United States Department of the InteriorTo aid in the identification of the different soil types in...

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE (ES)IN REPLY REFER TO: 718 North Walnut Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47401(812) 334-4261 FAX 334-4273

August 9, 1990

Mr. Robert SwaleU. S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of SuperfundWaste Management Division230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Swale:

Enclosed are the revisions to the Wetlands delineation report for the AmericanChemical Services site in Griffith, Indiana, performed under IAG-DW14934313-0.An annotated list of revisions follows:

1) In response to BTAG coordinator's comments regarding Pg.4, Para. 1:The paragraph explaining the procedures used to draw the preliminary maphas been expanded and merged with preceding paragraphs. Hopefully, thiswill clarify how the soil survey was utilized.

2) Disturbed conditions--During the field reconnaissance flagging visitthe area was scanned for disturbed conditions. No disturbed areas wereobserved except for small clearings resulting from other remedialactivities occurring at the site. This information has been incorporatedinto the report and is located on page 4, paragraph 1, last sentence.

3) Wetland hydrology--A paragraph has been included explaining how thecriterion for wetland hydrology was determined to have been met. This islocated on page 4, paragraph 2.

4) Soil comparisons to Color Chart--Due to extreme inclement weatherand the obvious difference between the hydric and non-hydric soils, thesamples were taken back to the office. As was mentioned in a telephoneconversation between Robin Nims and you on August 6, 1990, the soil sampleswere retained. The representative soil samples will be forwarded to youfor reference. Many of the samples are still moist after having b e e nstored for 3 months.

5) Selection of Sampling Points--The rationale for selecting additionalsampling areas to replace areas that did not meet the 3 mandatory tnhiicalcriteria is elusive. The lack of the 3 criteria indicates that the areais not a wetland. Selecting additional areas would not have influencedthe outcome of the survey.

6) Wetland Hydrology--Due to a misinterpretation of the field surveyforms, FAC species were calculated into the percent hydrophytic vegetationcalculations, while species that did not have an indicator category wereomitted. This oversight has been corrected. Species that did not haveindicator category listings have been assigned UPL listings as suggested.However, 2 species that are found only in water, that did not have categorylistings, were not assigned UPL categories and were left with the categoryof "NONE". These corrections have not affected the outcome of the survey;only 1 additional area was determined to be non-wetland due to lack of apredominance of hydrophytic vegetation. A discussion of this informationis located on page 10, paragraph 2, under the heading of Wetland I.

7) Table 2--Table 2, located on page 11, has been revised with therecalculation of the percent hydrophytic vegetation. This criterionwas calculated using percent OBL and FACW, versus FACU and UPL. The newfigures are listed in the table. The wetland determination status ofrepresentative area Q2 has changed from YES to NO.

8) Figure 5--A key has been added to Figure 5. Text has been addedexplaining how the final boundaries were drawn. Also, it is explained thatno additional acreage was delineated. As stated in the introduction of thereport there are approximately 50 acres comprising both Wetland I andWetland II. This information can be found on page 9.

If you have additional questions regarding the report, or the contents of thisletter, please contact Robin Nims of my staff at FTS 332-4269.

Sincerely yours,

David C. HudakSupervisor

Wetlands Delineation at American ChemicalServices Hazardous Waste Site,

Griffith, Indiana. IAG-DW14934313-0

Robin A. NimsFish and Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service718 North Walnut StreetBloomington, Indiana

May 1990

Table of Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Results and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Wetland I

Wetland II

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Additional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

List of Figures Page

Figure 1. National Wetland Inventory map in the vicinity of the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana. USGS Highland Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2. U. S. Soil Conservation Survey-Lake County. Plate Number 21 . . . . 5

Figure 3. Preliminary wetland boundaries transcribed from 1984aerial photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 4. Representative observation areas for vegetation sampling . . . . . 8

Figure 5. Wetland designations at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . 12

Figure 6. Approximate locations and classifications of additionalwetlands located near the ACS site, east across ColfaxAvenue, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Tables Page

Table 1. Typical Profiles for Haumee loamy fine sand (hydric)and Plainfield fine sand (non-hydric) in Lake County,Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Results of the technical criteria test for 21 representativeobservation areas at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . 11

Table 3. List of vegetation species collected on April 10-11, 1990 at theACS site. Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 4. List of Wildlife species observed utilizing the wetlandhabitats at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana.April 10-11, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.

Summary

At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service conducted a wetlands delineation for site wetlands potentiallyimpacted by contaminants originating at the American Chemical Services (ACS)hazardous waste site.

Office review and field surveying indicated numerous wetlands exist at the ACS site,many of which are not identified on the National Wetland Inventory. The diversityof wetland types present provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species.

2.

INTRODUCTION

The American Chemical Services (ACS) Superfund site is located in Griffith, Indianaon the outskirts of the city's southeast side. The site was placed on the NationalPriorities List in 1983 as a result of investigations into chemical disposalpractices on the site. ACS operates as a chemical/solvent recovery facility, whichalso has a limited chemical manufacturing operation. During the course of itsoperations, ACS dumped and otherwise disposed of unrecoverable solvents on theproperty, in addition to transporting waste to the adjacent Griffith City Landfill.Kapica Drum, Inc. also allegedly disposed of drum-cleaning residues on ACS property.These 3 sites total 52 acres and jointly comprise the official ACS site.

The National Wetland Inventory (Figure 1) indicates numerous and extensive wetlandswithin a 1-mile radius of the ACS site to the southwest, south, southeast, east, andnortheast. There is an extensive wetland complex adjacent to the northwest boundaryof the site. These wetlands are dissected and bordered by the Grand Trunk WesternRailroad lines, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad lines, and the abandoned Erie-Lackawanna Railroad lines. The wetlands to the north of the Grand Trunk Westernlines were not within the project boundary limits, however, they are likelyhydraulically connected. The NWI map classifies this wetland complex as palustrine,emergent, serai-permanent/palustrine emergent, seasonally flooded. The entirecomplex is approximately 78 acres, however, only 50.5 acres were included in thepresent delineation.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project were:

1. To ground-truth and verify wetlands delineated on the National Wetland Inventorymaps.

2. To identify other wetland areas not included in the National Wetland Inventory.

3. To identify dominant vegetation in the various wetland areas.

4. To assess relative value of the various wetland habitats for fish and wildliferesources. __

METHODS

The methods utilized in this delineation are outlined in the Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). Because of the relativehomogeneity of the site, the soils assessment procedure was selected. Prior to thefield work, an office review was conducted to preliminarily outline the area inquestion. Due to the unavailability of the most recent aerial photographs thepreliminary boundaries were outlined from a 1984 photograph, obtained from the EPAproject manager. Based upon the field inspection, the 1984 photograph was accuratewith the exception of approximately 5 additional acres lost to the Griffith Landfilloperation.

_ • .I LAND \ T^ CPUS______*^*L-Ut>Y ' • «."

^ •ujjyja_£„ V.-.. \x< 1& ? f—zp *" -v%!''i jj-T

A HtRjOR E "15(7.; • ~* \I \ tJ ^^ it I-

FIGURE 1. National Wetland Inventory map in the vicinity of the American ChemicalService site, Griffith, Indiana. USGS Highland Ouadranq]o. Crosarea is AC5.

4.

During the office review and map preparation a copy of the U.S. Soil ConservationService Soil Survey for Lake County, Indiana (1972) was consulted to determine thepresence or absence, and locations of hydric soils. The Lake County Indiana Surveysheet number 21 (Figure 2) indicates the majority of the area in question consistsof Haumee loamy fine sand, interspersed with areas of Plainfield fine sand, Watsekaloamy fine sand, and a small section of Tawas muck. The Maumee loamy fine sand andTawas muck are classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the SoilConservation Service (1986) as hydric soils. The soil survey was used to comparesoil types to the general configuration of the visual boundary of the wetlands onthe aerial photograph. To avoid damaging the aerial photograph, a clear plasticoverlay was attached and the information transcribed. Points along the visualperimeter of the wetland that coincided with the hydric soils boundaries wererandomly selected and their compass bearings recorded to assist in field location.Location of the points were arbitrarily located from 88 to 282 feet apart based upona scale of 1 inch (in) - 25 millimeters (mm) - 220 feet (ft), 1 mm - 8.8 ft.The preliminary map generated in the office (Figure 3) was used in the fieldreconnaissance flagging effort. In the field, point A was located on ground by itsposition relative to the railroad track embankment and the tree row in the uppernorthwest corner of the study area. Based upon the preliminary map, point B waslocated with the use of a Suunto MC-1 mirror compass and was measured off with atape measure 220 feet S 66 E of point A. All other points were located and measuredoff in the same manner. Orange flags were placed at each point, and pink flags wereplaced every 55 feet to assist in maintaining the proper bearing alignment. Duringthe flagging reconnaisance visit, no sign of disturbed conditions existed in thewetland areas with the exception of the railroad embankments that were placedthrough the wetlands, and minor disturbances such as small clearings for groundwaterwells etc., resulting from other remedial investigation activities occuring at thesite. An apparent illegal fill had occured in the wetland located adjacent to theGriffith City Landfill.

During the reconnaisance flagging visit it was noted that the entire wetland areaidentified on the National Wetland Inventory either possessed standing water (up to2.5 feet in some areas; 5 feet in the ditches), or water-logged saturated soils(water table at soil surface). Based upon these field observations it wasdetermined that the hydrologic criteria for wetlands was met.

To aid in the identification of the different soil types in the field, the soilprofiles for Haumee loamy fine sand and Plainfield fine sand were recorded (Table1). Because the soil sample probes were taken to a depth of 18 inches, only thefirst 3 incremented intervals were noted. Soil samples were collected at each pointwith a 21 inch Hoffer Soil Sampler probe. Due to extreme inclement weather, and thestrikingly obvious difference between the hydric and non-hydric soils, the soilsamples were observed in the field and the lowest 3 inches were collected in whirl-pak bags for later comparisons to the Munsell Soil Color charts. Areas possessingstanding water did not yield soil samples due to wash-out upon extraction of theprobe. In these instances the whirl-pak bag containing the point location tags weretransported back to the office empty.

Representative observation areas (Figure 4) were selected based upon severalfactors. In addition to selecting areas that met the hydric soil criterion,representative observation areas that had apparent characteristics, but were notidentified on the National Wetland Inventory map were also chosen. The plantcommunities were characterized, and the percent areal cover of the dominant species

5.

R. 9 vv

FIGURE 2. U . S . Soil Conservation Survey-Lake Counarca is A < : s . Sha^ec: .1:0,;r. an1 i i y < : r i r ?'

Pl.^tc number 21. Cross-hatched

• ; • • : • • 3. P r e l i m i n a r y wet land boundaries transcribed fron 1984 aerial photoqraph. (Reduced 6 4 % )

c

Table 1. Typical, Profiles for Maumee loamy fine sand (Hydric) andPlainfield fine sand (Non-hydric) in Lake County, Indiana.

