsis Anemone cylindrica—Thimbleweed Cornus alba—Red-osier dogwood Antennaria neglecta—Pussytoes Cornus obliqua—Silky dogwood Antennaria plantaginifolia—Plantain-leaved Cornus racemosa—Gray dogwood pussytoes Crataegus sp.—Hawthorne Apocynum sibiricum—Dogbane Cyrtorhyncha cymbalaria (T) #—Alkali Arnoglossum plantagineum (SC)—Prairie buttercup Indian plantain Dalea purpurea—Purple prairie clover Asclepias hirtella (U)—Green milkweed Daucus carota—Wild carrot Asclepias incarnata—Swamp milkweed Desmodium canadense—Showy tick-trefoil Asclepias sullivantii (T)—Sullivant’s milkweed Dichanthelium acuminatum var. fasciculatum— Asclepias syriaca—Common milkweed Old field panic grass Betula pendula—Weeping birch Dodecatheon meadia—Shooting-star Calystegia sepium—Hedge bindweed Eleagnus umbellata—Autumn olive Cannabis sativa--Marijauna Eleocharis compressa (R)—Flat-stem spike- Carex aquatilis #—Aquatic sedge rush Carex blanda—Wood sedge Epilobium coloratum—Willow-herb Carex conoidea (U)—Field sedge Equisetum arvense—Common horsetail Carex granularis—Limestone-meadow sedge Equisetum hyemale—Scouring rush Carex hystericina—Porcupine sedge Erigeron strigosus—Daisy fleabane Eryngium yuccifolium (U)—Rattlesnake-master Potentilla anserina—Silverweed Eupatorium maculatum—Spotted Joe-pye Potentilla arguta—Prairie cinquefoil weed Potentilla simplex—Old-field cinquefoil Eupatorium perfoliatum—Bone-set Prunella vulgaris—Selfheal Euphorbia corollata Prunus serotina—Black cherry Euthamia graminifolia Puccinellia distans #—Weeping alkaligrass Fragaria virginiana—Strawberry Pycnanthemum virginianum—Mountainmint Frangula alnus—glossy buckthorn Quercus macrocarpa—Bur oak Fraxinus pennsylvanica—Green ash Quercus velutina—Black oak Gentiana crinita (U)—Fringed gentian Ranunculus flabellaris #—Yellow water Geum aleppicum—Yellow avens buttercup Geum laciniatum—Cut-leaved avens Ranunculus pensylvanicus—Bristly crowfoot Helianthus giganteus—Tall sunflower Ratibida pinnata—Coneflower Helianthus grosseserratus—Sawtooth Rhamnus cathartica—Common buckthorn sunflower Rhus glabra—Smooth sumac Heuchera richardsonii (U)—Alumroot Rosa blanda—Meadow rose Hieracium canadense—Canadian hawkweed Rosa carolina—Prairie rose Hierochloe odorata—Sweet grass Rosa multiflora—Multiflora rose Hypericum perforatum—Common St. John’s- Rosa palustris—Swamp rose wort Rubus strigosus—Red raspberry Hypoxis hirsuta—Yellow star-grass Rudbeckia hirta—Black-eyed Susan Juncus balticus #—Shore rush Rumex crispus—Curly dock Juncus canadensis—Canadian rush Salix bebbiana—Bebb’s willow Juncus dudleyi—Dudley’s rush Salix discolor—Pussywillow Juncus torreyi—Torrey’s rush Salix eriocephala—Missouri river willow Juniperus virginiana—Redcedar Salix interior #—Sandbar willow Lactuca canadensis—Canadian wild lettuce Schizachyrium scoparium—Little bluestem Lespedeza capitata—Prairie bush-clover Schoenoplectus fluviatilis #—River bulrush Liatris pycnostachya—Prairie blazing-star Schoenoplectus pungens #—Common three- Liatris spicata (R)—Marsh blazing-star square Lithospermum canescens (U)—Hoary puccoon Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani #—Common Lobelia kalmii—Kalm’s lobelia three-square Lobelia spicata—Pale spiked lobelia Scirpus pendulus—Nodding bulrush Lycopus americanus Silphium integrifolium—Rosinweed Lycopus uniflorus Silphium terebinthinaceum—Prairie dock Lysimachia quadriflora—Prairie loosestrife Sisyrinchium albidum—Common blue-eyed- Lythrum alatum—Winged loosestrife grass Melilotus officinalis—Sweet clover Smilax lasioneura—Greenbriar Monarda fistulosa—Bergamot Solidago altissima—Tall goldenrod Oenothera biennis—Biennial evening primrose Solidago gigantea—Giant goldenrod Oligoneuron rigidum—Stiff goldenrod Solidago juncea—Early goldenrod Packera paupercula—Balsam ragwort Solidago nemoralis—Old field goldenrod Panicum capillare--Witchgrass Solidago ohioensis (U)—Ohio goldenrod Panicum virgatum—Switchgrass Solidago riddellii—Riddell’s goldenrod Pedicularis canadensis—Wood betony Sorghastrum nutans—Indian grass Phalaris aurundinacea—Reed canary grass Spartina pectinata—Prairie cordgrass Phleum pratense—Timothy Sporobolus heterolepis (U)—Prairie dropseed Phlox glaberrima (E)—Smooth phlox Stachys tenuifolia—Smooth hedge-nettle Plantago major—Common plantain Symphyotrichum ericoides—Heath aster Platanthera leucophaea (E)—Prairie white- Symphyotrichum laeve—Smooth blue aster fringed orchid Symphyotrichum lanceolatum—Marsh aster Poa pratensis—Kentucky bluegrass Symphyotrichum novae-angliae—New England Polygonatum biflorum—Solomon’s seal aster Polygonum amphibium—Water smartweed Symphyotrichum oolentangiense —Azure aster Polygonum aviculare #—Prostrate knotweed Symphyotrichum pilosum—Frost aster Populus alba—White poplar Taraxacum officinale—Dandelion Thalictrum dasycarpum—Swamp meadow rue Tradescantia ohiensis—Spiderwort Typha angustifolia #—Narrow-leaved cattail Typha latifolia #—Broad-leaved cattail Verbena hastata—Blue verbena Viburnum lentago—Nannyberry Viburnum opulus—European high-bush cranberry Vitis riparia—Grape Zizia aurea—Golden Alexanders

