Alternative 

Element 

Alternatives 

Alternative A 

No-action 

Alternative B-1 

Beach Nourishment via 

Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency 

Alternative B-5 

Beach Nourishment via Upland 

Sources, Five-Year Frequency 

Alternative C-1 

Beach Nourishment via Dredged 

Sources, Annual Frequency 

Alternative C-5 

Beach Nourishment via Dredged 

Sources, Five-Year Frequency 

Alternative D 

Beach Nourishment via Permanent 

Bypass System 

Alternative E 

Submerged Cobble Berm and 

Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency 

(Preferred Alternative) 

Anthropogenic Influences 

Provide education and 

outreach to visitors

Continue current management actions. In addition, designate appropriate route to the beach from the Kemil Road parking lot; and reduce social trails on the foredune complex, including blowouts, at the Kemil Road 

access point; and provide education and outreach to visitors.

How the Alternatives Meet the Objectives of the Plan 

Shoreline Restoration

Does the alternative develop strategies that would support the reestablishment of more sustainable shoreline sediment movement and a more natural ecosystem of shoreline vegetation and foredune and dune complexes?

No – Under the no-action 

alternative the park would 

not develop strategies for 

sustainable shoreline 

sediment movement. 

Yes – Under the proposed action alternatives, strategies for sustainable shoreline sediment movement and a more natural ecosystem of the shoreline would be developed. 

Exotic and Invasive Species

Does the alternative develop new strategies to identify, manage, and remove aquatic and terrestrial exotic and invasive species; and develop strategies to support ongoing management efforts to remove aquatic and terrestrial exotic and invasive species, and to 

prevent conditions detrimental to those effects?

No – Under the no-action 

alternative, no new strategies

would be developed. 

Yes – Under the proposed action alternatives, new strategies to identify, manage, and remove aquatic and terrestrial exotic and invasive species, and new strategies to support ongoing management efforts to remove 

aquatic and terrestrial exotic and invasive species would be developed.

Management Methodology

Does the alternative determine shoreline desired conditions that would serve as thresholds for management actions within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and develop and implement an adaptive management approach for maintaining a sustainable shoreline 

ecosystem within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore? 

No – Under the no-action 

alternative, there would be 

no adaptive management

approach. 

Yes – Under the proposed action alternatives, desired conditions would be developed and an adaptive management approach would be implemented. 

Notes: 

NPV = net present value 

TBD = to be determined 

yd3 = cubic yards 





Impact Topic 

Alternative A 

(No-action Alternative) 

Alternative B-1 

(Beach Nourishment via 

Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Alternative B-5 

(Beach Nourishment via Upland 

Sources, Five-Year Frequency) 

Alternative C-1 

(Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Alternative C-5 

(Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Alternative D 

(Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Alternative E 

(Submerged Cobble Berm and 

Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred 

Alternative 

Wetlands and Pannes† Not applicable (see note 

below).

Not applicable (see note below). Not applicable (see note below). Not applicable (see note below). Not applicable (see note below). Not applicable (see note below). Not applicable (see note below).

Soundscape Minor, short-term adverse 

impacts from beach 

nourishment activities 

related to sound generated 

from the trucks hauling 

the sediment and 

equipment grading the 

nourishment material 

along the beach.

Negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from beach 

nourishment activities related to 

sound generated from the trucks 

hauling the sediment and 

equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the 

beach. 

Minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts from beach 

nourishment activities related to 

sound generated from trucks 

hauling sediment and equipment 

grading the nourishment 

material along the beach. 

Negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from beach 

nourishment activities related to 

sound generated from barges and 

equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the 

beach. 

Minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts from beach 

nourishment activities related to 

sound generated from 

equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the 

beach and from dredging 

operations. 

Negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from the sound

that would be generated from 

construction and associated 

operations of the permanent 

bypass system. 

Negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the beach 

nourishment activities related to 

sound generated from 

construction and beach 

nourishment activities and 

equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the 

beach. 

Visitor Experience Minor to moderate, shortand long-term, adverse 

impacts from continued 

temporary beach closings 

and ongoing degradation 

of popular visitor 

amenities from continued 

shoreline erosion. 

Minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from temporary beach 

and trail closings for 

nourishment activities in reach 1, 

and the visual intrusions being 

introduced in to the park (i.e., 

grading equipment). Minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts

from the temporary increase in 

beach size, and the reduction in 

future trail closings. 

Minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts from the visual 

intrusions being introduced into 

the park during beach 

nourishment activities (i.e., 

grading equipment), and from 

the beach and trail closings 

during placement work. Minor, 

short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts from the temporary 

increase in beach size, and the 

future reduction in beach 

closings for nourishment 

activities due to the decrease in 

erosion. 

Minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the temporary 

beach closings, and visual 

intrusions being introduced into 

the park during placement 

activities (i.e., grading 

equipment). Minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from the 

temporary increase in beach size, 

and the decrease in future beach 

closings that would result from 

less restoration work having to be 

performed (from reduced 

erosion). 

Moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts from temporary beach 

and trail closings during 

dredging and placement 

activities, and from the visual 

intrusions such activities and 

equipment would introduce into 

the visitor’s viewshed. Minor, 

short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts from the temporary 

increase in beach size and the 

decrease in future beach 

closings that would result from 

reduced erosion (and thus 

reduced 

maintenance/restoration 

activities that require beach 

closings). 

Minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from temporary beach 

closings, construction of the 

permanent bypass system, and 

hazards posed to nonconfident 

swimmers by the lift and pump 

stations. Minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from the 

reduction in future beach 

closings that would result from 

less cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work needing to be 

performed from reduced erosion, 

as well as from the temporary 

increase in beach size. Minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts from 

the visual intrusion the small lift 

stations would introduce to the 

park. 

Minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts from the 

temporary beach closings during 

construction of the submerged 

cobble berm, and from the visual 

intrusion the submerged cobble 

berm would introduce into the 

park and the safety concerns it 

would pose before dissipation. 

The park would consider 

implementing mitigation 

measures to offset safety 

concerns. Minor, short- and 

long-term, beneficial impacts 

from the reduced maintenance 

demands and reduced 

restoration demands that would 

result in fewer beach and trail

closings. 







































135 

INTRODUCTION 

This “Environmental Consequences” chapter 

analyzes both beneficial and adverse impacts 

that would result from implementing any of 

the alternatives considered in this Shoreline 

Restoration and Management Plan / Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter also 

includes the methodology and definitions of 

impact thresholds (e.g., negligible, minor, 

moderate, and major), methods used to 

analyze impacts, the analysis used for 

determining cumulative effects, and a 

cumulative impacts scenario. A summary of 

the environmental consequences for each 

alternative is provided in tables 2-3 and 2-4, 

which can be found in “The Alternatives” 

chapter. The resource topics presented in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter, and 

the organization of the topics, correspond to 

the resource discussions contained in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. 

GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR 

ESTABLISHING IMPACT THRESHOLDS 

AND MEASURING EFFECTS BY 

RESOURCE 

The following elements were used in the 

general approach for establishing impact 

thresholds and measuring the effects of the 

alternatives on each resource category: 

 general analysis methods as described 

in the guiding regulations 

 basic assumptions used to formulate 

the specific approaches used in this 

analysis 

 thresholds used to define the intensity 

of impact resulting from each 

alternative 

 methods used to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of each alternative 

in combination with unrelated factors 

or actions affecting park resources 

These elements are described in the following 

sections. 

General Analysis Methods 

The analysis of impacts follows CEQ 

guidelines and Director’s Order 12: 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision-making procedures 

(NPS 2001) and is based on the underlying 

goals of restoring natural shoreline processes, 

preserving the shoreline ecosystem, and 

providing opportunities for quality visitor 

experiences consistent with the purpose and 

significance of the park. This analysis 

incorporates the best available scientific 

literature applicable to the region and setting 

and the actions being considered in the 

alternatives. 

The National Park Service has created an 

interdisciplinary team to provide important 

input to the impact analysis. For each resource 

topic addressed in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter, the applicable 

analysis methods are discussed. 

Assumptions 

Several guiding assumptions were made to 

provide context for this analysis. These 

assumptions are described below. 

Analysis Period. For goals, objectives, and 

specific implementation actions needed to 

restore and manage the shoreline at Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore, a 20-year lifespan 

of each alternative was assumed. Thus, the 

analysis period used for assessing impacts in 

this plan / draft EIS is 20 years. 

The National Park Service assumes that beach 

nourishment via any of the alternatives would 

require time to monitor and oversee the 

actions associated with each of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

136 

alternatives for the duration of the plan 

(i.e., 20 years). 

Duration and Type of Impacts 

The following assumptions were used for all 

impact topics (the terms “impact” and “effect” 

are used interchangeably throughout this 

document): 

 Short-term impacts are impacts that 

would be temporary, lasting for one 

year or less following an action. 

 Long-term impacts are impacts that 

would last longer than one year and 

that would be permanent. 

 Direct impacts are impacts that would 

be directly caused by a shoreline 

management action which would 

occur when and where the action was 

implemented. 

 Indirect impacts are impacts that 

would occur from shoreline 

management actions that would occur 

later in time or farther in distance than 

when and where the action was 

implemented. 

Geographic Area Evaluated for Impacts.

The geographic project area for this plan 

includes beach reaches 1 through 4 in Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore, as described in 

“The Alternatives” chapter. 

For the alternatives assessed, it is assumed that 

providing several thousands of cubic yards of 

nourishment material to reach 1 would affect 

not only reach 1, but reach 2 and a portion of 

reach 3, as well. Likewise, providing several 

thousands of cubic yards of nourishment 

material to reach 3 would indirectly affect 

downdrift shorelines within reach 4. The 

additional nourishment material in reach 3 

would be transported downdrift by natural 

processes (i.e., wave action and storm events). 

Future Trends. Visitor use and demand are 

anticipated to follow trends similar to recent 

years. The number of yearly visitors to Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore is about two 

million. In the absence of notable anticipated 

changes in visitation and park staffing, the 

impact analysis assumes these levels would 

remain similar to present levels. 

IMPACT THRESHOLDS 

Determining impact thresholds is a key 

component in applying NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and Director’s Order 12. These 

thresholds provide the reader with an idea of 

the intensity of a given impact within a specific 

topic. The impact threshold is determined 

primarily by comparing the effect to a relevant 

standard based on regulations, scientific 

literature and research, or best professional 

judgment. Intensity definitions are provided 

separately for each impact topic analyzed in 

this document because definitions of intensity 

vary by impact topic. Intensity definitions are 

provided throughout the analysis for 

negligible, minor, moderate, and major 

impacts. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

METHOD 

The CEQ regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA) require an assessment of 

cumulative effects in the decision-making 

process for federal projects. Cumulative 

impacts are defined as “the impact on the 

environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or 

non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR 1508.7). These actions were identified, 

and cumulative impacts were determined, by 

combining the impacts of alternatives with 

those of the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Therefore, it was necessary to identify other 

ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

projects at Indianan Dunes National 

Lakeshore and, if applicable, the surrounding 

region. The geographic scope for this analysis 
Introduction 

137 

includes elements mostly within the shoreline 

of southern Lake Michigan, while the 

temporal scope includes projects within a 

range of approximately 20 years. Given this, 

the following projects were identified for the 

purpose of conducting the cumulative effects 

analysis. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT SCENARIO 

Past Actions Within and Around 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

 Three man-made structures that 

constitute barriers to littoral drift and 

affect the park were constructed in 

and around the project area. These 

structures are federal and industrial 

harbors that impact the natural 

sediment transport by disrupting 

water flow and producing accretion to 

the east (updrift) and erosion to the 

west (downdrift). These include the 

east adjacent Michigan City Harbor 

(initial construction in 1834, harbor 

completed in the early 1900s), the Port 

of Indiana industrial complex 

(constructed in the late 1960s), and the 

west adjacent Gary-U.S. Steel 

breakwater (constructed in the early 

1900s). 

 A permanent electric barrier was 

constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) in the Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal to deter 

movement by invasive nonnative fish 

species across this artificial 

connection between the Mississippi 

River and Great Lakes drainages. 

 The park designated the appropriate 

route to and from Mount Baldy from 

the parking lot in an effort to reduce 

social trails in reach 1 of the beach. 

 The initial Marquette Plan: The 

Lakeshore Reinvestment Strategy 

(IDNR et al. 2005) was completed in 

2005 and addressed public access and 

redevelopment of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore from the Illinois 

state line to the Port of Indiana, with 

funding by the cities of Whiting, East 

Chicago, Hammond, Gary, and 

Portage. Portage Lakefront and 

Riverwalk are results of this plan. 

 Industrial complexes in the area, like 

the Northern Indiana Public Service 

Company (NIPSCO), were 

constructed and became operational. 

 Transportation corridors were 

constructed within and around the 

park. 

Present Actions Within and Around 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

 Clean sediment nourishment is 

accepted from upland sources on an 

intermittent basis in reach 1. 

 The park is restoring the foredune and 

dune complex by stabilizing select 

areas of eroded dunes with native 

vegetation, fencing off highly eroded 

and environmentally sensitive areas, 

and providing expanded visitor 

outreach and education opportunities 

about these actions. 

 The park installs fencing to protect the 

leeward slope of Mount Baldy to limit 

anthropogenic influences in reach 1. 

 The park manages invasive vegetation, 

currently targeting sand ryegrass 

(Leymus arenarius) and spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in 

the foredune complex; purple 

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), 

common reed (Phragmites australis), 

and hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca) in 

the panne; and some woody invasive 

vegetation, such as Siberian elm 

(Ulmus pumila), black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia), and tree-of-heaven 

(Ailanthus altissima), throughout these 

complexes in reaches 1 and 2. 

 Clean sediment nourishment is 

accepted from lake dredging projects 

on an intermittent basis in reach 3. 

 At blowout locations, including 

Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk, 

some invasive plant management is 

performed to help protect Pitcher’s 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

138 

thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) populations 

in reaches 3 and 4; the U.S. Geological 

Survey monitors these populations. 

 Nonnative invasive plant species are 

being managed in the panne in reaches 

3 and 4. These efforts target spotted 

knapweed, yellow sweet clover 

(Melilotus officinalis), and prairie 

sunflower (Helianthus petiolaris) at 

Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk; 

purple loosestrife and common reed 

in the panne; and sand ryegrass in the 

foredune complex. In addition, some 

management of oriental bittersweet 

(Celastrus orbiculatus) (that is 

encroaching on the dune complex) is 

performed. 

 The park is currently preserving the 

pannes at West Beach and Miller by 

managing invasive nonnative plant 

species, targeting purple loosestrife, 

common reed, and hybrid cattail in 

reach 4. 

 Ongoing planned facility upgrades are 

performed in the park. 

 To limit anthropogenic influences in 

the park, the staff provides education 

and outreach to visitors. 

 Current resource protection and 

restoration projects in the park 

include an early detection and rapid 

response program and an Invasive 

Plant Management Plan. 

 The park maps and monitors treated 

nonnative invasive plant species in 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

 The park provides education and 

outreach about the impacts of invasive 

nonnative plant species. 

 The Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District (the South 

Shore Railroad) traverses the park. 

 The Super Boat Grand Prix, a highspeed offshore boat race sponsored by 

Michigan City, is held annually near 

the park. 

 The Calumet Harbor and River 

project involves dredging various 

segments of the Calumet River to 

maintain channel depth (allowing 

continued commodity exchange and 

transport). The Calumet Harbor, 

which is the second largest port on the 

Great Lakes, is the primary link 

between the Inland-Waterway system, 

foreign ports, and the Great Lakes 

(and is one of only two possible routes 

between these) (COE 2011c). 

 Ships’ ballast water has accounted for 

55% to 70% of reported aquatic 

invasive species introductions in to the 

Great Lakes since 1959, when the St. 

Lawrence Seaway opened and 

provided a route in to the Great Lakes 

for trade (National Academy of 

Sciences 2008). 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future 

Actions Within and Around Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore 

 The park proposes to develop a picnic 

area near the Porter access point. 

 NIPSCO is going to realign the 

outflow at the Bailly Generating 

Station. 

 The town of Michigan City proposes 

to build a parking lot east of Mount 

Baldy for access to Crescent Dune. 

 Phase II of the Marquette Plan (IDNR 

et al. 2005), which focuses on Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore from the 

Port of Indiana to the MichiganIndiana state line, is being funded 

through a grant from the Indiana 

Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR) Lake Michigan Coastal 

Program with matching funds from 

the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley 

Foundation, the cities of La Porte and 

Michigan City, and La Porte County. 

This plan focuses on identifying the 

needs of the smaller communities and 

creating a vision that would identify 

and protect greenways, identify 

possible trails in the region, and 

address the needs of smaller 

communities. 
Introduction 

139 

 The park is considering realigning 

some trails, as well as developing a 

mitigation plan for new/proposed 

access points and trails to Crescent 

Dune to limit anthropogenic 

influences. 

 The park plans to enforce visitor use 

of approved trails in the park in all 

reaches to limit anthropogenic 

influences. 

 To help limit social trails in reach 1, 

the park plans to designate an 

appropriate route to the beach from 

the Kemil Road parking lot, and to the 

foredune complex, including 

blowouts, from the Kemil Road access 

point. 

 The park proposes to restore the 

foredune and dune complex by 

stabilizing eroded dunes with native 

vegetation, and fencing off highly 

eroded and environmentally sensitive 

areas on the foredune to allow for 

ecological recovery of natural 

communities. 

 The park proposes to expand current 

public education and outreach efforts. 

 Outside of the proposed project area, 

no additional modifications to the 

shoreline are likely, as the harbors and 

breakwaters associated with the 

adjacent federal and industrial harbors 

have already been constructed. It 

cannot be predicted whether owners 

of adjacent properties would continue 

to armor or otherwise modify their 

respective beachfronts. In the event 

that additional shoreline structures are 

constructed, the littoral drift along 

Lake Michigan’s shoreline would 

continue to be disrupted and result in 

additional challenges to the natural 

and human environment at Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore. 

 Future introductions of aquatic 

invasive species from ships’ ballast 

water may be effectively managed 

through ballast water management 

techniques, such as ballast water 

exchange, saltwater flushing, or 

shipboard treatment, and through 

restricting access to the Great Lakes to 

vessels that have taken protective 

measures like these to ensure they do 

not harbor aquatic invasive species. 
140 

COASTAL PROCESSES 

METHODOLOGY 

Resource specialists conducted site visits to 

the park to observe existing conditions and 

assess the potential effectiveness of the 

alternatives in addressing the issues involved 

in the restoration of natural coastal processes. 

Various technical documents were reviewed 

to understand the history of beach 

nourishment activities and the factors 

involved in coastal processes, sediment 

transport, and dune formation. Alternatives 

were evaluated based on the potential to 

respond to the desired future conditions, 

including the effectiveness of the alternative in 

balancing the quantities of sediment 

throughout the project area, fulfilling the 

estimated sediment budget deficit, preventing 

continued erosion in critical areas of the 

shoreline, and providing for the natural 

processes of dune formation. 

Impact Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity level thresholds for coastal processes 

are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable, 

and would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes to the sediment transport 

and/or dune formation processes. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, 

and would result in small but noticeable 

changes to the sediment transport and/or 

dune formation processes. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent, 

and would result in easily detectable changes 

to the sediment transport and/or dune 

formation processes. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse, or 

exceptionally beneficial, and would result in 

appreciable changes to the sediment transport 

and/or dune formation processes. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Sediment Transport Processes. The dunes, 

the swash zone, and the nearshore area are 

dynamic high-energy areas, subject to the 

forces of wind and waves. Sediment is moved 

offshore in the winter and returns onshore in 

the spring and summer. Sediment placed on 

the shoreline during beach nourishment 

activities is re-distributed between the zones 

in a more stable profile. Despite current 

nourishment efforts to stabilize the shore, 

erosion of the shoreline would continue as the 

quantity of material currently being placed is 

less than the estimated sediment budget 

deficit. The accretion area at Michigan City 

would continue to grow because sediment is 

being transported to the shoreline from 

upland sources, as sediment supply meant to 

drift naturally along the shoreline is blocked 

by the existing navigational structure (i.e., 

Michigan City Harbor). 

Although the existing program of beach 

nourishment has had a positive effect in 

reducing the annual sediment budget deficit, 

the amount of sediment being placed along 

the shoreline is substantially less than the 

estimated loss, leaving the sediment budget 

deficit. Therefore, selection of the no-action 

alternative would result in a moderate, longterm, adverse impact, due to the continued 

sediment budget deficit and shoreline erosion. 

Dune Formation Processes. The current 

nourishment program includes placing 

material primarily on the beach at Crescent 

Dune, and using heavy equipment to grade the 

material into a more natural topography. 

Shoreline sediment is transported by natural 

processes (i.e., wave action, wind) to the 

foredune area where it provides material for 

dune formation. The amount of material 
Coastal Processes 

141 

placed during current beach nourishment 

activities is less than the annual sediment loss, 

resulting in continued erosion. The existing 

nourishment program has helped reduce 

impacts on dune formation; however, due to 

the sediment budget deficit, dune erosion 

would continue under the no-action 

alternative. Therefore, the no-action 

alternative would result in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on dune formation 

processes. 

Cumulative Impacts. The “Cumulative 

Impact Scenario” section of the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter 

describes the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in or surrounding 

the project area. Many of these actions have 

affected coastal processes, including the 

construction of man-made structures, which 

have impacted the natural littoral drift along 

the lakeshore. The main structure affecting 

reaches 1 and 2 is the Michigan City Harbor. 

Construction of the harbor resulted in areas of 

accretion (east of the harbor) and areas of 

erosion (west of the harbor). Additionally, the 

Calumet Harbor and River project and its 

associated dredging activities affect littoral 

drift in the Great Lakes resulting in sediment 

accretion and sediment budget deficits along 

shorelines in the project area. Present beach 

nourishment activities have provided some 

sediment in the areas of erosion, but volumes 

are inadequate to account for the annual 

sediment budget deficit, and do not address 

issues of sediment accretion. No future 

modifications to the shoreline have been 

identified within reaches 1 and 2, as 

surrounding and adjacent federal and 

industrial harbors and other man-made 

shoreline structures have already been 

constructed. Cumulative impacts on coastal 

processes under alternative A would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Despite the continuation of the 

current nourishment program by the COE, 

under the no-action alternative, sediment 

budget deficit and erosion would continue to 

affect Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore’s 

sandscapes and shorelines, resulting in an 

overall moderate, long-term, adverse impact. 

As erosion continued, the integrity of cultural 

and natural resources along the shoreline, as 

well as nearby infrastructure would be 

threatened. Additionally, existing navigational 

and industrial structures along the lakeshore 

would continue to disrupt sediment transport. 

Cumulative impacts on coastal processes 

under alternative A would be moderate, longterm and adverse. Actions under alternative A 

would provide no incremental increase to the 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative B-1, sediment would be mined and 

placed on the beach each year from a 

permitted upland source. Placing additional 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 would 

initially increase beach size within the 

placement area in front of Crescent Dune and 

Mount Baldy. The additional nourishment 

material would be sufficient to maintain the 

current shoreline position for approximately 

one year, as natural wave action would 

continue to erode the sediment after 

placement. The shorelines downdrift of 

Crescent Dune and Mount Baldy would 

receive a large infusion of sediment following 

the material placement, affecting not only 

reach 1, but reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, 

as well. The accretion area at Michigan City 

would continue to grow because sediment 

would be transported to the beach from an 

upland source and sand supply meant to drift 

naturally along the shoreline would be 

blocked by the existing navigational structure. 

Implementing alternative B-1 would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts as the 

estimated sediment budget deficit quantity 

would be provided. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative B-1, sediment would be mined and 

placed on the beach each year from a 

permitted upland source. The placed 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

142 

sediment would erode over the course of 

approximately one year. Placement of the 

sediment would provide additional material 

available on land for aeolian transport, thus 

encouraging foredune development. Beach 

placement also would provide some buffering 

against storm events. The additional sediment 

on the beach would protect the current 

shoreline profile from increased erosion 

resulting from intense wave action, 

particularly during storm events. 

The actions associated with alternative B-1 

would result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as the sediment placed on 

the beach, in conjunction with wind action, 

would allow for additional sediment supply to 

create foredunes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

would generally be similar to those described 

for alternative A, with the exception that 

beach nourishment activities would include 

the amount of sediment needed to balance the 

annual sediment budget deficit. Cumulative 

impacts on coastal processes would be 

negligible to minor, long-term and adverse. 

The existing man-made structures would 

persist and continue to create areas of 

accretion and sediment budget deficit, which 

would require continued beach nourishment 

activities to mitigate. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 would 

account for the estimated sediment budget 

deficit, and thereby maintain the current 

shoreline profile. Actions under 

alternative B-1 would also provide additional 

sediment to encourage foredune development 

along the shoreline, resulting in moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on coastal 

processes. Cumulative impacts on coastal 

process would be negligible to minor, longterm and adverse. 

Actions under alternative B-1 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative B-5, a five-year quantity of 

sediment would be mined and placed on the 

beach every five years, initially increasing 

beach size along the length of reach 1. The 

additional nourishment material would be 

sufficient to maintain the current shoreline 

position for approximately five years, as 

natural wave action would continue to erode 

the sediment after placement. The shorelines 

downdrift of reach 1 would receive a large 

infusion of sediment following the material 

placement, affecting not only reach 1, but 

reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, as well. The 

accretion area at Michigan City, and the beach 

at Washington Park, would continue to grow 

because sediment would be transported from 

upland sources and sediment supply meant to 

drift naturally along the shoreline would be 

blocked by the existing navigational structure. 

The actions associated with alternative B-5 

would result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts, as the estimated sediment 

budget deficit quantity would be provided. 

Dune Formation Processes. A five-year 

quantity of mined sediment on the beach in 

reach 1 would erode over the course of 

approximately five years. Placement of the 

sediment would provide additional material 

available on land for aeolian transport, thus 

encouraging foredune development. Placing a 

five-year quantity of sediment on the beach 

would result in additional protection against 

storm events. The additional sediment would 

help protect the current shoreline profile 

against increased erosion from intense wave 

action, particularly during storm events. The 

actions associated with alternative B-5 would 

result in moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as the additional material 
Coastal Processes 

143 

on the beach, in conjunction with wind action, 

would encourage foredune development. The 

additional material would also provide more 

buffering against intense storm events than 

the smaller amount of sediment provided for 

under an annual program of beach 

nourishment. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

would generally be as described for alternative 

A, with the exception that beach nourishment 

activities would include the amount of 

sediment needed to balance the annual 

sediment budget deficit. Cumulative impacts 

on coastal processes would be negligible, 

long-term and adverse. The impacts of the 

existing man-made structures would persist, 

continuing to create areas of accretion and 

erosion, which would require the continued 

beach nourishment activities to mitigate. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 every five 

years would account for the estimated 

sediment budget deficit, and thereby maintain 

the current shoreline profile. The actions 

associated with alternative B-5 would also 

provide a large quantity of sediment on the 

beach to facilitate foredune development 

along the shoreline, resulting in major, longterm, beneficial impacts on coastal processes. 

Cumulative impacts on coastal process would 

be negligible, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative B-5 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative C-1, sediment would be dredged 

from an updrift location, such as the 

nearshore area east of the Michigan City 

Harbor, and be placed along the beach in 

reach 1. As under alternative B-1, placing 

additional sediment on the beach in reach 1 

would result in an initial increase in beach size 

within the placement area at Crescent Dune. 

The additional nourishment material would 

be sufficient to maintain the current shoreline 

position for approximately one year, as 

natural wave action would continue to erode 

the sediment after placement. The shorelines 

downdrift of Crescent Dune and Mount Baldy 

would receive a large infusion of sediment, 

originating from Lake Michigan, following the 

material placement, affecting not only reach 1, 

but reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, as well. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location would mimic natural 

processes as the material used would remain 

within the Lake Michigan system. 

Implementing alternative C-1 therefore would 

result in moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as the estimated sediment 

budget deficit would be provided from an 

updrift source, more closely mimicking 

natural processes. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative C-1, additional sediment would be 

dredged from an updrift location and placed 

at Crescent Dune. This sediment would erode 

over the course of approximately one year. 

Placement of the sediment would provide 

additional material available on land for 

aeolian transport, thus encouraging foredune 

development. Beach placement would provide 

some buffering against storm events. The 

additional sediment on the beach would 

protect the current shoreline profile from 

increased erosion resulting from intense wave 

action, particularly during storm events. 

Implementing alternative C-1 would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts as the 

sediment placed on the beach, in conjunction 

with wind action, would allow for additional 

sediment supply to create foredunes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative C-1 would generally be as 

described for alternative A, with the exception 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

144 

that beach nourishment activities would 

include the amount of sediment needed to 

balance the annual sediment budget deficit. 

Additionally, sediment would be taken from 

an updrift location that would more closely 

mimic the natural coastal processes as the 

material used would remain within the Lake 

Michigan system. Cumulative impacts on 

coastal processes would be negligible to 

minor, long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 would 

account for the calculated sediment budget 

deficit, and thereby maintain the current 

shoreline profile. Additionally, dredging 

sediment from an updrift location would 

more closely mimic natural processes, as 

compared to using material from upland 

sources. Implementing alternative C-1 would 

also provide additional sediment to encourage 

foredune development along the shoreline, 

resulting in moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on coastal processes. 