7 .

Maumee

Depth

-9

-16

16-21

loamy

inches

inches

inches

fine sand

Color

Black

Black

Black

Plainfield fine sand

MunsellNotation

N

N

N

2/0

2/0

2/0

Depth

0-4 inches

4-6 inches

6-27 inches

Color

Dark Grey

Greyish brown

Yellowish brown

MunsellNotation

10 YR. 3/1

10 YR. U/2

10 YR. 5/i.

•:. '1. Representat ive observation areas for vegetation sampling. Cross-hatched area lost to landfill expansion,

9.

in the communities were visually estimated. Samples of the dominant vegetation ateach of the representative areas were collected in 8 gallon plastic bags andtransported to the office for later identification, A list of references used isincluded in Appendix 1. Once the vegetation was identified the information wasrecorded on field data forms and the indicator status of the species was obtainedfrom the National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Indiana (1988). Awetland determination was then made for each representative observation area basedupon the 3 mandatory technical criteria; hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, andwetland hydrology, as outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and DelineatingJurisdictional Wetlands. The information obtained in the survey was used to preparethe final map of the site wetlands. It is important to note that no "additional"wetlands have been delineated in terms of acreage. This study has examined wetlandscurrently shown on the National Wetland Inventory map, and differentiated betweenthe existing habitat types that are not delineated on the NWI within the originalboundaries. The wetland boundaries indicated on Figures 5 and 6 were drawn basedupon visual field observations of shifts in dominant vegetation. All soils withinthe peripheral boundaries are hydric.

10.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 21 representative observation areas sampled, 12 met all 3 mandatory technicalcriteria for wetland determination (Table 2). Of the 9 areas that failed themandatory technical criteria test, M, N, S, D2. and H2 lacked all 3 criteria; C2 andQ2 lacked hydrophytic vegetation criteria; R1 lacked hydric soil and hydrologycriteria,and F2 lacked wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation criterion.

Wetland I

Wetland I is bounded by the Grand Trunk Western Railroad, the American ChemicalServices site, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. Based upon the results of thesurvey this area is more complex than the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) indicates(Figure 5). NWI shows this area as consisting of a large palustrine, emergent,semi-permanent mixed with seasonally flooded wetland. The NWI does not show any ofthe forested or scrub-shrub wetlands bordering the palustrine emergent area. Of the15 representative observation areas selected for Wetland I, the 5 that did not meetthe technical criteria for wetland determination were all transitional zones betweenthe wetland-upland interface. Non-hydric soils were present at 4 of the 5 areas.All of the areas possessed hydrophytic vegetation, but the percentage of FACU andUPL exceeded the percentage of FACW and OBL species at each of the 5 areas exceptR1. It should be noted that some species were collected at the various areas thatdid not have indicator category designations; these species were not located ineither the state or national list of plant species found in wetlands. It issophistic to automatically list species not included on the National Plant List asUPL species, however, based upon reviewers suggestions this has been done with theexception of 2 species of liverworts: Riccia fluitans and Ricciocarpus natans.These two species are bryophytes which are found in the water; it would becompletely erroneous to list these as UPL species.

Wetland II

Wetland II is bounded by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, the City of Griffithlandfill, and the abandoned Erie-Lackawanna Railroad bed. Wetland II, according tothe NWI is a palustrine, emergent, semi-permanent wetland. The various otherhabitat types surrounding it have been omitted from the official map.

This wetland area has been impacted due to past and present expansion of the City ofGriffith Landfill. Approximately 5 acres of emergent/scrub-shrub/forested wetlandon the north and southeast corners have been filled since the 1984 aerial photographwas taken. There is also a gravel road/turn-around that appeared to have beenrecently laid in the center of the palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded wetland(Figure 5). This was probably an illegal fill; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hasbeen notified.

There were 4 representative observation areas that did not meet the 3 technicalcriteria for wetland designation. However, 3 areas were placed along the railroadembankment, due to the location of a drainage ditch (approximately 5 feet deep)lying between the railroad tracks and the wetland area to the south of the ditch.Additional representative areas were not selected to replace areas not meeting the 3mandatory criteria, any additional points along the railroad embankment would yield

r

Table 2. Results of the technical criteria test for 21 representative observation areas at the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana.

Area

ABEGJMNlR1RSUVwYC2D2F2H2N202.Q2

Soil Series

Mauraee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMauraee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandPlainfield fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sand

HvdroDhvtic Veeetat Hvdric Soil% OBL. FACW

71.0100.066.788.0100.025.020.050.066.045.0100.0100.075.060.016.014.040.025.0100.0100.025.0

Yes No

XXXXX

XXX

XX

XXXXX

XX

XXXX

Wetland HvdrolopvYes No

XXXXX

XXX

XX

XXXXX

XXX

XXX

Wetland DeterminationYes

XXXXX

X

XXXX

XX

No

XXX

X

XXXX

X

<EY'= Palustrine;M= Emergent

SS= Scrub-shrubrO Forested

2= Seasonal

F= Semi-permanent

1= Broad-leaf deciduous

:P£ 5. '.Vetland designations at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana. Cross-hatched area is location of the illegalservice road/turn-around fill.

13.

the sane results. Technically, the entire area would be classified wetlands if therailroad tracks and embankments did not exist. The 4th area lacked a predominanceof hydrophytic vegetation.

NATURAL RESOURCES

This field investigation indicated that the natural resources and natural resourcevalues of the wetland habitats are greater than originally suspected because of thediversity of habitat types present: emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested.

The vegetation of "marshes" is characterized by emergent aquatic plants growing inpermanent to semi-permanent shallow water. Also present are species of shallow openwater communities, as well as those found in sedge meadows and seasonally floodedbasins. Marshes are among the most productive of all wetlands for waterbirds andfurbearers, and can also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many species offish. Birds that use marshes for breeding and feeding include ducks, geese, rails,herons, egrets, terns, and many songbirds. Raptors such as the osprey, bald eagle,and northern harrier frequent marshes in search of prey. Important furbearersinhabiting marshes include beaver, muskrat, and mink. Excellent winter habitat canbe provided for upland wildlife, including ring-necked pheasant and easterncottontail (Eggers and Reed 1987).

The emergent wetlands in the centers of wetland areas I and II are predominated bycattails. A list of species collected can be found in Table 3. Cattail standsprovide important food and cover for wildlife. For example, the rhizomes are eatenby geese and muskrats. Muskrats also use the foliage to construct their lodges,which in turn can provide resting and nesting sites for waterbirds. Yellow-headedblackbirds, red-winged blackbirds, and marsh wrens build their nests, in cattailvegetation. Wetland area I contains an open water area with a muskrat den and muchactivity in this area was apparent.

The transitional zones between the emergent areas and shrubby or forest areassupport hydrophytic vegetation on saturated but not inundated soils. Plantsoccurring in these areas include species found in other communities, such as theannuals of seasonally flooded basins, emergent aquatics of marshes, and invadingshrubs or trees, which are present as scattered, small individuals.

The transitional emergent zones are particularly important for their water qualityfunctions. Wildlife habitat is provided for many species including sandhill crane,ring-necked pheasant, common snipe, sedge wren, small mammals, and white-taileddeer. The composites found in these areas are an important fall and winter foodsource for songbirds.

Scrub-shrub wetlands are plant communities dominated by woody vegetation less than20 feet in height and with dbh's of less than 6 inches growing on saturated toseasonally flooded soils. They can be dominated by willows and/or red-osier, andsometimes silky (swamp) dogwood. These areas usually retain some of the forbs,grasses, and sedges of the transitional emergent zones. The vegetation in scrub-shrub wetlands possesses a variety of wildlife value. Willows are browsed by white-tail deer and eastern cottontails; red-osier dogwoods provide berries for song birdsand ruffed grouse and are browsed by deer and rabbits; and elderberry also providesberries for songbirds and ruffed grouse.

Forested wetlands are dominated by mature conifers or lowland hardwood trees. They

14.

Table 3. List of Vegetation Species collected on April 10-11, 1990 at the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana.

Scientific Nane Common Name Indicator Category*

Agrimonia parvifloraA. pubescensAmpelopsis arborea

androsaemi oAronia arbuti foliaBe tula alleghentensis"tltha oalustrisItis occidentalis

Cornus fTOTl9n"pC. stoloniferaCorylus americanaCvtisus scopariusDipsacus sylvestrisFragaria virginianaGalium apartneHaraamelts virgianaLiouidambar stvracifluaLudvigia glandulosaLvr iodendron tulip if eraNyssa svlvaticaOnoclea sensibilisPopulus del to idesP. erandidentata

. tremoides. runus pennsylvanicaPteris esculentaOuercus alba£L_ bicolor0. coccineaQ. palustrisQ. rubraQ. velutinaRhus copellinaRiccta fluitansRicciocarpus natansRosa CarolinaIL. nultifloraSL. nitidaRubus allegheniensisR. canadensisIL. hispidusIL. villosaSalix discolorS_ exigua

AgrimonyAgrimonyPeppervineSpreading dogbaneRed chokeberryYellow birchHarsh marigoldHackberrySwamp dogwoodRed-osier dogwoodHazelnutScotch broomTeaselCommon StrawberryBedstrawWitch hazelSweet GumLudwigiaTuliptreeTupeloSensitive fernCottonwoodLarge-tooth PoplarQuaking AspenPin cherryBraken fernWhite oakSwamp white oakScarlet oakPin oakNorthern red oakBlack oakDwarf sumacLiverwortLiverwortWild roseMulti-flora roseNortheastern roseHighbush blackberrySmooth blackberrySwamp dewberryLow blackberryPussy willowSandbar willow

FAC+UPLFACWUPLFACWFACOBLFAC-FACW+FACWFACUUPLFACFAC-FACUFACUFACWOBLFACU+FACW+FACWFAC+FACUFACFACUFACUFACUFACW+UPLFACWFACUUPLUPLNONENONEFACU-FACUUPLFACU+UPLFACWUPLFACWOBL

15.

Table 3. List of Vegetation Species (Con't).

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Category

Sambucus canadensisSolidago altissimaSonchus arvensisSpiraea albaS lattfoliaStenanthium gramineumThelvpteris thelypteroidesTypha angustifolia_ latifolia

'Imus rubratferbayt^up thaspusVerbena urticifolia

prunifoliumVitis aestivalisV. vulpinaXanthorhiza sinrolissima

ElderberryGolden rodField sow-thistleMeadow sweetMeadow sweetFeatherbellsMarsh fernNarrow-leaf cattailBroad-leaf cattailSlippery elmUooly mulleinWhite vervainBlack hawSummer grapeFrost grapeYellowroot

FACW-FACUFAC-FACW+FACW-FACFACWOBLOBLFACUPLFAC+FACUFACUFACW-DPL

*Species with bold UPL indicator status are not listed in the state or national plant listsand have been assigned this status by default.