Summary:

Total number of plant species: 160 Number of alien plant species: 22 Number of Endangered (E) plant species: 2 Number of Threatened (T) plant species: 3 Number of Special Concern (R) plant species: 2 Number of Uncommon (U) plant species: 10

Mean C: Native only = 4.7 Native & exotic = 4.0

CR: 10/17/00 MOD: 12/01/15

10130

I:ENVB\WORK\Wetlands\E99026-2 STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection\104th Street Mesic Prairie NA-2.doc

EXHIBIT 10. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2-6% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Hebron sandy loam (HbB) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site taken in this location due field observations of wetland vegetation in an area with no mapped wetlands or hydric soils. Determined to be a wetland sample due to all three wetland criteria present.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Populus deltoides 20 FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 20 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Juncus dudleyi 50 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Carex pellita 30 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

30 FACU 3. Solidago altissima 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 15 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 15 FAC 5. Poa pratensis 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Solidago gigantea 5 FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Symphyotrichum pilosum 5 FACU

8. Helianthus grosseserratus 3 FACW 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 153 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Fresh (wet) meadow with scattered lowland hardwoods.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 5-12 2.5Y 3/1 80 5YR 3/3 20 C PL M Sandy loam 12-16 10YR 4/3 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C PL M Sandy clay loam with gravel 16+ Refusal: Gravel

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Gravel Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 16 Remarks: Refusal at 16 inches is probably due to past filling along the STH 32 right-of-way and/or utility line maintenance.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2-6% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Hebron sandy loam (HbB) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Acer negundo 40 FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Robinia pseudoacacia 20 FACU That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 60 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Rhamnus cathartica 40 FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Lonicera x bella 10 FACU OBL species x 1 = 3. Lonicera maackii 5 UPL FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 55 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Alliaria petiolata 30 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Rhamnus cathartica 20 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

15 FACU 3. Hesperis matrionalis 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Lonicera x bella 8 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 5 FAC 5. Geum canadense 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Exhinocystis lobata 3 FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7.

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 81 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Buckthorn thicket and hardwoods.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam 10-17 7.5YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 17-20 10YR 4/6 100 Sand with gravel 20+ Refusal: Gravel

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 30, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): drainage way Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave linear Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Symerton loam (SzA) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site is located just outside of the project boundary in an unmapped drainage way.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Alisma subcordatum 5 OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Leerzia oryzoides 3 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

5. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7.