Cumulative impacts on coastal process would 

be negligible to minor, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative C-1 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Sediment Transport Processes. As 

described under alternative C-1, sediment 

would be dredged from an updrift location, 

such as the nearshore area east of the 

Michigan City Harbor, and would be placed 

along the beach in reach 1; however, under 

alternative C-5, a five-year quantity would be 

used to nourish the beach. Placing a five-year 

quantity of sediment in reach 1 would initially 

increase beach size along the length of reach 1. 

The additional nourishment material would 

be sufficient to maintain the current shoreline 

position for approximately five years, as 

natural wave action would continue to erode 

the sediment after placement. The shorelines 

downdrift of reach 1 would receive a large 

infusion of sediment, originating from Lake 

Michigan, following the material placement, 

affecting not only reach 1, but reach 2 and a 

portion of reach 3, as well. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location would mimic natural 

processes, as material used would remain 

within the Lake Michigan system. 

Implementing alternative C-5 therefore, 

would result in moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as the estimated sediment 

budget deficit would be provided from an 

updrift source, more closely mimicking 

natural processes. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative C-5 a five-year quantity of 

sediment would be dredged from an updrift 

location and placed at Crescent Dune, 

providing additional sediment along the 

majority of reach 1. This sediment would 

erode over the course of approximately five 

years. Placement of the sediment would 

provide additional material available on land 

for aeolian transport, thus encouraging 

foredune development. Placing a five-year 

quantity of sediment on the beach would 

provide additional protection against storm 

events. The additional sediment on the beach 

would protect the current shoreline profile 

from increased erosion resulting from intense 

wave action, particularly during storm events. 

Implementing alternative C-5 would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts as the additional quantity of material 

on the beach, in conjunction with wind action, 

would encourage foredune development. The 

additional quantity of material would also 

provide buffering against intense storm 

events. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative C-5 would generally be as 

described for alternative A, with the exception 
Coastal Processes 

145 

that beach nourishment activities would 

include the amount of sediment needed to 

balance the annual sediment budget deficit. 

Additionally, there would be a reduction in 

areas of accretion, which would be used as 

sources of sediment for beach nourishment 

operations. Cumulative impacts on coastal 

processes would be negligible, long-term and 

adverse. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 every five 

years would account for the estimated 

sediment budget deficit, and thereby maintain 

the current shoreline profile. Implementing 

alternative C-5 would also provide a large 

quantity of sediment on the beach from an 

updrift source to facilitate foredune 

development along the shoreline, resulting in 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on coastal processes. Cumulative 

impacts on coastal process would be 

negligible, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative C-5 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative D, sediment would be placed along 

the beach in reach 1 from updrift of the 

Michigan City Harbor, and transported to the 

shoreline via a permanent bypass system. As 

with the previously described alternatives, 

placing additional sediment on the beach in 

reach 1 would result in an initial increase in 

beach size within the placement area at 

Crescent Dune. The additional nourishment 

material would be sufficient to maintain the 

current shoreline position for approximately 

one year, as natural wave action would 

continue to erode the sediment after 

placement. The shorelines downdrift of 

Crescent Dune and Mount Baldy would 

receive an infusion of sediment following the 

material placement, affecting not only reach 1, 

but reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, as well. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location in this manner would 

mimic the natural processes, as material used 

in beach nourishment would remain within 

the Lake Michigan system. Implementing 

alternative D therefore, would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts as the estimated sediment budget 

deficit would be provided from a source 

updrift, more closely mimicking natural 

processes. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative D, sediment would be transported 

to the shoreline in reach 1 via a permanent 

bypass system from updrift of the Michigan 

City Harbor. Under alternative D, placed 

material would erode over the course of 

approximately one year. Placement of the 

sediment would provide additional material 

available on land for aeolian transport, thus 

encouraging foredune development. Beach 

placement also would provide some buffering 

against storm events. The additional sediment 

on the beach would protect the current 

shoreline profile from increased erosion 

resulting from intense wave action, 

particularly during storm events. 

Implementing alternative D would be 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts as the 

sediment placed on the beach, in conjunction 

with wind action, would provide additional 

sediment supply to create foredunes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative D would generally be as 

described for alternative A, with the exception 

that beach nourishment activities would 

include the amount of sediment needed to 

balance the annual sediment budget deficit. 

Additionally, there would be a reduction in 

areas of accretion which would be used as 

sources of sediment for beach nourishment 

operations. Cumulative impacts would be 

negligible to minor, long-term and adverse. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

146 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 would 

account for the estimated sediment budget 

deficit, and thereby maintain the current 

shoreline profile. Additionally, dredging 

sediment from an updrift location would 

more closely mimic natural processes, as 

compared to using material from upland 

sources. Implementing alternative D would 

also provide additional sediment to encourage 

foredune development along the shoreline, 

resulting in moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on coastal processes. 

Cumulative impacts on coastal process would 

be negligible to minor, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative D would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative E, a submerged cobble berm along 

the shoreline of reach 1 would be constructed. 

The submerged cobble berm would be 

comprised of appropriate-sized aggregate 

material from local glacial deposits which 

would be re-distributed across the lake 

bottom by natural wave action. The 

distribution would move the smaller aggregate 

closer to the shoreline, while the larger 

material would generally stay within a few feet 

of the submerged cobble berm. Distribution 

would be variable, depending on the intensity 

of storm events. Prior to breakdown of the 

submerged cobble berm, wave energy within 

the nearshore would be dissipated, thus 

increasing the likelihood of sediment 

retention in the nearshore. After the 

submerged cobble berm has been spread 

along the lake substrate, lakebed downcutting would decrease as the aggregate 

material would create a protective layer. 

The submerged cobble berm would be used in 

conjunction with a beach nourishment 

program to restore reach 1. The potential 

exists for reduced nourishment quantities, as 

the submerged cobble berm would increase 

sediment retention. The placement of 

nourishment material would be conducted to 

mitigate erosion within reach 1, and to 

maintain the current shoreline profile. 

A moderate, long-term, beneficial impact on 

sediment transport processes would result 

from implementing alternative E. Annual 

nourishment from a dredged source located 

east, updrift of the Michigan City Harbor 

structure, would more closely mimic natural 

processes. Material used for the submerged 

cobble berm would provide additional 

protection of the clay sill on the lake bottom 

and would be similar to material historically 

found in reach 1. The submerged cobble 

berm, and the eventual distribution of its 

aggregate material, would help protect the 

shoreline from erosion due to storm events, 

and maintain a more stable shoreline profile. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative E, the submerged cobble berm 

would be used in conjunction with a beach 

nourishment program to restore reach 1 of 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

Placement of the sediment would provide 

additional material available on land for 

aeolian transport, thus encouraging foredune 

development. Beach placement also would 

provide some buffering against storm events. 

The submerged cobble berm would provide 

additional retention of sediment in the area of 

placement. 

Implementing alternative E would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts as the 

submerged cobble berm would provide longer 

retention of the sediment. The material placed 

on the beach in conjunction with the 

submerged cobble berm, would allow for 

additional sediment supply to create 

foredunes. Beach placement of nourishment 
Coastal Processes 

147 

materials also would provide some buffering 

against storm events. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects 

under alternative E would generally be similar 

to those described under alternative A. The 

combination of the effects of the submerged 

cobble berm along with beach nourishment 

activities would create and maintain a more 

natural and stable shoreline. Cumulative 

effects under alternative E would be 

negligible, long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Constructing a submerged 

cobble berm in addition to placing 

nourishment material from an updrift source 

would account for the estimated sediment 

budget deficit, and thereby maintain the 

current shoreline profile. Placing cobble 

aggregate material from local glacial deposits 

in reach 1 would more closely replicate 

material historically found in this area of the 

shoreline. Additionally, dredging sediment 

from an updrift location would more closely 

mimic natural processes, as compared to using 

material from upland sources. Implementing 

alternative E would increase sediment 

retention in the area of placement, provide 

additional sediment to encourage foredune 

development along the shoreline, and would 

result in moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on coastal processes. Cumulative 

impacts on coastal process would be 

negligible, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative E would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative A, sediment would continue to be 

dredged annually around the NIPSCO/Bailly 

intake. The dredged material would be placed 

in the nearshore at Portage Lakefront and 

Riverwalk, while sediment from Burns 

Waterway Small Boat Harbor would have an 

offshore, open-water placement. Despite 

intermittent nearshore placement activities 

associated with dredging, erosion of the 

shoreline would continue as the quantity of 

material being placed would not address the 

sediment budget deficit in the area. 

Additionally, nearshore placement would 

typically be less effective than beach 

nourishment as less sediment would be 

transported via wave action to the shoreline. 

Although implementing the no-action 

alternative would propose continuing current 

dredging and placement of sediment in the 

nearshore, an annual sediment budget deficit 

in the erosion areas of the lakeshore would 

still result. The sediment being placed in the 

nearshore at Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk 

would continue to help reduce the sediment 

budget deficit; however, the area would still 

experience a net loss of sediment, impacting 

the natural sediment transport processes. 

Accordingly, impacts under the no-action 

alternative would be minor to moderate, longterm and adverse. As dredging of the intake 

area would be intermittent, the accretion areas 

would continue to grow, potentially achieving 

a stable profile and allowing sediment to 

bypass harbor structures. Sediment would 

accumulate in the navigational channel, and 

the sediment would adversely affect the intake 

as well as a warm-water industrial discharge 

point.

Dune Formation Processes. Current 

management practices by the COE include 

dredging material from around the 

NIPSCO/Bailly intake, and placing that 

sediment in the nearshore at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. Placement of 

sediment in this area is less effective relative to 

foredune creation than if it were placed on the 

beach, as much of the material would be 

transported downdrift or further lakeward to 

open waters rather than towards the 

shoreline. Subsequently, less is available to be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

148 

transported via wind action onto the beach to 

form embryonic dunes. If the no-action 

alternative were implemented, beach erosion 

would continue, thus threatening park 

infrastructure along the shoreline. Taking no 

new actions in the park would result in minor 

to moderate, long-term, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. The primary past and 

present actions that have affected coastal 

processes are the construction of man-made 

structures, which have impacted the natural 

littoral drift along the lakeshore. The main 

structures in reaches 3 and 4 are associated 

with the Port of Indiana and Gary-U.S. Steel 

breakwater. The presence of these structures 

has resulted in areas of accretion (east of the 

structures), and areas of sediment budget 

deficit (west of the structures). Additionally, 

there are sections of shoreline that are 

armored with steel-sheet piling and stone 

revetments, which have also altered natural 

shoreline conditions. The Calumet Harbor 

and River project and its associated dredging 

activities affect littoral drift in the Great Lakes 

resulting in sediment accretion and sediment 

budget deficits along the shoreline. Present 

dredging activities in the accretion areas, and 

beach nourishment activities in the areas with 

severe erosion, have helped lessen the existing 

impacts, but are not adequate to account for 

the annual sediment budget deficit, and do not 

fully address issues of sediment accretion. No 

future modifications to the shoreline have 

been identified within reaches 3 and 4, as most 

federal and industrial harbors and other manmade shoreline structures have already been 

constructed. Cumulative impacts on coastal 

processes under alternative A would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Despite the continuation of the 

current dredging program and nearshore 

placement of sediment by the COE, under the 

no-action alternative, erosion would continue 

to affect Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore’s 

sandscapes and shorelines. This would result 

in an overall minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact. As erosion continues, the 

integrity of cultural and natural resources 

along the shoreline, as well as nearby 

infrastructure would be threatened. 

Additionally, existing navigational and 

industrial structures along the lakeshore 

would continue to interrupt sediment 

transportation. Cumulative impacts on coastal 

processes under alternative A would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Actions 

under alternative A would provide no 

incremental increase to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative C-1, sediment would be dredged 

from an updrift location in Lake Michigan and 

placed annually on the beach at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. This would initially 

increase beach size within the placement area. 

The additional nourishment material would 

be sufficient to maintain the current shoreline 

position for approximately one year, as 

natural wave action would continue to erode 

the sediment after placement. The shorelines 

downdrift of the placement area at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk would receive a 

large infusion of sediment following the 

material placement, affecting reach 4. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location mimics the natural 

processes, as material used would remain 

within the Lake Michigan system. 

Implementing alternative C-1 therefore, 

would result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as the sediment would be 

provided from an updrift source, more closely 

mimicking natural processes. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative C-1, sediment would be dredged 

from an updrift location in Lake Michigan and 

placed annually on the beach at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. Placement of the 

sediment would provide additional material 

available on land for aeolian transport, thus 

encouraging foredune development. Beach 
Coastal Processes 

149 

placement also would provide some buffering 

against storm events. The additional sediment 

on the beach would protect the current 

shoreline profile from increased erosion 

resulting from intense wave action, 

particularly during storm events. 

Implementing alternative C-1 would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts as the 

sediment placed on the beach, in conjunction 

with wind action, would allow for additional 

sediment supply to create foredunes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative C-1 would generally be as 

described for alternative A, with the exception 

that beach nourishment activities would 

include the amount of sediment needed to 

balance the annual sediment budget deficit. 

Cumulative effects would be negligible to 

minor, long-term and adverse. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 3 would 

mitigate the sediment budget deficit, and 

thereby protect the current shoreline profile. 

Additionally, dredging sediment from an 

updrift location would more closely mimic 

natural processes as compared to using 

material from upland sources. Actions 

associated with alternative C-1 would also 

provide additional sediment to encourage 

foredune development along the shoreline, 

resulting in moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on coastal processes. Cumulative 

impacts on coastal process would be negligible 

to minor, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative C-1 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative C-5, the five-year quantity of 

sediment to be placed on the beach in reach 3 

would occur via dredging from an updrift 

location in Lake Michigan, such as near the 

NIPSCO/Bailly intake. The approximate 

370,000 cubic yards (yd3

) of sediment would 

initially increase beach size along the length of 

reach 3, and would be sufficient to maintain 

the current shoreline position for 

approximately five years, as natural wave 

action would continue to erode the sediment 

after placement. The shoreline downdrift of 

reach 3 would receive a large infusion of 

sediment following the material placement, 

affecting reach 4. The large amount of 

sediment placed on the beach under 

alternative C-5 would increase the potential 

for there to be increased sedimentation at the 

Burns Waterway Small Boat Harbor, due to 

sediment transport along the lakeshore. If this 

occurred, it would create the need for 

increased dredging activities at the harbor. 

Additional studies and/or monitoring would 

be needed to evaluate the potential for this 

effect. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location would mimic the natural 

processes, as the material used would remain 

within the Lake Michigan system, resulting in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact. 

Potential issues with sedimentation at the 

Burns Waterway Small Boat Harbor would 

need to be evaluated, and would result in a 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative C-5, the five-year quantity of 

sediment to be placed on the beach in reach 3 

would occur via dredging from an updrift 

location in Lake Michigan, such as near the 

NIPSCO/Bailly intake. This sediment would 

erode over the course of approximately five 

years. Placement of the sediment would 

provide additional material available on land 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

150 

for aeolian transport, thus encouraging 

foredune development. Placing the five-year 

quantity of sediment on the beach would 

result in additional protection against storm 

events. The additional sediment would 

protect the current shoreline profile from 

increased erosion resulting from intense wave 

action, particularly during winter weather. 

Implementing alternative C-5 would result in 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts, as the additional quantity of material 

on the beach, in conjunction with wind action, 

would encourage foredune development. The 

additional quantity of material would also 

provide buffering against intense weather 

events. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative C-5 would generally be as 

described for alternative A, with the exception 

that beach nourishment activities would 

include the amount of sediment needed to 

balance the annual sediment budget deficit. 

The initial large amount of material placed on 

the beach would enhance conditions for dune 

formation, and provide greater protection to 

the beach complex from storm events. 

Cumulative effects would be negligible, longterm and adverse. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 3 every five 

years would mitigate the sediment budget 

deficit and protect the current shoreline 

profile. Actions associated with alternative C5 would also provide a large quantity of 

sediment on the beach from an updrift source 

to facilitate foredune development along the 

shoreline, resulting in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on coastal processes. 

Cumulative impacts on coastal process would 

be negligible, long-term and adverse. There 

would also be potential increased 

sedimentation at Burn’s Waterway Small Boat 

Harbor. 

Actions under alternative C-5 would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Sediment Transport Processes. Under 

alternative D, the amount of sediment material 

deposited in reach 3 would fulfill the 

estimated sediment budget deficit. A 

permanent bypass system would be 

constructed and operated to transport 

sediment from updrift of the NIPSCO/Baily 

complex to Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk. 

As with the previously described alternatives, 

implementing alternative D would place the 

additional sediment on the beach in reach 3. 

This would result in an initial increase in 

beach size within the placement area in front 

of Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk. The 

additional nourishment material would be 

sufficient to maintain the current shoreline 

position for approximately one year, as 

natural wave action would continue to erode 

the sediment after placement. The shoreline 

downdrift of Portage Lakefront and 

Riverwalk would receive an infusion of 

sediment following the material placement, 

affecting not only reach 3, but also reach 4. 

Transporting sediment from an updrift to a 

downdrift location in this manner would 

mimic natural processes as material used in 

nourishment would remain within the Lake 

Michigan system, resulting in moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts. 

Dune Formation Processes. Under 

alternative D, the amount of sediment material 

deposited in reach 1 would fulfill the 

estimated sediment budget deficit. A 

permanent bypass system would be 

constructed and operated to transport 

sediment from updrift of the NIPSCO/Baily 

complex to Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk 

under this alternative. This sediment deposit 

would erode over the course of approximately 

one year. Placement of sediment on the beach 

is more effective than nearshore placement as 

additional material is available for aeolian 
Coastal Processes 

151 

transport, thus encouraging foredune 

development. Beach placement would provide 

some buffering against storm events. The 

additional sediment on the beach would 

protect the current shoreline profile from 

increased erosion resulting from intense wave 

action, particularly during storm events. 

Implementing alternative D would result in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts, as 

the sediment placed on the beach, in 

conjunction with wind action, would provide 

additional sediment supply to create 

foredunes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts for 

alternative D would generally be as described 

for alternative A, with the exception that 

beach nourishment activities would include 

the amount of sediment needed to balance the 

annual sediment budget deficit. Cumulative 

impacts would be negligible to minor, longterm and adverse. 

Conclusion. Placing the proposed quantity of 

sediment on the beach in reach 3 would 

mitigate the sediment budget deficit, and 

thereby maintain the current shoreline profile. 

Additionally, dredging sediment from an 

updrift location would more closely mimic 

natural processes as compared to using 

material from upland sources. The actions 

associated with alternative D would also 

provide additional sediment to encourage 

foredune development along the shoreline, 

resulting in moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on coastal processes. Cumulative 

impacts on coastal process would be negligible 

to minor, long-term and adverse. 

Actions under alternative D would provide 

incremental beneficial increases to the overall 

adverse cumulative impacts described under 

alternative A. Despite these actions, existing 

navigational and industrial structures along 

the lakeshore would continue to disrupt the 

natural littoral drift along the lakeshore. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current and Proposed Management 

Actions 

Current and proposed management actions 

for the foredune and dune complex address 

the issues of sensitive habitat restoration, 

invasive vegetation management, and 

anthropogenic influences. These actions 

primarily affect terrestrial resources. 

Management actions that would result in 

dune stabilization, such as revegetation with 

native plants and protection from pedestrian 

overuse (e.g., the realignment of trails), would 

encourage the dune formation processes. 

Also, as sediment is transported between the 

nearshore, beach, and dune complexes, 

improved conditions in the foredune and 

dune complex would enhance the natural 

sediment transport processes between these 

complexes. These actions would result in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

coastal processes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

the foredune and dune complex in reaches 1 

through 4 under coastal processes as a result 

of proposed management actions would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial 

from the enhanced natural sediment transport 

process that would result from the improved 

conditions in the foredune and dune complex. 

Conclusion. Addressing sensitive habitat 

issues in the foredune and dune complex 

through site restoration, invasive vegetation 

management, and limiting and managing 

anthropogenic influences would result in 

dune stabilization from enhanced natural 

sediment transport processes, resulting in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under coastal 

processes would be negligible to minor, longterm, and beneficial from the enhanced 

natural sediment transport process that would 

result from the improved conditions in the 

foredune and dune complex. 
152 

AQUATIC FAUNA 

METHODOLOGY 

This analysis incorporates the best available 

scientific literature applicable to the region, 

the setting, and the actions being considered 

in the alternatives. Available information 

describing native, invasive and nonnative 

aquatic communities and distribution, 

including published scientific papers, NPS 

research reports, planning documents, state 

program materials, national databases and 

mapping efforts, and consultation with park 

specialists, were gathered, reviewed, and 

summarized. Impacts on aquatic fauna were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives to the 

projected results of implementing the noaction alternative. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds for native aquatic fauna 

are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable, 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in encouraging native 

aquatic fauna presence. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in encouraging native aquatic fauna 

presence. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent, 

and would result in easily detectable changes 

in encouraging native aquatic fauna presence. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse, or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in encouraging native 

aquatic fauna presence. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Storm waves, capable of reaching the base of 

coastal dunes, cause massive erosion and 

slumping of dune sands. This, in turn, 

introduces large volumes of sediment into the 

nearshore sediment transport system. Fine 

dune sediment is held in suspension much 

longer than beach sediment or fill sediment, 

and could therefore, be transported farther 

offshore. Suspended solids in the water could 

affect fish populations by delaying the 

hatching time of fish eggs, killing the fish by 

abrading their gills, and causing anoxia. Fish 

tolerance to suspended solids varies from 

species to species and by age; however, 

destruction of habitat rather than suspension 

of sediments appears to be the major hazard 

to beach and nearshore fish. Most of these 

aquatic species have the ability to migrate 

from an undesirable environment and return 

when deposition ceases. Benthic fish (those 

living on or near the bottom of the lake) move 

into an area within the first day after a 

disturbance ceases. The motile aquatic 

species, that have stringent environmental 

requirements, such as substrate preferences 

for spawning, foraging, or shelter, as well as 

species closely associated with the beach for 

part of their life cycle (e.g., longnose dace 

[Rhinichthys cataractae]), would be most likely 

affected by beach nourishment (COE 1989). 

Species that form lake-bottom or benthic 

communities on most high-energy coastal 

beaches are adapted to periodic changes 

related to the natural erosion and accretion 

cycles and storms. Organisms adapted to 

unstable nearshore bottom conditions tend to 

tolerate perturbations better than those in 

more stable offshore environments. Areas of 

continued erosion and accretion would 

disturb spawning and nursery habitats in the 

nearshore. 
Aquatic Fauna 

153 

Potential effects of beach nourishment 

include: altered distribution during offshore 

nourishment; potential for gill clogging and 

abrasion; temporary smoldering of benthic 

prey; burial of areas that serve as foraging and 

shelter sites; and potential burial of benthic 

fish. Burial of offshore benthic animals by 

beach nourishment material has a greater 

potential for adverse effects because the 

offshore organisms are more sensitive to 

perturbation than those in the upper 

nearshore and swash zone. Direct burial of 

nonmotile aquatic species in the placement 

area would produce localized mortality but 

would not have an appreciable effect of 

population stability (COE 1989). 

Under alternative A, the natural processes 

occurring in the lake, though exacerbated by 

the modifications along the shoreline, would 

continue to provide nearshore habitat for the 

most disturbance-tolerant species. It is 

assumed that beach nourishment activities 

would continue, averaging approximately 

31,500 yd3

 of mined material placed annually 

along the shoreline around Crescent Dune 

near Mount Baldy. 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — A 2006 

study conducted in association with the 

current beach nourishment activities 

indicated that the benthic community affected 

by material deposition near Mount Baldy 

showed evidence of a relatively high rate of 

recovery within eight to 12 months after beach 

nourishment activities. Densities and total 

number of benthic taxa increased with depth, 

suggesting lower impact of sediment drift and 

wave action in deeper waters (Przybryla-Kelly 

and Whitman 2006). Since the benthic 

community within the beach nourishment 

placement area would recover within a year, 

impacts on the benthic community under the 

no-action alternative would be minor, shortterm and adverse. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Yellow perch (Perca 

flavescens), as well as other fish species, are 

frequently found in the nearshore area, where 

wave-induced sediment transport is naturally 

active. It is well-recognized that these fish 

would vacate this nearshore area whenever a 

temporary natural disturbance occurred 

(e.g., the passage of a storm resulting in high 

wave activity and suspension of large 

quantities of sediment) and would return 

when favorable conditions were again present. 

Under the no-action alternative, the yellow 

perch population in the nearshore would be 

subjected to environmental stress arising from 

erosion and suspension of fine dune sands. 

The current beach nourishment program 

conducted by the COE was designed to 

combat this erosion. The average 31,500 yd3

 of 

material placed annually would be less than 

the calculated sediment budget deficit of 

136,500 yd3. Annual beach nourishment 

results in temporary displacement of fish as 

turbidity in the water column in both the 

dredge location and placement area would 

render the nearshore temporarily 

inhospitable. Under the no-action alternative, 

the erosion along the shoreline would 

continue, and fish assemblages in the 

nearshore area would remain subjected to 

environmental stress. Impacts on native fish 

species under alternative A would be minor, 

short-term and adverse. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — The 

presence of invasive and nonnative species, 

including round gobies and dreissenid 

mussels, changes native species composition. 

Dreissenid mussels compete directly with 

zooplankton for food because they filter 

phytoplankton from the water column. The 

decrease in zooplankton densities indirectly 

results in reduced numbers of age-0 yellow 

perch. Under the no-action alternative, beach 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. This is because the sandy 

substrate of the lakeshore provides for benthic 

species and fish assemblages intertwined in a 

delicate food web that is easily disrupted by 

external forces, such as beach nourishment 

and placement activities like those currently 

taking place in reach 1. The sediment material 

used for such beach nourishment could 

provide a pathway for the establishment and 

introduction of nonnative species. Sediment 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

154 

placement activities could also cause an 

unequal distribution of sediment supply to the 

lakeshore, resulting in a disturbed 

environment for aquatic fauna that 

encourages or invites nonnative and invasive 

species. The continued high rate of erosion 

taking place under the no-action alternative 

would result in loss of nearshore habitat, thus 

displacing native fish communities and 

encouraging a disturbed environment 

potentially more conducive to the presence of 

invasive and nonnative species. Effects on 

native species from the introduction and 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

species would be negligible, long-term and 

adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, would affect 

the park’s aquatic fauna. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, 

anthropogenic influences and alterations to 

the natural lake habitat have affected native 

aquatic species. The COE’s electric barrier 

currently helps to block the passage of aquatic 

nuisance species between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins and beneficially 

discourages the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna. In the future, 

additional modifications to the nearby 

industrial and other properties may be made, 

which may affect the benthic community and 

fish assemblages along the Lake Michigan 

shoreline. Additionally, permitting 

requirements for industrial and federal 

discharges into the lake may change, 

becoming stricter or more lax. Ongoing river 

projects, like the Calumet Harbor and River 

project and its associated dredging activities 

and support of transit in the Great Lakes, may 

lead to future introductions of aquatic 

invasive species and continued disturbance to 

aquatic habitat. Additionally, ships’ ballast 

water, which has accounted for 55% to 70% 

of reported aquatic invasive species 

introductions in to the Great Lakes since 

1959, continues to provide a pathway for 

aquatic invasive species in to the Great Lakes. 

However, future introductions of aquatic 

invasive species may be effectively managed 

through ballast water exchange, saltwater 

flushing, or shipboard treatment, and through 

restricting access to the Great Lakes to vessels 

that have not taken protective measures to 

ensure they do not harbor aquatic invasive 

species. 

Overall, these combined actions would have a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact on the 

native aquatic species from disturbances to 

the natural lake habitat and from the pathways 

these activities introduce for aquatic invasive 

species. When combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, implementing the no-action 

alternative would provide no incremental 

addition to the overall cumulative impacts on 

aquatic fauna. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. In addition, the 31,500 yd3

of nourishment material would not be 

sufficient to address the sediment deficit and 

beach erosion would continue. The actions 

proposed under the no-action alternative 

would result in negligible to minor, short- and 

long-term, adverse impacts on the native 

aquatic species. The overall cumulative 

impacts from invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under the 

no-action alternative, there would be no 

incremental addition to the overall cumulative 

impacts from disturbances to the nearshore 

lake habitat. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative B-1, the general effects of 

nourishment activities would be similar to 

those described under the no-action 

alternative. Under alternative B-1, 

nourishment activities would consist of 

136,500 yd3 of mined nourishment material 

being placed at Crescent Dune. 
Aquatic Fauna 

155 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative B-1, impacts on benthic 

communities would be similar to those 

described under the no-action alternative, 

except that onshore placement of 136,500 yd3 

of beach nourishment material would 

temporarily smother benthic fauna at the 

placement location, which would consist of a 

greater area. As beach nourishment material 

would be from upland sources, there would 

be no disturbance to the aquatic habitat from 

dredging activities. In addition, the 

nourishment volume would match the 

sediment budget deficit and alleviate the 

adverse effects from erosion, thereby 

enhancing the aquatic habitat of the benthic 

communities. There would be fewer adverse 

effects from erosion of the shoreline, but the 

footprint of burial of benthic communities 

would be larger. Overall effects on the benthic 

community would be minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under alternative 

B-1, effects on fish species would be similar to 

those described under the no-action 

alternative, except that under alternative B-1 

there would be less erosion and less associated 

environmental stress to spawning and nursery 

habitats. Overall effects on fish species would 

be minor, long-term and beneficial because 

there would be less environmental stress from 

erosion and no disturbance from dredging. 