16.

are important for stonnwater and flood retention, and also provide habitat forwhite-tailed deer, furbearers, songbirds, ruffed grouse, barred owl, and amphibians.The various wetland habitats at the American Chemical Services site are being usedby a variety of wildlife species, many of which were observed during thereconnaissance flagging visit, and the field survey visit (Table 4).

ADDITIONAL WETLANDS

At a meeting held by the U.S. EPA project manager on February 28, 1990, FWS wasrequested to observe the area immediately east of American Chemical Services,adjacent to Coifax Road to determine if wetlands were present. This area was walkedduring the field reconnaissance flagging visit, which revealed various wetlands,some of which were not indicated on the NUI maps (Figure 6). There is a palustrine,emergent, semi-permanent wetland approximately 7 acres in size about 0.1 mile eastof Colfax Road, that is identified on the NWI map. The field check revealed thatthis wetland extends west and southward within 20-30 feet of the roadway. Thesewetlands would be classified as a combination palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrubforested area with water regimes ranging between temporary, saturated, seasonal,seasonal saturated, and semi-permanent.

A wetland delineation was not conducted for this area, however, the soil survey mapsindicate that portions do contain hydric soils.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Highland area of Lake County is represented by many federal and state species ofspecial emphasis/concern, in addition to several federal threatened and endangeredspecies. An annotated list follows:

Fed E Indiana bat Myotis sodalisFed E Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) *MigratoryFed T Pitchers thistle (Cirsium pitcheri)Sp EM/CN Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)Black tern (Chlidonis niger)Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)King rail (Ralus elegans)Yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax violaceous)Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)Western smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis)Franklin's ground squirrel (Spermophilus franklini)Blanding's turtle (Emvdoidea blandingi)Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) *Historical

This endangered species list constitutes informal consultation only, and is notintended to fulfill the requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended. If, after review of the Phase I Remedial Investigation report, itappears likely that any endangered species may have been/may be affected by thissite, it may be necessary to initiate formal consultation. If as a result offurther consultation, a "no effect" determination is made regarding endangeredspecies, that determination should be revisited after 1 year for new information, ornewly listed species.

17.

Table 4. List of wildlife species observed utilizing the wetland habitats at theAmerican Chemical Services site, Griffith. Indiana April 10-11, 1990.

Scientific Name Common NameBIRDS

Aeelaius phoeniceusAix soonsaAnas platvrhvnchosBranta canadensisCharadrius vociferusCorvus brachyrhynchosDendrocopos pubescensD. villosaLarus SPP.Phasianus colchicusReeulus satrapaRichmondena cardinalisSpinus tristis

Red-winged blackbirds (many)Wood ducks (1 pair)Mallard ducks (2 pairs)Canada geese (1 pair)Killdeer (1)Common crows (many)Downy woodpeckers (2).Hairy woodpeckers (1)Gulls (many)Ring-necked pheasant (1 male)Golden-crown kinglets (2)Cardinals (3)American goldfinches (1 pair)

MAMMALS

Procvon lotorOdocoileus vireinianusOndatra zibethicusSvlvilagus floridanus

Raccoon (tracks)White-tailed deer (tracks)Muskrats (3) & denEastern cottontails (4)

ooI-T-.n-r. 6. Anpro-xinv-itie locations and rlassifications of additional wetlands located near the ACS site, east across •

Colfax Avenue, Griffith, Indiana.

19.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Vetlands identified on the NWI do exist at the American Chemical Services site.

2. There are wetlands present at the site that are not identified on the NWI.These wetlands consist of palustrine, forested, and scrub-shrub transitionalzones between the NWI-identified emergent wetland and upland areas.

3. The wetlands present at the site provide habitat diversity for a variety ofwildlife species.

4. The wetlands present on the site possess potential habitat for federalthreatened and endangered species, state and federal species of specialconcern/emphasis, and other birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

20.

Literature Cited

Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1987. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities ofMinnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.201pp.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperativetechnical publication, 76 pp. plus appendices.

Reed, P.B. 1986. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands-Indiana,National Wetland Inventory, St. Petersburg. 23pp. plus lists.

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Hydric Soils of the State of Indiana.

____. 1972. Soil Survey of Lake County, Indiana. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington; 94 pp plus appendices.

21.

APPENDIX 1

References

Ellis, W.H. and E.W. Chester. 1971. Spring Wildflowers of Land Between the Lakes.Austin Peay State University. Clarksville, TN. 60pp.

____. 1973. Summer and Fall Wildflowers of Land Between the Lakes. Austin PeayState University. Clarksville, TN. 71pp.

____. 1980. Trees and Shrubs of Land Between the Lakes. Austin Peay StateUniversity. Clarksville, TN. 71pp.

Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1987. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesotaand Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 201pp.

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1988. A Field Guide to the Wetlands ofIllinois. IDOC. 244pp.

Knobel, E. No Date. Identify Trees and Shrubs by Their Leaves; A Guide to Trees andShrubs Native to the Northeast. Dover Publications, Inc., New York 47pp.

Mitchell, A. 1979. Spotter's Guide to Trees of North America. Mayflower Books; NewYork. 64pp.

Parsons, F.T. 1961. How to Know the Ferns. Dover Publications; New York. 215pp.

Peterson, R.T. and M. McKenny. 1968. A Field Guide to Wildflowers; Northeastern andNorth-central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston. 420pp.

Petrides, G.A. 1988. A Field Guide to Eastern Trees; Eastern United States andCanada. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston. 272pp.

Phillips, H.C. 1974. Lichens and Ferns of Land Between the Lakes. Austin PeayState University. Clarksville. TN. 60pp.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora ofthe Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

Symonds, G.W.D. and S.V. Chelminski. 1958. The Tree Identification Book; a NewMethod for the Practical Identification and Recognition of Trees. QuillPublishing Company; New York. 272pp.

____. and A.W. Merwin. 1963. The Shrub Identification Book; The Visual Method forthe Practical Identification of Shrubs, Including Woody Vines and GroundCovers. William Morrow and Company; New York. 379pp.

22.

APPENDIX 2Field Data Forms

DATA FORMROUTINE ONSITfDETERMINATION METHOD1

F*ld Investigators) £• M ' 6 / k . VlV V WiP > ' Qato:Proiocl/Srte:_nSf^.__ ————————————————— _ Sialo: «£• N Counly .

gators)_nSf .

Applicxint/Owner: _Ljt4 ———————————————— Plant Community »/Name: _.. ANoi«: It a more O'tUiiod site descnplion is necwssary. us* !ho back ol data form 01 a !:t-W notebook

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes yf No ___ (If no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed7

Yes ___ No V^ (If yes. explain on back)

VEGETATIONIndicator Indicator

Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species _____ Status Stiav

:— L- ._P«L»?.«fe»:^:- f "••f- * ___ 19.• 7

yesPercent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC ___ .ft _!.» aIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes */ No ___Rationale:

SOILS _ ISeries/phase: '' ' ? ' * • • "^ / •>'<•• ^ -A ______ Subgroup:2 \Up.C \\'. .^. Vfli •'.- • . _\\'.Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes V No ___ Undetermined ________ ^Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No X Histic «pipedon present? Yes ___ No

XIs the soil: Monled? Yes^ _ No X Gleyad? Yes ___ NoMatrix Color: \1 /Q ^,\a^w _______ Mottle Colors:Other hydric soil indicators: — Stt.Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes V NoRationale: IL+ ',-•' e: *. -\.~^, -jVfj- r\ •/ .i-n <f

HYDROLOGYIs the ground surtac« inundated? Yes ___ No •S Surface water depth:Is the soil saturated? Yes S No ___Depth to free-standing walwr ir. pn.'so.l probtt hole:List other field evidence o< s^rlaco inuncialio--. or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _*__ No _Rationale:___..__.....„..__.„.._... ... .. . ._. .___..

JURISDICT1ONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE

Is the plant community a wotltinc7 ' YHS _ ___ NoM.-iii.:r.;«lt« 'or fjiisilic'iona! d<»':.f • € > . . ...... _

1 Th..s ca:a forrri cfln b«« useJ in» "it- llyt''u- So>l Assossnien: Procwi.1i;'« andAssussme.-t frscwd-jre.

? CI<TSS.1calicn acvoniir.g to "Sc-i 1;i»onomy."

Fi»ld lnv«stigatof(sProject/Site:

RjDATA FORM

ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1

.

Applicant/Owner:. _&rfl

C______——— Date: _ . _ ._ ._ ._Stale: _3L?3——— County. _C

_ —A^~.. - - _P.'ani Community (/Name:Note: H a more detailed site description « necessary. use the back ol data form or a field notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant communhy?Yes ___ No ___ (M no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, end/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes No (II yes. explain on back)

I^3

Dominant Plant Species

2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

VEGETATIONIndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plnn; Species

IndicatorS:a:us Sirav-.-r

_" " '• -'.-

FdCx'-

-AC _.__

11.12.13.14.1516.17.18.19.20.

Percent ol dominant spedes that are OBL. FACW. anoVor FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met9 Yes S NoRationale:

| pO \ t

Series/phase: ^«* *gg- IIs the soil on the hydric soils list?Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___Is the soil: Mottled? Yes^ __Matrix Color: —— hi — <L/C>

SOILS«*Q<V»-J r ; Subgroup:2

No ___ UndeterminedHistio epipedon present? YesGleyed? Yes ___ No

YP*C

Mottle Colors:Other hydric soil indicators: —Is the hydric soil criterion met?Rationale: v>vf

Yes \S No

_Is the ground surface inundated?Is the soil saturated? Yes ___

YesNo

HYDROLOGYvX No ___ Surface water dopth:

___Depth to tree-standing water in ph/soil probe hole: _______List other field evidence of surface inunca'.ion or soil salutation

T~|S (he wetland hydrology criterion met?Rationale: _________ _ __ .

Yes No


Is the plant community a wetland? YesRationale for |urisdn,*icnal 0<«c r-ion ...... _ ..

No

' This data form car. b« used ii:r IAssessment Procedj'e.

2 Classification accoidmg to "Soil

i MyC'iC Sc.i Assussmen: Pioc«C-'« and the Pis"! Communrty

U-2

£nO..OH •——*•«"____„_

E-2

Field Investigators).Project/Site:

DATA FORMROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1

___________________ Date: ...... . ^County _LA V»W_

Applicant/Owner: J^Slate: -X»°- .

Plant CommuniTy «/Nama: _IJLNota: K a more detailed silt* description is necessary, use tho back ol data lorm or a lit-kj notebook.