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 8 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Narrow open water drainage way.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils inundated with 7 inches of water, hydric by definition - Criteria 3.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 7 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 30, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Ashkum silty clay loam (AtA) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Digitaria sanguinalis 2 FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Abutilon theophrasti 1 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

5. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7.

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 3 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Agricultural field.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 12-20 10YR 4/1 60 10YR 5/6 12 C PL M Clay loam 2.5Y 4/2 25 10YR 3/1 3 20-24 2.5Y 5/2 60 10YR 6/8 40 C PL M Silt loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Topo Maps (Exhibit 1), WWI Map (Exhibit 2), Soils Map (Exhibit 3), and Aerial Photos (Exhibit 4). Remarks: FSA slide review indicates that 5 out of 8 normal precipitation years (63%) show signatures of saturation.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 5 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Ashkum silty clay loam (AtA) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site taken in this location due field observations of wetland vegetation in an area with no mapped wetlands. Sample area also contain dredge spoils from the adjacent ditch. Determined to be a wetland sample due to all three wetland criteria present.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Poa pratensis 50 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Phalaris arundinacea 25 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FACU 3. Elymus repens 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Agrostis stolonifera 10 FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 10 UPL 5. Poa compressa 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Euthamia graminifolia 3 FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Hypericum punctatum 3 FAC

8. Carex pellita 2 OBL 1 9. Symphyotrichum pilosum 2 FACU Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Symphyotrichum novae-angliae 1 FACW 126 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Fresh (wet) meadow.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 4/6 5 C PL M Clay loam dredge spoils from ditch 10YR 3/1 15 5-12 10YR 4/2 60 10YR 4/6 20 C PL M Clay loam dredge spoils from ditch 10YR 2/1 10 10YR 5/3 10 12-14 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 14-24 10YR 6/2 60 10YR 6/8 40 C PL M Silt loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 6 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Ashkum silty clay loam (AtA) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Salix discolor 8 FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 FACW OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 9 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Carex pellita 30 OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Symphyotrichum drummondii 25 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

15 FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Rosa carolina 8 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 8 FAC 5. Veronicastrum virginicum 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Solidago altissima 7 FACU data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Ambrosia trifida 6 FAC

8. Monarda fistulosa 5 FACU 1 9. Vitis riparia 5 FACW Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Zizia aurea 5 FAC 122* = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) *Other NON-dominant herbs include: Oenothera biennis (3%) FACU, Smilax lasioneura (3%) UPL, and Symphyotrichum pilosum (2%) FACU. Fresh (wet) meadow with scattered willows.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5.5 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 5.5-11 10YR 4/2 60 10YR 4/6 5 C PL M Clay loam 10YR 2/1 35 11-22 2.5Y 4/2 60 10YR 4/6 5 C PL M Clay loam 10YR 3/1 35 22-25 2.5Y 5/2 70 10YR 5/6 to 5/8 25 C PL M Loam 10YR 3/1 5

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 7 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Colwood silt loam (Cw) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Ambrosia trifida 45 FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Daucus carota 25 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Digitaria sanguinalis 15 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 5 FACU 5. Oenothera biennis 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Rosa blanda 4 FACU data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Panicum capillare 3 FAC

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 117 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Upland meadow.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy loam 8-20 10YR 4/3 50 7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL M Loam with gravel 2.5Y 3/2 20 10YR 2/1 10 10YR 5/4 5 20+ Refusal: Gravel

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 8 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 30, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Colwood silt loam (Cw) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Acer negundo 2 FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 2 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Bromus inermis 60 UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ambrosia trifida 30 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

15 FAC 3. Calystegia sepium 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Vitis riparia 5 FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 3 FACU 5. Setaria faberi 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Cirsium arvense 2 FACU data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1 FACU

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 116 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Upland old field between STH 165 and agricultural field.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 3/1 100 Loam 13-17 10YR 3/2 100 Loam 17-24 10YR 5/2 85 10YR 5/8 15 C PL M Sandy clay loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 9 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Colwood silt loam (Cw) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Salix eriocephala 3 FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 3 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Euthamia graminifolia 25 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Carex pellita 20 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Apios americana 15 FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 15 FACU 5. Rosa blanda 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Helianthus grosseserratus 10 FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Poa pratensis 10 FAC

8. Salix interior 5 FACW 1 9. Cirsium arvense 3 FACU Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Persicaria laphathifolia 3 FACW 129* = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) *Other NON-dominant herbs include: Symphyotrichum drummondii (3%) UPL. Fresh (wet) meadow.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/2 100 Clay loam 5-12 10YR 4/1 85 10YR 3/6 15 C PL M Sandy loam with gravel 12+ Refusal: Too wet to pull up - gravel.