Under alternative B-1, the volume of beach 

nourishment material placed on reach 1 

would cover a larger area and require longer 

placement times (approximately four months 

every year) than under the no-action 

alternative, resulting in a longer duration of 

turbid waters and thus longer periods of 

environmental stress for aquatic fauna. This 

annual beach nourishment would temporarily 

displace fish and result in minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on fish species. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Invasive 

and nonnative aquatic species located in the 

nearshore of Lake Michigan would be 

affected similar to the native fish species. A 

largely homogenous sandy substrate would 

make the nearshore environment desirable to 

not only the native species, but to the invasive 

and nonnative aquatic species as well. 

Disruption of the natural environment 

typically would allow for introduction and 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species. Under alternative B-1, beach 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. This is because the sandy 

substrate of the lakeshore provides for benthic 

species and fish assemblages that are easily 

disrupted by external forces, such as the beach 

nourishment activities that would take place 

under alternative B-1. Sediment placement 

activities could cause an unequal distribution 

of sediment supply to the lakeshore, resulting 

in a disturbed environment for aquatic fauna 

that would encourage or invite nonnative and 

invasive species. Appropriate beach 

nourishment material would be used, which 

would help mitigate attracting nonnative 

species. Therefore, under alternative B-1, 

effects from encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna would 

be similar to those described under the noaction alternative, except that over 105,000 

yd3

 of additional beach nourishment material 

would be distributed on the beach. Impacts 

from invasive and nonnative aquatic species 

under alternative B-1 would be negligible, 

long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative; moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative B-1, nourishment activities 

would beneficially add to the cumulative, 

long-term impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, implementing 

alternative B-1 would incrementally provide a 

beneficial effect from reducing erosion in the 

area, and a slight addition to the adverse 

effects from smothering benthic communities, 

displacing fish species and potentially 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

156 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative B-1 would result in negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the native aquatic 

species. The fish assemblages in the nearshore 

would be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, 

nourishment activities would disrupt the 

nearshore environment, which would allow 

for the introduction and establishment of 

invasive and nonnative species, but overall the 

decreased erosion in the area would benefit 

benthic communities. The overall cumulative 

effects on aquatic fauna from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative B-1, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative B-5, effects on the benthic 

community would be similar to those under 

alternative B-1. Placement of 682,500 yd3 of 

sediment along the length of reach 1, would 

reduce erosion in the area, but would also 

smother benthic fauna within a greater 

footprint than under alternative B-1 and 

would last approximately 18 months every five 

years. The appropriate sediment placed 

during beach nourishment activities, in 

conjunction with effective timing, design and 

deposition rate, would reduce the adverse 

effects. Nonetheless, under alternative B-5, 

increasing the footprint of the placement area 

would result in burial of the benthic fauna 

along most of reach 1. The impacts under 

alternative B-5 would be moderate, long-term 

and adverse from smothering benthic 

communities, and minor, long-term and 

beneficial from reducing erosion. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under alternative 

B-5, effects on fish species would be similar to 

those described under alternative B-1. 

Placement of 682,500 yd3 of sediment along 

the length of reach 1 every five years would 

reduce erosion in the area, but would also 

displace fish and interrupt fish life cycles until 

turbidity in the water column subsided such 

that the area was once again inhabitable. 

Water turbidity would last for a longer period 

of time under alternative B-5 than under 

alternative B-1 because of the larger area of 

placement and the longer duration 

(approximately 18 months every five years) of 

placement activities. Therefore, under 

alternative B-5, impacts on fish species would 

be moderate, long-term and adverse from 

displacement due to water turbidity, and 

minor, long-term and beneficial from 

reducing erosion in the area and enhancing 

the fish habitat. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Under 

alternative B-5, both native and nonnative/

invasive benthic species would be temporarily 

affected by burial. Disruption of the natural 

environment would allow for introduction 

and establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species. Under alternative B-5, beach 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. This is because the sandy 

substrate of the lakeshore provides for benthic 

species and fish assemblages that are easily 

disrupted by external forces, such as the beach 

nourishment activities that would take place 

under alternative B-5. Sediment placement 

activities could cause an unequal distribution 

of sediment supply to the lakeshore, resulting 

in a disturbed environment for aquatic fauna 

that would encourage or invite nonnative and 

invasive species. Risks from attracting 

nonnative species would be minimized 

because appropriate grain sized material 

would be used. Therefore, under alternative 

B-5, the effects from encouraging invasive and 
Aquatic Fauna 

157 

nonnative aquatic fauna would be negligible, 

long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative: moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative B-5, beach nourishment 

activities would incrementally add to the 

cumulative long-term impacts. When 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

implementing alternative B-5 would provide 

an incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative B-5 would result in negligible to 

moderate, long-term, adverse and beneficial 

impacts on the native aquatic species. The fish 

assemblages in the nearshore would be 

temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, beach 

nourishment activities would disrupt the 

nearshore environment, which would allow 

for the introduction and establishment of 

invasive and nonnative species. Overall, the 

decreased erosion in the area would benefit 

benthic communities. The overall cumulative 

effects on aquatic fauna from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative B-5, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall adverse 

cumulative impacts from smothering benthic 

communities, displacing fish species and 

potentially encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — The 

effects on benthic communities under 

alternative C-1 would be similar to those 

described under alternative B-1 except that 

136,500 yd3

 of beach nourishment material 

would be dredged from an updrift location, 

such as the nearshore area east of the 

Michigan City Harbor, and placed annually 

on the beach in reach 1. 

Some research has shown that that the highpressure (dredge) pipe kills most soft-bodied 

infaunal organisms, and animals that survive 

suspension only play a minor role in recolonization. To enhance the chance of 

survival, sediment would closely match the 

native beach and would be applied slowly in a 

sheeting spray of sediment and water. This 

would allow organisms to keep up with the 

sediment overburdens as they were applied. 

As previously mentioned, literature reviews of 

beach nourishment impacts on beach biota 

indicate short-term declines in abundance, 

biomass, and taxa richness following beach 

nourishment. Recovery of the benthic 

community within the nearshore environment 

has been shown to occur within eight to 12 

months after nourishment activities. 

Additionally, densities and total number of 

benthic taxa increased with depth, suggesting 

lower impact of sediment drift and wave 

action in deeper waters (Przybryla-Kelly and 

Whitman 2006). 

Under alternative C-1, annual beach 

nourishment of the park shoreline with 

dredged material deposited onto the beach 

would have minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the benthic 

community in the placement area. There 

would be a long-term, beneficial effect from 

reducing erosion of the shoreline, but dredge 

activities would kill individual soft-bodied 

infaunal organisms. A high rate of recovery of 

the benthos would be expected in less than 

one year. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

158 

Fish of Lake Michigan — The effects on fish 

species under alternative C-1 would be similar 

to those described under alternative B-1 

except that beach nourishment material 

would be dredged and pumped along reach 1. 

The turbidity in the water column would last 

longer because the volume of beach 

nourishment material placed on reach 1 under 

alternative C-1 would cover a larger area and 

require longer placement times 

(approximately two months every year) than 

under the no-action alternative. This annual 

beach nourishment activity would temporarily 

displace fish and result in minor, short-term, 

adverse effects. Overall effects on fish species 

would be minor, long-term and beneficial 

because there would be less environmental 

stress from erosion. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Dredging 

activities under alternative C-1 would disturb 

the natural environment and allow invasive 

and nonnative aquatic fauna to become 

established. Under alternative C-1, beach 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. This is because the sandy 

substrate of the lakeshore provides for benthic 

species and fish assemblages that are easily 

disrupted by external forces, such as beach 

nourishment, placement, and dredging 

activities like those that would take place 

under alternative C-1. Sediment placement 

activities could also cause an unequal 

distribution of sediment supply to the 

lakeshore, resulting in a disturbed 

environment for aquatic fauna that would 

encourage or invite nonnative and invasive 

species. The dredged material would be 

similar in grain size distributions to those of 

the native beach and the grain size would 

closely match that of the natural beach 

sediments. Under alternative C-1, effects from 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna would be similar to 

those described under alternative B-1: 

negligible, short-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative: moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative C-1, beach nourishment 

activities would beneficially add to the 

cumulative, long-term impacts. When 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

implementing actions under alternative C-1 

would provide a slight incremental addition to 

the overall short-term, adverse cumulative 

impacts from smothering benthic 

communities, displacing fish species and 

potentially encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative C-1 would result in negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the native aquatic 

species. The fish assemblages in the nearshore 

would be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, 

nourishment and dredging activities would 

disrupt the nearshore environment, which 

would allow for the introduction and 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

species, but overall the decreased erosion in 

the area would benefit benthic communities. 

The overall cumulative effects on aquatic 

fauna from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

alternative C-1, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative C-5, effects on the benthic 

community would be similar to those under 
Aquatic Fauna 

159 

alternative C-1. Placement of 682,500 yd3 of 

sediment on the beach in reach 1 every five 

years would reduce erosion in the area, but 

would also smother benthic fauna within a 

greater footprint than under alternative C-1 

and there would be greater mortality to 

individual soft-bodied infaunal organisms. 

The impacts under alternative C-5 would be 

moderate to major, short- and long-term, and 

adverse from dredging activities and 

smothering benthic communities, and minor, 

long-term and beneficial from reducing the 

effects of erosion. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under alternative C5, effects on fish species would be similar to 

those under alternative C-1. Placement of 

682,500 yd3 of sediment along the length of 

reach 1 every five years would reduce erosion 

in the area, but would also displace fish and 

interrupt fish life cycles until turbidity in the 

water column subsided such that the area was 

once again inhabitable. Water turbidity would 

last for a longer period of time under 

alternative C-5 than under alternative C-1 

because of the larger area of placement and 

the longer duration (approximately 10 months 

every five years) of dredging and placement 

activities. Therefore, under alternative C-5, 

impacts on fish species would be moderate to 

major, short- and long-term, and adverse from 

displacement due to water turbidity and 

dredging activities, and minor, long-term and 

beneficial from reducing erosion in the area 

and enhancing the fish habitat. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Dredging 

activities under alternative C-5 would further 

disturb the natural environment, more so than 

under alternative C-1, and allow for the 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna. Therefore, under alternative C5, effects from encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna would 

be negligible, short-term, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative: moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative C-5, beach nourishment 

activities would beneficially add to the longterm, cumulative impacts. When combined 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, implementing 

actions under alternative C-5 would provide a 

slight incremental addition to the overall 

short-term, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative C-5 would result in negligible to 

major, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on native aquatic species. 

The fish assemblages in the nearshore would 

be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, beach 

nourishment and dredging activities would 

disrupt the nearshore environment, which 

would allow for the introduction and 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

species, but overall the decreased erosion in 

the area would benefit benthic communities. 

The overall cumulative effects on aquatic 

fauna from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

alternative C-5, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall adverse, 

short-term, cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative D, on average, a total of 136,500 

yd3 of sediment would be transported via a 

permanent bypass system annually from 

updrift of the Michigan City Harbor to reach 

1. The effects of implementing the highpressure line associated with the permanent 

bypass system would be similar to those 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

described under alternative C-1. There would 

be a minor, long-term, beneficial effect from 

reducing erosion of the shoreline, but the 

bypass system would kill individual softbodied infaunal organisms and cause minor, 

short-term impacts on benthic communities. 

Therefore, nourishment of the park shoreline 

with a sediment bypass system would have 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the benthic community 

in the placement area. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under alternative D, 

the effects on fish species would be similar to 

those described under alternative C-1 except 

that beach nourishment material would be 

pumped via a permanent bypass system. 

Implementing this beach nourishment system 

would result in temporary displacement of 

fish and produce minor, short-term, adverse 

effects. Overall effects on fish species would 

be minor, long-term and beneficial because 

there would be less environmental stress from 

erosion. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — The 

construction of the permanent bypass system 

would temporarily disrupt the natural 

environment and allow for the introduction of 

invasive and nonnative species. Invasive 

species, particularly round gobies and zebra 

mussels, would be attracted to artificial 

structures within the nearshore environment. 

There would be a slight change in the 

attraction of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. Under alternative D, effects from 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna would be negligible, 

long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna would be similar to those 

described under the no-action alternative: 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

alternative D, beach nourishment activities 

and the permanent bypass system would 

incrementally add to the long-term, 

cumulative impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, actions under 

alternative D would provide an incremental 

addition to the overall adverse cumulative 

impacts from smothering benthic 

communities, displacing fish species and 

potentially encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative D would result in negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on native aquatic species. 

The fish assemblages in the nearshore would 

be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, 

construction of a permanent bypass system 

would disrupt the nearshore environment and 

allow for the introduction and establishment 

of invasive and nonnative species. Overall, the 

decreased erosion in the area would benefit 

benthic communities. The overall cumulative 

effects on aquatic fauna from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative D, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall adverse 

cumulative impacts from smothering benthic 

communities, displacing fish species and 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna with the installation 

of a permanent bypass system. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — The 

sandy substrate along the nearshore of the 

park shoreline supports a limited benthic 

community of low diversity. Increased 

densities have been noted in intermittent beds 

of cobble/gravel material. In the relatively high 

wave energy nearshore environment, at 

certain sediment-starved areas along the 

shoreline, particularly at the base of 

Mount Baldy, the clay substrate naturally 

found beneath the sediment has been 

exposed, and organic matter often found in 
Aquatic Fauna 

161 

calmer waters has been carried away from the 

shoreline (Garza and Whitman 2004). The 

kinetic nature of the nearshore environment 

has therefore created low density and 

diversity within the benthic community. One 

study, conducted from 1996 to 1998 in 

conjunction with a COE beach nourishment 

program, indicated that relatively few species 

were detected in the benthic community 

inhabiting sandy substrates in the nearshore 

area, as indicated by the Shannon-Wiener and 

Margalef’s diversity indices (Horvath et al.

1999). 

The use of a submerged cobble berm in 

reach 1 would result in a longer retention of 

sediment within the nearshore. As the 

submerged cobble berm would begin to 

dissipate after construction, the aggregate 

material would disperse along the lakebed, 

creating a substrate inhabitable for benthic 

organisms. The nearshore environment at the 

base of Mount Baldy is currently identified 

with a lower benthic diversity and density as 

compared to other areas along the park 

shoreline (Garza and Whitman 2004). The 

implementation of alternative E within reach 1 

would result in effects similar to those 

described under alternative C-1 because the 

submerged cobble berm would be used in 

conjunction with a beach nourishment 

program to restore reach 1 of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore. These effects would be 

minor, short-term and adverse as the benthic 

fauna would be smothered during placement 

of the sediment. Impacts would be localized to 

the placement and construction area. There 

would be moderate, long-term and beneficial 

effects on the benthic community as the 

cobble material would both create additional 

habitat for these aquatic species and reduce 

erosion in the area. Longer retention of 

sediment and some organic material would 

allow for those species historically present in 

this area to re-colonize the area. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under the preferred 

alternative, the nearshore environment would 

be disrupted not only during the beach 

nourishment activities, but also during 

construction and placement of the submerged 

cobble berm, and during subsequent 

nourishment activities. The reduced quantity 

of beach nourishment material deposited 

annually in reach 1 would make the nearshore 

environment desirable to native species and 

invasive and nonnative aquatic species alike. 

The effects of the annual placement of 

nourishment material would be similar to 

those described under alternative C-1. 

As is the case with the benthic community in 

the nearshore, the presence of a submerged 

cobble berm in reach 1 would eventually 

provide a habitat for additional fish species 

not currently present in that area. In the initial 

years after construction during which the 

submerged cobble berm would be largely 

intact, wave energy would be dissipated, 

resulting in a calmer nearshore environment. 

Sediment retention time would increase, as 

would organic material and benthic 

organisms; both would be food sources for a 

variety of fish species. After the submerged 

cobble berm spread along the lake bottom, the 

aggregate material would potentially allow for 

more fish nurseries as the interstitial spaces 

would provide protection. 

Ultimately, the implementation of the 

preferred alternative would result in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts as fish would be 

temporarily displaced during construction 

and beach nourishment activities. However, 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts 

would also result as the cobble material would 

enhance the aquatic fauna habitat. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Invasive 

species, particularly round gobies and zebra 

mussels, would be attracted to artificial 

structures within the nearshore environment. 

Under the preferred alternative, beach 

nourishment activities would disrupt the 

nearshore environment, which would allow 

for the introduction and establishment of 

invasive and nonnative species. Construction 

of the submerged cobble berm would also 

further attract invasive species. The cobble 

material and associated interstitial spaces in 

the submerged cobble berm would be an 

attractive habitat for invasive and nonnative 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

162 

species until the material dissipates and 

becomes covered by sediment. After the 

aggregate material dispersed along the lake 

bottom, zebra mussels’ attraction to it would 

be minimized; however, additional invasive 

and nonnative aquatic species, such as the 

round goby, would continue to inhabit the 

area. Therefore, under the preferred 

alternative, the introduction of the submerged 

cobble berm into the nearshore environment 

would result in minor, long-term, adverse 

effects from encouraging invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative: moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under the preferred alternative, nourishment 

activities and the submerged cobble berm 

would incrementally add both minor, shortterm, adverse and minor, long-term, beneficial 

effects on cumulative impacts. When 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, actions 

under the preferred alternative would provide 

an incremental addition to the overall 

cumulative impacts by enhancing the habitat 

for benthic communities. These effects would 

be slightly countered by the enhancement of 

habitat for invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna as well. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under the 

preferred alternative would result in 

moderate, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the native aquatic 

species. The aquatic fauna in the nearshore 

would be temporarily disturbed or displaced 

during construction of the submerged cobble 

berm and during beach nourishment 

activities. Long term, the aquatic habitat 

would be enhanced by providing protection 

and food sources for a variety of fish. The 

habitat would also be enhanced for nonnative 

and invasive species. The overall cumulative 

impacts on aquatic fauna from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under the preferred alternative, there would 

be an incremental addition to the overall 

cumulative effects by enhancing the habitat 

for benthic communities. These effects would 

be slightly countered by the enhancement of 

habitat for invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna as well. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Storm waves, capable of reaching the base of 

coastal dunes, cause massive erosion and 

slumping of dune sands. This, in turn, causes 

large volumes of fine sand to be carried into 

the nearshore sediment transport system. Fine 

dune sand is held in suspension much longer 

than natural beach sediment or fill sediment 

and could, therefore, be transported farther 

offshore. Suspended solids in the water could 

affect fish populations by delaying the 

hatching time of fish eggs, killing the fish by 

abrading their gills, and causing anoxia. Fish 

tolerance to suspended solids varies from 

species to species and by age. Destruction of 

habitat rather than suspension of sediments 

appears to be the major hazard to beach and 

nearshore fishes. Most of these aquatic 

species have the ability to migrate from an 

undesirable environment and return when 

turbidity levels in the water column have 

decreased, and living conditions are once 

again present. Several long-term studies have 

shown that moderate to complete recovery of 

motile animal populations has occurred in less 

than a year. These studies have shown that 

motile aquatic species generally temporarily 

depart an area disturbed by beach 

nourishment, but return when the physical 

disturbance ceases. Benthic fish move into an 

area within the first day after a disturbance. 

The motile aquatic species that have stringent 

environmental requirements, such as 

substrate preferences for spawning, foraging, 

or shelter, are most likely to be affected (COE 

1989). Therefore, species that are closely 

associated with the beach for part of their life 

cycle are most affected by beach nourishment 

(COE 1989). Species that form lake-bottom or 
Aquatic Fauna 

163 

benthic communities on most high-energy 

coastal beaches are adapted to periodic 

changes related to the natural erosion and 

accretion cycles and storms. Organisms 

adapted to unstable nearshore bottom 

conditions tend to tolerate perturbations 

better than those in more stable offshore 

environments. 

Potential effects of beach nourishment 

include: altered distribution during offshore 

nourishment; potential for gill clogging and 

abrasion; temporary smoldering of benthic 

prey; burial of areas that serve as foraging and 

shelter sites; and potential burial of benthic 

(living on or near the bottom of the lake) fish. 

Burial of offshore benthic animals by beach 

nourishment material has a greater potential 

for adverse effects because the offshore 

organisms are more sensitive to perturbation 

than those in the upper nearshore and swash 

zone. Direct burial of nonmotile aquatic 

species in the placement area could be lethal 

to the individual. Effects of direct burial of 

aquatic fauna are not generally substantial at 

the population or community level, unless it is 

a sensitive resource (COE 1989). 

Under alternative A, the natural processes 

occurring in the lake, though exacerbated by 

the modifications along the shoreline, would 

continue to provide nearshore habitat for the 

most disturbance-tolerant species. Beach 

nourishment activities would consist of 74,000 

yd3

 of dredged material placed within open 

water between 12 and 18 feet of water depth 

near reach 3. 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — The 

lake substrate in reach 3 is largely 

homogenous and composed of sand; there is 

relatively little diversity and low density of 

benthic fauna. Under the no-action 

alternative, erosion would continue at an 

accelerated rate which would threaten the 

aquatic nearshore environment. As wave 

dynamics in this area are such that only the 

most disturbance-prone organisms could 

survive, the benthic community would remain 

affected by natural processes. The nearshore 

placement of dredged sediment would result 

in minor, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

benthic fauna in the nearshore as they would 

be smothered during placement of sediment. 

Impacts would be localized to the placement 

area. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Without 

nourishment material on the beach, the fish 

population in the nearshore would be 

subjected to an adverse environmental stress, 

arising from the erosion and suspension of 

fine dune sands. The current nearshore 

placement conducted by the COE was 

designed to combat the continued erosion of 

the shoreline along Portage Lakefront and 

Riverwalk. Erosion along the shoreline would 

continue, and fish assemblages in the 

nearshore would continue to be subjected to 

the environmental stress associated with 

erosion in the area. Nearshore nourishment 

placement would temporarily displace fish, as 

turbidity in the water column of the 

placement area would render the nearshore 

temporarily inhospitable. Impacts on native 

fish species under alternative A would 

therefore be minor, short-term and adverse. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species —Under the 

no-action alternative, beach nourishment 

activities would disturb the placement site, 

which would encourage the establishment of 

nonnative and invasive species at that site. 

This is because the sandy substrate of the 

lakeshore provides for benthic species and 

fish assemblages intertwined in a delicate food 

web that is easily disrupted by external forces, 

such as beach nourishment and placement 

activities like those currently taking place in 

reach 3. The sediment material used for such 

beach nourishment could provide a pathway 

for the establishment and introduction of 

nonnative species. Sediment placement 

activities could also cause an unequal 

distribution of sediment supply to the 

lakeshore, resulting in a disturbed 

environment for aquatic fauna that 

encourages or invites nonnative and invasive 

species. Under the no-action alternative, the 

effects on native populations from 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

nonnative species would be negligible, shortterm and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several potential 

actions, independent of this plan, would affect 

the park’s aquatic fauna. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, 

anthropogenic influences and alterations to 

the natural lake habitat have affected native 

aquatic species. The COE’s electric barrier 

currently helps to block the passage of aquatic 

nuisance species between the Great Lakes and 

Mississippi River basins and beneficially 

discourages the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna. In the future, 

additional modifications to nearby industrial 

and other properties may be made, which may 

affect the benthic community and fish 

assemblages along the Lake Michigan 

shoreline. Additionally, permitting 

requirements for industrial and federal 

discharges into the lake may change, 

becoming stricter or more lax. Ongoing river 

projects, like the Calumet Harbor and River 

project and its associated dredging activities 

and support of transit in the Great Lakes, may 

lead to future introductions of aquatic 

invasive species in the Great Lakes and 

continued disturbance to aquatic habitat. 

Additionally, ships’ ballast water, continues to 

provide a pathway for aquatic invasive species 

in to the Great Lakes. However, future 

introductions of aquatic invasive species may 

be effectively managed through ballast water 

exchange, saltwater flushing, or shipboard 

treatment, and through restricting access to 

the Great Lakes to vessels that have not taken 

protective measures to ensure they do not 

harbor aquatic invasive species. 

Overall, these combined actions would have a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact on the 

native aquatic species from disturbances to 

the natural lake habitat and from the pathways 

these activities introduce for aquatic invasive 

species. When combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, implementing the no-action 

alternative would provide no incremental 

addition to the overall cumulative impacts on 

aquatic fauna. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

beach nourishment activities would disrupt 

the nearshore environment, which would 

allow for the introduction and establishment 

of invasive and nonnative species. In addition, 

the 74,000 yd3

 of beach nourishment material 

placed in open water would not alleviate 

beach erosion in the area. The actions 

proposed under the no-action alternative 

would result in negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impacts on native aquatic 

species. The overall cumulative impacts on 

aquatic fauna from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

be moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

the no-action alternative, there would be no 

incremental addition to the overall existing 

cumulative impacts. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1, the general effects of 

beach nourishment activities would be similar 

to those described under the no-action 

alternative. Under alternative C-1, 

nourishment activities would consist of 74,000 

yd3 of dredged beach nourishment material 

being placed annually on the beach at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative C-1, impacts on benthic 

communities would be similar to those 

described under the no-action alternative, 

except that placement of 74,000 yd3 of beach 

nourishment material would be hydraulically 

pumped onshore. Some research has shown 

that the high-pressure (dredge) pipe kills most 

soft-bodied infaunal organisms, and animals 

that survive suspension only play a minor role 

in re-colonization. To enhance the chance of 

survival, sediment would closely match the 

native beach and would be applied slowly in a 

sheeting spray of sediment and water. This 

would allow organisms to keep up with the 

sediment overburdens as they were applied. 

Literature reviews of beach nourishment 
Aquatic Fauna 

165 

impacts to beach biota indicate short-term 

declines in abundance, biomass, and taxa 

richness following beach nourishment. 

Recovery of the benthic community within 

the nearshore environment has been shown to 

occur within eight to 12 months after 

nourishment activities. Additionally, densities 

and total number of benthic taxa increased 

with depth, suggesting lower impact of 

sediment drift and wave action in deeper 

waters (Przybryla-Kelly and Whitman 2006). 

Therefore, under alternative C-1, annual 

nourishment of the park shoreline with 

dredged material deposited onto the beach 

would have minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the benthic 

community in the placement area. There 

would be a minor, long-term, beneficial effect 

from reducing erosion of the shoreline, but 

the dredge would kill individual soft-bodied 

infaunal organisms. A high rate of recovery of 

the benthos would be expected within less 

than one year. 

Fish of Lake Michigan—Under alternative 

C-1, effects on fish species would be similar to 

those described under the no-action 

alternative, except under alternative C-1 there 

would be less erosion and less associated 

environmental stress to spawning and nursery 

habitats. Effects on fish species would be 

minor, long-term and beneficial because there 

would be less environmental stress. Under 

alternative C-1, the volume of beach 

nourishment material placed on reach 3 

would cover a larger area and require longer 

placement times (approximately two months 

every year) than under the no-action 

alternative, resulting in a longer duration of 

turbid waters and thus longer periods of 

environmental stress for aquatic fauna. This 

annual beach nourishment would temporarily 

displace fish and result in minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on fish species.

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Invasive 

and nonnative aquatic species located in the 

nearshore of Lake Michigan would be 

affected similar to the native fish species. A 

sandy substrate would make the nearshore 

environment desirable to not only the native 

species, but the invasive and nonnative aquatic 

species as well. Disruption of the natural 

environment typically allows for introduction 

and establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species. Under alternative C-1, beach 

nourishment activities would disturb the 

placement site, which would encourage the 

establishment of nonnative and invasive 

species at that site. This is because the sandy 

substrate of the lakeshore provides for benthic 

species and fish assemblages that are easily 

disrupted by external forces, such as beach 

nourishment, placement, and dredging 

activities like those that would take place 

under alternative C-1. Sediment placement 

activities could also cause an unequal 

distribution of sediment supply to the 

lakeshore, resulting in a disturbed 

environment for aquatic fauna that would 

encourage or invite nonnative and invasive 

species. Appropriate beach nourishment 

material would be used, which would help 

mitigate attracting nonnative species. 

Therefore, under alternative C-1, effects from 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna would be similar to 

those described under the no-action 

alternative and would be negligible, shortterm and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect aquatic fauna would be 

similar to those described under the no-action 

alternative: moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative C-1, beach nourishment 

activities would beneficially add to the longterm, cumulative impacts by reducing erosion 

in the area and enhancing the aquatic habitat. 

When combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, actions 

under alternative C-1 would provide a slight 

incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative C-1 would result in negligible to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on native aquatic species. 