Do normaLjepviionmt«ntal conditions exist at the plant community?Yes No ___ (H no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signilicantly disturbed''Yes ___ No _"S (H yes. explain on back)

T-^ * /

\J^')


VEGETATIONIndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plnnt Species

IndicatorStatus Strain-

****** (a-m- - rv-j t-ffrvu-**-. 1V*C<0*~ n«•* 2 $"'^y t^Lftu(\_ O&C i'

•» U'v-*.^ . »rVic <^ fV£ n14

**"* 5 w^PMHPO1 Sf - 1 '=>' t>- 1 1 *» "4t i*) i<;- , ;. 6. f- " 3-»» " tf H -,! ^vajTA i f AC -

799

10. ... .. ... -. ... . .Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW.Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? YesRationale:

16i7ifi10

?n

and/or F AC / OO?-• No

*

____.. , j

SOILSSeries/phase: 2 *T

No UndeterminedIs the soil on the hydric soils list? YesIs the soil a Hislosol? Yes ___ No L^ Histic epipedon present? YesIs the soil: Mottled? Yes _ No LX" Gleyed? Yes ___ NoMatrix Color:

W **>?'«No

Mottle Colors:Other hydric soil indicators: ————————;——————————Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes IX No _____Rationale: inre4^ ctivQ-» i* <? v ? i-r» I _<

yIs the ground surface inundated? YesIs the soil saturated? Yes %x No ___Depth to free-standing water in pn/soil probe hole: __________List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGY

No ___ Surface water depth: rr\c ''»

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes *^ NoRationale: _____ _____________.!.._ __..._

Is the plant community a woiland? YBSRationale lor junsdiCtional d<«c:r-'On _ .


No

' This data form can be ustiJ (of lri« Hydric Soil Assossn^enl Pfoc»Oui« and thw Plant Commur.:Assessment Procwdum

' Classilicalion acco'dmg to "Soi! Taxonomy

B-2

DATA FORMROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD*

Field Im/««ligal0f(0 PS. M f ffl S _____________________ ^__ Date: __. .Project/Site: — A-CS. ————————————————— Stale: IN ——— CountyApplicant/Owner : — SJLe —————————————— Plan, Community «/Name:Note: H a more dAiai'ed site description is necessary, use the back ol data lorm or a (ink) notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes ___ No ___ (It no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No __• __ {II yes. explain on back)


Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stra:_rr

1 Quevt us "* '^¥t. ^&Cty

-A £i ,t.i.-*.j,.-..-tff -p-/i C>«; OoP'-L*'- .-vv .v t_r '•'">' ; -PAC ~~6 Vi - f i ^ 6\ & 4r t I/.M / 1 <» J: >JCH7 5t'/ilr?& 'f»]\=>o^. f$'(kf'*'89. . .

10

^

1213M15 _16. - .... .. -17191990

Percent ol dominant species that are OBL. FACW. anoVpr FAC & Q * Îs the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes is No ___Rationale: —————————————————————,———————————————————

•B*; /s r sotLSSeries/phase: riatrtVrielcl 4-iê 'Se^nA*_______Subgroup:2 -Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes ___ No *•""' Undetermined '_______Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No i-"" Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ NoIs the soil: Monted? Yes No ___ Gteyed? Yes ___ No ___Matrix Color: H)1Q-jf£ Daftg. b'PMft Mottle Colors: ______________Other hydric soil indicators: —————————————————————.._.-.————.....___..Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ____Rationale: ______=__________

HYDROLOGYIs the ground surface inundated? Yes ^ No \jS Surface water depth:Is the soil saturated? Yes ___ No */Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probo hoto:.List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ___ NoRationale: ____ ____ ._ _ _ ___ .


Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ___ No _____Rationale lor I'jMsdic'ônai U«'C:?ion _ _._ _ — .._ ——— _.. .. .._.._._._ —— .. _ —— . „

1 This data loim can be-rs«d to> triw Hyd'ic Soil Assessment ProceOuie and Ih» Plant CommunryAssessment Procedure

*• Classrtication accoiding to "Soil Tanoocmy."


Fmid InvBsligaiorfs) f\ , N> / ft\ £ ___________________ DataProject/Site: PtC^. ———————————————— Stale: lXN> Count/Applicant/Owner: —— C-i A ————————————— Plant Community »/Name: _ NNote: If a mote detailed silt> d«sc'iption is necessary, use the back ol data lorm or a link) notebook.

Do normal environmtintal conditions exist at the plant community?Yes \_X No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signilicantly disturbed?Yes ___ No _ ___ (If yes. explain on back)


Dominant Plant Species _____ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species ___ __ Status Sir_:_.-r~ "

Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes ___ No _Rationale: ———————————————————————————

I SOILSSeries/phase: ennifr -I i*t Ct+^A_________g.,hg,n.,p zTLaitIs the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes ___ No f UndeterminedIs the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No u^ Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ NoIs the soil: Mottled? Yes___ No ___ Gleyed? Yes ___ No ___

^Q Matrix Color: f-STK—*//fc S-* f » h»-n?r>— Mottle Colors: _____________Other hydric soil indicators: ———~- —_____Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ___ NoRationale: _____________________

HYDROLOGYIs the ground surface inundated? Yes ___ No ^^^ Surface water depth:Is the soil saturated? Yes ___ No C**"Depth to free-standing water in pr./soil prob« hole:List other fietd evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ___ NoRationale: _________ _..__..__...._._.....___... _


Is the plant community a wotland' Yes ___ No _____R.ilionale lor juiisdic'ional o<»c^r.ior' _... . ___.__ _ ..

1 This data form can bt> USHJ IIM HH. Hyo.-ic Soil Assossnioni frocuvlure and the PlaniAssossment Procadum

tic:-. acco'ding \? "i>:ji. ra«

Fmld lnva«ligalor(s)Project/She:Applicant/Owner:

£DATA FORM

ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1

I ft\ DataCoun

Plant Community »/Nam«: _Note: R a more .detailed site description is necessary, use the back ol data lorm or a li*W notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes *— •" No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No ^ (H yes. explain on back)


VEGETATIONIndicator L&Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species

IndicatorS'.aius

'.OLM/lv

Percent ol dominant species thai are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes ___ No i/Rationale:

/• **if o . .

Series/phase: - ft)"A •?._.'' , !L_eIs the soil on the hydric soils list?Is the soil a Histosol? YesIs the soil: Mottled7 . YesMatrix Color: tO Y& V/?SH

f C.OL-

YesNo LNo

! ifHuuui

SOILS ^td. Subgroup:2 '$("£•

No *-*^^ Undeterminedx^Histic epipedon present? Yes

Gleyed? Yes No\fr-t Mottle Colors:

•

Utf(.p Sa.*O

No

-•Vi jiA- >.i

Other hydric soil indicators:Is the hydric soil criterion met?Rationale:

Yes No _\f

Is the ground surface inundated?Is the soil saturated? Yes ___

HYDROLOGY.No \s^ Surface water deplh.

Deplh to Iree-standing water in ph/soil probe hole:List other field evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is (he wetland hydrology criterion met?Rationale: . _____________

Yes No


Is the plant community a wetland? YesRaticnaie !

No

1 This daia lorm can be used (or !fu» Hydnc Soil Assossmeni Procedure and th« P:.-int CcAssessmont Procedure.

? Classr!ca!ior. according to "Soil Tancnomy "

D-2

Field Invesligatorjs)^Project/Site:-Applicant/Owner:.

DATA FORMROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'

State:Date:Count

Plant Community */Name,ountY_ Jt'TTfetS-___--: __ISv. • ~__.__._.____

Note: It a mote oV,ai!»d site description is necessary. us« the back ol dala form or a fibld notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes ___ No ___ (H no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed9

Yes ___ No ___ (II yes. explain on back)


VEGETATIONIndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plant Species

Percent ol dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes «"** No _Rationale: ————————————————————————————

T7 V

Series/phase:Is the soil on the hydric soils list? tfes"Is the soil a Histosol? Yes _ NoIs the soil: Mottled? YesMatrix Color:

Nod..<t!

SOILS5&&S&—ScbQroup:2 -

No ___ UnceierminedHistic epipedon present? Yes

^Gleyed? Yes___ No

IndicatorStatus Stratum

No

Mottle Colors:Other hydric soil indicators: — - — — - — - — —Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes <s NoRationale: «.fe4*> Cr»-/r»f-a; . - f i ^ f ^

Is the ground surface inundated?/ Yes __Is the soil saturated? Yes */ No , "

HYDROLOGY

No Y Surface water depth:

Depth to Iree-standing water in pri/soil p:oou hole: ________List other lield evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes __Rationale: _________ _._ ... ..._. _. _

No

JURISDICT1ONAL DETERMIt4AT1ON AND RATIONALE

Is the plant community a wotland? Yes ___ NoRationale to'ju'isciciionai dwcision ,. _ —___. . .

1 This data fcim cpf b« us«d lo< Itui Mydric Soil A»sossment Prococure and lr>e Plant Commur.r.yAssessrtu«ni PrcK.wduie.

2 Classrtc.ition acco.-dingto "Soil Ta»onomy."

B-2

f

< o

\\

Field InvestigatProJDCt/Site:Applicant/Owner:


Dale

CouPlant Community */Name:

unto

Note: H a more detailed site description is necwss.vy. use the back of data (orm or a liokj notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plan) community?Yes -^ No ___ (If no, explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ^ No ___ (H yes. explain on back)

Dominant Plant Species1 )%p«i.lv|Ci 4-vt«ti&.ejV(2 Qy>f>*t<at .«« 1 u br- // t3 6 .££/•£/ ft £<r*~A fl, l,f 1 .l4lV>0L.

«; iP^iiS tfc'pf- Miirt/i.15 ( «./•,•<:*<; S^ot.tmjL&s^L7 fl-flrr\n /v \Q\j4, 'f-c>iti^ j Lcjc ->x« itjvc*.9 ^yi'.U. Si.i & v- li.u'ju.Jtiv-'t

10 f*tlA*>5 Ra/vi.t/' »r*r»

VEGETATIONIndicator IndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status S:ra:--^**c

•MC^nofl*-,10 f<Q-r.i.'.e^/K^lOcTVl.