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Wet gravel Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 12 Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 (at surface) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 10 Investigator(s): Chris Jors, Jen Dietl, and Dan Carter; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 30, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Colwood silt loam (Cw) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site taken in this location due field observations of wetland vegetation in an area with no mapped wetlands. Significantly disturbed soils due to recent driveway construction for access to a cell tower located outside of the project area. Wetland determination made based on hydric vegetation and wetland hydrology.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Helianthus grosseserratus 40 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Carex pellita 30 OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FAC 3. Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Solidago altissima 15 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 15 FACW 5. Solidago gigantea 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Angropogom gerardii 10 FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Poa pratensis 10 FAC

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. 140 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Low prairie.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 14-16 10YR 2/1 40 Sandy loam 10YR 4/2 30 10YR 4/6 30 16-24 10YR 4/4 50 10YR 4/6 10 C PL M Sand 10YR 2/1 20 10YR 5/6 20

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: Significantly disturbed soils due to recent driveway construction for access to a cell tower located adjacent to the wetland south of the project area. Wetland determination made using hydric vegetation and wetland hydrology.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 11 Investigator(s): Chris Jors and Jen Dietl; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Granby fine sandy loam (GnA) NWI classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Cornus alba 5 FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Cornus racemosa 3 FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 8 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Sorghastrum nutans 50 FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.8 2. Solidago rigida 20 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

15 FACU 3. Solidago altissima 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Symphyotrichum ericoides 15 FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 10 FACU 5. Poa compressa 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Zizia aurea 8 FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Lespedeza capitata 5 UPL

8. Symphyotrichum oolentangiense 5 UPL 1 9. Cirsium discolor 4 FACU Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Cornus racemosa 3 FAC 143* = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) *Other NON-dominant herbs include: Euthamia graminifolia (3%) FACW, Pycnanthemum virginianum (3%) FACW, and Solidago gigantea (2%) FACW. Mesic prairie.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 11-27 10YR 5/6 90 10YR 4/6 10 C PL M Sand 27-35 10YR 4/6 70 Sand 10YR 5/6 30

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 12 Investigator(s): Chris Jors and Jen Dietl; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 30, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Granby fine sandy loam (GnA) NWI classification: S3/E2K Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology X naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Naturally problematic soils (S7. Dark Surface) and seasonal wetland hydrology.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 0 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Agrostis stolonifera 40 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Juncus dudleyi 40 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FACW 3. Helianthus grosseserratus 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Scirpus pendulus 15 OBL 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 10 FACW 5. Euthamia graminifolia 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Agalinis purpurea 5 FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Juncus torreyi 5 FACW

8. Daucus carota 4 UPL 1 9. Salix eriocephala 3 FACW Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Vitis riparia 3 FACW 145 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Low prairie.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 12 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy sand 11-21 10YR 4/3 40 Loamy sand 10YR 4/4 40 10YR 4/2 20 21-27.5 10YR 5/2 80 10YR 5/6 20 C PL Sandy loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 09/08/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 13 Investigator(s): Chris Jors and Jen Dietl; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-3% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Granby fine sandy loam (GnA) NWI classification: S3/E2K Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site taken in this location due to field observations of wetland vegetation in an area with no mapped wetlands. After further inspection and a return site visit with Neil Molstad, DNR Wetland Identification Specialist, on October 13, 2015, this sample area was determined to be non-wetland.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species 2. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 0 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Rhus rydbergii 20 FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Cornsu alba 10 FACW OBL species x 1 = 3. Cornus racemosa 10 FAC FACW species x 2 = 4. Malus pumila 4 UPL FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 44 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Cornus alba 20 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Cornus racemosa 20 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

20 FAC 3. Equisetum arvense 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. Pycnanthemum virginianum 20 FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 15 FACW 5. Helianthus grosseserratus 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. Carex pellita 10 OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7. Solidago altissima 10 FACU

8. Toxicodendron rydbergii 10 FAC 1 9. Carex granularis 5 FACW Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. Vitis riparia 5 FACW 140 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) *Other NON-dominant herbs include: Poa pratensis (2%) FAC, Viburnum lentago (2%) FAC, and Malus pumila (1%) UPL. Mesic prairie. This sample site is located at the edge of the 104th Street Mesic Prairie Natural Area (NA-2).