The fish assemblages in the nearshore would 

be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, 

nourishment and dredging activities would 

disrupt the nearshore environment, which 

would allow for the introduction and 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

species, but overall the decreased erosion in 

the area would benefit benthic communities. 

The overall cumulative effects on aquatic 

fauna from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would be 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

alternative C-1, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the short-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts from smothering 

benthic communities, displacing fish species 

and potentially encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative C-5, the general effects of 

beach nourishment activities would be similar 

to those described under the no-action 

alternative. Under alternative C-5, beach 

nourishment activities would consist of 

370,000 yd3 of sediment being dredged from 

an updrift location in Lake Michigan, such as 

near the NIPSCO/Bailly intake, once every 

five years. 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative C-5, effects on the benthic 

community would be similar to those under 

alternative C-1. Placement of 370,000 yd3 of 

sediment along Portage Lakefront and 

Riverwalk at reach 3 once every five years 

would reduce erosion in the area, but would 

also smother benthic fauna within a greater 

footprint than that under alternative C-1. In 

addition, there would be greater mortality to 

individual soft-bodied infaunal organisms 

from the hydraulic pumping of beach 

nourishment material. Therefore, the impacts 

on benthic communities under alternative C-5 

would be moderate to major, short- and longterm, and adverse due to the duration (i.e., 

approximately six months every five years) 

and extent of the beach nourishment 

placement, and effects from reducing erosion 

in the area would be minor, long-term and 

beneficial. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — Under alternative 

C-5, effects on fish species would be similar to 

those under alternative C-1. Placement of 

370,000 yd3 of sediment every five years would 

reduce erosion in the area, but would also 

displace fish and interrupt fish life cycles until 

turbidity in the water column subsided such 

that the area was once again inhabitable. 

Water turbidity would last for a longer period 

of time under alternative C-5 than under 

alternative C-1 because of the larger area of 

placement and the longer duration 

(approximately six months every five years) of 

dredging and placement activities. Therefore, 

under alternative C-5, impacts on fish species 

would be moderate to major, short- and longterm, and adverse from displacement due to 

water turbidity and dredging activities, and 

minor, long-term, and beneficial from 

reducing erosion in the area and enhancing 

the fish habitat. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — Dredging/

pumping activities under alternative C-5 

would further disturb the natural 

environment, more so than under alternative 

C-1, and allow for the establishment of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna. Under 

alternative C-5, beach nourishment activities 

would disturb the placement site, which 

would encourage the establishment of 

nonnative and invasive species at that site. 

Beach nourishment, placement, and dredging 

activities like those that would take place 

under alternative C-1 would disturb the 

aquatic fauna environment. Sediment 

placement activities could also cause an 

unequal distribution of sediment supply to the 

lakeshore, resulting in a disturbed 

environment for aquatic fauna that would 

encourage or invite nonnative and invasive 

species. Therefore, under alternative C-5, 
Aquatic Fauna 

167 

effects from encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna would 

be negligible, short-term, and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna would be similar to those 

described under the no-action alternative: 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 

alternative C-5, nourishment activities would 

incrementally add to the long-term, beneficial, 

cumulative impacts by reducing the adverse 

effects of erosion in the area. When combined 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, the actions under 

alternative C-5 would also provide an 

incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

displacing or disturbing native fish species and 

encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative C-5 would result in negligible to 

major, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on the native aquatic 

species. Fish assemblages would be displaced, 

and fish life cycles would be interrupted. Also, 

beach nourishment and dredging activities 

would disrupt the nearshore environment, 

which would allow for the introduction and 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna. The overall cumulative impacts 

on aquatic fauna from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Implementing the actions under alternative 

C-5 would provide an incremental addition to 

the overall short-term, adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative impacts, as effects from erosion in 

the area would be lessened, but there would 

be disturbances to the aquatic communities 

during beach nourishment activities. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Meiofauna and Macroinvertebrates — Under 

alternative D, 74,000 yd3 of sediment would be 

transported via a permanent bypass system 

from updrift of the NIPSCO/Bailly complex 

and be placed on the beach at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. The effects of the 

high-pressure line associated with the 

permanent bypass system would be similar to 

those described under alternative C-1. There 

would be a minor, long-term, beneficial effect 

from reducing erosion of the shoreline, but 

the bypass system would kill individual softbodied infaunal organisms and cause minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on benthic 

communities. Therefore, nourishment of the 

park shoreline with a sediment bypass system 

would have minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse and beneficial impacts on the benthic 

community in the placement area. 

Fish of Lake Michigan — The effects on fish 

species under alternative D would be similar 

to those described under alternative C-1, 

except that beach nourishment material 

would be pumped via a permanent bypass 

system. This nourishment system would 

temporarily displace fish, resulting in minor, 

short-term, adverse effects. Overall effects on 

fish species would be minor, long-term and 

beneficial because there would be less 

environmental stress from erosion. 

Invasive and Nonnative Species — The 

construction of the permanent bypass system 

would temporarily disrupt the natural 

environment and allow for the introduction of 

invasive and nonnative species. Invasive 

species, particularly round gobies and zebra 

mussels, would be attracted to artificial 

structures within the nearshore environment. 

There would be an easily detectible change in 

the attraction of invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna. Under alternative D, effects 

from encouraging the presence of invasive and 

nonnative aquatic fauna would be negligible, 

long-term and adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects with 

the potential to affect invasive and nonnative 

aquatic fauna would be similar to those 

described under the no-action alternative: 

moderate, long-term and adverse. Under 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

alternative D, beach nourishment activities 

and the permanent bypass system would 

incrementally add to the long-term, 

cumulative impacts. When combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, actions 

implemented under alternative D would 

provide an incremental addition to the overall 

short-term, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and potentially encouraging the 

presence of invasive and nonnative aquatic 

fauna. 

Conclusion. The actions proposed under 

alternative D would result in negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impacts on native aquatic species. 

The fish assemblages in the nearshore would 

be temporarily displaced and benthic 

communities would be smothered during 

beach nourishment activities. Also, 

construction activities would disrupt the 

nearshore environment, which would allow 

for the introduction and establishment of 

invasive and nonnative species. Overall, the 

decreased erosion in the area would benefit 

benthic communities. The overall cumulative 

effects on aquatic fauna from past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would be moderate, long-term and adverse. 

Under alternative D, there would be a slight 

incremental addition to the overall shortterm, adverse cumulative impacts from 

smothering benthic communities, displacing 

fish species and encouraging the presence of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna with the 

installation of a permanent bypass system. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current and Proposed Management 

Actions 

Current and proposed management actions 

for the foredune and dune complex address 

issues with sensitive habitat restoration, 

invasive vegetation management, and 

anthropogenic influences. These are actions 

that primarily affect terrestrial resources. 

Management actions that would result in 

reduced erosion in the area, such as 

revegetation with native plants and protection 

from pedestrian overuse, would reduce the 

volume of fine sand that would carried into 

the nearshore sediment transport system and 

would thereby beneficially enhance the 

aquatic habitat. These actions would result in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

aquatic fauna. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on 

the foredune and dune complex in reaches 1 

through 4 under aquatic fauna as a result of 

proposed management actions would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial 

from the reduced erosion in the area and 

reduced volume of fine sediment that would 

be carried into the nearshore sediment 

transport system, beneficially enhancing the 

aquatic habitat.

Conclusion. Addressing sensitive habitat 

issues in the foredune and dune complex 

through site restoration, invasive vegetation 

management, and limiting and managing 

anthropogenic influences positively affect 

terrestrial resources and would result in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

aquatic fauna. Cumulative impacts on the 

foredune and dune complex in reaches 1 

through 4 under aquatic fauna would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial 

from the enhanced aquatic habitat. 
169 

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT 

METHODOLOGY 

Impacts on plant and animal terrestrial habitat 

were evaluated by comparing projected 

changes that would result from implementing 

the action alternatives to taking no action (i.e., 

the no-action alternative). Information about 

native terrestrial habitat in the park was 

compiled from site visits, publicly available 

research data, information from park staff, 

and studies of similar actions and effects. 

Impacts on terrestrial habitat were assessed 

qualitatively based on the project team’s 

knowledge and best professional judgment. 

A discussion of potential effects on wildlife 

necessarily involves discussion of wildlife 

habitat, which is primarily the vegetation 

communities within the park. Potential effects 

to terrestrial invertebrates, birds, amphibians 

and reptiles, and mammals are based on 

assessed effects to native plant communities 

because the park’s wildlife species are directly 

affected by the natural abundance, 

biodiversity, and the ecological integrity of the 

vegetation that composes their habitat. Effects 

from noise on wildlife are addressed under 

the “Soundscape” section of the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds for terrestrial habitat are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in encouraging terrestrial 

habitat for plant and animal communities. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in encouraging terrestrial habitat for 

plant and animal communities. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in easily detectable changes in 

encouraging terrestrial habitat for plant and 

animal communities. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in encouraging 

terrestrial habitat for plant and animal 

communities. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no new impacts on the terrestrial habitat of 

native plant and animal communities in the 

park, and the actions associated with this 

alternative would neither invite nor deter 

invasive species from inhabiting the shoreline 

and beach complex in reaches 1 and 2. Under 

this alternative, the current trend of 

destabilization of the foredunes would 

continue, increasing the risk to Mount Baldy. 

Such destabilization would lead to the 

localized loss of the natural ecosystems 

associated with the beach and the foredunes, 

including plant species endemic to the dunes, 

as well as insects, reptiles, birds and mammals 

dependent upon this habitat. These actions 

would have minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, the western terminus of reach 1 

would continue to be infested with nonnative 

trees. Continued erosion and degradation 

would invite colonization by these species and 

other nonnative invasive plants, having a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on 

terrestrial habitat for native plant and animal 

communities. 

Under the no-action alternative, current 

beach nourishment activities in reach 1 would 

forestall continued erosion and degradation 

around Mount Baldy. The amount of 

sediment added to the shoreline would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170 

inadequate to offset the deficit under this 

alternative. Therefore, the erosion and 

degradation of the foredune would continue, 

thus jeopardizing plant species endemic to the 

foredune complex. The actions associated 

with the no-action alternative would have 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse impacts 

on native plant and animal communities, as 

some beach vegetation would be smothered 

by sediment placement during beach 

nourishment activities and loss of critical 

terrestrial habitat would continue. With no 

new actions being taken under alternative A, 

storm events would continue to cause 

substantial erosion in the park to the 

detriment of terrestrial habitat for plant and 

animal communities. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several actions, 

independent of this plan, would affect the 

park’s terrestrial habitat for plant and animal 

communities. As described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter, much of the terrestrial 

habitat for native plant communities in the 

park, including species of conservation 

concern, has been altered by invasive 

vegetation and anthropogenic influences. 

The Michigan City Harbor, Port of Indiana 

industrial complex, and the Gary-U.S. Steel 

man-made structures that were constructed in 

and around the project area continue to 

interrupt natural processes with minor, longterm, adverse effects on the terrestrial habitat 

for native plant and animal communities 

because of the changes to natural sediment 

accumulation that these cause. The 

designation of the appropriate route to and 

from Mount Baldy from the parking lot by the 

park resulted in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on native plant and animal 

communities by reducing the social trails in 

reach 1, thus reducing the trampling of native 

plants in this area and the introduction of 

invasive plant species to this reach. 

Development projects, past, present, and 

future, like those that occurred under Phase I 

of the Marquette Plan and those that are 

proposed under Phase II of that plan, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and longterm, adverse impacts on native plant 

vegetation. Construction work often results in 

the loss and modification of vegetation in 

construction areas, and potentially introduces 

invasive and nonnative plant species. The 

spread of nonnative and invasive plant species 

in the park has been a problem. Pathways that 

could introduce nonnative and invasive plant 

species in to the park include construction 

and visitor activities, as well as natural sources 

such as wind and bird migration. It is difficult 

to determine the impact of nonnative species 

on native vegetation due to the uncertainties 

about the type of species that could be 

introduced, as well as the locations and 

frequencies of the introductions. Despite 

monitoring and management efforts, the 

impact of the introduction and establishment 

of nonnative species in the park would range 

from minor to moderate, and would be longterm and adverse. 

Ongoing clean sediment beach nourishment 

activities in reach 1 are performed on an 

intermittent basis. These activities impact 

sediment deposition, and have a minor, shortterm, beneficial impact on native plant and 

animal communities from the reduced erosion 

that results. “Clean” beach nourishment also 

reduces the likelihood of introduction of 

invasive and nonnative plant species into the 

park. 

Restoration work in the park, including 

invasive vegetation management through the 

early detection and rapid response program 

and Invasive Plant Management Plan and 

fencing off highly eroded and environmentally 

sensitive areas on Mount Baldy, stabilizes 

select areas of eroded areas in the park with 

native vegetation. This work would have 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on native 

plant and animal communities by preserving 

the natural physiography of the land and 

restoring lands to their natural states. 

Similarly, efforts to expand visitor outreach 

and education opportunities in the park 

would have minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on native plant and animal 

communities from the reduction in vegetation 

trampling and destruction of habitat. Future 
Terrestrial Habitat 

171 

realignment of trails would result in minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on terrestrial 

habitat for native plant and animal 

communities from reducing social trails 

(leading to less trampling and the reduced 

likelihood of introduction of invasive 

nonnative plant species in the park); though 

this work would involve negligible to minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts during 

construction and re-alignment work due to 

the temporary disturbance to habitat. 

Overall, when the actions described above are 

added to the existing environment for 

terrestrial habitat, there would be minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative impacts. The actions under 

alternative A would add a small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, there would 

continue to be minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on the terrestrial habitat of 

native plant and animal communities from the 

erosion and destabilization that would result 

from taking no new actions in the park. 

Cumulatively, there would be minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial, cumulative impacts on the 

terrestrial habitat of native plant and animal 

communities. Adverse impacts would result 

from continued degradation of habitat that 

would result from ongoing erosion; beneficial 

impacts would result from restoration efforts 

that preserve natural plant and animal habitat 

in the park. Implementing the actions under 

alternative A would result in a small increment 

being added to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

The actions associated with alternative B-1 

would allow for increased beachfront, thereby 

providing the potential for a stabilized dune 

complex, particularly at Mount Baldy. 

Foredune development under this alternative 

would be feasible with sediment supply, wind, 

and an entrapment feature, such as vegetation. 

In conjunction with the restoration option 

selected, terrestrial management practices, 

such as revegetation in areas of beach erosion, 

would promote the formation of foredunes. 

These embryotic dunes would protect 

leeward dunes, pannes, and other ecological 

features; provide habitat connectivity and 

sustainability; and contribute sediment (via 

natural erosion) to the coastal system. These 

actions would result in minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on the terrestrial habitat for 

native plant and animal communities. 

Nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion, 

would result in minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on the terrestrial community. 

Under alternative B-1, continued erosion and 

degradation of the foredune complex would 

diminish and reduce continued colonization 

by invasive and nonnative plant species. 

Revegetation, along with colonization of 

native plant species would help to prevent 

nonnative invasive plant species from 

dominating the area, and have a minor, shortterm, beneficial impact on terrestrial habitat. 

Implementing the actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would improve the ability of 

the beach to withstand storm events and 

preserve terrestrial habitat for plants and 

animals, thereby having a negligible to minor, 

short-term, beneficial effect. 

Actions under alternative B-1 would forestall 

continued erosion and degradation and 

provide for a greater amount of sediment 

added to reach 1 than provided in the past. 

This beach nourishment, coupled with 

revegetation in nonsensitive areas, would 

benefit the terrestrial habitat of native plant 

and animal communities and have a minor, 

short-term, beneficial impact; however, a 

minor, short-term, adverse impact would also 

result from covering/smothering existing 

plant species during sediment placement. 

Plant species endemic to the beach plant 

community would re-emerge, and 

colonization and revegetation would provide 

the basis for a stable system in reach 1. In 

addition, some nonnative, invasive species 

would be present in the material from upland 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

sources, but park management practices, like 

the early detection and rapid response 

program and Invasive Plant Management 

Plan, include early identification and 

eradication of such species. Implementing 

actions under alternative B-1 would result in 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

terrestrial habitat for native plant and animal 

communities. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would add a small 

increment. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial. Beneficial impacts would result 

from the decreased erosion and more stable 

habitat that would result under this 

alternative; adverse impacts would result from 

the temporary smothering of plants and plant 

and animal habitat during beach nourishment 

activities and from the temporary 

displacement of wildlife. Implementing the 

actions associated with alternative B-1 would 

provide a small incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on terrestrial habitat for native plant and 

animal communities from the introduction of 

invasive nonnative plant species into the park 

during sediment placement activities. In 

addition, minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from nourishment of the park 

shoreline, particularly in areas of accelerated 

erosion, would occur under this alternative. 

Implementing the actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would improve the ability of 

the beach to withstand storm events, preserve 

terrestrial habitat for plants and animals, and 

result in a negligible to minor, short-term, 

beneficial effect. The actions under this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative B-5 would be similar to those 

described above for alternative B-1, with a few 

differences. That is, under alternative B-5, 

there would be minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the introduction of invasive 

nonnative plant species in the park during 

sediment placement activities; negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse effects from 

activities associated with revegetation that 

would affect sensitive habitats; minor, longterm, beneficial impacts from nourishment of 

the park shoreline, particularly in areas of 

accelerated erosion; and minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts as continued erosion and 

degradation of the foredune would reduce 

continued colonization by invasive and 

nonnative plant species. Implementing the 

actions associated with alternative B-5 would 

improve the ability of the beach to withstand 

storm events, preserve terrestrial habitat for 

plants, and have a negligible to minor, longterm, beneficial effect. 

Impacts under alternative B-5 would be 

greater than those under the annual beach 

nourishment proposed under alternative B-1 

because of the longer duration (approximately 

18 months every five years) of nourishment 

activities and the larger footprint of sediment 

placed on the beach. These actions under 

alternative B-5 would have moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on terrestrial habitat for 

native plant and animal communities. The 

recovery period between placements would 

be greater than under alternative B-1, which 

would enhance colonization by native species, 

and benefit restoration of habitat for 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern and management of 

nonnative invasive plant species. 
Terrestrial Habitat 

173 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large incremental addition to the cumulative 

environment. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the longer 

duration (approximately 18 months every five 

years) of sediment placement and from the 

larger footprint of placement. The actions 

associated with alternative B-5 would provide 

a large contribution to overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-5, there 

would be minor, long-term, adverse impacts 

on terrestrial habitat for native plant and 

animal communities from the introduction of 

invasive nonnative plant species into the park 

during sediment placement activities; minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline; moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts from the longer 

duration (approximately 18 months every five 

years) of nourishment activities and the larger 

footprint of sediment placed on the beach; 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion; 

and minor, long-term, beneficial impacts as 

continued erosion and degradation of the 

foredune would reduce continued 

colonization by invasive and nonnative plant 

species. Additionally, the actions associated 

with alternative B-5 would improve the ability 

of the beach to withstand storm events, 

preserve terrestrial habitat for plants. 

The actions under this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have moderate, short- and long-term, adverse 

and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative C-1 would be similar to those 

described under alternative B-1. That is, under 

alternative C-1, there would be negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse effects from 

revegetation that would affect sensitive 

habitats; and minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from nourishment of the park 

shoreline, particularly in areas of accelerated 

erosion. Given the importance of beach 

nourishment in reducing loss of terrestrial 

habitat and enhancing the ability to manage 

nonnative invasive species under this 

alternative, the impacts would be minor, 

short-term and beneficial as nourishment 

material placed would be dredged from an 

updrift location, such as the nearshore area 

east of the Michigan City Harbor, and not be 

likely to introduce weed seeds to the shoreline 

and beach complex. The actions associated 

with alternative C-1 would improve the ability 

of the beach to withstand storm events, 

preserve terrestrial habitat for plants, and have 

a negligible to minor, short-term, beneficial 

effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small increment being added to the 

cumulative environment. Cumulative impacts 

would be minor, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary disturbance 

to plant and animal terrestrial habitat during 

placement activities; beneficial impacts would 

result from the decreased erosion and 

improved natural habitat for plants and 

animals. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would provide a small 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would also be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects from revegetation that would 

affect sensitive habitats. Additionally, minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts would result 

from nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would improve the ability of the beach to 

withstand storm events, preserve terrestrial 

habitat for plants, and have a negligible to 

minor, short-term, beneficial effect. Under 

this alternative, material would be dredged 

from an updrift location, and have no or 

limited viable nonnative invasive plant species 

seedbank, resulting in a negligible to minor, 

short-term, beneficial effect on terrestrial 

habitat. The actions associated with this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative C-5 would be similar to those 

described under alternative C-1 with a few 

differences. Impacts under alternative C-5 

would be greater than those under the annual 

nourishment proposed under alternative C-1 

because of the longer duration (approximately 

10 months every five years) of nourishment 

activities and the larger footprint of sediment 

placed on the beach, resulting in moderate, 

long-term, adverse effects from the 

smothering of plants and plant and animal 

terrestrial habitat during placement activities. 

The recovery period between placements 

under alternative C-5 would be longer than 

under alternative C-1, which would enhance 

colonization by native species, and benefit 

restoration of habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

and manage nonnative invasive plant species. 

These actions under alternative C-5 would 

have moderate, short-term, beneficial impacts 

on terrestrial habitat for native plant and 

animal communities. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the disturbance to plant 

and animal terrestrial habitat during 

placement activities; beneficial impacts would 

result from the decreased erosion and 

improved natural habitat for plants and 

animals following placement activities. The 

actions associated with alternative C-5 would 

provide a large contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from nourishment of the park 

shoreline; and moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts from the longer duration 

(approximately 10 months every five years) of 

nourishment activities and the larger footprint 

of sediment placed on the beach. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would improve 

the ability of the beach to withstand storm 

events, preserve terrestrial habitat for plants, 

and introduce no or limited viable nonnative 

invasive plant species seedbank since material 

would be dredged from an updrift location, 

such as the nearshore area east of the 

Michigan City Harbor, having negligible to 

minor, long-term beneficial effects on 

terrestrial habitat for plants and animals. The 

actions associated with this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and long-term 

and adverse and beneficial, cumulative effects. 
Terrestrial Habitat 

175 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative D would be similar to those 

described under alternative C-1. That is, there 

would be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects from revegetation that would 

affect sensitive habitats, such as those utilized 

by the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). 

And, there would be minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from nourishment of the 

park shoreline, particularly in areas of 

accelerated erosion. The continuation of 

sediment placement in reach 1 would have 

limited potential to introduce invasive and 

nonnative plant species under alternative D 

because of the clean sediment source for the 

beach nourishment material. Given the 

importance of beach nourishment in reducing 

loss of terrestrial habitat and enhancing the 

ability to manage nonnative invasive plant 

species, the impacts under alternative D 

would be minor, short-term and beneficial 

because the beach nourishment material 

would be transported to reach 1 via a 

permanent bypass system from updrift of the 

Michigan City Harbor and not be likely to 

introduce weed seeds to the shoreline and 

beach complex. The actions associated with 

alternative D would improve the ability of the 

beach to withstand storm events, preserve 

terrestrial habitat for plants, and have a 

negligible to minor, short-term, beneficial 

effect. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would involve increasing the amount of 

sediment placed in the project area through a 

permanent bypass system, thereby decreasing 

degradation of the beach and consequently 

the foredune plant communities. These 

actions would have minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts, as some beach vegetation 

would be smothered during placement. There 

would also be minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from the decreased erosion and 

improved natural ecological setting for native 

plants and animals to thrive on. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small change. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from 

the temporary disturbance to plant and animal 

terrestrial habitat during placement activities; 

beneficial impacts would result from the 

decreased erosion and improved natural 

habitat for plants and animals. The actions 

associated with alternative D would provide a 

small incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

effects from revegetation that would affect 

sensitive habitats, and there would be minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would involve increasing the amount of 

sediment placed in the project area through a 

permanent bypass system, thereby decreasing 

degradation of the beach and consequently 

the foredune plant communities. As some 

beach vegetation would be smothered during 

placement, actions under alternative D would 

have minor, short-term, adverse impacts, but 

also minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

from the decreased erosion and improved 

natural ecological setting for native plants and 

animals. The actions associated with 

alternative D would improve the ability of the 

beach to withstand storm events and preserve 

terrestrial habitat. The actions of this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Like the other action alternatives, the actions 

associated with alternative E would allow for 

increased beachfront, thereby providing the 

potential for dune stabilization, particularly at 

Mount Baldy. Foredune development would 

be feasible under this alternative, too, with 

sediment supply, wind, and an entrapment 

feature, such as vegetation. In conjunction 

with the restoration alternative selected, 

terrestrial management practices, such as 

revegetation in areas of erosion, would 

promote the formation of foredunes. 

Foredune formation would provide habitat 

connectivity and sustainability and contribute 

sediment (via natural erosion) to the coastal 

system. These actions would have minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on terrestrial 

habitat for native plant and animal 

communities. Restoration of the park 

shoreline, particularly in areas of accelerated 

erosion, through the use of the submerged 

cobble berm proposed under alternative E, 

would result in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on the terrestrial community. The 

actions associated with alternative E would 

improve the ability of the beach to withstand 

storm events, preserve terrestrial habitat for 

plants, and have a minor, long-term, beneficial 

effect. 

Construction of a submerged cobble berm in 

reach 1 under alternative E would result in 

longer retention of sediment along the 

shoreline, thereby decreasing erosion of the 

beach and the foredune plant communities. 

While placement of sediment may cover 

existing vegetation and have minor, shortterm, adverse effects, colonization and 

emergence of covered plants would occur, 

and have minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts. In addition, terrestrial management, 

including revegetation and management of 

nonnative invasive plant species, would 

benefit the native plant community in areas of 

degradation. Management efforts would not 

be likely to introduce weed seeds to the 

shoreline and beach complex because under 

alternative e nourishment material placed 

would be obtained from a dredged source, 

located east, updrift of the Michigan City 

Harbor structure. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

E. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative E, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small change. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from 

the temporary disturbance to plant and animal 

terrestrial habitat during placement activities; 

however, these impacts would be reduced 

from current impact levels due to the 

decreased volume of dredged beach 

nourishment that would be required annually 

with the addition of a submerged cobble berm 

that would gradually dissipate. Beneficial 

impacts would result from the decreased 

erosion and improved natural habitat for 

plants and animals, and the reduction in 

annual beach nourishment volumes. The 

actions associated with alternative E would 

provide a small incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative E, there would 

be minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

terrestrial habitat for native plant and animal 

communities from dune stabilization and 

foredune development; minor, long-term, 

adverse effects on sensitive habitats from 

interfering with an already stable area in reach 

2; and minor to moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts from restoration of the 

park shoreline, particularly in areas of 

accelerated erosion. Impacts would be less 

than those from the previously described 

annual beach nourishment activities under 

alternatives B-1 and C-1. Impacts would be 

minor to moderate, long-term and beneficial 

from the reduced consumption of material for 

nourishment activities. The actions associated 

with alternative E would improve the ability of 
Terrestrial Habitat 

177 

the beach to withstand storm events and 

preserve terrestrial habitat for plants and 

animals. The actions associated with this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative for reaches 3 

and 4, there would be no new impacts on the 

terrestrial habitat of native plant and animal 

communities in the park, and the actions 

associated with this alternative would neither 

invite nor deter invasive species from 

inhabiting the shoreline and beach complex in 

reaches 3 and 4. Under alternative A, the 

current trend of destabilization of the 

foredunes would continue, especially at 

Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk. Such 

destabilization would lead to the localized loss 

of the natural ecosystems associated with the 

beach and the foredunes, including plant 

species endemic to the dunes, as well as 

insects, reptiles, birds, and mammals 

dependent upon this habitat. Implementation 

of the no-action alternative would have 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse impacts 

on the terrestrial habitat for native plant and 

animal communities. 

Continued erosion in the vicinity of Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk would be likely 

under the no-action alternative despite the 

introduction of dredged material from 

ongoing beach nourishment activities and 

habitat loss would continue from the erosion. 

The possibility of establishing a natural 

ecosystem is unlikely under the no-action 

alternative. Taking no new actions in the park 

would lead to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on the terrestrial habitat for 

native plant and animal communities. Under 

alternative A, the beach would continue to 

erode and would not be able to withstand 

storm events. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative 

impacts under alternative A in reaches 3 and 4 

would be similar to those described above 

under the no-action alternative for reaches 1 

and 2. That is, overall, when the actions 

described above are combined with the 

existing terrestrial habitat for native plant and 

animal communities, there would be minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial, cumulative impacts. The actions 

under alternative A would add a small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, there would 

be no new actions taken in the park, including 

any actions to invite or deter invasive and 

nonnative plants. If no new actions are taken 

in the park, there would continue to be minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse impacts on the 

terrestrial habitat of native plant and animal 

communities from the ongoing erosion and 

destabilization. Taking no new actions in the 

park would not improve the ability of the 

beach to withstand storm events. 