- ^&^f&*lHh/)t,

Percent of dominant species that are OBI. FACW.Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? YesRationale:

11 f.i-.f .,t.., r^ftfi.mvr AO*V- . •;';/.. . •12 VJfwU«»fa^ ^rttjUi/i ^0*14- fe^-) Li»?»«"ii n-jjiL-ft^n ^j* A tj+rf-r.* Ulfl.laM.tA.' ^^L— 0

\i. " ? J

\*.Ifi17

1B

19?n

and/or FAC | 0^/0No

Series/phase:

Is the soil:Matrix

\f\'SOILS

Ihe hydric soils list?istosol? Yesottled2 Yes

ioil indicators: ———

YesNoNo

—————————— - ———— —— —————— wu<^^-wuK. —— -J—f ——————— —— — ——— ——— ' —— . ————————— . ————————

No ^^ UndeterminedHistic epipedon present? Yes NoGleyed? Yes No

Mottle Colors:

Is the hydric soil criterion met?Rationale: ___________

Yes No

Is the ground surface inundated? YesIs the soil saturated? Yes ___ N o _ _Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probo hole: _______List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLpGYNo \/ Surface water depth:

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesRationale: ______________..__

No


Is the plant community a wulland? YHSRationale lor juiiscic'iona! d<«ci'-'0n . ._

No

1 Thts dala form can be used lor !h« Hydric So<l Assossnien: Procedure and th«Assessment Procedure.

?Classrticaiion according to "Soi1 Ta»oncmy."

ini Community

0-2


Field Investigatos!; j3L-_>?j3LS_________________ Date:Coun

Applicant/Owner. ————CrT*^__________ Plant Community •/Name. _JNote: H a more detailed sit* description is necessary, use the back ot data lorm or a fivld notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes ___ No _____ (If no, explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No ____ (H yes. explain on back)


Dominant Plant Species_____ Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stra:..^11

.._ 12.<fttL(J /cryvr<|lrpo- €/>••'OU'\l£i.v.<vitM

1 I™— '*"'" ' ~f

Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC 100^Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes */ No ___Rationale: ————————————————————————————————————

SOILSSeries/phase: CIs the soil on the hydric soils list? %s *-""^ No ___ Undetermined _________Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No i^- Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ No __Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No i^ Gleyed? Yes ___ No >-*"Matrix Color: AJ ?/^——f'? ]dlK————— Motile Colors: ______ _____Other hydric soil indicators: -Iia-l43J£--fe-Q£i ftlnxflf !STt,n\tAfi. ^Jj^LfJSLtvJ^i^lIs the hydric soil criterion met? Yes S *TJo ___ « ~*Rationale: v lief-I*. C^-.g.^.CL f e/*Ji-iJ>ts\i&*Jt________ _

HYDROLOGY ,\t>l'\ ~~ I +•Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ___ Surface water depth:

Is the soil saturated? Yes No ___Depth to free-standing water in ph/soil probe hole:List other tiekl evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met7 Yes L^ No _____Rationale: ___________________________._......__. __ ._„.. .

JURISDICTTONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE

Is the plant communit/ a wetland? YBS ___ No _____Rationale for juiisciClional d««c^sion. _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — ———— _.. ... _._.,....._._...... .

1 This d 'a form can be us«J Icr irw Hyri'ic Sod Assossmoni Piocwlure and the Plani CommunityAssessment Procedu'«

? ClassHication according lo "Soil Ta»cneniy."

B-2

?^~4


Field Invesligaiorfs). K>. /\J / rri>___________________ Date: _ . . ^__ProjecVSite:——ttC !5l ————————————— Slate: - 7° County Lr4.1.4:(S__Applicant/Owner: ————C "frT.————————— Plant Communiry »/Name: _.y .._ ... ____Noto: If a more detailed site doscriphon is necessary, use the back ol data form or a fifid notnbook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community7

Yes ___ No ___ (If no. explain on back)Has Ihe vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No ___ (H yes. explain on bach)


VEGETATIONIndicator IndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status S:rav_rr.

)Tu[fk& <2/»QU<«{l [{ G* b\o) 112 V "3.A

5.6.7.8.9

10.Percent of dominant species thatIs Ihe hydrophyte vegetation crh«Rationale:

1213 • ' -

^51617181920

are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC 1 O O&irion met? Yes v No

SOILS ,Series/phase: /l\UU>T\l*g fflAns^ Vi^ Sgoivg Subgroup:2 .Is (he soil on Ihe hydric soils list? Yes \*/ No ___ UndeterminedIs the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No i/ Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ NoIs the soil: Mottled? Yes No_U_Gleyed? Yes___ No.Matrix Color: fJ 2JQ— b|*>t.fc______ Mottle Colors.Other hydric soil indicators: UAN 4.E./.- L^CT^C f ______Is the hydric soil criterion ma{? Yes _Rationale: »>g&^ f^\ /"<>-wvC^ r- **' *•<?>•> 6L-

Is the ground surface inundated? Y«sIs the soil saturated? Yes ___ No

/ HYDROLOGY

* No___ Surface water depth: .fa

Depth to jree-standing water in pit/soil probo hoi*: _______^O List other lield evidence of surface inundation or soil salur.v.ion.

^ —————————————————Is the wetland hydrology criterion met' Yes <^ NoRationale: ______________._ _. _______


Is Ihe plant community a wetland? Yes ___ No.Rationale lor jurisdictions! d«»cision _ . ___ ___

1 This dala form can be used tor th« Hydnc Soil Assessment Procedure and-:-he Plant CommunryAssessment Procedure.

2 Classification according to "Soil Tanoncmy "

B-2

FieldProject/Site:Applicant/Owner:.


» Kjlt/Yki______________ Date:f———————————State: j£~___ County:

Plant Community »/Name: ^.Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back ol data lorm or a Imld notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant communrty?Yes ___ No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils/, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes v-" No _-__ (If yes. explain on back)



Percent of dominant spades that are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes -J___ No _

)=» Rationale: ————————————————————————————

IndicatorStatus

"Yu

^ I ?'•>''•> • ' • •4- i t -^Series/phase: ————————————^_Is the soil on the hydric soils list? YesIs the soil • Histosol? Yes ___ NoJIs the soil: Mottled? Yes__ .NoMatrix Color:'Other hydric soil indicators:

SOILS\^L———Subgroup:2 ____ Undetermined _

His tic epipedon present? YesGleyed? Yes ___ No _O

Mottle Colors:

No

Is the hydric soil criterion met? YesRationale: ...i ..

No

0

Is the ground surface inundated? YesIs the soil saturated? Yes ___ No ___Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: _______List other field evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGYNo ___ Surface water depth.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesRationale:._________________..

No


Is the plant community a wetland? Yes _Rationale lor jurisdictions! d««cir->on _.._...

No

1 This data lorm can be used lor th« Hydnc Soil Assessment Procedure and ih» Plant Communr.yAssessment Procedure

* Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy "

D-2

Field lnve«iiQaiQf(QProject/Site: — ttCApplicant/Owner:


> _________________ Dale:Slate: L6^—— County:

P.'*"' Community »/Nam«: _ . .V'nNote: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data lorm or a nW notebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at (he plant community''Yes ___ No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signilicantly disturbed9

Yes No {II yes. explain on back)



<Pbl ____ P

IndicatorStatus Stratum

iQx£>

. ___ .—-*O ^Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC f / ^Q

Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion mel? Yes ^" No ___Rationale: ————————————————————————————————————————

n/ /'iCO.' o

SOILS -No UndeterminedIs the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes

Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No *- Hist'c epipedon present? YesIs the soil: Mottted? Yes No <- Gleved? Yes ___ No_^Matrix Color: K y P——# /fe<tt<————— Monle Colors: _______Other hydric soil indicators: —————Is the hydric soil criterion met? YesRationale: ' '. ^4& C':*.^-K.~

No

No

-^777^ *-/•--

Is the ground surface inundated? Yes __Is Ihe soil saturated? Yes v No ___Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: •______List other Held evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGY

No y* Surface water depth:

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesRationale: __________ . _.__... .._.._

No


Is Ihe plant community a wetland7 YBS ___ No .Rationale lor jurisdiclional cJ«»cision _. .„..___———

1 This data lorm can be used foi llie-Hyouc Soil Assessment Piocedure and the Plant CommunityAssessment Procedure.

Classification according to "Soil Ta»0'iomy."

D-2

Fiold lfwaaliQalorProject/She:


———Applicant/Owner: ———— £-- "/t

Slate: ——Plant Community »/Name: Q.

Hale: ^County: L* A fctZ

Note: If a more detailed she description is necessary, use the back ol data form or notMboo*.

Do normalenvironm*nial conditions exist at the plant community?_ NoYes (If no. explain on back)

Has the vegetation. soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No ^ (If yes, explain on back)

.._>



Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACVV, and/or FACIs the hydrophylic vegetation criterion met? Yes ___ No ___Rationale: —————————————————————————————__

_-*\ 0 't

Series/phase:Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Is the soil a Histosol? YesIs the soil: Mottled .Matrix Color:Other hydric soil indicators: ——Is the hydric soil criterion met?Rationale: ___________

NoC>' c..Kg.?..p-2

UndeterminedV

IndicatorStatus

VA p /CvJ

A (,

Histic epipedon present? YesGleyed? Yes ___ No 3*

No

Motile Colors:

1 5>

Yes No

Is the ground surface inundated!/ Yes __Is the soil saturated? Yes is No ___Depth to free-standing water in ph/soil probe hole: _______List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGYNo L^ Surface water depth:

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesRationale: _______________

No

JURISDICTiONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE

Is the plant community a wetland? YesRationale for jurisdictional dwcision _. _ -

No

1 This data form can be used lor the Hycrc Soil Assessment Procedure and the Planl CommunryAssessment Procedure.

2 Classification according to "Soil Ta»oiomy.'

B-2

DATA FORM-j ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1

Field InveslinaiorQtV jf\ • Al 11Y\ S___________________ paleProjed/Site:———HW 3 ^ tjB—————————————— State:-HAL— County: L-jfApplicant/Owner: —Note: H a more detailed situ description is necessary

Plant Community */Nam«: -j)->_-.._.——. ____y, use the back ol data form or a^Wtd notebook.

Do normal efwironmnntal conditions exist at the plant community?Yes __#f_No___ (If no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?Yes ___ No i~^ (If yes. explain on back)


Dominant Planl Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species ____ Status Stratum

2. j^vAft 'cU* Vt f» *-!«"»»" " • • " • - 13.

15c~ * » - » • » » _6.

l/'t,i QtSt "»\;S fACU IZZZ IB'9. C/a [-f-fi^X QHfUJ>{YL^_ OV> I ' ____ 19.

Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes "^ No _Rationale:.———_________________________

SOILS '•''--' <•••*. ' ' ^ \ * 'L X±f.

IS the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes___ No ^ Undetermined.Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No ___ Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ NoIs the soil: Mottled? Yes __ No ___ Gteyed? Yes ___ No ___Matrix Color: IO VK 2/1 ________ Mottle Colors: ______________Other hydric soil indicators: ——————————————————————-- ———————— -—Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ___ No X.Rationale: *Tv "- v^rc.* C 4 u^-K .d^vjup; n_ .o ^ c-*--\\Aj:\.iyahtaj./foi *>£ faMra;.-:v ijpj. ' ' •*

HYDROLOGY

Is the ground surface inundated? Yes _____ No t^ Surface water depth:Is the sofl saturated? Yes ___ No \/Depth to Iree-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: ___________________List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ___ No _u_Rationale:___________________________..