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 13 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy loam 11-24 10YR 4/6 100 Sand

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements City/County: Village of Pleasant Prairie/Kenosha County Sampling Date: 10/13/2015 Applicant/Owner: State: WI Sampling Point: 14 Investigator(s): Chris Jors and Jen Dietl; SEWRPC Section, Township, Range: Section 19, T1N, R23E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): low terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Colwood silt loam (Cw) NWI classification: $S3K Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If, needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soils Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Sample site taken in this location due field observations of wetland vegetation in a low area mapped as filled S3K wetland. While this sample site was found to have hydrophytic vegetation, which in turn led to passing a FAC-Neutral test, constributing to a finding of wetland hydrology, these observations were determiand to be misleading. Ultimately this area was determined to be upland.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Populus tremuloides 40 FAC Number of Dominant Species 2. Rhamnus frangula 15 FACW That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant 4. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 5. Percent of Dominant Species 55 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Prevalence Index worksheet:

1. Cornus alba 40 FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. Populus tremuloides 10 FAC OBL species x 1 = 3. Lonicera x bella 5 FACU FACW species x 2 = 4. Viburnum opulus 3 FAC FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 58 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

5. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 6. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 7.

8. 1 9. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius) Hydrophytic 1. Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 0 = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Shrub-carr and lowland hardwoods.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 14 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features 1 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loam with gravel 12-17 10YR 3/2 60 Fine sandy loam 10YR 2/1 40 17-25 2.5Y 4/2 50 10YR 4/6 50 C PL M Sandy loam

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of Hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 00230326

EXHIBIT 11. SITE PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Photo 1. Wetland sample site 1. Photo 2. Upland sample site 2. Fresh (wet) meadow. Buckthorn thicket and hardwoods.

Photo 3. Wetland sample site 3. Photo 4. Upland sample site 4. Narrow open water drainage way. Agricultural field.

Photo 5. Wetland sample site 5. Photo 6. Wetland sample site 6. Fresh (wet) meadow. Fresh (wet) meadow.

1 EXHIBIT 11. SITE PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County y

Photo 7. Upland sample site 7. Photo 8. Upland sample site 8. Upland meadow. Upland old field between STH 165 and agricultural field.

Photo 9. Wetland sample site 9. Photo 10. Wetland sample site 10. Fresh (wet) meadow. Low prairie.

Photo 11. Upland sample site 11. Photo 12. Wetland sample site 12. Mesic prairie. Low prairie.

2 EXHIBIT 11. SITE PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Photo 13. Upland sample site 13. Photo 14. Upland sample site 14. Mesic prairie. Shrub-carr and lowland hardwoods.

Photo 15. North view of PCA 3, east of Upland sample Photo 16. South view wetland sample site 3 from STH 165. site 2. Narrow open water drainage way.

Photo 17. West view, North side of 165 from crossing near Photo 18. East view, North side of 165 from crossing near wetland sample site 5, PCA 1. wetland sample site 5, PCA 1.

3 EXHIBIT 11. SITE PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County y

Photo 19. North view, north side of 165 of unnamed tributary Photo 20. West view, south side of 165 south of sample site to Barnes Creek. Between sample sites 5 and 6. 5, PCA 2.

Photo 21. East view, south side of 165 south of sample site Photo 22. West view, south side 165 from upland sample site 5, PCA 2. 8 of wet ditch.

Photo 23. East view, north side of 104th Street of upland sample sites 11 and 13. 104th St. Mesic Prairie NA-2.

00230382

NRCS-CPA-32W (6-9-06) EXHIBIT 13. FSA Slide Review Data WETLAND DOCUMENTATION RECORD Remotely Sensed Data Summary

Owner/Operator: WisDOT – STH 165/STH 32 County: Kenosha State: WI

Slide Reviewer: Christopher Jors Date:

Site Identification No. CA106-415 (WisDOT Project ID 3240-11-00) - (Tract No. + Site No.)