Cumulatively, there would be minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial, cumulative impacts on the 

terrestrial habitat of native plant and animal 

communities. The actions under alternative A 

would result in a small increment being added 

to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative C-1 for reaches 3 and 4 would be 

similar to those described above under 

alternative C-1 for reaches 1 and 2 with a few 

differences. Under alternative C-1 in reaches 3 

and 4, beach erosion in the vicinity of Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk would diminish as a 

result of dredged material being added to the 

beach near Ogden Dunes. Under 

alternative C-1, there would be negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse effects from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

activities associated with revegetation that 

would interfere with stable reaches along the 

shoreline and affect sensitive habitats. In 

addition, minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from nourishment of the park 

shoreline, particularly in areas of accelerated 

erosion, would result under this alternative. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would have negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts as some beach vegetation 

would be smothered during placement 

activities; however, the potential for site 

restoration would be enhanced since the 

amount of beach nourishment would 

counteract erosion, and have a minor, shortterm, beneficial impact. Given the importance 

of beach nourishment in reducing loss of 

terrestrial habitat and enhancing the ability to 

manage nonnative invasive species, impacts 

under alternative C-1 would be negligible to 

minor, short-term and beneficial since 

material dredged from an updrift location in 

Lake Michigan would have no or a limited 

viable nonnative invasive plant species 

seedbank. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would improve the ability of 

the beach to withstand storm events, preserve 

terrestrial habitat for plants, and have a 

negligible to minor, short-term, beneficial 

effect. 

Additionally, rough-winged swallows (Riparia 

riparia) nest in the foredune “cliff” area 

created as a result of shoreline erosion. As 

nourishment material placed on the beach 

under alternative C-1 would stabilize the 

shoreline and combat the high rates of 

erosion, these eroded cliff areas would be 

reduced, potentially removing the swallows of 

a suitable nesting habitat, particularly during 

the placement of the nourishment material. If 

the eroded cliff was reduced through beach 

nourishment activities associated with 

alternative C-1, the terrestrial habitat for the 

bank swallow would be reduced. There are a 

few suitable sites for this habitat along Burns 

Waterway, which would provide an 

alternative site for the birds, unless the COE 

completes a restoration project along the 

waterway that would involve eliminating the 

steep, open banks. The ephemeral nature of 

the species’ natural nesting venues of muddy 

banks, dunes, and lakeshores makes this 

species well-adapted to re-finding appropriate 

habitat year-after-year (FWS 2007b). Beach 

nourishment activities under alternative C-1 

would reduce erosion and the subsequent 

maintenance of eroded cliff areas for the birds 

resulting in minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts to the bank swallow as they would 

lose immediate habitat. However, the birds 

would migrate to other suitable habitat in the 

near vicinity. Work would be conducted 

outside critical periods (such as nesting) for 

these specific species when possible. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small change. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from 

the temporary disturbance to plant and animal 

terrestrial habitat during placement activities; 

beneficial impacts would result from the 

decreased erosion and improved natural 

habitat for plants and animals. The actions 

associated with alternative C-1 would provide 

a small incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects from revegetation that would 

affect sensitive habitats, in addition to minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would have negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts as some beach vegetation 

would be smothered during placement; 

however, the potential for site restoration 

would be enhanced since the amount of beach 

nourishment would counteract erosion, and 

have a minor, short-term, beneficial impact. 
Terrestrial Habitat 

179 

Impacts under alternative C-1 would be 

negligible to minor, short-term and beneficial, 

since material dredged from an updrift 

location in Lake Michigan would have no or 

limited viable nonnative invasive plant species 

seedbank. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would improve the ability of 

the beach to withstand storm events and 

preserve terrestrial habitat for plants and 

animals. Beach nourishment activities under 

alternative C-1 would reduce erosion and the 

subsequent maintenance of eroded cliff areas 

for the bank swallows resulting in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts to these birds as 

they would lose immediate habitat. This 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative C-5 for reaches 3 and 4 would be 

similar to those described above under 

alternative C-1, with a few differences. 

Impacts would be greater under alternative C5 than under the annual beach nourishment 

proposed under alternative C-1 because of the 

longer duration (approximately six months 

every five years) of nourishment activities and 

the larger footprint of sediment placed on the 

beach. Under alternative C-5, there would be 

negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

effects from revegetation that would affect 

sensitive habitats; moderate, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from nourishment of the 

park shoreline; and moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts from the longer duration 

(approximately six months every five years) of 

nourishment activities and the larger footprint 

of sediment placed on the beach. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would improve 

the ability of the beach to withstand storm 

events, preserve terrestrial habitat for plants, 

and nourishment material dredged from an 

updrift location in Lake Michigan, such as 

near the NIPSCO/Bailly intake, would have no 

or limited viable nonnative invasive plants 

species seedbank, having a negligible to minor, 

long-term, beneficial effect. 

A minor, long-term, adverse impact would 

occur on bank swallows that nest along the 

eroded cliffs in reach 4 under alternative C-5, 

as beach nourishment would reduce erosion 

and cliff-forming processes, reducing the 

terrestrial habitat for the bank swallow. As 

indicated under alternative C-1 for reaches 3 

and 4, the birds would migrate to other 

suitable habitat in the near vicinity. Work 

would be conducted outside critical periods 

(such as nesting) for these specific species 

when possible. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small change. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the disturbance to plant 

and animal terrestrial habitat during 

placement activities; beneficial impacts would 

result from the decreased erosion and 

improved natural habitat for plants and 

animals and the improved ability of the beach 

to withstand storm events. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would provide 

a small incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would also be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects from revegetation that would 

affect sensitive habitats, in addition to 

moderate, short-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion. 

The actions associated with alternative C-5 

would also result in moderate, long-term, 

adverse effects on terrestrial habitat from the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

longer duration (approximately six month 

every five years) of placement activities and 

the larger placement footprint. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would improve 

the ability of the beach to withstand storm 

events and preserve terrestrial habitat for 

plants and animals, and would introduce no 

or limited viable nonnative invasive plant 

species seedbank since material would be 

dredged from an updrift location, having 

negligible to minor, long-term beneficial 

impacts on terrestrial habitat. A minor, longterm, adverse impact would occur on bank 

swallows that nest along the eroded cliffs in 

reach 4 under alternative C-5, as beach 

nourishment would reduce erosion and cliffforming processes, reducing the terrestrial 

habitat for the bank swallow. The actions 

associated with this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

The actions and impacts associated with 

alternative D for reaches 3 and 4 would be 

similar to those above under alternative D for 

reaches 1 and 2, with a few differences. That 

is, negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from revegetation that would affect 

sensitive habitats; and minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from nourishment of the 

park shoreline. The actions associated with 

alternative D would involve increasing the 

amount of sediment placed in the project area 

through a permanent bypass system, thereby 

decreasing degradation of the beach and 

consequently the foredune plant 

communities, and have minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts as some beach vegetation 

would be smothered during placement; and 

also minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

from the decreased erosion and an improved 

natural terrestrial habitat for native plants to 

thrive. 

Under alternative D, beach erosion in the 

vicinity of Ogden Dunes would diminish as a 

result of additional material being added to 

the beach via a permanent bypass system. The 

addition of beach material would lead to 

foredune development and habitat loss would 

diminish. The establishment of a natural 

ecosystem would be likely through site 

restoration. Under alternative D, there would 

be negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts as some beach vegetation could be 

smothered during placement; however, the 

potential for site restoration would be 

enhanced, since the amount of beach 

nourishment would counteract erosion. The 

actions associated with alternative D would 

improve the ability of the beach to withstand 

storm events, preserve terrestrial habitat for 

plants and animals, and introduce no or 

limited viable nonnative invasive plants 

species seedbank since material would be 

transported to reach 3 via a permanent bypass 

system from updrift of the NIPSCO/Bailly 

complex to Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk, 

and have a negligible to minor, short-term, 

beneficial effect. 

A minor, short-term, adverse impact would 

occur on bank swallows that nest along the 

eroded cliffs in reach 4 under alternative D, as 

beach nourishment would reduce erosion and 

cliff-forming processes, reducing the 

terrestrial habitat for the bank swallow. As 

indicated under alternative C-1 for reaches 3 

and 4, the birds would migrate to other 

suitable habitat in the near vicinity. Work 

would be conducted outside critical periods 

(such as nesting) for these specific species 

when possible. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small change. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 
Terrestrial Habitat 

181 

beneficial. Adverse impacts would result from 

the temporary disturbance to plant and animal 

terrestrial habitat during placement activities; 

beneficial impacts would result from the 

decreased erosion and improved natural 

habitat for plants and animals, and improved 

ability of the beach to withstand storm events. 

Implementing the actions associated with 

alternative D would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

also be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects from revegetation that would 

affect sensitive habitats; and there would be 

minor, short-term, beneficial impacts from 

nourishment of the park shoreline, 

particularly in areas of accelerated erosion. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would involve increasing the amount of 

sediment placed in the project area through a 

permanent bypass system, thereby decreasing 

degradation of the beach and consequently 

the foredune plant communities. The actions 

associated with alternative D would result in 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts as some 

beach vegetation would be smothered during 

placement, as well as minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts from the decreased erosion 

and improved terrestrial habitat for native 

plants and animals to thrive on. The actions 

associated with alternative D would improve 

the ability of the beach to withstand storm 

events and preserve terrestrial habitat for 

plants, and would introduce no or limited 

viable nonnative invasive plant species 

seedbank since material would be transported 

to reach 3 via a permanent bypass system from 

updrift of the NIPSCO/Bailly complex. A 

minor, long-term, adverse impact would 

occur on bank swallows that nest along the 

eroded cliffs in reach 4 under alternative D, as 

beach nourishment would reduce erosion and 

cliff-forming processes, reducing the 

terrestrial habitat for the bank swallow. This 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

As explained in “The Alternatives” chapter, 

there are various current management actions 

of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore that 

impact terrestrial habitat for plant and animal 

species in reaches 1 through 4. 

Designation of an approved route from the 

parking lot to and from Mount Baldy in reach 

1 has reduced the anthropogenic influences in 

that reach, including the trampling of native 

vegetation and the spread of invasive 

nonnative plant species, having a negligible to 

minor, long-term, beneficial impact on the 

habitat for native plant and animal 

communities. 

Ongoing beach nourishment activities in 

reaches 1 and 3 have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact from the smothering of native 

vegetation that occurs during sediment 

placement activities (and the subsequent 

period it typically takes native species to 

colonize and re-emerge as a stable 

population); however, these same activities 

result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts 

from reduced erosion and improved ability of 

the shoreline to withstand storm events. 

Restoration efforts (including installing 

fencing to protect environmentally sensitive 

areas and revegetating eroded areas with 

native vegetation) in the park have minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on terrestrial 

habitat for native plant communities by 

preserving and restoring the natural habitat 

and ecological processes that are critical to 

this vegetation’s survival and reproduction in 

the park, and by improving the ability of the 

terrestrial habitat to withstand storm events. 

Similarly, visitor outreach and education 

efforts have minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on terrestrial habitat by increasing the 

knowledge base of visitors in the park and 

limiting the anthropogenic influences 

introduced and witnessed in the park. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

Invasive vegetation management is performed 

in all the reaches of the park and includes an 

early detection and rapid response program 

and Invasive Plant Management Plan. This 

work manages the spread of invasive 

nonnative plants in the park and encourages 

early detection and eradication of such 

species, preserving the native habitat. These 

actions result in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on the terrestrial habitat of native 

plant and animal communities. 

Proposed Management Actions 

Various proposed management actions at the 

park would impact terrestrial habitat for 

native plant and animal species in reaches 1 

through 4. 

The park would continue with the current 

management actions discussed above, having 

a minor, long-term, beneficial impact on 

terrestrial habitat for native plant and animal 

species by preserving and restoring critical 

habitat of native plant communities and 

preserving the ability of the habitat to 

withstand storm events. By continuing to 

manage nonnative invasive plant species, the 

National Park Service would provide a 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

effect on natural processes, including 

terrestrial habitat for plant communities in the 

park. 

The proposed realigning of trails in the beach 

reaches would have minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on the terrestrial habitat for 

native plant and animal communities by 

limiting the anthropogenic influences 

witnessed in the park and by reducing the 

number of social trails (thereby reducing the 

trampling of native plant species). 

Additionally, the park proposes to restore the 

foredune and dune complex in reach 4 by 

stabilizing eroded dunes with native 

vegetation and fencing off highly eroded and 

environmentally sensitive areas on the 

foredune to allow for ecological recovery of 

natural communities. Such work would have a 

minor, long-term, beneficial impact on the 

terrestrial habitat for native plant and animal 

communities by preserving and restoring the 

natural environment in which the species 

thrive and improving the ability of such 

habitat to better withstand storm events. 

Cumulative Impacts. Proposed 

developments, including that proposed in 

Phase II of the Marquette Plan (IDNR et al.

2005), in and around the park would have a 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse effect on 

the terrestrial habitat of native plants as 

construction areas provide pathways for the 

introduction of invasive nonnative plant 

species. In addition, construction work would 

result in the trampling of native vegetation 

and destruction of critical habitat for native 

plant and animal species. Cumulative impacts 

on the foredune and dune complex in reaches 

1 through 4 under terrestrial habitat as a result 

of proposed management actions would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial 

from the actions proposed to preserve 

terrestrial plant and animal critical habitat and 

to protect environmentally sensitive areas to 

allow for ecological recovery of natural 

communities. 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

terrestrial habitat as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible to 

minor, long-term, and beneficial from 

continuing with current management actions 

to protect and preserve terrestrial plant and 

animal critical habitat and to fence off highly 

eroded and environmentally sensitive areas to 

allow for ecological recovery of natural 

communities, and from the proposed 

realigning of trails in the beach reaches to limit 

anthropogenic influences and social trails 

experienced in the park, reducing the 

trampling of native plant species. Proposed 

developments in and around the park would 

have a minor, short-term, adverse effect on 

the terrestrial habitat of native plants as 

construction areas provide pathways for the 
Terrestrial Habitat 

183 

introduction of invasive nonnative plant 

species and because construction work would 

result in the trampling of native vegetation 

and destruction of critical habitat for native 

plant and animal species. Cumulative impacts 

on the foredune and dune complex in reaches 

1 through 4 under terrestrial habitat as a result 

of proposed management actions would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial. 
184 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

METHODOLOGY 

The “Affected Environment” chapter 

provides a description of the federal 

endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species found at Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore, including the Karner blue 

butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), Indiana 

bat (Myotis sodalis), piping plover, Pitcher’s 

thistle, and eastern massasauga rattlesnake 

(Sistrurus catenatus catenatus). Disturbance to 

these species and their habitat was evaluated 

by comparing projected changes resulting 

from implementing the action alternatives to 

taking no action (i.e., the no-action 

alternative). Impacts to piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle are discussed under each of 

the alternative discussions below. Impacts to 

the Karner blue butterfly, Indiana bats, and 

eastern massasauga rattlesnake are 

summarized here. 

Populations of the Karner blue butterfly do 

not occur within reaches 1, 2, and 3. Within 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, there are 

populations that occur in reach 4 (at West 

Beach and in the adjacent Miller Woods), but 

other populations are located further inland. 

There would be no effect on the Karner blue 

butterfly under any of the alternatives for any 

of the reaches because the Karner blue 

butterfly does not occur in reaches 1, 2, and 3, 

and because nourishment activities in reach 3 

would not affect the populations located 

within and adjacent to reach 4. 

Indiana bats have been found within the 

inland Heron Rookery Unit of the park but 

not within reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4 where suitable 

habitat is unlikely to be present. There would 

be no effect on the Indiana bat under any of 

the alternatives for any of the reaches because 

suitable habitat for the Indiana bat does not 

occur in reaches 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Although sightings are rare, individual eastern 

massasauga rattlesnakes have been observed 

within suitable habitat inland. There would be 

no effect on the eastern massasauga 

rattlesnake under any of the alternatives for 

any of the reaches because actions 

implemented within the shoreline and beach 

complex would not affect these habitats and 

the eastern massasauga rattlesnake is unlikely 

to inhabit beach areas where nourishment 

would occur. 

Information about the federal endangered, 

threatened and candidate species was 

compiled from site visits, research data that is 

publicly available, information from park staff, 

and studies of similar actions and effects. 

Impacts on the species are assessed 

qualitatively based on the project team’s 

knowledge and best professional judgment. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds for threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in the protection of 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in the protection of threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in easily detectable changes in 

the protection of threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in the protection of 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

185 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

actions would be taken in the park in regards 

to threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern and their habitat. Under 

this alternative, reaches 1 and 2 would 

continue to experience erosion, beach loss, 

and degradation of the foredune and dune 

complex. Moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts would result under alternative A from 

continued erosion, loss of habitat for piping 

plover and Pitcher’s thistle, and the continued 

sediment budget deficit that would impact 

habitat for threatened and endangered 

species. Restoration of habitat for the 

Pitcher’s thistle, and possibly the piping 

plover, which do not currently occur in 

reaches 1 and 2, would be unlikely under the 

no-action alternative. Therefore, under the 

no-action alternative these species may be 

affected, and are likely to be adversely 

affected, because development of future 

habitat is not addressed and substantial 

erosion would be likely to continue. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several actions, 

independent of this plan, would affect the 

park’s threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. As described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter, the unique 

environment at Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore provides a mosaic of habitats for 

terrestrial plants and wildlife in a relatively 

small area. 

Independent of this plan, park staff would 

continue to monitor and protect threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern in the park to the greatest extent 

possible. Education and outreach activities, 

and other actions such as the realignment of 

some trails in the park, would have negligible 

to minor, long-term, beneficial effects on 

these species due to reduced anthropogenic 

influences. Habitat critical for the 

preservation of threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern would thus be 

maintained. 

Additionally, restoration efforts by the park to 

preserve the foredune and dune complex 

(such as fencing off highly eroded areas and 

revegetating eroded areas with native plants) 

and to stabilize highly eroded areas would 

have negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern by restoring 

the natural environment/habitat for such 

plants and animals. 

Current and proposed development in and 

around the park, like that which occurred 

under Phase I of the Marquette Plan and that 

which is proposed under Phase II of that plan, 

would have minor, long-term, adverse impacts 

on threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the removal of habitat 

for these species, and minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from the destruction of 

habitat during construction and the time it 

takes for species to colonize and re-emerge. 

Activities or projects that would introduce 

new sound sources into the park, like 

construction and special events, such as the 

annual Super Boat Grand Prix boat race, 

would have negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern. These effects, 

however, would be temporary, lasting only as 

long as construction or the duration of the 

special event. 

Overall, when the actions described above are 

added to the existing threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

scenario, there would be negligible to minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The actions under 

alternative A would add a small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

the Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover (which 

are threatened and endangered species) may 

be affected, and are likely to be adversely 

affected, because loss of historical habitat is 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 

not addressed adequately and substantial 

erosion would likely continue under this 

alternative. Moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts would result under alternative A from 

continued erosion, loss of habitat for piping 

plover and Pitcher’s thistle, and the continued 

sediment budget deficit that would impact 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. Cumulatively, there 

would be negligible to minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial impacts. The 

actions under alternative A would result in a 

small increment being added to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Currently, there is no habitat within reach 1 

for Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover; 

however, there would be the potential for 

such habitat to be restored as a result of the 

beach nourishment proposed under 

alternative B-1. Therefore, under alternative 

B-1, there would be moderate to major, shortand long-term, beneficial impacts on these 

species from habitat restoration, and minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts as the placement 

of nourishment material would temporarily 

disturb the ability of piping plover to nest and 

Pitcher’s thistle to establish. The actions 

associated with alternative B-1 would affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, the 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover (threatened 

and endangered species). 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

and adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary disturbance 

to habitat for threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern during 

placement activities, affecting the ability of 

some species to nest and establish. Beneficial 

impacts would result from the restoration of 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. The actions associated 

with alternative B-1 would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-1, there 

would be moderate to major, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover (threatened and endangered 

species), from the habitat restoration that 

would result from the expanded beach 

nourishment activities. The implementation of 

alternative B-1 would also result in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern as placement of nourishment material 

from upland sources would temporarily 

disturb the ability of piping plover to nest and 

for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. With respect 

to the Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover, this 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect these species. This alternative, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and longterm, and adverse and beneficial cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Similar to alternative B-1, there would be the 

potential for habitat to be restored under 

alternative B-5 for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover because of the additional beach 

nourishment that would occur under this 

alternative. Therefore, under alternative B-5, 

there would be moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on these species from 

habitat restoration. Due to the longer 

placement period (approximately 18 months 

every five years), there would also be minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts from 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

187 

the placement of nourishment material that 

would disturb the ability of piping plover to 

nest and Pitcher’s thistle to establish. The 

actions associated with alternative B-5 would 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover (threatened 

and endangered species). 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial. Beneficial impacts 

would result from the restoration of habitat 

for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Adverse impacts would 

result from the temporary disturbance to 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern during placement 

activities, affecting the ability of some species 

to nest and establish. The actions associated 

with alternative B-5 would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-5, there 

would be moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover from the habitat restoration that 

would result from the expanded beach 

nourishment activities. The implementation of 

alternative B-5 would also result in minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on 

these species as placement of nourishment 

material from upland sources would disturb 

the ability of piping plover to nest and for 

Pitcher’s thistle to establish. With respect to 

the Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover, this 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect these species. This alternative, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and longterm, and adverse and beneficial cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Like the other action alternatives in reaches 1 

and 2, under alternative C-1 there would be 

the potential for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover habitat to be restored because of the 

additional beach nourishment that would 

occur via dredging. Therefore, under 

alternative C-1, there would be moderate to 

major, short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts on these species from habitat 

restoration, and minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the placement of nourishment 

material that would temporarily disturb the 

ability of piping plover to nest and Pitcher’s 

thistle to establish. The actions associated 

with alternative C-1 would affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

and adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary disturbance 

to habitat for threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern during 

placement activities, affecting the ability of 

some species to nest and establish. Beneficial 

impacts would result from the restoration of 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. The actions associated 

with alternative C-1 would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be moderate to major, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

from the habitat restoration that would result 

from the expanded beach nourishment 

activities. The implementation of 

alternative C-1 would also result in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern as placement of nourishment material 

would temporarily disturb the ability of piping 

plover to nest and for Pitcher’s thistle to 

establish. With respect to the Pitcher’s thistle 

and piping plover, this alternative may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect these 

species. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Similar to alternative C-1, there would be the 

potential for habitat to be restored under 

alternative C-5 for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover because of the additional beach 

nourishment that would occur via dredging. 

Therefore, under alternative C-5, there would 

be moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on these species from habitat 

restoration. Due to the longer placement 

period (approximately 10 months every five 

years), there would also be minor to 

moderate, short-term, adverse impacts from 

the placement of nourishment material that 

would disturb the ability of piping plover to 

nest and Pitcher’s thistle to establish. The 

actions associated with alternative C-5 would 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary disturbance 

to habitat for threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern during 

placement activities, affecting the ability of 

some species to nest and establish. Beneficial 

impacts would result from the restoration of 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. The actions associated 

with alternative C-5 would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover from the habitat restoration that 

would result from the expanded beach 

nourishment activities. The implementation of 

alternative C-5 would also result in minor to 

moderate, short-term, adverse impacts on 

these species as placement of nourishment 

material would disturb the ability of piping 

plover to nest and for Pitcher’s thistle to 

establish. With respect to the Pitcher’s thistle 

and piping plover, this alternative may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect these 

species. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Like the other action alternatives in reaches 1 

and 2, under alternative D, there is the 

potential for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover habitat to be restored because of the 

additional beach nourishment that would 

occur via a permanent bypass system. 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

189 

Therefore, under alternative D, there would 

be moderate to major, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on these species from habitat 

restoration, and minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the placement of nourishment 

material that would temporarily disturb the 

ability of piping plover to nest and Pitcher’s 

thistle to establish. The actions associated 

with alternative D would affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover (threatened and endangered 

species). Coupled with site restoration, the 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover would be 

likely to benefit as a result of habitat 

improvements under alternative D. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

and adverse and beneficial. Beneficial impacts 

would result from the restoration of habitat 

for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Adverse impacts would 

result from the temporary disturbance to 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern during placement 

activities, affecting the ability of some species 

to nest and establish. The actions associated 

with alternative D would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be moderate to major, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern from the 

habitat restoration that would result from the 

expanded beach nourishment activities via the 

permanent bypass system that would be 

constructed. The implementation of 

alternative D would also result in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern as placement of nourishment material 

would temporarily disturb the ability of piping 

plover to nest and for Pitcher’s thistle to 

establish. With respect to the Pitcher’s thistle 

and piping plover, this alternative may affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect these 

species. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have 

negligible to minor, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative E, there is the potential for 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover habitat to 

be restored because of the additional beach 

nourishment and greater sediment retention 

that would occur with the use of a submerged 

cobble berm in conjunction with a beach 

nourishment program. Therefore, under 

alternative E, there would be major, longterm, beneficial impacts on these species from 

habitat restoration, and minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from the placement of the 

submerged cobble berm that would 

temporarily disturb the ability of piping plover 

to nest and Pitcher’s thistle to establish. The 

actions associated with alternative E would 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Coupled with site 

restoration, the Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover would benefit as a result of habitat 

improvements under alternative E. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

E. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative E, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial. Beneficial impacts 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190 

would result from the restoration of habitat 

for threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Adverse impacts would 

result from the temporary disturbance to 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern during placement 

activities, affecting the ability of some species 

to nest and establish. The actions associated 

with alternative E would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative E, there would 

be major, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover from the 

habitat restoration that would result from the 

placement of the submerged cobble berm. The 

implementation of alternative E would also 

result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern as placement of 

nourishment material would temporarily 

disturb the ability of piping plover to nest and 

for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. With respect 

to the Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover, this 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect these species. This alternative, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and longterm, and adverse and beneficial cumulative 

effects. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Like the no-action alternative in reaches 1 and 

2, no new actions would be taken in the park 

in regards to threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern and their 

habitat under alternative A in reaches 3 and 4. 

Under this alternative, reaches 3 and 4 would 

continue to experience erosion, beach loss, 

and degradation of the foredune and dune 

complex. Moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts would result under alternative A from 

continued erosion, loss of habitat for piping 

plover and Pitcher’s thistle, and the continued 

sediment budget deficit that would impact 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. Restoration of habitat 

for the Pitcher’s thistle, and possibly the 

piping plover, would be unlikely under the 

no-action alternative. Therefore, under the 

no-action alternative these species may be 

affected, and are likely to be adversely 

affected, because loss of historical habitat 

would not be addressed adequately and 

substantial erosion would continue. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several actions, 

independent of this plan, would affect the 

park’s threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Independent of this plan, 

park staff would continue to monitor and 

protect threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern in the park to the 

greatest extent possible. Education and 

outreach activities, and other actions, such as 

the realignment of some trails in the park, 

would have negligible to minor, long-term, 

beneficial effects on these species due to 

reduced anthropogenic influences. Habitat 

critical for the preservation of threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

would thus be maintained. 

Additionally, restoration efforts by the park to 

preserve the foredune and dune complex 

(such as fencing off highly eroded areas and 

revegetating eroded areas with native plants) 

and to stabilize highly eroded areas would 

have negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern by restoring 

the natural environment/habitat for such 

plants and animals. 

Current and proposed development in and 

around the park, like that which occurred 

under Phase I of the Marquette Plan and that 

which is proposed under Phase II of that plan, 

would have minor, long-term, adverse impacts 

on threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the removal of habitat 

for these species, and minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from the destruction of 

habitat during construction and the time it 

takes for species to colonize and re-emerge. 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

191 

Activities or projects that would introduce 

new sound sources into the park, like 

construction and special events, such as the 

annual Super Boat Grand Prix boat race, 

would have negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern. These effects, 

however, would be temporary, lasting only as 

long as construction or the duration of the 

special event. 

Overall, when the actions described above are 

added to the existing threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

scenario, there would be negligible to minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial 

cumulative impacts. The actions under 

alternative A would add a small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, 

the threatened and endangered species, 

Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover, may be 

affected, and are likely to be adversely 

affected, because loss of historical habitat is 

not addressed adequately and substantial 

erosion would continue under this alternative. 

Moderate, short-term, adverse impacts would 

result under alternative A from continued 

erosion, loss of habitat for piping plover and 

Pitcher’s thistle, and the continued sediment 

budget deficit that would impact habitat for 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Cumulatively, there would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse and beneficial impacts. The actions 

under alternative A would result in a small 

increment being added to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1 in reaches 3 and 4, there 

would be the potential for Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover habitat to be restored because of 

the additional beach nourishment that would 

occur via dredging. Under alternative C-1, 

there would be moderate to major, shortterm, beneficial impacts on the threatened and 

endangered species, Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover, from the habitat restoration 

that would result from the expanded beach 

nourishment activities. There would also be 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts as 

placement of nourishment material would 

temporarily disturb the ability of piping plover 

to nest and for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. 

Critical habitat for the piping plover is located 

within the eastern terminus of reach 3, as well 

as near the water intake operated by NIPSCO. 