Is the plant community a wetland? Yes ___ NoRationale lor jurisdiction*! cl««os>on ___ _______

1 This data lorm can be usod lc< thin Hyd'ic Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant CommunityAssessment Procedum

2 Classification according to ~So>l Taxonomy.'

B-:

Field InvestigatorProject/Site:Applicant/Owner:

__fc-r n


Date: ..Count; _

"State.

P.'ant Community «/Name:. _Nora: M a more dntaiied silts description is necessary, use the back ol daia lorm or a4fetd notebook

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community''Yes «-^ No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signilicantly disturbed?Yes ___ No <_,- (II yes, explain on back)



IndicatorStatus Sira!;/

'-•A/i

\f\

Percent o< dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes -* NoRationale: —————————————————————

Series/phase: ————————————,-Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Y«sIs the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No _Is the soil: Mottled? Yes ___ No^.Matrix Color:

SOILSi (X.

Other hydric soil indicators: —————Is the hydric soil criterion met? YesRationale:

— Subgroup:2 -_ No ___ Undetermined __ Histic epipedon present? YesGleyed? Yes ___ No fa^

— Mottle Colors. _______

t. p/Q ut

No

Not\-.i-l.

HYDROLOGYNoIs the ground surface inundated? Yes

Is the soil saturated? Yes ___ No ___Depth to tree-standing water in ph/soil probe hole: _______List other lie Id evidence ol surlace inundation or soil saturation.

Surface water depth:

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? YesRationale: ____________ _. —— ._.

No


Is the plant community a wetland7 Yes ___ No _____Rationale lor juiisdiciional d««cision — ————— —————.. _, _

' This data torm can be us«0 tor U>*« Hyd'ic Soil Assessment Piocodur« and the Plant CommunryAssessment Procndu'n.

2Classitication according to "Soil Taxonomy."

Field Investigator(s):ProjecVSite: —— /W £'',SNote' It a more detailed site

DATA FORMPOUT1NE OMSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'

\\ £.Mlir'VlS nat«-» ———————————— State: Jl/S! —— County _LAX.f£ —— ...

description is n««c»ssnry. use tfie bacK ol data (orm or a iiwTTnotebook.

Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant communny?Yes \S No ___ (II no. explain on bacX)Has Ihe vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology boen signilicanlly disturbed7

Yes ___ No 4,.- (If yes, explain on back)

-i

Dominant Plant S;*»CIQS

VEGETATIONIndicatorStatus Stratum Dominant Plant Speciest*___ 7;

IndicatorStatus Strat-jrv.

-.$/ S . ____ 12.-fl.kL ..._._ 13I /t 1 1 A

^L _i /»c c.£

'<•)

2.

4.5

6.7.8.9.

10.Percent of dominant species that are O8L. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes ___ No *jRationale: ————————————————————————————.

_.. .__— 17._ ____ 18._ ____ 19.

U V ' <

p/ i J • •'Series/phase: [ itf.'m 'HH : •'•Is Ihe soil on the hydrc soils list?Is the soil a Histosol? YesIs the soil: Mottled? YesMatrix Color:

• ".-•,

YesNo ^No —

, S>OILi ^ -\

No *^ UndeterminedHistic epipedon present? Yes NoGleyed? Yes No w^

Motile ColorsOther hydric soil indicators: ————————Is the hydric soil criterion met?Rationale: J[

Yes No. • -

\rb r-.l <•/ •

Is the ground surface inundated? Yes __Is the soil saturated? Yes ___ No ^Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: _______List other fiek) evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGY

No *^ Surface water depth: TtTC-T

Is the wetland hydrology criterion met7 Yes __Rationale: ___.____.____ ...._._ ..._

No

Is the plant community a wetland7 Y«s ___Rationale for jurisdictional2. ', 4*ri Sfa i&

JURISOICT1ONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE

No *S. LIT.. %

V .This data lo'm can be used tor !rie H- -Jiic Soil Assossmenl Procedure and the Plant Ccmmunr.y

Assessment Procedure.Classification according to "Soil Ta»coorny "

0 2

-y

D A T A FORMROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1

. . __ ._ _. ____ __ . _ _ _ .ProjwcVSrt*: — oC.5.-_^j-. . . . _ _ . . . . _ —— Slate. j^-AJ. ... County

m: . . . . . . . frl. . _ . . . ._. . . . . ._ Plant Community ».N,tm.4W a mo'« o«t!ri"t«U Mie rt«isc;'ption is ncciss.uy us* !fto back ol O.i!d lt)'"\ Of a

[>o normal environmental ccn<ii',ions mis! at ;he plan; comrminny''Yt-s t>- _ No ___ (II no. Mxplain on back)Mas the vegetation, soils, anrt'ot hydrology buen significantly disturbed''Yes ___ No fc-""' (II yes. »«plain on back)


Dominant Plant Species S'.aius S'r;iium Dornin;in! Pl.ir.; Sp«?cins S:.i!us S:ra:-...-

" " ~ " " ' "

13. _____..__._

7. .___._... _

Percent ol dominant species that are DEL. FACW. and/or FACIs the hydrophyte vegetation crrtenon met' Yes \/ NoRationale:

SOILSSeries/phase: I''Cmti'ttf '. &-v-j-(>tK W*-*->——————Subgroup:2 "Ujp/ C- Viftf• la g-C* J" >'Is the soil on the hydric soils list9 Yes <-* No ___ Undetermined ___________Is the soil a Histosol? Yes ___ No _______ Histic epipedon present? Yes ___ No _____Is the soil: Mottted? Yes ___^ No \~____ Gleyed? Yes ___ No ________Matrix Color: r^ "2/P tf /A.C/^~ Mo;tle Colors: ____________________Other hydric soil indicators:—--- - ... ....__ ....... . . . _ . . ._ . ._____Is the hydric soil criterion met9 Yos _^__ No ______Rationale: n x '• Glir!.t/-y;/]u /LCC/K\L'/»M

HYDROLOGY

Is the ground suflacu mundatoO9 Yos __ No >C Surlace wa'ar dopth. ————————--Is the soil saturated? Yes {^ No _ _Depth to Iree-standmg water m pn'so«l ;yo:» Mole: __._....________. ....... .. ____.L'S! o'.her lieW evidence ol s;jr1aco ir.ur.j.ii.on or soil sa'urdlico

Is the wetlanc hydrology cnltirion nmi7 Yos __cX_ NcRationalu . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .

JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ANO RATIONALE

Is the plant conimunily a wt'tl.mc9 Yes No _

1 Thi>, da:a Icr.'n cnn be us«>.1 li:< :••>•• ll,i:-;i :>c I AiSussniun: tYic»;<»r.'-:rii am) in« PlantAssessrr.i»n; Piooedu'H

?Classrlcn;iCf aa-.O'dm,; ic "S'. '.I.-M •:•,'

DATA FORMROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD'

f'lOJOI

Appli<Hole:

IrwBStigatorte) I> . I\I tYT\-*>n/Sne" —— a^S---- -- —————————:antADwner: C* r r» P

It a mo'e detailed site description is necessary.

Pain __,

Slate: ^t ^ County . ./L~fi ^ fe?_lant Community »/Name: JSL 5_ - • - - - - - -use the back ot data loim or a TitTkJ notebook

Do notmal environmental conditions exist at the plant community?Yes ___ No ___ (II no. explain on back)Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signilicanlly disturbed''Yes ___ No _ __ (II yes, explain on back)


VEGETATIONIndicator 'Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species

IndicatorStatus St.-av.n-

11.12.

16.17.18.

A (^ . Percent of dominant species that are OBL. FACW. and/or FAC" \^~^ Is the hydrophyte vegetation criterion met? Yes \/ No _^j Rationale: ——————————————————————————————

Is the soil on the hydric soils list?Is the soil a Hislosol? Yes ___ NoIs the soil: Mottted? Yes ___ NoMatrix Color: M Zf&

*>Q, rVlU V-j -,'.{

? Vei }/

SOILS-2 l

_ No ___ Undetermined _' Histic epipedon present? Yes": Gleyed? Yes ___ No J;— Mottle Colors: ________

Other hydric soil indicators: ————-—•——Is the hydric soil criterion mel? Yes Rationale: (.< v>£i frig, --fo yWtr.M.%

No-J.Vi.-iV/'ft'. *

No

'' <v V^C-'

JIs the ground surface inundated? YesIs the soil saturated? Yes ___ No ___Depth lo Iree-standing water in ph/soil probe hole: _______List other lieW evidence ol surface inundation or soil saturation.

HYDROLOGYNo ___ Surlace water depth:

. ,P " ' ' 'T C t\ €$___.

Is the wetland hydrology criterion mel? YesRationale: ________ .._.._..._ . _ . ...

No


Is the plant community a wotland7 YHS __ _ No _ ___Rationale lor junsdic'iof-al d<«cision . ... _ ... ..__._.. .

This data lorm can be used lor Ifm Hydnc Scii Assossmon! Pio.;m!iji« and the Plan; CommunryAssessment Piocedum

^ Classilication accoidmg Jo "Soil Taxonomy "

B-2

United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN *EPLY "'" T0:

BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE (ES)718 North Walnut Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47401(812)334-4261

June 5, 1990

Mr. Robert Swale (5 HS-11)U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of SuperfundWaste Management Division230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Mr. Swale:

Enclosed is the Wetlands delineation report for the American Chemical Services sitein Griffith, Indiana, performed under IAG-DW14934313-0.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Robin Nims at FTS332-4269.

Sincerely yours ,

David C. HudakSupervisor

Wetlands Delineation at American ChemicalServices Hazardous Waste Site,

Griffith, Indiana. IAG-DW14934313-0

Robin A. NimsFish and Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service718 North Walnut StreetBloomington, Indiana

May 1990

Table of Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Wetland I

Wetland II

Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Additional Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Figures Page

Figure 1. National Wetland Inventory map in the vicinity of the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana. USGS Highland Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 2. Preliminary wetland boundaries transcribed from 1984aerial photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 3. U.S. Soil Conservation Survey-Lake County. Plate Number 21 . . . . 6

Figure 4. Representative observation areas for vegetation sampling . . . . . 8

Figure 5. Wetland designations at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . 11

Figure 6. Approximate locations and classifications of additionalwetlands located near the ACS site, east across CoifaxAvenue, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

List of Tables Page

Table 1. Typical Profiles for Maunee loamy fine sand (hydric)and Plainfield fine sand (non-hydric) in Lake County,Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Results of the technical criteria test for 21 representativeobservation areas at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . 10

Table 3. List of vegetation species collected on April 10-11, 1990 at theACS site, Griffith, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 4. List of Wildlife species observed utilizing the wetlandhabitats at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana.April 10-11, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11

Summary

At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service conducted a wetlands delineation for site wetlands potentiallyimpacted by contaminants originating at the American Chemical Services (ACS)hazardous waste site.