Farm Service Agency (or Other) Aerial Slide Data

Rainfall 1=Dry Date Interpretation- (codes listed in box below) (Mo./Yr) 2= Normal 3=Wet Area A Area B 2013 3 Y+ NC 6a N CR 2010 3 Y NC 6a Y CR 6d 2008 3 Y CR 6d N CR 2006 2 Y CR 6b N CR 2005 1 Y CR 6d N CR 2003 2 N CR Y CR 6e 2002 3 Y CR 6d Y CR 6a June 2001 2 Y CR 6d Y CR 6d June 2000 3 Y CR 6d N CR June 1999 3 Y- CR 6d Y CR 6d June 1998 2 N CR N CR July 1997 3 Y+ CR 4, 6c, 6a N CR Aug 1996 3 Y CR 6a, 6d N CR Aug 1995 2 N CR N CR 1994 1 N CR N CR 1993 2 Y CR 6a, 6c Y CR 6d Aug 1992 ‐‐ Poor quality image Poor quality image June 1991 2 Y CR 6d, 6e Y CR 3, 6d June 1990 2 Y CR 3, 6e N CR

Air Photo

Y = Yes, signal indicates wetness (+ = strong, - = weak) N = No wetness signature CR = cropped (row crop or tilled) NC = not cropped (hay, pasture, idle, etc.) Feature Color Manipulation (year of installation) Other 1 = water 6a = dark green 7a = ditched write explanation 2 = mud flat 6b = light green 7b = tiled 3 = bare spot 6c = yellow 7c = filled 4 = drowned crop 6d = brown 7d = tree/brush removal 5 = planted late 6e = black 8 = plowed/tilled

A. Does slide/air photo data indicate the site is a wetland? YES B. Does slide/air photo data indicate the site is a wetland? Borderline

A. Normal precipitation years: 5 out of 8 (63%) have wet (Y) signatures. B. Normal precipitation years: 4 out of 8 (50%) have wet (Y) signatures.

A. All years: 14 out of 18 (78%) have wet (Y) signatures. B. All years: 7 out of 18 (39%) have wet (Y) signatures.

NRCS-CPA-32W (6-9-06) EXHIBIT 13. FSA Slide Review Data WETLAND DOCUMENTATION RECORD Remotely Sensed Data Summary

Owner/Operator: WisDOT – STH 165/STH 32 County: Kenosha State: WI

Slide Reviewer: Christopher Jors Date:

Site Identification No. CA106-415 (WisDOT Project ID 3240-11-00) - (Tract No. + Site No.)

Farm Service Agency (or Other) Aerial Slide Data

Rainfall 1=Dry Date Interpretation- (codes listed in box below) (Mo./Yr) 2= Normal 3=Wet Area C Area D 2013 3 Y CR Y CR 6d 2010 3 Y CR 6d Y CR 6d 2008 3 N CR Y CR 6a 2006 2 Y CR N CR 2005 1 N CR N CR 2003 2 Y CR 6e Y CR 6e 2002 3 Y CR Y- CR 6d June 2001 2 Y CR 6d Y CR 6d June 2000 3 Y CR 6d Y CR 6d June 1999 3 Y CR Y+ CR 6e June 1998 2 Y- CR Y-CR6d July 1997 3 Y- CR 6d N CR Aug 1996 3 Y CR Y- CR 6d Aug 1995 2 N CR N CR 1994 1 N CR N CR 1993 2 N CR Y CR 6a, 6d Aug 1992 ‐‐ Poor quality image Poor quality image June 1991 2 Y CR 6d Y CR 6d June 1990 2 N CR N CR

Air Photo

C. Does slide/air photo data indicate the site is a wetland? YES D. Does slide/air photo data indicate the site is a wetland? YES

C. Normal precipitation years: 5 out of 8 (63%) have wet (Y) signatures. D. Normal precipitation years: 5 out of 8 (63%) have wet (Y) signatures.

C. All years: 12 out of 18 (67%) have wet (Y) signatures. D. All years: 12 out of 18 (67%) have wet (Y) signatures. CA106-415 Exhibit 13 FSA Slide Review – STH 165/STH 32 (00230330)

EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County 2006 NAIP

1 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

2003 FSA Slide

2 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

June 2001 FSA Slide

3 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

June 1998 FSA Slide

4 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

August 1995 FSA Slide

5 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

1993 FSA Slide

6 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

June 1991 FSA Slide

7 EXHIBIT 14. FSA PHOTOS STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N, R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

June 1990 FSA Slide

00230385 8

EXHIBIT 15A. Draft NRCS Wetland Inventory Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Project Area Limits

EXHIBIT 15B. Draft NRCS Wetland Inventory Map STH 32 and STH 165 Intersection Improvements DOT ID: 3240-11-00 Sections 19 and 30, T1N-R23E Village of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County

Project Area Limits