Mining of sediment to be placed on the beach 

in reach 3 would occur via dredging around 

the NIPSCO intake, lakeward of the piping 

plover habitat. The annual dredging 

operations would not directly disturb the 

piping plover habitat, though the sound 

generated from this process would have an 

indirect effect if conducted during the 

migration and nesting season (though work 

would be conducted outside critical periods 

[such as nesting] for the specific species when 

possible, and work in areas in or near suitable 

threatened and endangered bird habitat 

would occur as late as possible in the 

summer/fall). With respect to the Pitcher’s 

thistle and piping plover, this alternative may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these 

species. No adverse modification of the piping 

plover critical habitat would occur under this 

alternative. Overall, the actions associated 

with alternative C-1 would affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, Pitcher’s thistle and 

piping plover (threatened and endangered 

species). 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1 in reaches 3 and 4. Compared to the 

cumulative impacts expected under the noaction alternative, under alternative C-1, these 

differences in relation to past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects would 

result in a small difference. Cumulative 

impacts would be minor to moderate, shortand long-term, and adverse and beneficial. 

Beneficial impacts would result from the 

restoration of habitat for threatened and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192 

endangered species and species of concern. 

Adverse impacts would result from the 

temporary disturbance to habitat for 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern during placement activities, 

affecting the ability of some species to nest 

and establish. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be moderate to major, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

from the habitat restoration that would result 

from the expanded beach nourishment 

activities. There would also be minor, shortterm, adverse impacts to threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern as 

placement of nourishment material would 

temporarily disturb the ability of piping plover 

to nest and for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. 

Coupled with beach nourishment, dredging 

would not be an adverse modification to the 

piping plover habitat under alternative C-1. 

No adverse modification of the piping plover 

critical habitat would occur under this 

alternative. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would affect, but are not likely 

to adversely affect, Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover (threatened and endangered species). 

This alternative, when combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would have minor to moderate, 

short- and long-term, and adverse and 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

The actions and impacts under alternative C-5 

would be similar to those described under 

alternative C-1 for reaches 3 and 4, except that 

the nourishment activities would take longer 

(approximately six months every five years). 

Under alternative C-5 there would be the 

potential for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover habitat to be restored because of the 

additional beach nourishment that would 

occur via dredging, and there would be 

moderate to major, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern from this. 

There would also be minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts as placement of nourishment 

material would temporarily disturb the ability 

of piping plover to nest and for Pitcher’s 

thistle to establish. 

Under alternative C-5, sediment would be 

dredged from an updrift location in Lake 

Michigan, such as near the NIPSCO/Bailly 

intake, lakeward of the piping plover habitat. 

The annual dredging operations would not 

directly disturb the piping plover habitat, 

though the sound generated from this process 

would have an indirect effect if conducted 

during the migration and nesting season 

(though work would be conducted outside 

critical periods [such as nesting] for the 

specific species when possible, and work in 

areas in or near suitable threatened and 

endangered bird habitat would occur as late as 

possible in the summer/fall). With respect to 

the Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover, this 

alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect these species. No adverse 

modification of the piping plover critical 

habitat would occur under this alternative. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, Pitcher’s thistle and piping plover 

(threatened and endangered species). 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial. Beneficial impacts 

would result from the restoration of habitat 

for threatened and endangered species and 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

193 

species of concern. Adverse impacts would 

result from the temporary disturbance to 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern during placement 

activities, affecting the ability of some species 

to nest and establish. The actions associated 

with alternative C-5 would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate to major, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

from the habitat restoration that would result 

from the expanded beach nourishment 

activities. There would also be minor, shortterm, adverse impacts as placement of 

nourishment material would temporarily 

disturb the ability of piping plover to nest and 

for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. Coupled with 

beach nourishment, dredging would not be an 

adverse modification to the piping plover 

habitat under alternative C-5. No adverse 

modification of the piping plover critical 

habitat would occur under this alternative, 

and the actions associated with alternative C-5 

would affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, these threatened and endangered 

species. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

The actions and impacts under alternative D 

would be similar to those described under 

alternative C-1 for reaches 3 and 4, except that 

nourishment would be conducted via a 

permanent bypass system for sediment 

transport. Like the other action alternatives 

proposed for reaches 3 and 4, there is the 

potential for Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover habitat to be restored because of the 

additional beach nourishment that would 

occur, resulting in moderate to major, shortterm beneficial impacts on these threatened 

and endangered species from the habitat 

restoration that would result. The 

continuation of sediment placement in this 

reach would be of benefit to the Pitcher’s 

thistle and piping plover. Habitat restoration 

at an increased level of beach nourishment 

would occur. The actions associated with 

alternative D would result in minor, shortterm, adverse impacts from placement 

activities, and may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect these species as placement of 

the nourishment material may temporarily 

disturb the ability for piping plover to nest and 

for Pitcher’s thistle to establish. Work would 

be conducted outside critical periods (such as 

nesting) for the specific species when possible. 

In addition, work in areas in or near suitable 

threatened and endangered bird habitat 

would occur as late as possible in the 

summer/fall. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

and adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary disturbance 

to habitat for threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern during 

placement activities, affecting the ability of 

some species to nest and establish. Beneficial 

impacts would result from the restoration of 

habitat for threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern. The actions associated 

with alternative D would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, habitat loss 

would diminish and the possibility of the 

establishment of a natural ecosystem would be 

likely, resulting in moderate to major, shortterm, beneficial impacts. The continuation of 

sediment placement in this reach would be of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

194 

benefit to the Pitcher’s thistle and piping 

plover. Habitat restoration at an increased 

level of beach nourishment would occur. The 

actions associated with alternative D would 

result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

during placement activities, and may affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect these 

species. Coupled with beach nourishment, a 

permanent bypass system would not be an 

adverse modification to the piping plover 

habitat. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

The current management actions described in 

“The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 

and dune complex have multiple impacts on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern. Ongoing beach 

nourishment activities in reaches 1 and 3 

provide a minor, short-term, beneficial impact 

on threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern by preventing erosion, thus 

protecting critical habitat for these species. 

Placement activities also result in negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse effects from the 

temporary disruption of habitat to these 

species during these activities. 

Current management efforts to maintain, 

protect, and restore eroding areas (such as 

fencing off highly eroded areas and 

revegetating with native plants) in the park 

have minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the preservation and 

restoration of critical habitat for these species. 

Activities related to these efforts have 

negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

effects that last only as long as 

construction/maintenance work from the 

temporary disruption to critical habitat. 

Invasive vegetation management in the park 

has minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the restoration of 

critical habitat for these species, although 

there are negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse effects during activities related to 

revegetation and management efforts that 

result from the temporary disruption of 

habitat for these species. 

Education and outreach activities that help 

limit anthropogenic influences in the park 

have negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern by preserving 

their habitat and reducing their exposure to 

outside influences. 

By preserving existing ecological conditions 

through sustaining natural coastal processes, 

the National Park Service is providing a 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

effect on the threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern within the 

park, particularly piping plover and existing 

populations of Pitcher’s thistle. 

Proposed Management Actions 

The proposed management actions are 

described in “The Alternatives” chapter. The 

park proposes to continue with the current 

management actions described above, having 

a negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impact on threatened and endangered species 

and species of concern by increasing the 

potential for these species to find suitable 

habitat in the park and to inhabit the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. Ongoing planned 

facility upgrades and proposed new 

developments in the park (such as those 

proposed under Phase II of the Marquette 

Plan) would have minor to moderate, shortterm, adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern 

from the sound that construction-related 

activities would bring in to the park that could 

temporarily displace threatened and 
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

195 

endangered species and species of concern 

during construction and from the temporary 

disturbance to habitat during these activities. 

Special events near the park, like the Super 

Boat Grand Prix, would have negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the increase in sound 

in the park during such activities, and from the 

increase in anthropogenic influences (e.g., 

native vegetation trampling and increased 

numbers of social trails) that typically result 

during and after increased visitorship periods. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible, 

long-term, and beneficial as a result of 

increasing the potential for these species to 

find suitable habitat in the park and to inhabit 

the park over the long term. 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible to 

minor, long-term, and beneficial from actions 

being taken to increase the potential for these 

species to find suitable habitat in the park and 

to inhabit the park. Ongoing planned facility 

upgrades and proposed new developments in 

the park would have minor to moderate, 

short-term, adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern from the sound that constructionrelated activities would bring in to the park 

that could temporarily displace threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern during construction and from the 

temporary disturbance to habitat during these 

activities. Special events near the park, like the 

Super Boat Grand Prix, would have negligible 

to minor, short-term, adverse impacts on 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern from the increase in sound 

in the park during such activities, and from the 

increase in anthropogenic influences that 

typically result during and after increased 

visitorship periods. Cumulative impacts on the 

foredune and dune complex in reaches 1 

through 4 under threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern as a result of 

proposed management actions would be 

negligible, long-term, and beneficial. 
196 

WETLANDS AND PANNES 

METHODOLOGY 

As explained in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, there are two wetland features 

specific to Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

the aquatic and panne communities. Impacts 

on wetlands and pannes were evaluated by 

comparing projected changes resulting from 

implementing the action alternatives to taking 

no action (i.e., the no-action alternative). 

Information about the park’s wetlands and 

pannes was compiled from site visits, research 

data that is publicly available, information 

from park staff, and studies of similar actions 

and effects. Impacts on wetlands and pannes 

were assessed qualitatively based on the 

project team’s knowledge and best 

professional judgment. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds for wetlands and pannes 

are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes to wetlands and pannes in 

the park. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes to wetlands and pannes in the park. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in detectable changes to wetlands 

and pannes in the park. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes to wetlands and 

pannes in the park. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

The entire shoreline at Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore is classified as a wetland. 

Under the no-action alternatives and action 

alternatives for all reaches, the shoreline 

would remain un-vegetated beach wetland 

communities. Under the current nourishment 

activities taking place under the no-action 

alternative, as well as under the actions that 

would take place under the action alternatives 

for all reaches, temporary impacts to the 

beach wetlands would result from the 

placement of nourishment material directly 

on the beach. However, there would be a 

benefit to the wetland habitat as a result of the 

nourishment activities, including continued 

maintenance of the sediment required to 

sustain the un-vegetated beach wetland 

habitat. Natural ecological processes would 

function as they did prior to disturbance, to 

the extent practicable. No wetlands outside of 

the project area would be adversely impacted, 

resulting in no-net-loss of wetlands. This 

meets the NPS “no-net-loss of wetlands” 

policy as stated in NPS Director’s Order 77-1: 

Wetland Protection and Procedural Manual 

#77-1. Under the action alternatives, the 

resulting shoreline (post-restoration) would 

be the same acreage of the same wetland type 

as currently exists, either maintained in its 

present position or shifted northward because 

a comparable shoreline profile would develop. 

As such, the project would be considered 

under the Restoration Exception in Section 

4.2.1(h) of NPS Director’s Order 77-1 and 

would be an excepted action. A Wetland 

Statement of Findings would not need to be 

prepared. There would be no incremental or 

cumulative effects on wetlands because the 

project would not affect the overall acreage or 

type of wetlands either within or outside of 

the project area. 
Wetlands and Pannes 

197 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

As explained in “The Alternatives” chapter, 

there are various current management actions 

taking place in the reaches of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore that impact wetlands and 

pannes in reaches 1, 3, and 4 (reach 2 has no 

wetlands or pannes). These include the 

ongoing beach nourishment activities that 

take place on an intermittent basis in reaches 1 

and 3. Such beach nourishment activities help 

prevent erosion and protect the existence of 

wetlands and pannes, having a negligible to 

minor, short-term, beneficial impact on these 

resources. 

At blowout locations in the park, invasive 

plant management is performed to help 

protect Pitcher’s thistle populations, having a 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

effect on these populations and the wetlands 

and pannes in areas that surround them. In 

addition, invasive nonnative plant species 

management, which include the early 

detection and rapid response program and 

Invasive Plant Management Plan, in other 

areas of the park (such as West Beach and 

Miller), help preserve the pannes (the 

foredune complex at Miller is interrupted by 

leeward pannes and aquatic plant 

communities and West Beach has the largest 

concentration of high quality pannes in the 

project area). These activities have negligible 

to minor, long-term, beneficial effects on 

wetlands and pannes, as do measures that are 

taken by the park to manage anthropogenic 

influences in the reaches, such as fencing and 

visitor outreach and education (West Beach is 

one of the most popular and highly visited 

entry points in the park with numerous social 

trails extending from the parking lots to the 

beach that traverse through sensitive habitat 

within the foredune and dune complex). 

Outreach and education create visitor 

awareness of the impacts of invasive 

nonnative plant species and anthropogenic 

influences in the park. 

Current restoration and resource protection 

projects in the park, such as the early 

detection and rapid response program and 

Invasive Plant Management Plan and 

revegetation with native seeds, have minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on wetlands and 

pannes from the early detection and 

eradication of such species. 

Proposed Management Actions 

As explained in “The Alternatives” chapter, 

there are multiple proposed management 

actions for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

that would impact wetlands and pannes in 

reaches 1, 3, and 4. If the park proceeds with 

expanding their education and outreach 

efforts, there would be negligible to minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on wetlands and 

pannes from the increased visitor awareness 

of these sensitive areas. In addition, should the 

park proceed with realigning some trails in the 

park, there would be negligible to minor, longterm, beneficial impacts on wetlands and 

pannes from the reduction in anthropogenic 

influences in these resource areas. Similarly, 

future actions by the park to restore the 

foredune and dune complex by stabilizing 

eroded dunes with native vegetation and 

fencing off highly eroded and environmentally 

sensitive areas on the foredune to allow for 

ecological recovery of natural communities 

would have minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on wetlands and pannes by preserving 

their natural environment. 

Cumulative Impacts. Proposed development 

projects, like those included in Phase II of the 

Marquette Plan (IDNR et al. 2005), would 

have negligible, short-term, adverse impacts 

on wetlands and pannes from disruption to 

these sensitive landforms during construction 

activities. Development in the park would also 

have minor, long-term, adverse impacts from 

the take of some of these lands that would be 

required to build the proposed developments. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

wetlands and pannes as a result of proposed 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 

management actions would be negligible to 

minor, long-term, and beneficial from the 

actions proposed to educate visitors on 

anthropogenic influences on wetlands and 

pannes and from protection and restoration 

measures that would be taken for these 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

wetlands and pannes as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible to 

minor, long-term, and beneficial from the 

park expanding its education and outreach 

efforts, increasing visitor awareness of these 

sensitive areas. In addition, realigning some 

trails in the park would have negligible to 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

wetlands and pannes from the reduction in 

anthropogenic influences in these resource 

areas. Actions to restore the foredune and 

dune complex by stabilizing eroded dunes 

with native vegetation and fencing off highly 

eroded and environmentally sensitive areas on 

the foredune to allow for ecological recovery 

of natural communities would have minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on wetlands and 

pannes by preserving their natural 

environment. Proposed development projects 

would have negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts on wetlands and pannes from 

disruption to these sensitive landforms during 

construction activities; such development 

would also have minor, long-term adverse 

impacts from the take of some of these lands 

that would be required to build the proposed 

developments. Cumulative impacts on the 

foredune and dune complex in reaches 1 

through 4 under terrestrial habitat as a result 

of proposed management actions would be 

negligible to minor, long-term, and beneficial. 
199 

SOUNDSCAPE 

METHODOLOGY 

As explained in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, the soundscape of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore includes both the human 

and natural environment. The sound 

environment of the park changes seasonally. 

Visitors perceive the soundscape subjectively 

and typically seek out areas of the park where 

they can either experience the natural quiet or 

areas where human-generated sounds 

dominate, depending on their personal 

preference. Impacts to the soundscape under 

each alternative were analyzed to assess how 

the actions associated with each would help 

identify a series of management actions that 

could be implemented by park staff, as 

needed, to provide a balance between 

protection of the shoreline ecosystem and 

appropriate visitor enjoyment of the park. The 

National Park Service’s Director’s Order 47: 

Preservation and Noise Management defines 

noise as “an unwanted or undesired sound, 

often unpleasant in quality, intensity or 

repetition. This makes noise a subjective term 

and pushes society to address which sounds 

or aspects of sound constitute unwanted 

interruptions in specific situations. Noise is 

often a byproduct of desirable activities or 

machines. In a national park setting, noise is a 

subset of human-made noise.” For purposes 

of this plan / draft EIS, soundscape and 

natural sounds apply to the environment; 

noise is only referred to in discussions of 

impacts. Information about the soundscape at 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore was 

compiled from data from park staff and 

studies of similar actions and effects. 

Soundscape impacts were assessed 

quantitatively and qualitatively for this 

resource, based on the project team’s 

knowledge and best professional judgment. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds of visitor experience are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in the soundscape of the 

park. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in the soundscape of the park. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in easily detectable changes in 

the soundscape of the park. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in the soundscape of 

the park. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no changes to the park’s soundscape. The 

current beach nourishment program at the 

park includes sediment being placed along the 

shoreline at Crescent Dune from a permitted 

upland borrow site. This sediment is 

deposited on an intermittent basis and is 

graded along the beach with minimal 

equipment, having a minor, short-term, 

adverse impact from the noise that’s generated 

during placement and grading activities. 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no new impacts on the soundscape.

Cumulative Impacts. Current human and 

natural sound from inside and outside the 

park has affected the natural soundscape of 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in the 

past, and would continue to do so in the 

future. The park experiences sound intrusions 

from various transportation corridors, 

including the roads that run through and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200 

around the park; such sound intrusions have 

negligible, long-term, adverse effects on the 

soundscape since the park is surrounded by 

substantial development and industry. The 

park also experiences sound intrusions from 

existing industry development; for example, 

NIPSCO operations produce rhythmic 

mechanical industrial sounds that have 

negligible, long-term, adverse impacts on the 

sound environment at the park from ongoing, 

routine operations. 

Just as the soundscape at the park varies by 

season and high-use times (i.e., holidays and 

weekends), the soundscape also varies with 

events. The Super Boat Grand Prix, a 

Michigan City sponsored event that has taken 

place the past three years, adds to the existing 

soundscape setting under the no-action 

alternative with minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts that are temporary, lasting as long as 

event set up, event run, and event take down. 

These impacts result from the increased 

number of boats operating in the lake, the 

increased number of visitors in the park 

during the event, and the addition of event 

sponsors and staff commuting to and from 

and being in the park to run the event. 

The Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District (the South Shore 

Railroad), which currently traverses the park, 

incrementally adds minor, long-term, adverse 

effects to the natural soundscape in the park 

from the sounds generated during daily 

operation of the train. 

Should any of the proposed development or 

construction in or around the park take place 

(see the “Cumulative Impacts Scenario” 

section for a listing of the development 

projects proposed under the Marquette Plan) 

(IDNR et al. 2005), there would be an 

incremental addition of minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on the soundscape from the 

sound that would be generated from the 

related construction activities, including the 

operation of construction equipment. 

Ongoing restoration, preservation, and 

invasive vegetation management work in the 

park incrementally add only negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse effects on the 

existing soundscape, since this work is routine 

and cyclic, and already part of the existing 

soundscape at the park. 

It is possible in the future that those events 

outside the boundaries of the park, such as 

recreational boating, would generate 

substantial sounds that would be heard in the 

park. New developments adjacent to the park 

would also result in sound generation during 

and after construction in these areas. These 

actions would incrementally add to the 

existing soundscape with negligible to minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse impacts during 

construction and associated daily 

living/operational activities. 

Overall, if the actions described above were 

added to the existing soundscape, there would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape. The actions under alternative A 

would add a small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, there would 

be minor, short-term, adverse impacts from 

beach nourishment activities related to sound 

generated from the trucks hauling the 

sediment and the sediment being graded along 

the shoreline. No new impacts on the existing 

soundscape in reaches 1 and 2 would result 

under this alternative since no new actions 

would be taken. Cumulatively, there would be 

negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape 

from the sounds associated with special 

events, construction/development projects, 

and restoration and preservation work. The 

actions under alternative A would result in a 

very small increment being added to the 

overall cumulative impact. 
Soundscape 

201 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative B-1, beach nourishment 

material would be mined and placed on the 

beach each year at Crescent Dune from a 

permitted upland source by trucks traveling 

along an existing access road. As many as five 

bulldozers would be employed to distribute 

the sediment along the beach. The beach 

nourishment activities would occur over 

approximately four months every year in offpeak months, if possible. The beach 

construction area would be closed to visitors 

during this time. These actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would result in negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape in the park. 

Ambient daytime noise levels within reach 1 

may range from 30 A-weighted decibels 

(dB[A]) in areas away from human activities to 

60 dBA near areas of greater human activity, 

such as the Michigan City Marina to the east 

and Lakefront Drive to the west. Under 

alternative B-1, up to 80 trucks per eight-hour 

day, five days per week, would deliver 

sediment to reach 1, and as many as five 

bulldozers would be actively moving sediment 

toward the western portion of the reach. 

Depending on the age and condition of the 

construction equipment, noise levels from a 

large diesel truck would range up to near 

90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, while the 

bulldozer sound level would range up to 

95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (EPA 1971). 

Sound intensity attenuates with distance as it 

propagates over a larger area, generally in a 

spherical spreading pattern, away from a 

stationary noise source, or “point source” 

where the sound waves were generated. 

Generally speaking, noise generated by a point 

source decreases by approximately 6 dBA over 

hard surfaces (e.g., reflective surfaces such as 

parking lots or smooth bodies of water), and 

7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive 

surfaces such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered 

bushes and trees) for each doubling of 

distance. Visitors would experience near 

ambient daytime noise levels within the 

nearby open beach areas because visitors 

would be excluded from the beach areas 

where nourishment activities would take 

place. Visitors would continue to experience 

the natural sound environment in the park 

that exists under the no-action alternative. 

Therefore, truck and equipment operation 

under alternative B-1 would have a negligible 

to minor, short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape. 

There would be fewer park visitors impacted, 

although terrestrial fauna would be affected 

by impacts on the soundscape, because 

activities under alternative B-1 would take 

place during the off-season as much as 

possible. If beach nourishment under 

alternative B-1 occurred in the fall months, 

the food gathering and other winter 

preparation activities of small mammals would 

be impacted by the sounds and vibrations 

from the trucks and construction equipment. 

Additionally, fall migratory birds that find 

rest, refuge, and forage in the park after their 

Lake Michigan overflight, would be disturbed 

and stressed by these activities. Impacts under 

alternative B-1 would be negligible to minor, 

short-term and adverse because of these 

effects on terrestrial fauna. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-1. If those impacts were added to the 

impacts under alternative B-1, there would be 

negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 

park to execute the actions associated with 

this alternative. Impacts under alternative B-1 

would occur on week days during the offpeak months; therefore, actions associated 

with alternative B-1 would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-1 there 

would be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape from 

beach nourishment activities. These impacts 

would be primarily due to sound generated 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202 

from the trucks hauling the sediment and 

construction equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the beach. There 

would be negligible to minor, short- and longterm, adverse cumulative impacts on the 

natural soundscape if sounds from the actions 

associated with alternative B-1 were added to 

the existing soundscape environment; 

however, the actions from this alternative 

would result in a very small increment being 

added to the overall cumulative impact since 

work would be performed during off-peak 

months and during the week. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Under alternative B-5, beach nourishment 

would take place similar as described above 

under alternative B-1, with a few differences. 

Under alternative B-5, beach nourishment 

would take place on a five-year frequency 

instead of an annual frequency. In addition, 

the implementation of this alternative would 

effectively close the reach 1 beach for 

approximately 18 months every five years. 

Under alternative B-5, there would be minor 

to moderate, long-term, adverse effects on the 

soundscape from these beach nourishment 

activities and the associated sound generated 

from hauling and grading activities. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-5. If those impacts were added to the 

impacts under alternative B-5, there would be 

negligible to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 

park to execute the actions associated with 

this alternative. These cumulative impacts 

would occur during high-use times (e.g., 

summer), and on weekdays over the course of 

approximately 18 months every five years. The 

actions associated with alternative B-5 would 

therefore add a large effect to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-5 there 

would be minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape. These 

impacts would be primarily due to sound 

generated from trucks hauling sediment and 

construction equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the beach. There 

would be negligible to moderate, short- and 

long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape. The actions associated with 

alternative B-5 would therefore add a large 

effect to the overall cumulative impact since 

work would be performed during the peak 

and off-peak seasons. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1, beach nourishment 

material would be dredged from an updrift 

location, such as the nearshore area east of the 

Michigan City Harbor, and placed annually 

on the beach in reach 1. As many as five 

bulldozers would be employed to distribute 

the sediment along the beach. The beach 

nourishment activities would occur over 

approximately two months every year during 

the off-peak season. The beach construction 

area would be closed to visitors during this 

time. These actions associated with alternative 

C-1 would result in negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impacts on the soundscape in 

the park from the sound they would generate. 

Under alternative C-1, dredging equipment 

would operate 8 to 10 hours per day at a 

location offshore. Standing at the water’s 

edge, a receptor (i.e., person or animal) would 

hear the sound of a small- to moderate-sized 

dredge at a level of approximately 60 dBA on a 

calm day (Borough of Poole Commissioners 

2004). The bulldozers needed to move 

sediment along the beach would each 

generate noise levels as high as 95 dBA. Sound 

intensity attenuates with distance as it 

propagates over a larger area, generally in a 

spherical spreading pattern, away from a point 

source where the sound waves were 

generated. Generally speaking, noise 
Soundscape 

203 

generated by a point source decreases by 

approximately 6 dBA over hard surfaces (e.g., 

reflective surfaces such as parking lots or 

smooth bodies of water), and 7.5 dBA over 

soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive surfaces such as 

soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) 

for each doubling of distance. Visitors would 

experience near ambient daytime noise levels 

within the nearby open beach areas because 

visitors would be excluded from the beach 

areas where nourishment activities would take 

place. Visitors would continue to experience 

the natural sound environment in the park 

that exists under the no-action alternative. 

Therefore, truck and equipment operation 

under alternative C -1 would have a negligible 

to minor, short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape. 

Under alternative C-1, work would be 

performed during the park’s off-season so 

there would be fewer park visitors impacted 

by these activities, although the work would 

impact terrestrial fauna. If beach nourishment 

occurred in October and November, the food 

gathering and other winter preparation 

activities of small mammals would be 

impacted by the sound and vibrations from 

the equipment. Further, fall migratory birds 

that find rest, refuge, and forage in the park 

after their Lake Michigan overflight, would be 

disturbed and stressed by these activities. 

Under alternative C-1, there would be 

negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the natural soundscape of Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore during fall 

performance of the activities associated with 

this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. If those impacts were added to the 

impacts under alternative C-1, there would be 

negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts to the soundscape 

from the addition of sounds in the park to 

execute the actions associated with this 

alternative. These cumulative impacts would 

occur on weekdays under alternative C-1. 

Therefore, the actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact 

due to the timing of the actions. 

Conclusion. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would result in negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts. These 

impacts would be primarily due to sound 

generated from barges and construction 

equipment grading the nourishment material 

along the beach. There would be negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse 

cumulative impacts on the soundscape if noise 

impacts under alternative C-1 were added to 

the existing soundscape; however, the actions 

from this alternative would result in a very 

small increment being added to the 

cumulative impact due to the time of the 

actions. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-5, beach nourishment 

material would be placed on the beach as 

described above for alternative C-1, with a few 

differences. Beach nourishment activities 

under alternative C-5 would take place every 

five years rather than annually. In addition, 

the nourishment material would be placed on 

the beach on weekdays over approximately 10 

months every five years. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would result in 

minor to moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the soundscape in the park due to 

the dredging and spreading of sediment along 

the shoreline over an approximate 10-month 

period every five years. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. If those impacts were added to the 

impacts under alternative C-5, there would be 

negligible to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

204 

park to execute the actions associated with 

this alternative. These cumulative impacts 

would occur on weekdays over approximately 

10 months every five years. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would 

therefore add a large increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5 there 

would be minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts on the soundscape. These 

impacts would be primarily due to sound 

generated from construction equipment 

grading the nourishment material along the 

beach and from dredging operations. 

Cumulative impacts would be negligible to 

moderate, short- and long-term and adverse 

as sound would occur during peak and offpeak times over approximately 10 months 

every five years. The actions associated with 

alternative C-5 would therefore add a large 

effect to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Under alternative D, a permanent bypass 

system would be constructed. Construction 

activities would have a negligible, short-term, 

adverse impact on the soundscape, lasting 

only as long as construction. Under this 

alternative, a permanent bypass system would 

transport sediment from updrift of the 

Michigan City Harbor to reach 1. As many as 

five bulldozers would be employed to 

distribute the sediment along the beach. The 

beach construction area would be closed to 

visitors during this time. These actions 

associated with alternative D would have 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

park soundscape. 

Under alternative D, the permanent bypass 

system would operate 8 to 10 hours a day. The 

exact location of the dredging barges, lift 

station, and pumps would be determined at a 

later stage, under a planning effort focused on 

implementation; however, when standing 

approximately 300 feet from the equipment, a 

receptor would be able to hear the sound of a 

small- to moderate-sized dredge at a level of 

approximately 60 dBA on a calm day. 