Office review and field surveying indicated numerous wetlands exist at the ACS site,many of which are not identified on the National Wetland Inventory. The diversityof wetland types present provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species.

INTRODUCTION

The American Chemical Services (ACS) Superfund site is located in Griffith, Indianaon the outskirts of the*city's southeast side. The site was placed on the NationalPriorities List in 198 res a result of investigations into chemical disposalpractices on the site. ACS operates as a chemical/solvent recovery facility, whichalso has a limited chemical manufacturing operation. During the course of itsoperations, ACS dumped and otherwise disposed of unrecoverable solvents on theproperty, in addition to transporting waste to the adjacent Griffith City Landfill.Kapica Drum, Inc. also allegedly disposed of drum-cleaning residues on ACS property.These 3 sites total 52 acres and jointly comprise the official ACS site.

The National Wetland Inventory (Figure 1) indicates numerous and extensive wetlandswithin a 1-mile radius of the ACS site to the southwest, south, southeast, east, andnortheast. There is an extensive wetland complex adjacent to the northwest boundaryof the site. These wetlands are dissected and bordered by the Grand Trunk WesternRailroad lines, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad lines, and the abandoned Erie-Lackawanna Railroad lines. The wetlands to the north of the Grand Trunk Westernlines were not within the project boundary limits, however, they are likelyhydraulically connected. The NWI map classifies this wetland complex as palustrine,emergent, semi-permanent/plaustrine emergent, seasonally flooded. The entirecomplex is approximately 78 acres, however, only 50.5 acres were included in thepresent delineation.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project were:

1. To ground-truth and verify wetlands delineated on the National Wetland Inventorymaps.

2. To identify other wetland areas not included in the National Wetland Inventory.

3. To identify dominant vegetation in the various wetland areas.

4. To assess relative value of the various wetland habitats for fish and wildliferesources.

METHODS

The methods utilized in this delineation are outlined in the Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). Because of the relativehomogeneity of the site, the soils assessment procedure was selected. Prior to thefield work, an office review was conducted to preliminarily outline the area inquestion. Due to the unavailability of the most recent aerial photographs thepreliminary boundaries were outlined from a 1984 photograph, obtained from the EPAproject manager. Based upon the field inspection, the 1984 photograph was accuratewith the exception of approximately 5 additional acres lost to the Griffith Landfilloperation.

«63 'Sr JOHN*•-:f V , .'-

R 9 «

FIGURE 1. National Wetland Inventory map in the vicinity of the American ChemicalService site, Griffith, Indiana. USGS Highland Quadrangle. Cross-hatchedarea is ACS.

4.

To transfer information from the aerial photograph, a clear plastic overlay wasattached and the information transcribed. Points along the visual perimeter of thewetland were randomly selected and their compass bearings recorded to assist infield location. Location of the points followed the general contour of the visualperimeter and were arbitrarily located from 88 to 282 feet apart based upon a scaleof 1 inch (in) - 25 millimeters (mm) - 220 feet (ft), 1 mm - 8.8 ft.

The preliminary map generated in the office (Figure 2) was used in the fieldreconnaissance flagging effort. In the field, point A was located on ground by itsposition relative to the railroad track embankment and the tree row in the uppernorthwest corner of the study area. Based upon the preliminary map, point fi waslocated with the use of a Suunto HC-1 mirror compass and was measured off with atape measure 220 feet S 66 E of point A. All other points were located and measuredoff in the same manner. Orange flags were placed at each point, and pink flags wereplaced every 55 feet to assist in maintaining the proper bearing alignment.

During the office review and map preparation a copy of the U.S. Soil ConservationService Soil Survey for Lake County, Indiana (1972) was consulted to determine thepresence or absence, and locations of hydric soils. The Lake County Indiana Surveysheet number 21 (Figure 3) indicates the majority of the area in question consistsof Haumee loamy fine sand, interspersed with areas of Plainfield fine sand, Vatsekaloamy fine sand, and a small section of Tawas muck. The Haumee loamy fine sand andTawas muck are classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the SoilConservation Service (1986) as hydric soils. To aid in the identification of thedifferent soil types in the field, the soil profiles for Maumee loamy fine sand andPlainfield fine sand were recorded (Table 1). Because the soil sample probes weretaken to a depth of 18 inches, only the first 3 incremented intervals were noted.Soil samples were collected at each point with a 21 inch Hoffer Soil Sampler probe.The soil samples were observed in the field and the lowest 3 inches were collectedin whirl-pak bags for later comparisons to the Munsell Soil Color charts. Areaspossessing standing water did not yield soil samples due to wash-out upon extractionof the probe. In these instances the whirl-pak bag containing the point locationtags were transported back to the office empty.

Representative observation areas (Figure 4) were selected .based upon severalfactors. In addition to selecting areas that met the hydric soil criterion,representative observation areas that had apparent characteristics, but were notidentified on the National Wetland Inventory map were also chosen. The plantcommunities were characterized, and the percent areal cover of the dominant speciesin the communities were visually estimated. Samples of the dominant vegetation ateach of the representative areas were collected in 8 gallon plastic bags andtransported to the office for later identification. A list of references used isincluded in Appendix 1. Once the vegetation was identified the information was •recorded on field data forms and the indicator status of the species was obtainedfrom the National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Indiana (1988). Awetland determination was then made for each representative observation area basedupon the 3 mandatory technical criteria; hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, andwetland hydrology, as outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and DelineatingJurisdictional Wetlands. The information obtained in the survey was used to preparethe final map of the site wetlands.

(

FIGURE 2. Preliminary wetland boundaries transcribed from 1984 aerial photograph. (Reduced 64%)

6.

FIGURE 3. U.S. Soil Conservation Survey-Lake County. Plate number 21.area is ACS. Shaded areas are hydric soils.

Cross-hatched

Table 1. Typical, Profiles for Maumee loamy fine sand (Hydrlc) andPlainfield fine sand (Non-hydric) in Lake County, Indiana.

7.

Maumee loamy fine

Depth

0-9 inches

- 16 inches

16-21 inches

sand

Color

Black

Black

Black

Plainfield fine sand

MunsellNotation

N 2/0

N 2/0

N 2/0

Depth

0-4 inches

4-6 inches

6-27 inches

Color

Dark Grey

Greyish brown

Yellowish brown

MunsellNotation

10 YR. 3/1

10 YR. 4/2

10 YR. 5/4

FIGURE 4. Representative observatioi areas for vegetation sampling. Cross-hatched area lost to landfill expansion^

( C

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 21 representative observation areas sampled, 13 met all 3 mandatory technicalcriteria for wetland determination (Table 2). Of the 8 areas that failed themandatory technical criteria test, N and H2 lacked all 3 criteria; M, R, S, and D2lacked the hydric soils and wetland hydrology criteria; C2 lacked hydrophyticvegetation criteria; and F2 lacked wetland hydrology criterion.

Wetland I

Wetland I is bounded by the Grand Trunk Western Railroad, the American ChemicalServices site, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. Based upon the results of thesurvey this area is more complex than the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) indicates(Figure 5). NWI shows this area as consisting of a large palustrine, emergent,semi-permanent mixed with seasonally flooded wetland. The NWI does not show any ofthe forested or scrub-shrub wetlands bordering the palustrine emergent area. Of the5 representative observation areas that did not meet the technical criteria forwetland determination all were transitional zones between the wetland-uplandinterface because of the presence of non-hydric soils at 4 of the 5 areas. All ofthe areas possessed hydrophytic vegetation, but the percentage of FACU and UPLexceeded the percentage of FAC, FACW, and OBL species only at area N. It should benoted that some species were collected at the various areas that did not haveindicator category designations; these species were not calculated into thepercentages.

Wetland II

Wetland II is bounded by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, the City of Griffithlandfill, and the abandoned Erie-Lackawanna Railroad bed. Wetland II, according tothe NWI is a palustrine, emergent, semi-permanent wetland. The various otherhabitat types surrounding it have been omitted from the official map.

This wetland area has been impacted due to past and present expansion of the City ofGriffith Landfill. Approximately 5 acres of emergent/scrub-shrub/forested wetlandon the north and southeast corners have been filled since the 1984 aerial photographwas taken. There is also a gravel road/turn-around that appeared to have beenrecently laid in the center of the palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded wetland(Figure 5). This was probably an illegal fill; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hasbeen notified.

There were 3 representative observation areas that did not meet the 3 technicalcriteria for wetland designation. These 3 areas, however, were placed along therailroad embankment, due to the location of a drainage ditch (approximately 5 feetdeep) lying between the railroad tracks and the wetland area to the south of theditch.

NATURAL RESOURCES

This field investigation indicated that the natural resources and natural resourcevalues of the wetland habitats are greater than originally suspected because of thediversity of habitat types present: emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested.

Table 2. Results of the technical criteria test for 21 representative observation areas at the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana.

Area

ABEGJMNR1RSUVWYC2D2F2H2N202Q2

Soil Series

Maumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loany fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandPlainfield fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee laomy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandPlainfield fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee loamy fine sandMaumee laomy fine sand

Hvdroohvtic Veeetat% OBL. FACW. FAG

85.5100.085.788.0

100.060.040.062.577.0100.0100.0100.083.377.040.050.060.040.0100.0100.060.0

Hvdric SoilYes No

XXXXX

XXX

XX

XXXXX

XX

XXXX

Wetland HvdroloevYes No

XXXXX

XXX

XX

XXXXX

XXX

XXX

Wetland DeterminationYes

XXXXX

X

XXXX

XXX

No

XXX

X

XXXX

FIGURE 5. Wetland designations at the ACS site, Griffith, Indiana. Cross-hatched area is location of the illegalservice road/turn-around fill.

12.

The vegetation of "marshes" is characterized by emergent aquatic plants growing inpermanent to semi-permanent shallow water. Also present are species of shallow openwater communities, as well as those found in sedge meadows and seasonally floodedbasins. Marshes are among the most productive of all wetlands for waterbirds andfurbearers, and can also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many species offish. Birds that use marshes for breeding and feeding include ducks, geese, rails,herons, egrets, terns, and many songbirds. Raptors such as the osprey, bald eagle,and northern harrier frequent marshes in search of prey. Important furbearersinhabiting marshes include beaver, muskrat, and mink. Excellent winter habitat canbe provided for upland wildlife, including ring-necked pheasant and easterncottontail (Eggers and Reed 1987).