Bulldozers needed to move sediment along 

the beach would each generate noise levels at 

high as 95 dBA. Sound intensity attenuates 

with distance as it propagates over a larger 

area, generally in a spherical spreading 

pattern, away from a point source where the 

sound waves were generated. Generally 

speaking, noise generated by a point source 

decreases by approximately 6 dBA over hard 

surfaces (e.g., reflective surfaces such as 

parking lots or smooth bodies of water), and 

7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive 

surfaces such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered 

bushes and trees) for each doubling of 

distance. Visitors would experience near 

ambient daytime noise levels within the 

nearby open beach areas because visitors 

would be excluded from the beach areas 

where nourishment activities would take 

place. Visitors would continue to experience 

the natural sound environment in the park 

that exists under the no-action alternative. 

Therefore, truck and equipment operation 

under alternative D would have a negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape during dredging and spreading 

operations. 

Due to the work being performed under 

alternative D during the park’s off-season, 

there would be fewer park visitors impacted 

by these activities, although the work would 

impact terrestrial fauna, as described under 

alternative C-1 above, impact food gathering 

and other winter preparation activities. These 

actions associated with alternative D would 

result in negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. If the impacts under alternative D were 

added to the existing soundscape, there would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 

park to execute the actions associated with 
Soundscape 

205 

this alternative. Impacts under alternative D 

would occur on weekdays during the off-peak 

months; therefore, the actions associated with 

alternative D would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the sound that would be 

generated from construction and associated 

operations of the permanent bypass system. 

There would be negligible to minor, shortand long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on 

the natural soundscape if sound generated 

from the actions associated with alternative D 

were added to the existing soundscape; 

however, the actions from this alternative 

would result in a very small increment being 

added to the cumulative impact due to the 

timing of the work. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative E, the placement of a 

submerged cobble berm would be 

accomplished by employing a barge and 

crane. The crane would place the submerged 

cobble berm offshore approximately 10 feet 

below the water surface and parallel to the 

shoreline. The total length and design of the 

submerged cobble berm would be determined 

at a later stage, under a planning effort 

focused on implementation. In conjunction 

with the submerged cobble berm, a beach 

nourishment program would be used to 

restore reach 1 of Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore, although a reduced quantity 

would be needed as the submerged cobble 

berm would lessen beach erosion. Sediment 

placed on the beach would be distributed with 

as many as five bulldozers. The beach 

nourishment activities would occur during the 

off-peak season. The beach construction area 

would be closed to visitors during this time. 

These actions associated with alternative E 

would have negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the park soundscape. 

Under alternative E, the dredge equipment 

would operate 8 to 10 hours per day at a 

location offshore. Standing at the water’s 

edge, a receptor would hear the sound of a 

small- to moderate-sized dredge at a level of 

approximately 60 dBA on a calm day 

(Borough of Poole Commissioners 2004). 

Bulldozers needed to move sediment along 

the beach would each generate noise levels as 

high as 95 dBA. Sound intensity attenuates 

with distance as it propagates over a larger 

area, generally in a spherical spreading 

pattern, away from a point source where the 

sound waves were generated. Generally 

speaking, noise generated by a point source 

decreases by approximately 6 dBA over hard 

surfaces (e.g., reflective surfaces such as 

parking lots or smooth bodies of water), and 

7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive 

surfaces such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered 

bushes and trees) for each doubling of the 

distance. Visitors would experience near 

ambient daytime noise levels within the 

nearby open beach areas because visitors 

would be excluded from the beach areas 

where nourishment activities would take 

place. They would continue to experience the 

natural sound environment in the park that 

exists under the no-action alternative. 

Therefore, truck and equipment operation 

under alternative E would have a negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape during dredging and spreading 

operations. 

There would be fewer park visitors impacted 

by the actions associated with alternative E 

since activities would take place during the 

off-season; therefore, there would be 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts to the 

soundscape from these actions. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

E. If the impacts under alternative E were 

added to the existing soundscape, negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse 

cumulative impacts on the soundscape would 

result from the addition of sound in the park 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

206 

to execute the actions associated with this 

alternative. Under alternative E, impacts 

would occur on weekdays during the off-peak 

months; therefore, the actions associated with 

alternative E would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative E, there would 

be negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on 

the soundscape from the beach nourishment 

activities. These impacts would be primarily 

due to sound generated from construction 

activities as well as barges and construction 

equipment grading the nourishment material 

along the beach. There would be negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse 

cumulative impacts on the natural soundscape 

if sound generated from the actions associated 

with alternative E were added to the existing 

soundscape; however, the actions associated 

with this alternative would result in a very 

small increment being added to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative in reaches 3 

and 4, there would be no changes to the park’s 

soundscape. The current beach nourishment 

program includes the dredging of sediment 

annually around the NIPSCO/Bailly intake 

and placing it in the nearshore at Portage 

Lakefront and Riverwalk. The sediment is 

then graded along the beach with minimal 

equipment, having minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the sound that is generated 

during placement and grading activities. As 

described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, there are numerous human and 

natural components of sound in and around 

the park. Under the no-action alternative, 

there would be no new impacts on the 

soundscape from these existing actions. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative 

impacts under alternative A for reaches 3 and 

4 would be similar to those described above 

for the no-action alternative for reaches 1 and 

2. Overall, there would be negligible to minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse cumulative 

impacts on the soundscape if the impacts 

under the no-action alternative were added to 

the existing soundscape. The actions under 

alternative A would add a small increment to 

the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, there would 

be minor, short-term, adverse impacts from 

beach nourishment activities related to sound 

generated from the sediment being graded 

along the shoreline. There would be no new 

impacts on the existing soundscape in reaches 

3 and 4 since no new actions would be taken 

under alternative A. Cumulatively, there 

would be negligible to minor, short- and longterm, adverse impacts on the natural 

soundscape. The actions under alternative A 

would result in a very small increment being 

added to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1, sediment would be 

dredged from an updrift location in Lake 

Michigan and placed annually on the beach at 

Portage Lakefront and Riverwalk. As many as 

five bulldozers would be employed to 

distribute the sediment along the beach. The 

beach nourishment activities would occur 

over an approximate two-month period every 

year during the off-peak season. The beach 

construction area would be closed to visitors 

during this time. These actions would result in 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

soundscape in the park from the associated 

sound generation. 

Ambient daytime noise levels within reach 3 

may range from 30 dBA in areas away from 

human activities to higher than 60 dBA near 

areas of greater human activity such as Burns 

Waterway Small Boat Harbor to the east and 

the residential community of Ogden Dunes to 

the west. Under alternative C-1 in reaches 3 

and 4, dredging equipment would operate 8 to 
Soundscape 

207 

10 hours per day offshore. Standing at the 

water’s edge, a receptor would hear the sound 

of small- to moderate-sized dredging 

equipment at a level of approximately 60 dBA 

on a calm day. Bulldozers needed to move 

sediment along the beach would each 

generate noise levels as high as 95 dBA. Sound 

intensity attenuates with distance as it 

propagates over a larger area, generally in a 

spherical spreading pattern, away from a point 

source where the sound waves were 

generated. Generally speaking, noise 

generated by a point source decreases by 

approximately 6 dBA over hard surfaces (e.g., 

reflective surfaces such as parking lots or 

smooth bodies of water), and 7.5 dBA over 

soft surfaces (e.g., absorptive surfaces such as 

soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) 

for each doubling of distance. Visitors would 

experience near ambient daytime noise levels 

within the nearby open beach areas because 

visitors would be excluded from the beach 

areas where nourishment activities would take 

place. Visitors would continue to experience 

the natural sound environment in the park 

that exists under the no-action alternative. 

Therefore, construction equipment operation 

under alternative C-1 would have a negligible 

to minor, short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape during dredging and spreading 

operations. 

Due to the work being performed under 

alternative C-1 during the park’s off-season, 

there would be fewer park visitors impacted 

by these activities, although the work would 

impact terrestrial fauna, as described under 

alternative C-1 for reaches 1 and 2. Under 

alternative C-1, there would be negligible to 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

natural soundscape of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore. 

Additionally, due to the location of reaches 3 

and 4 in the park, construction-related traffic 

would have to commute through surrounding 

neighborhoods to access this area, increasing 

the daily traffic and related traffic sounds 

generated for residents and park visitors. Such 

increases in traffic (and thus, traffic-related 

sounds) would have a negligible to minor, 

short-term, adverse impact on the 

soundscape. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. If the impacts under alternative C-1 were 

added to the existing soundscape, there would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 

park to execute the actions associated with 

this alternative. Under alternative C-1, 

impacts would occur on weekdays during the 

off-peak months; therefore, the actions 

associated with alternative C-1 would add a 

very small increment to the overall cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be negligible to minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts. These impacts would be 

primarily due to sound generated from barges 

and construction equipment grading the 

nourishment material along the beach. There 

would be negligible to minor, short- and longterm, adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape if sound generated from the 

activities associated with alternative C-1 were 

added to the existing soundscape; however, 

these actions would result in a very small 

increment being added to the overall 

cumulative impact due to the timing of the 

actions. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

The beach nourishment activities that would 

take place under alternative C-5 would be 

similar to those described above for 

alternative C-1, with a few differences. Under 

alternative C-5, beach nourishment activities 

would take place every five years rather than 

annually, and these activities would occur 

over approximately six months every five 

years. Such actions would have minor to 

moderate, short-term. adverse impacts on the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208 

soundscape from the sounds that would be 

generated. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. If the impacts under alternative C-5 were 

added to the existing soundscape, there would 

be negligible to moderate, short- and longterm, adverse cumulative impacts on the 

natural soundscape from the addition of 

sound in the park to execute the actions 

associated with this alternative. Impacts under 

alternative C-5 would occur on weekdays for 

approximately 10 months every five years. The 

actions associated with alternative C-5 would 

therefore add a large effect to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts primarily due to sound 

generated from construction equipment 

grading the nourishment material along the 

beach. There would be negligible to moderate, 

short- and long-term, adverse cumulative 

impacts on the soundscape as sounds would 

be generated and occur during high-use times 

and on weekdays over approximately six 

months every five years. The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would 

therefore add a large effect to the overall 

cumulative impact from the sound that would 

be generated. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Impacts under alternative D in reaches 3 and 4 

would be similar to those described above for 

alternative D in reaches 1 and 2. That is, 

negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the sound that would be 

generated from construction of the 

permanent bypass system. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. If the impacts under alternative D were 

added to the existing soundscape, there would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse cumulative impacts on the 

soundscape from the addition of sound in the 

park to execute the actions associated with 

this alternative. Impacts under alternative D 

would occur on weekdays during the off-peak 

months; therefore, the actions associated with 

alternative D would add a very small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the sound that would be 

generated from construction and associated 

operations of the permanent bypass system. 

There would be negligible to minor, shortand long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on 

the natural soundscape if sound generated 

from the actions associated with alternative D 

were added to the existing soundscape; 

however, the actions from this alternative 

would result in a very small increment being 

added to the cumulative impact due to the 

timing of the work. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

The continuation of current management 

actions described in “The Alternatives” 

chapter for the foredune and dune complex in 

reaches 1 through 4 would have no new effect 

on the existing soundscape since no new 

actions would be introduced into any of the 

reaches. 

Proposed Management Actions 

The proposed management actions described 

in “The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 
Soundscape 

209 

and dune complex for reaches 1 through 4 

would add negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the natural soundscape in the park 

related to the sound generated from the 

proposed realignment of trails, and 

development of picnic areas, parking lots, 

access points, etc. These impacts would be 

temporary, lasting only as long as 

construction. 

Cumulative Impacts. Sound from 

development that results from Phase II of the 

Marquette Plan (IDNR et al. 2005) would add 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on the 

natural soundscape. The Northern Indiana 

Commuter Transportation District (the South 

Shore Railroad), which currently traverses the 

park, incrementally adds minor, long-term, 

adverse effects to the natural soundscape in 

the park from the sounds generated during 

daily operation of the train. Cumulative 

impacts on the foredune and dune complex in 

reaches 1 through 4 under soundscape as a 

result of proposed management actions would 

be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

and adverse from the incremental addition of 

sounds in the park during construction (shortterm) and operation (long-term) of proposed 

upgrades and developments. 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

the soundscape as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible, 

short-term, and adverse from the sound that 

would be generated during the proposed 

realignment of trails, and development of 

picnic areas, parking lots, access points, etc. 

These impacts would be temporary, lasting 

only as long as construction. Likewise, sound 

from development that results from Phase II 

of the Marquette Plan (IDNR et al. 2005) 

would add negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the natural soundscape. The 

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation 

District (the South Shore Railroad), which 

currently traverses the park, adds minor, longterm, adverse effects to the natural 

soundscape in the park from the sounds 

generated during daily operation of the train. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

terrestrial habitat as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, and adverse. 
210 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

METHODOLOGY 

Information about visitor use and experience 

at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore was 

compiled from data from park records and 

studies of similar actions and effects. Impacts 

were assessed qualitatively for this resource, 

based on the project team’s knowledge and 

best professional judgment regarding how the 

proposed actions for each alternative would 

impact visitor use and experience in the park. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds for visitor experience are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in visitors' experience at 

the park. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in visitors' experience at the park. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in easily detectable changes in 

visitors' experience at the park. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in visitors' experience 

at the park. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, visitor 

opportunities would remain essentially 

unchanged as the existing management 

protocol for the shoreline would be 

continued. Impacts on visitor experience 

under the no-action alternative would be 

minor, short-term, and adverse from 

temporary beach closings during intermittent 

beach nourishment and grading activities in 

reach 1. Under the no-action alternative, 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts would 

result from degradation of popular visitor 

amenities within reaches 1 and 2, as a result of 

continued shoreline erosion and no new 

actions being taken. 

Cumulative Impacts. Under the no-action 

alternative, restoration and preventative work 

in the park would incrementally add minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on visitor 

experience from the resulting trail and beach 

closings. This work would also have a minor, 

long-term, beneficial impact on visitor 

experience from decreased future trail and 

beach closings and improved scenic views 

(from restoring natural views), ultimately 

improving the overall visitor experience at the 

park. Any action in the park resulting in trail 

closings and/or pedestrian detours would be 

readily apparent to visitors, who could 

express an opinion about them. 

Ongoing and planned facility upgrades would 

incrementally add a negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impact on visitor experience 

during construction and renovation activities; 

however, following construction, there would 

be minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience from the availability of 

improved facilities in the park and from a 

reduction in future closings of facilities for 

maintenance and upkeep. 

Overall, there would be negligible to minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative impacts on visitor experience if the 

impacts under the no-action alternative were 

added to the existing visitor environment. 

Adverse impacts would result from the 

temporary beach, trail, and facility closings for 

maintenance work and upgrades, and 

beneficial impacts would result from the 

reduction in future closings, improved access 
Visitor Experience 

211 

to better facilities, and restoration of scenic 

views to more natural views. The actions 

under alternative A would add a small 

increment to the overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, the impact 

of taking no new actions in the park would be 

a minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse impact on visitor experience from 

temporary beach closings and ongoing 

degradation of popular visitor amenities from 

continued shoreline erosion. Impacts would 

continue under alternative A, even though the 

no-action alternative would have no new 

impacts on visitor experience. Cumulatively, 

there would be negligible to minor, short- and 

long-term, adverse and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience. The actions associated with 

alternative A would result in a small increment 

being added to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative B-1, the quantity of beach 

nourishment material that would be mined 

and delivered to the lakeshore would be 

increased compared to alternative A. The 

sediment would be placed at Crescent Dune 

on an annual basis over an approximate 

four-month period each year. To the extent 

possible, efforts would be made to minimize 

impacts on visitor experience by conducting 

beach nourishment activities during off-peak 

months (i.e., fall and winter months). The 

actions associated with alternative B-1 would 

have minor, short-term, adverse impacts on 

visitor experience from the additional trucks 

and grading equipment that would appear 

along the shoreline on an annual basis, 

disrupting the natural viewsheds of the park 

for visitors. 

Under alternative B-1, the placement area 

would be temporarily closed to visitors during 

placement activities for safety purposes, 

resulting in minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts on visitor experience from access 

removal. The actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would also result in minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience as there would be a temporary 

increase in beach size in the placement area 

near Mount Baldy, expanding the area 

available for visitor use and enjoyment. 

The actions associated with alternative B-1 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit 

calculated for reach 1, preventing additional 

erosion, resulting in minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience from 

decreased trail and beach closings and 

pedestrian detours for maintenance and 

restoration efforts. The shorelines downdrift 

of Mount Baldy would receive an infusion of 

sediment from the beach nourishment 

activities under alternative B-1, impacting not 

only reach 1, but reach 2 and a portion of 

reach 3, as well, similarly reducing cyclic 

maintenance and restoration demands in 

those areas, having a minor, short-term, 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-1. If the impacts under alternative B-1 were 

added to the existing environment for visitor 

experience, there would be minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts from beach and trail closings 

for beach nourishment activities, as well as 

minor, short-term, beneficial, cumulative 

impacts from decreased future closings and 

expanded area available for visitor use during 

the temporary increase in beach size near 

Mount Baldy. The actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-1, there 

would be minor, short-term and adverse 

impacts during temporary beach and trail 

closings for nourishment activities in reach 1. 

There would also be minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience due to 

the temporary increase in beach size and 

reduction in future trail closings. The actions 

associated with this alternative, when 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

212 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor, short-term, adverse and 

beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Under alternative B-5, the beach nourishment 

activities described above for alternative B-1 

would be similar, with a few differences. The 

amount of beach nourishment material mined 

and delivered to the lakeshore from a 

permitted upland source via trucks would be 

increased relative to the no-action alternative, 

and would be placed along the lakeshore for 

approximately 18 months every five years. 

Such actions would result in moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on visitor experience 

from the beach and trail closings for safety 

reasons. Additionally, under alternative B-5, 

beach nourishment activities would require 

additional trucks and grading equipment 

along the shoreline for approximately 18 

months every five years, resulting in additional 

visual intrusions to the viewshed for visitors, 

resulting in minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts. 

The actions associated with alternative B-5 

would cause a temporary increase in beach 

size in reach 1, having a minor, short-term, 

beneficial impact on visitor experience from 

the expanded area available for visitor use and 

enjoyment. The actions associated with 

alternative B-5 would fulfill the sediment 

budget deficit calculated for reach 1, 

preventing additional erosion, and would 

result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience from fewer future beach 

closings for cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the beach and 

trail closings during placement activities 

(adverse) and from fewer future closings for 

cyclic maintenance and restoration work 

(beneficial). The actions associated with 

alternative B-5 would provide a substantial 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-5, there 

would be minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience from 

the visual intrusions being introduced into the 

park during beach nourishment activities and 

the beach and trail closings during placement 

work. In addition, under this alternative there 

would be minor, short- and long-term, 

beneficial impacts from the temporary 

increase in beach size and future reduction in 

beach closings for nourishment activities due 

to the decrease in erosion. The actions 

associated with this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial impacts. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1, beach nourishment 

material would be dredged from an updrift 

location, such as the nearshore area east of the 

Michigan City Harbor, and placed on the 

beach in reach 1 on an annual basis. The 

amount of sediment would fulfill the 

calculated sediment budget deficit for reach 1, 

and this placement would occur during an 

approximate two-month period each year 

when impacts on visitor use would be 

minimized to the extent possible (i.e., during 

fall or winter months). Overall, minor, shortterm, adverse impacts on visitor experience 

would result under alternative C-1 as 
Visitor Experience 

213 

nourishment would require barges and 

additional grading equipment along the 

shoreline on an annual basis, impacting the 

natural viewshed of visitors in the park. 

Placement activities associated with 

alternative C-1 would have minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience from 

the associated beach and trail closings. A 

minor, short-term, beneficial impact would 

also result as there would be a temporary 

increase in beach size in the beach area near 

Crescent Dune and Mount Baldy, expanding 

the area of beach available for visitor use and 

enjoyment. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit 

calculated for reach 1 and prevent additional 

erosion. This would result in minor, shortterm, beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

from decreased beach and trail closings that 

result from cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work (which would be reduced). 

The shorelines downdrift of Mount Baldy 

would receive an infusion of sediment from 

the beach nourishment activities under 

alternative C-1, impacting not only reach 1, 

but reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, as well, 

similarly reducing cyclic maintenance 

demands in those areas. This would result in 

fewer beach closings for work in those areas, 

again having a minor, short-term, beneficial 

impact on visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial from the temporary beach and 

trail closings required during placement 

activities, the additional visual intrusions that 

would be introduced into the park, and the 

decrease in beach and trail closings for annual 

maintenance and restoration work. The 

actions associated with alternative C-1 would 

provide a small incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

that would result from the temporary beach 

closings and visual intrusions being 

introduced into the park during placement 

activities. There would also be minor, shortterm, beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

from the temporary increase in beach size and 

the decrease in future beach closings that 

would result from less restoration work 

having to be performed (from reduced 

erosion). The actions associated with this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

impacts. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-5, the beach nourishment 

activities and impacts described above for 

alternative C-1 would be similar with a few 

differences. Under alternative C-5, the beach 

nourishment material would be dredged every 

five years rather than annually and dredging 

activities would take approximately 10 

months to complete every five years (longer 

than the approximate two-month period 

under alternative C-1 due to the greater 

volume of sediment being placed and 

distributed). Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts on visitor experience from 

implementation of this alternative, as beach 

nourishment would require additional grading 

equipment along the shoreline for 

approximately 10 months on a five-year 

frequency, interrupting the natural viewshed 

experienced by visitors. Dredging and 

placement operations would have moderate, 

short-term, adverse impacts on visitor 

experience from the associated beach and trail 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

214 

closings that would take place for safety 

reasons. 

The actions associated with alternative C-5 

would have a minor, short-term, beneficial 

impact on visitor experience as the beach 

would experience a temporary increase in size 

near Crescent Dune and Mount Baldy, 

resulting in a greater area of beach being 

available for visitor use and enjoyment. The 

actions associated with alternative C-5 would 

fulfill the sediment budget deficit calculated 

for reach 1, preventing additional erosion, 

resulting in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience from fewer 

future beach and trail closings that would take 

place for cyclic maintenance and restoration 

work (which would be reduced). 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the temporary 

beach and trail closings during dredging and 

placement activities and the visual intrusions 

that would be added, and from the resultant 

decrease in future work related to 

maintenance and restoration of the shoreline 

(as erosion would decrease). The actions 

associated with alternative C-5 would provide 

a large incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts during dredging and placement 

activities from temporary beach and trail 

closings and the visual intrusions such 

activities and construction equipment would 

introduce into the visitor’s viewshed. There 

would also be minor, short- and long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience from 

the temporary increase in beach size and the 

decrease in future beach closings that would 

result from reduced erosion (and thus 

reduced maintenance and restoration 

activities that require beach closings). The 

actions associated with this alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor to moderate, short- and long-term 

and adverse and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Under alternative D, a permanent bypass 

system would transport sediment to reach 1. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would not result in major changes to visitor 

experience; however, there would be minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts from distributing 

the sediment placed, due to the visual 

intrusion additional construction equipment 

would introduce into the park to construct the 

permanent bypass system, and from the 

temporary beach and trail closings that would 

result for safety reasons. Under alternative D, 

the beach size would temporarily increase and 

result in minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience from the expanded area 

that would be available for visitor use and 

enjoyment. 

Under alternative D, the permanent small lift 

stations that would be constructed would be 

visible near the shoreline, introducing a visual 

intrusion in the park and interrupting the 

natural viewshed experienced by visitors. 

Such actions would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on visitor experience. The 

visible lift stations proposed under alternative 

D would pose a safety hazard to nonconfident 

swimmers in the park, having a negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse effect on visitor 

experience. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit 

calculated for reach 1, preventing additional 

erosion, and would result in minor, shortterm, beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

from reduced beach and trail closings that 
Visitor Experience 

215 

result from cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work (which would be reduced). 

The shorelines downdrift of Mount Baldy 

would receive an infusion of sediment from 

these beach nourishment activities, impacting 

not only reach 1, but reach 2 and a portion of 

reach 3, as well, similarly reducing cyclic 

maintenance and restoration work in those 

areas, resulting in minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience from 

fewer beach and trail closings. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial. The actions associated with 

alternative D would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts in those areas. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be minor, short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts on visitor experience from temporary 

beach closings, the visual intrusions 

construction of the permanent bypass system 

would introduce in to the park during 

construction (i.e., construction equipment), 

and hazards posed to nonconfident swimmers 

by the lift and pump stations. There would 

also be minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

from the reduction in future beach closings 

that would result from less cyclic maintenance 

and restoration work needing to be performed 

from reduced erosion, as well as the 

temporary increase in beach size. 

Implementation of alternative D would also 

result in minor, long-term, adverse impacts to 

visitor experience from the visual intrusion 

the small lift stations would introduce to the 

park. The actions associated with this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative E, a submerged cobble berm 

would be used in conjunction with a beach 

nourishment program to restore reach 1 of 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This 

alternative would stabilize the shoreline 

through the area, reduce the amount of 

sediment required to continually replenish the 

supply of beach sediment, and lessen the 

interruptions in visitor use of the beach from 

trucks, grading equipment, and nourishmentrelated activities. Such actions would have 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience from reduced beach 

closings for nourishment activities and a 

reduction in the presence of construction and 

grading equipment on the beach (improving 

the visitor’s viewshed). 

During construction of the submerged cobble 

berm and beach nourishment activities, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on visitor experience from temporary beach 

closings and installation activities. Such 

closings would last only as long as 

construction and placement of the submerged 

cobble berm. As described in “The 

Alternatives” chapter, the submerged cobble 

berm would be placed in approximately 

10 feet of water (at low water datum), with a 

top elevation of approximately 4 feet below 

low water datum. The presence of the 

submerged cobble berm would result in 

negligible to minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts as it would pose a safety concern to 

boaters, particularly deep draft vehicles, 

before it would disperse across the lakebed. 

As the submerged cobble berm dissipates, the 

individual cobble material would be carried 

towards the beach via wave action to 

approximately 5 to 6.5 feet below water. The 

area between this water depth and the 

shoreline would remain largely free of 

cobbles. Additionally, after the berm has been 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

216 

re-shaped, nourishment material placed in 

subsequent years would cover the berm 

material, leaving a largely sandy substrate. The 

submerged cobble berm would have negligible 

to minor, short-term, adverse impacts on 

visitor experience, as swimmers would come 

into contact (though minimal) with the 

cobbles until they were covered with the 

additional nourishment material. Mitigation 

measures would be considered to offset the 

safety concerns posed to visitors under this 

alternative. 

The actions associated with alternative E 

would temporarily increase the beach size in 

reach 1, resulting in minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience from 

the expanded area available for visitor use and 

enjoyment. 

Under alternative E, the submerged cobble 

berm that would be constructed would result 

in minor, long-term, adverse impacts on 

visitor experience from the visual intrusion it 

would create. The submerged cobble berm 

would potentially be seen from elevated 

heights in the park before dispersing along the 

lake bottom. Minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts would also result, as the barges used 

in the dredging operations and the grading 

equipment for current nourishment activities 

would interrupt the aesthetics of the shoreline 

during nourishment on an annual basis. The 

actions associated with alternative E would 

fulfill the sediment budget deficit calculated 

for reach 1, preventing additional erosion, and 

result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience from fewer beach and 

trail closings as a result of less cyclic 

maintenance and restoration work needing to 

be performed in the park. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

E. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative E, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial. Adverse impacts 

would result from the temporary beach and 

trail closings during construction and 

installation of the submerged cobble berm, 

from the visual intrusions that the submerged 

cobble berm would introduce into the park, 

and from the safety concerns the submerged 

cobble berm would pose to boaters until it had 

dissipated. Beneficial impacts would result 

from the decreased erosion that would result, 

reducing the frequency of beach and trail 

closings for cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work. The actions associated with 

alternative E would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative E, there would 

be would minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience during 

construction of the submerged cobble berm 

due to the temporary beach closings and 

visual intrusion the submerged cobble berm 

would introduce into the park and the safety 

concerns it would pose to boaters before 

dissipation. The submerged cobble berm, until 

it had dispersed along the lakebed, would 

result in negligible to minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts on visitors from the safety 

concerns it would pose. The park would 

consider implementing mitigation measures to 

offset these concerns. Under alternative E, 

there would also be minor, short- and longterm, beneficial impacts from the reduced 

maintenance demands and reduced 

restoration demands that would result in 

fewer beach and trail closings. The actions of 

this alternative, when combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions would result in minor to moderate, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. 
Visitor Experience 

217 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative for reaches 3 

and 4, visitor opportunities would remain 

essentially unchanged and the existing 

management protocol for the shoreline would 

be continued, including the continuation of 

the dredging of sediment annually around the 

NIPSCO/Bailly intake. Impacts on visitor 

experience under the no-action alternative 

would be similar to those described above for 

alternative A under reaches 1 and 2. That is, 

visitor opportunities would remain essentially 

unchanged as the existing management 

protocol for the shoreline would be 

continued. Impacts on visitor experience 

under the no-action alternative would be 

minor, short-term, and adverse from 

temporary beach closings during current clean 

sediment beach nourishment and grading 

activities in reach 3. Under the no-action 

alternative, moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts would result from degradation of 

popular visitor amenities within reaches 3 and 

4, as a result of continued shoreline erosion 

and no new actions being taken. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative 

impacts under alternative A in reaches 3 and 4 

would be similar to those described above for 

the no-action alternative under reaches 1 and 

2. That is, the proposed plan would 

incrementally add negligible to minor, shortand long-term, adverse and beneficial effects 

on visitor experience. Adverse impacts would 

result from the temporary beach, trail, and 

facility closings for maintenance work and 

upgrades, and beneficial impacts would result 

from the reduction in future closings, 

improved access to better facilities, and 

restoration of scenic views to more natural 

views. The actions under alternative A would 

add a small increment to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Under alternative A, the impact 

of taking no new actions in the park would be 

a minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse impact on visitor experience from 

temporary beach closings and ongoing 

degradation of popular visitor amenities from 

continued shoreline erosion. Impacts would 

continue under alternative A, even though the 

no-action alternative would have no new

impacts on visitor experience. Cumulatively, 

there would be negligible to minor, short- and 

long-term, adverse and beneficial impacts on 

visitor experience. The actions associated with 

alternative A would result in a small increment 

being added to the overall cumulative impact. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

The actions and impacts under alternative C-1 

in reaches 3 and 4 would be similar to those 

described earlier for alternative C-1 under 

reaches 1 and 2. That is, minor, short-term 

and adverse from the visual intrusions the 

barges and additional grading equipment 

along the shoreline would introduce into the 

park on an annual basis for an approximate 

two-month period each year; minor, shortterm and adverse from beach and trail closings 

and minor, short-term and beneficial as there 

would be a temporary increase in beach size in 

reach 3, expanding the area of beach available 

for visitor use and enjoyment. 