The emergent wetlands in the centers of wetland areas I and II are predominated bycattails. A list of species collected can be found in Table 3. Cattail standsprovide important food and cover for wildlife. For example, the rhizomes are eatenby geese and muskrats. Muskrats also use the foliage to construct their lodges,which in turn can provide resting and nesting sites for waterbirds. Yellow-headedblackbirds, red-winged blackbirds, and marsh wrens build their nests in cattailvegetation. Wetland area I contains an open water area with a muskrat den and muchactivity in this area was apparent.

The transitional zones between the emergent areas and shrubby or forest areassupport hydrophytic vegetation on saturated but not inundated soils. Plantsoccurring in these areas include species found in other communities, such as theannuals of seasonally flooded basins, emergent aquatics of marshes, and invadingshrubs or trees, which are present as scattered, small individuals.

The transitional emergent zones are particularly important for their water qualityfunctions. Wildlife habitat is provided for many species including sandhill crane,ring-necked pheasant, common snipe, sedge wren, small mammals, and white-taileddeer. The composites found in these areas are an important fall and winter foodsource for songbirds.

Scrub-shrub wetlands are plant communities dominated by woody vegetation less than20 feet in height and with dbh's of less than 6 inches growing on saturated toseasonally flooded soils. They can be dominated by willows and/or red-osier, andsometimes silky (swamp) dogwood. These areas usually retain some of the forbs,grasses, and sedges of the transitional emergent zones. The vegetation in scrub-shrub wetlands possesses a variety of wildlife value. Willows are browsed by white-tail deer and eastern cottontails; red-osier dogwoods provide berries for song birdsand ruffed grouse and are browsed by deer and rabbits; and elderberry also providesberries for songbirds and ruffed grouse.

Forested wetlands are dominated by mature conifers or lowland hardwood trees. Theyare important for stormwater and flood retention, and also provide habitat forwhite-tailed deer, furbearers, songbirds, ruffed grouse, barred owl, and amphibians.The various wetland habitats at the American Chemical Services site are being usedby a variety of wildlife species, many of which were observed during thereconnaissance flagging visit, and the field survey visit (Table 4).

ADDITIONAL WETLANDS

At a meeting held by the U.S. EPA project manager on February 28, 1990, FWS wasrequested to observe the area immediately east of American Chemical Services,

13.

Table 3. List of Vegetation Species collected on April 10-11, 1990 at the ACS site,Griffith, Indiana.

Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Category

Aerimonia oarvifloraA. pubescensAmpelopsis arboreaApocvneum androsaemifoliumAronia arbuttfoliaBetula allegheniensis" Itha palustrisitis occidentalis

_*i>rnus ammonumC. stolontferaCorylus americanaCytisus scopariusDipsacus svlvestrisFragaria virginianaGalturn aparlneHamamelts virgianaLiquidambar styracifluaLudwigta glandulosaLyriodendron tulipiferaNyssa svlvaticaOnoclea sensibilisPopulus deltoidesPj. grandidentata

tremoidesunus pennsvlcanica

rteris esculentaOuercus alba0. bicolor0. coccinea0. palustris0 rubra0. velutinaRhus copellinaRiccia fluitansRicciocarpus natansRosa CarolinaR. multifloraIL nitidaRubus allegheniensisR. canadenstsR. hispidusR. villosaSalix discolorS. exigua

AgrimonyAgrimonyPeppervineSpreading dogbaneRed chokeberryYellow birchMarsh marigoldHackberrySwamp dogwoodRed-osier dogwoodHazelnutScotch broomTeaselCommon StrawberryBedstrawWitch hazelSweet GumLudwigiaTuliptreeTupeloSensitive fernCottonwoodLarge-tooth PoplarQuaking AspenPin cherryBraken fernWhite oakSwamp white oakScarlet oakPin oakNorthern red oakBlack oakDwarf sumacLiverwortLiverwortWild roseMulti-flora roseNortheastern roseHighbush blackberrySmooth backberrySwamp dewberryLow blackberryPussy willowSandbar willow

FAC+NoneNoneNoneNoneFACOBLFAC-FACW+FACWFACUNoneNoneFAC_FACUFACUFACWOBLFACU+FACW+FACWFAC+FACUFACFACUFACUFACUFACW+NoneFACWFACUNoneNoneNoneNoneFACU-FACUNoneFACU+NoneFACWNoneFACWOBL

14.

Table 3. List of Vegetation Species (Con't).

Scientific Name_________________Common Name__________________Indicator Category

Sambucus canadensls Elderberry FACW-Soltdago altissima Golden rod FACUSonchus arvensis Field sow-thistle FAC-Soiraea alba Meadow sweet FACW+S. latifolia Meadow sweet NoneStenantfrhjVTB Eraaipgym Featherbells FACThelypteris thelypteroides Marsh fern FACWTvpha angustifolia Narrow-leaf cattail OBL"A latifolia Broad-leaf cattail OBL

-rnus rubra Slippery elm FACVerfraffctfln thaspus Wooly mullein NoneVerbena urticifolia White vervain FAC+Viburr ffl prunifolixim Black haw • FACUVitis aestivalis Summer grape FACUV. vulpina Frost grape FACW-Xanthorhiza sinrolissima Yellowroot None

15.

Table 4. List of wildlife species observed utilizing the wetland habitats at theAmerican Chemical Services site, Griffith, Indiana April 10-11, 1990.

Scientific Name Common NameBIRDS

Apelaius phoeniceusAlx sponsaAnas platyrhynchosBranta canadensisCharadrius vociferusCorvus brachyrhvnchosDendrocopos pubescensD. villosaLarus spp.Phasianus colchicusRepulus satrapaRichmondena cardinalisSpinus tristis

Red-winged blackbirds (many)Wood ducks (1 pair)Mallard ducks (2 pairs)Canada geese (1 pair)Killdeer (1)Common crows (many)Downy woodpeckers (2)Hairy woodpeckers (1)Gulls (many)Ring-necked pheasant (1 male)Golden-crown kinglets (2)Cardinals (3)American goldfinches (1 pair)

MAMMALS

Procvon lotorOdocoileus virginianusOndatra zibethicusSvlvilaeus floridanus

Raccoon (tracks)White-tailed deer (tracks)Muskrats (3) & denEastern cottontails (4)

16.

adjacent to Coifax Road to determine if wetlands were present. This area was walkedduring the field reconnaissance flagging visit, which revealed various wetlands,some of which were not indicated on the NWI maps (Figure 6). There is a palustrine,emergent, semi-permanent wetland approximately 7 acres in size about 0.1 mile eastof Coifax Road, that is identified on the NWI map. The field check revealed thatthis wetland extends west and southward within 20-30 feet of .the roadway. Thesewetlands would be classified as a combination palustrine, emergent/scrub-shrubforested area with water regimes ranging between temporary, saturated, seasonal,seasonal saturated, and semi-permanent.

A wetland delineation was not conducted for this area, however, the soil survey mapsindicate that portions do contain hydric soils.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Highland area of Lake County is represented by many federal and state species ofspecial emphasis/concern, in addition to several federal threatened and endangeredspecies. An annotated list follows:

Fed E Indiana bat Myotis sodalisFed E Peregrine falcon fFalco pereprinus) *MigratoryFed T Pitchers thistle (Cirsium pitcheri)Sp EM/CN Great blue heron (Ar_dga. herodias)

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosuslBlack tern (Chlidonis niger)Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)King rail (Ralus elegans)Yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax violaceous)Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata)Western smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis)Franklin's ground squirrel (Spermophilus franklini)Blanding's turtle (Emvdoidea blandingi)Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) *Historical

This endangered species list constitutes informal consultation only, and is notintended to fulfill the requirement of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended. If, after review of the Phase I Remedial Investigation report, itappears likely that any endangered species may have been/may be affected by thissite, it may be necessary to initiate formal consultation. If as a result offurther consultation, a "no effect" determination is made regarding endangeredspecies, that determination should be revisited after 1 year for new information, ornewly listed species.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Wetlands identified on the NWI do exist at the American Chemical Services site.

2. There are wetlands present at the site that are not identified on the NWI.These wetlands consist of palustrine, forested, and scrub-shrub transitionalzones between the NWI-identified emergent wetland and upland areas.

FIGURE 6. Approximate locations and classifications of additional wetlands located near the ACS site, east across.Coifax Avenue, Griffith, Indiana.

18.

3. The wetlands present at the site provide habitat diversity for a variety ofwildlife species.

4. The wetlands present on the site possess potential habitat for federalthreatened and endangered species, state and federal species of specialconcern/emphasis, and other birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

19.

Literature Cited

Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1987. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities ofMinnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.201pp.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperativetechnical publication, 76 pp. plus appendices.

Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands-Indiana,National Wetland Inventory, St. Petersburg. 23pp. plus lists.

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Hydric Soils of the State of Indiana.

___. 1972. Soil Survey of Lake County, Indiana. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington; 94 pp plus appendices.

20.

APPENDIX 1

References

Ellis, W.H. and E.W. Chester. 1971. Spring Wildflowers of Land Between the Lakes.Austin Peay State University. Clarksville, TN. 60pp.

___. 1973. Summer and Fall Wildflowers of Land Between the Lakes. Austin PeayState University. Clarksville, TN. 71pp.

____. 1980. Trees and Shrubs of Land Between the Lakes. Austin Peay StateUniversity. Clarksville, TN. 71pp.

Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1987. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesotaand Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 201pp.

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1988. A Field Guide to the Wetlands ofIllinois. IDOC. 244pp.

Knobel, E. No Date. Identify Trees and Shrubs by Their Leaves; A Guide to Trees andShrubs Native to the Northeast. Dover Publications, Inc., New York 47pp.

Mitchell, A. 1979. Spotter's Guide to Trees of North America. Mayflower Books; NewYork. 64pp.

Parsons, F.T. 1961. How to Know the Ferns. Dover Publications; New York. 215pp.

Peterson, R.T. and M. McKenny. 1968. A Field Guide to Wildflowers; Northeastern andNorth-central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston. 420pp.

Petrides, G.A. 1988. A Field Guide to Eastern Trees; Eastern United States andCanada. Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston. 272pp.

Phillips, H.C. 1974. Lichens and Ferns of Land Between the Lakes. Austin PeayState University. Clarksville, TN. 60pp.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora ofthe Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press; Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.

Symonds, G.W.D. and S.V. Chelminski. 1958. The Tree Identification Book; a NewMethod for the Practical Identification and Recognition of Trees. QuillPublishing Company; New York. 272pp.

___. and A.W. Merwin. 1963. The Shrub Identification Book; The Visual Method forthe Practical Identification of Shrubs, Including Woody Vines and GroundCovers. William Morrow and Company; New York. 379pp.

21.

APPENDIX 2Field Data Forms

United States Department of the InteriorTo aid in the identification of the different soil types in...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of the InteriorTo aid in the identification of the different soil types in...