The actions associated with alternative C-1 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit for 

reach 3, preventing additional erosion, 

resulting in minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience from reduced 

beach and trail closings that would result from 

cyclic maintenance and restoration work 

(which would be reduced). reach 4 would 

receive an infusion of sediment from the 

beach nourishment activities under alternative 

C-1, similarly reducing cyclic maintenance 

and restoration demands in that area. This 

would result in fewer beach closings for that 

work, again having a minor, short-term, 

beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

218 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would apply under alternative C-1. 

Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on visitor experience from the visual 

intrusions introduced into the park and the 

annual beach and trail closings that would be 

required during nourishment activities for 

safety reasons. There would also be minor, 

short-term, beneficial impacts under this 

alternative from the temporary increase in 

beach size in reach 3 (resulting in an expanded 

area for visitor use and enjoyment), and from 

reductions in the amount of maintenance and 

restoration work required from decreased 

erosion (resulting in fewer beach closings). 

This alternative, when combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would have minor, short- and 

long-term and adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. The actions of 

alternative C-1 would add a small increment 

to the overall cumulative impacts. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative C-5 in reaches 3 and 4, the 

impacts would be similar to those described 

above for alternative C-5 under reaches 1 and 

2. That is, minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts would result from 

implementation of this alternative, as beach 

nourishment would require additional grading 

equipment along the shoreline for 

approximately six months every five years. 

This would disrupt the viewshed experienced 

by visitors. Minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts would result under 

alternative C-5 from beach and trail closings 

during placement activities for safety reasons. 

Minor, short-term, beneficial impacts would 

result from the temporary increase in beach 

size that would make a greater area of beach 

available for visitor use and enjoyment. 

The actions associated with alternative C-5 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit for 

reach 3 and prevent additional erosion. This 

would result in minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience due to fewer 

future beach and trail closings that would take 

place during cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work (which would be reduced). 

Reach 4 would receive an infusion of sediment 

from the beach nourishment activities under 

alternative C-5. This would reduce cyclic 

maintenance and restoration demands in that 

area, and would result in fewer beach closings 

for that work, again having a minor, longterm, beneficial impact on visitor experience. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would apply under alternative C-5 

for reaches 3 and 4. Under alternative C-5, 

these differences in relation to past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

would result in a large difference. Cumulative 

impacts would be minor to moderate, shortand long-term and adverse and beneficial 

from the temporary beach and trail closings 

during dredging and placement activities and 

the visual intrusions that would be added to 

the park, and from the resultant decrease in 

future work related to maintenance and 

restoration of the shoreline (as erosion would 

decrease. The actions associated with 

alternative C-5 would provide a substantial 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience from 

the six-month period of beach closings that 

would take place every five years and the 
Visitor Experience 

219 

visual intrusions that would be introduced 

into the visitors’ viewshed. There would also 

be minor, short- and long-term, beneficial 

impacts under this alternative from the 

temporary increase in beach size, providing 

visitors with an expanded area to use and 

enjoy, and from the reduction in future 

maintenance and restoration work in the park 

(which would reduce the number of beach 

and trail closings). The actions of this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor to moderate, shortand long-term and adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

The actions and impacts that would result 

under alternative D in reaches 3 and 4 would 

be similar to those described earlier for 

alternative D in reaches 1 and 2. That is, 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts would 

result on an annual basis from distributing the 

sediment placed, due to the visual obtrusion 

additional construction equipment would 

introduce into the park, and from the 

temporary beach and trail closings that would 

result for safety reasons. Under alternative D, 

the beach size would temporarily increase and 

result in minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

on visitor experience from the expanded area 

that would be available for visitor use and 

enjoyment. 

Under alternative D, the small lift stations that 

would be constructed would be visible near 

the shoreline, introducing a visual intrusion in 

the park and interrupting the natural 

viewshed experienced by visitors. Such 

actions would have a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on visitor experience. 

The actions associated with alternative D 

would fulfill the sediment budget deficit for 

reach 3, preventing additional erosion, and 

would result in minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience from reduced 

beach and trail closings that result from cyclic 

maintenance and restoration work (which 

would be reduced). The shorelines downdrift 

of reach 3 would receive an infusion of 

sediment from these beach nourishment 

activities, impacting reach 4, similarly 

reducing cyclic maintenance and restoration 

work in that area, resulting in minor, shortterm, beneficial impacts on visitor experience 

from fewer beach and trail closings. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor, short- and long-term, and adverse and 

beneficial. The actions associated with 

alternative D would provide a small 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts in those areas. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be minor, short- term, adverse impacts on 

visitor experience from temporary beach 

closings and visual intrusions being 

introduced into the park. There would also be 

minor, short-term, beneficial impacts from the 

reduction in future beach closings that would 

result from less cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work needing to be performed 

from reduced erosion, as well as the 

temporary increase in beach size. 

Implementation of alternative D would also 

result in minor, long-term, adverse impacts to 

visitor experience from the visual intrusion 

the small lift stations would introduce to the 

park. The actions associated with this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm, adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

220 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

The current management actions described in 

“The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 

and dune complex have multiple impacts on 

visitor experience. Ongoing facility upgrades 

in the park have negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impacts on visitor experience 

from the temporary loss of access to these 

facilities and the visual intrusions that are 

introduced into the park during 

construction/renovation. Such upgrades also 

have negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience from access to 

improved facilities and a reduction in future 

closings of these facilities for cyclic 

maintenance. 

Current beach nourishment activities in the 

park have minor, short-term, adverse effects 

on visitor experience from the resulting beach 

closings during nourishment activities for 

safety reasons. Similarly, existing restoration 

and invasive vegetation management work in 

the park and work to limit anthropogenic 

influences has minor, short-term, adverse 

effects on visitor experience from beach, trail, 

and dune closings while the park performs 

this work; however, minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience result 

from an improved viewshed and a reduction 

in future closings for cyclic maintenance 

work. 

Education and public outreach efforts to 

visitors by the park have a negligible, longterm, beneficial impact on visitor experience 

by helping visitors understand the importance 

of limiting social trails and other 

anthropogenic influences in the park. This 

results in fewer trail closings for maintenance 

and restoration work. 

Proposed Management Actions 

The proposed management actions described 

in “The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 

and dune complex would have multiple 

impacts on visitor experience. 

The park proposes to expand its education 

and outreach efforts about nonnative invasive 

plant species to visitors. Such efforts would 

result in negligible, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on visitor experience from the 

resultant reduction in anthropogenic 

influences in the park. 

To address the apparent anthropogenic 

influences in the park, the park is considering 

realigning some trails and is developing a 

mitigation plan for new/proposed access 

points. Such actions would result in minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts on visitor 

experience during trail closings related to the 

construction activities associated with such 

work. These actions would also result in 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on visitor 

experience from new approved access points, 

which would result in less trampling of park 

vegetation by visitors (and thus reduced 

restoration work, which would equate to 

fewer trail closings for visitors. 

Cumulative Impacts. Proposed construction 

by the park and surrounding areas and 

property owners, like the development 

projects proposed under Phase II of the 

Marquette Plan (IDNR et al. 2005), would 

have negligible to minor, short- and longterm, adverse impacts due to areas of the park 

being closed during construction, and from 

the visual intrusions that construction and 

construction equipment would introduce into 

the park, and the visual intrusion that new 

development would introduce to the natural 

viewshed of visitors in the park and 

surrounding areas. The Northern Indiana 

Commuter Transportation District (the South 

Shore Railroad), which currently traverses the 

park, introduces a visual intrusion of track and 

rail cars into the park, having a minor, longterm, adverse effect on visitor experience. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under visitor 

experience as a result of proposed 

management actions would be minor, short- 
Visitor Experience 

221 

and long-term, and adverse and beneficial. 

Minor, short-term, and adverse cumulative 

impacts would result from trail closings 

during construction and restoration efforts, 

and from the visual intrusions (e.g., 

construction equipment) that would be 

introduced in to the park during such work. 

Minor, long-term, beneficial impacts would 

result from reductions in future trail closings 

from reduced erosion and increased 

preservation and from increased visitor 

awareness and knowledge about park 

resources. 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

visitor experience as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible, 

long-term, and beneficial from expanded 

education and outreach efforts about 

nonnative invasive plant species and the 

resultant reduction in anthropogenic 

influences. Realigning trails and developing a 

mitigation plan for new/proposed access 

points would result in minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts on visitor experience during 

trail closings related to the construction 

activities associated with such work. Such 

actions would also result in minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on visitor experience from 

new improved access points, which would 

result in less trampling of park vegetation by 

visitors (thus reduced restoration work, which 

would equate to fewer future trail closings for 

visitors). Construction in the park would have 

negligible to minor, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts due to areas of the park being 

closed temporarily during construction, and 

from the visual intrusions that construction 

and construction equipment would introduce 

into the park, and the visual intrusion that 

new development would introduce to the 

natural viewshed of visitors in the park and 

surrounding areas. The Northern Indiana 

Commuter Transportation District (the South 

Shore Railroad), which currently traverses the 

park, introduces a visual intrusion of track and 

rail cars into the park, having a minor, longterm, adverse effect on visitor experience. 

Cumulative impacts on the foredune and dune 

complex in reaches 1 through 4 under visitor 

experience as a result of proposed 

management actions would be minor, shortand long-term, and adverse and beneficial. 
222 

PARK OPERATIONS 

METHODOLOGY 

“Park operations” refers to the ability of NPS 

staff to protect and preserve the resources of 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and to 

provide opportunities for enjoyable visitor 

experiences. Park operations also relates to 

the effectiveness and efficiency with which 

NPS staff is able to perform such tasks. 

National Park Service operational data were 

compiled from various sources, including 

park staff, and included data on park staffing, 

maintenance, budgets, visitor use, funding, 

and park resource needs to assess the impacts 

of each of the alternatives being analyzed in 

this plan. 

Intensity Level Definitions 

Intensity thresholds of park operations are 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no noticeable or 

perceptible changes in current park 

operations, staffing, and/or funding 

requirements. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable 

and/or would result in small but noticeable 

changes in current park operations, staffing, 

and/or funding requirements. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and 

would result in easily detectable changes in 

current park operations, staffing, and/or 

funding requirements. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial, and/or would result 

in appreciable changes in current park 

operations, staffing, and/or funding 

requirements. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 AND 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative, park 

operations would continue as described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. The park is 

considering realigning some trails, as well as 

developing a mitigation plan for 

new/proposed access points to limit the 

anthropogenic influences witnessed in the 

park. Such efforts would have a minor, shortterm, adverse impact on park operations due 

to the staff hours required for developing, 

planning, and implementing such plans and 

construction; however, there would also be 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts from 

improved natural conditions in the park and 

less vegetation trampling, subsequently 

resulting in fewer routine maintenance and 

upkeep demands on park staff. 

Assuming current funding trends continue 

and staffing levels remain similar to present 

levels, the park would be unable to fully 

achieve desired conditions in program areas 

such as resource protection and visitor 

services. Actions associated with the no-action 

alternative would have minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations, but there 

would be no new impacts.

Cumulative Impacts. Under the no-action 

alternative, ongoing and planned facility 

upgrades would have negligible, short-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations due to the 

increased demands placed on park staff and 

operating budgets during planning and 

construction; however, these upgrades would 

result in negligible, long-term, beneficial 

impacts from the increased operating 

efficiencies that typically come with such 

upgrades. Similar impacts would result from 

proposed new development, like the picnic 

area near the Porter access point that the park 

is considering. 
Park Operations 

223 

Resource protection and restoration projects, 

like the early detection and rapid response 

program and Invasive Plant Management 

Plan, would result in minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts from increased resource 

protection and stability that would decrease 

demands on park operations for maintenance 

and restoration efforts. Such projects would 

also pose a minor, short-term, adverse impact 

on park operations due to the increased 

demands placed on park staff during planning, 

development, and implementation of such 

programs and plans. Monitoring the longterm effects and successfulness of such 

programs would pose a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact on park staff due to ongoing 

monitoring and documentation of each plan’s 

success, adding to the park staff’s existing 

workloads. Cyclic maintenance needs would 

decrease through restoring the park’s native 

vegetation mix by decreasing the presence of 

nonnative species in the park, thus having a 

minor, long-term, beneficial impact on park 

operations due to the decreased maintenance 

workload. 

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts would 

occur from the current beach nourishment 

program that includes sediment being 

accepted in reach 1 from upland sources. This 

places demands on park maintenance staff 

and operating budgets. 

Special events, like the annual Super Boat 

Grand Prix, have minor, short-term, adverse 

impacts on park operations due to the event 

planning and execution that is required of 

park staff for such events. 

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed 

plan would incrementally add negligible to 

minor short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial effects on park operations. When 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, park 

operations would experience overall minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial 

impacts. 

Conclusion. The impact of taking no new 

actions in the park and continuing with the 

existing beach nourishment program that 

includes sediment being accepted in reach 1 

from upland sources would be minor, longterm and adverse. Ongoing impacts would 

continue, even though the no-action 

alternative would have no new impacts on 

park operations. When considered with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, the proposed plan would 

incrementally add to cumulative impacts on 

park operations, having an overall negligible, 

minor, short- and long-term, adverse and 

beneficial impact. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Beach nourishment via upland sources with 

an annual frequency would require additional 

staff time to monitor and oversee this action, 

placing additional demands on park staff and 

budgets from added responsibilities related to 

planning, communication, and monitoring 

over approximately four months each year, 

resulting in minor, short-term, adverse effects 

on park operations. The actions associated 

with alternative B-1 would fulfill the sediment 

budget deficit calculated for reach 1, 

preventing additional erosion, and result in 

minor, short-term, beneficial impacts on park 

operations from reduced cyclic maintenance 

and restoration demands for up to a year. The 

shorelines downdrift of Mount Baldy would 

receive an infusion of sediment from these 

beach nourishment activities, impacting not 

only reach 1, but reach 2 and a portion of 

reach 3, as well, similarly reducing cyclic 

maintenance and restoration demands in 

those areas, resulting in minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts on park operations from 

reduced maintenance workloads. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-1, these differences in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

224 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, long-term and beneficial under 

alternative B-1 due to the long-term 

reductions in workloads from reduced 

maintenance requirements. Cumulative 

impacts would also be minor, short-term, and 

adverse from short-term increases in staff 

workloads during the annual four-month 

period of nourishment activities. The actions 

associated with alternative B-1 would provide 

a small incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on park operations from the increased 

demands that would be placed on park staff 

and budgets annually. There would also be 

minor, short-term, beneficial impacts from the 

resulting reductions in annual cyclic 

maintenance and restoration work that the 

park performs. The actions of this alternative, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Upland Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Beach nourishment activities and impacts 

under alternative B-5 would be similar to 

those described above under alternative B-1, 

with a few differences. Under alternative B-5, 

beach nourishment would take place once 

every five years with nourishment activities 

taking approximately 18 months to complete. 

Moderate, long-term, adverse impacts would 

result from the additional demands that 

would be placed on park staff and budgets 

from increased responsibilities over an 

approximate 18-month period related to 

planning, communication, and monitoring; 

and minor, long-term, beneficial impacts 

would also result from reduced cyclic 

maintenance and restoration as a result of 

decreased erosion. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

B-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative B-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the increases in 

park staff workloads to implement the actions 

associated with alternative B-5 and from the 

reduced cyclic maintenance demands that 

would result over the five-year. The actions 

associated with alternative B-5 would provide 

a substantial incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative B-5, there 

would be moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts from the additional planning, 

execution, and monitoring tasks that would 

tax employees and operating budgets for 

approximately 18 months every five years 

during beach nourishment activities; however, 

there would also be minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts from reduced cyclic 

maintenance and restoration demands on 

park staff and park dollars over each five-year 

period. This alternative, when combined with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would have minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Under alternative C-1, sediment would be 

dredged from an updrift location, such as the 

nearshore area east of the Michigan City 

Harbor, and placed on the beach in reach 1 

over an approximate two-month period every 

year. These activities would place additional 

demands on park staff from added 

responsibilities related to planning, 
Park Operations 

225 

communication, and monitoring. This would 

result in minor, short-term, adverse effects on 

park operations. The actions associated with 

alternative C-1 would fulfill the sediment 

budget deficit calculated for reach 1, 

preventing additional erosion, and would 

result in minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

on park operations from reduced cyclic 

maintenance and reduced restoration 

demands. The shorelines downdrift of Mount 

Baldy would receive an infusion of sediment 

from these beach nourishment activities, 

impacting not only reach 1, but reach 2 and a 

portion of reach 3, as well, similarly reducing 

cyclic maintenance and restoration demands 

in those areas, and having a minor, short-term, 

beneficial impact on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial from the decrease in annual 

maintenance demands to restore the park 

shoreline and from the increase in park staff 

workloads during the approximate twomonth nourishment period each year. The 

actions associated with alternative C-1 would 

provide a small incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on park operations from the increased 

demands that would be placed on staff and 

budgets each year during the approximate 

two-month period for beach nourishment 

activities each year. Under this alternative, 

there would also be minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts park operations from the 

annual decrease in maintenance and 

restoration work required by park staff and of 

park budgets. This alternative, when 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) 

Beach nourishment activities and impacts on 

park operations under alternative C-5 would 

be similar to those described above under 

alternative C-1, with a few differences. Under 

alternative C-5, beach nourishment activities 

would take place every five years versus 

annually, and dredging activities would take 

approximately 10 months to complete every 

five years. Impacts under this alternative 

would be moderate, short-term and adverse 

from the additional demands that would be 

placed on park staff for planning, 

communication, and monitoring for an 

approximate 10-month period every five year; 

and minor, long-term and beneficial from the 

reduced cyclic maintenance and reduced 

restoration demands that would result from 

decreased erosion. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the decrease in 

park staff workloads to address shoreline 

beach erosion every five years, and from the 

short-term increase in staff workloads and 

additional demands on park operating 

budgets for the nourishment that would occur 

over approximately 10 months every five 

years. The actions associated with alternative 

C-5 would provide a large incremental 

contribution to overall cumulative impacts. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

226 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts on park operations from the demands 

the associated activities would place on park 

staff and budgets. There would also be minor, 

long-term, beneficial impacts from the 

resulting decrease in cyclic maintenance and 

restoration work performed in the park from 

the decrease in erosion. The actions of this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor to moderate, shortand long-term, adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Under alternative D, sediment would be 

transported via a permanent bypass system 

from updrift of the Michigan City Harbor to 

reach 1. This beach nourishment activity 

would place additional demands on park staff 

from added responsibilities related to 

planning, communication, construction, and 

monitoring. This would result in minor to 

moderate, short-term, adverse effects on park 

operations from the increase in staff 

workloads and the burden that would be 

placed on operating budgets. In addition, 

following construction, the permanent bypass 

system would require monitoring and routine 

maintenance, adding to existing park staff 

workloads, resulting in minor to moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts on park 

operations. The actions associated with 

alternative D would fulfill the sediment 

budget deficit calculated for reach 1, 

preventing additional erosion, resulting in 

minor, short-term, beneficial impacts on park 

operations from reduced cyclic maintenance 

and reduced restoration demands. The 

shorelines downdrift of Mount Baldy would 

receive an infusion of sediment from the 

beach nourishment activities associated with 

alternative D, impacting not only reach 1, but 

reach 2 and a portion of reach 3, as well, 

similarly reducing cyclic maintenance and 

restoration demands in those areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial from the reduction in annual 

maintenance demands of the shoreline related 

to erosion, and from the short-term increase 

in workloads and operating budget demands 

related to the nourishment activities. The 

actions associated with alternative D would 

provide a small incremental contribution to 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations from the 

increase in park staff responsibilities and the 

increased demand placed on the park’s 

operating budget to carry out the actions 

associated with alternative D beach 

nourishment, especially the routine 

monitoring and maintenance of the 

permanent bypass system for the life of this 

plan. There would also be minor, short-term, 

beneficial impacts under this alternative from 

the decrease in maintenance and restoration 

work that would result from the decrease in 

erosion that would occur from the annual 

beach nourishment activities. The actions of 

this alternative, when combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would have minor, short- and 

long-term and adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble 

Berm and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Under alternative E, the one-time 

construction of the submerged cobble berm 

would place additional workload demands on 
Park Operations 

227 

park staff during planning and construction, 

resulting in minor, short-term, adverse effects 

on park operations that would last only as 

long as construction. Over time, the 

submerged cobble berm would facilitate 

stabilization of the shoreline and reduce the 

quantity of sediment needed for beach 

nourishment along this reach, resulting in 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

park operations from reduced operating 

budgets over the proposed plan’s lifespan and 

beyond (from fewer nourishment activities 

being performed, improved erosion barriers, 

and fewer maintenance and restoration 

demands). The actions associated with 

alternative E would fulfill the sediment budget 

deficit calculated for reach 1, preventing 

additional erosion, resulting in moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts on park 

operations from reduced cyclic maintenance 

and restoration demands. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

E. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative E, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

moderate, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial from the reduced maintenance 

demands related to shoreline erosion over the 

life of the plan and from the temporary 

increase in park staff workloads during 

construction and placement of the submerged 

cobble berm. The actions associated with 

alternative E would provide a large 

incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts, adverse in the short-term 

during construction, but beneficial over the 

long-term. 

Conclusion. Under alternative E, there would 

be minor, short-term, adverse impacts on park 

operations during construction of the 

submerged cobble berm; and moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts on park operations 

from the reduced maintenance demands, 

reduced restoration demands, and lower 

operating budgets over the life of the plan. 

The actions associated with this alternative, 

when combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

have moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial, cumulative effects. 

SHORELINE AND BEACH COMPLEX, 

REACHES 3 AND 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative) 

Under the no-action alternative for reaches 3 

and 4, park operations would continue to be 

characterized and impacted as explained 

under the no-action alternative above for 

reaches 1 and 2 and no new actions would be 

taken. Assuming current funding trends 

continue and staffing levels remained similar 

to present levels, the park would continue to 

be unable to fully achieve desired conditions 

in program areas such as resource protection, 

visitor services, and cyclic maintenance. The 

existing beach nourishment program would 

continue to impact the industrial warm-water 

discharge location, extending it east towards 

the park shoreline, impacting aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats, requiring increased 

dredging of the federal channel. Such actions 

would continue to add to the workloads of 

park staff and increase the operating budget 

requirements, resulting in minor, long-term, 

adverse effects on park operations. 

In addition, excessive sedimentation around 

the intake would inhibit the use of the coldwater intake structure, resulting in potential 

emergency plant shutdowns, imposing 

additional workloads on park staff and 

increasing cyclic maintenance demands, 

resulting in minor, long-term, adverse effects 

on park operations. Actions associated with 

the no-action alternative would have minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts on park 

operations, but there would be no new

impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

228 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative for reaches 1 and 2 would also 

apply under alternative A in reaches 3 and 4. 

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed 

plan would incrementally add a negligible to 

minor, short- and long-term, beneficial and 

adverse effect on park operations. When 

combined with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, park 

operations would experience overall minor, 

short- and long-term, adverse and beneficial 

impacts, but there would be no new impacts. 

Conclusion. The impacts associated with 

taking no new actions in the park and 

continuing with the existing dredging that is 

performed for beach nourishment in reach 3 

would be minor, long-term and adverse from 

the growing workload demands and 

maintenance operations that would be 

required. Ongoing impacts would continue, 

even though the no-action alternative would 

have no new impacts on park operations. 

When considered with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the 

proposed plan would incrementally add to 

cumulative impacts on park operations, 

having an overall negligible to minor, shortand long-term, adverse and beneficial impact. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Annual 

Frequency) 

Beach nourishment activities and impacts 

under alternative C-1 in reaches 3 and 4 

would be similar to those described above 

under alternative C-1 for reaches 1 and 2. 

That is, moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts from the added responsibilities that 

would be placed on park staff for planning, 

communication, and monitoring of the beach 

nourishment activities that would take place 

each year over an approximate two-month 

period; and minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts from reduced cyclic maintenance and 

reduced restoration demands. The actions 

associated with alternative C-1 would fulfill 

the sediment budget deficit estimated for 

reach 3, preventing additional erosion, 

resulting in minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on park operations from reduced 

cyclic maintenance and restoration demands. 

The shoreline downdrift of Portage Lakefront 

and Riverwalk would receive an infusion of 

sediment from these beach nourishment 

activities, impacting reach 4, similarly 

reducing cyclic maintenance and restoration 

demands in that reach. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-1. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-1, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

small difference. Cumulative impacts would 

be minor, short- and long-term and adverse 

and beneficial from the short-term demands 

placed on park staff and park operating 

budgets during beach nourishment activities, 

and from the short-term, annual reduction in 

maintenance/restoration work. The actions 

associated with alternative C-1 would provide 

a small incremental contribution to overall 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-1, there 

would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on park operations from the additional 

demands that would be placed on park staff 

and park operating budgets to plan and carry 

out the required actions annually over an 

approximate two-month period. There would 

also be minor, short-term, beneficial impacts 

from the savings and decreased workloads 

that would result from the reduced 

maintenance and restoration demands that 

would result with less shoreline erosion. This 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor, short- and longterm and adverse and beneficial, cumulative 

effects. 
Park Operations 

229 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment 

via Dredged Sources, Five-Year 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative 

Beach nourishment activities and impacts on 

park operations under alternative C-5 would 

be similar to those described above under 

alternative C-1, with a few differences. 

Impacts under this alternative would be minor 

to moderate, short-term and adverse from the 

additional demands that would be placed on 

park staff for planning, communication, and 

monitoring; and minor, long-term and 

beneficial from the reduced cyclic 

maintenance and reduced restoration 

demands that would result from decreased 

shoreline erosion. Under alternative C-5, the 

dredging of sediment would take place every 

five years rather than annually, and dredging 

every five years would take approximately six 

months to complete, resulting in minor to 

moderate, short-term, adverse effects on park 

operations from the additional coordination 

and planning efforts park staff would need to 

perform to carry out the actions associated 

with this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

C-5. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative C-5, these differences in 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the short-term 

demands on park staff and park operating 

budgets to carry out this work and the benefits 

that would be realized through decreased 

erosion and related maintenance/restoration 

work. The actions associated with alternative 

C-5 would provide a substantial incremental 

contribution to overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative C-5, there 

would be minor to moderate, short-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations from the 

additional demands that would be placed on 

park staff and park budgets (for 

approximately six months every five years) to 

carry out the actions associated with this 

alternative. There would also be minor, longterm, beneficial impacts from the reductions 

in maintenance and restoration work as the 

actions associated with this alternative would 

decrease erosion in the park. The actions of 

this alternative, when combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would have minor to moderate, 

short- and long-term and adverse and 

beneficial, cumulative effects. 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System) 

Under alternative D in reaches 3 and 4, the 

actions and impacts would be similar to those 

described above under alternative D for 

reaches 1 and 2. That is, minor, short-term, 

adverse effects on park operations from the 

increase in staff workloads and the burden 

that would be placed on operating budgets 

related to planning, communication, 

construction, and monitoring; and minor to 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts from 

the monitoring and routine maintenance 

demands that would be placed on park staff to 

maintain the permanent bypass system. The 

actions associated with alternative D would 

fulfill the sediment budget deficit estimated 

for reach 3, preventing additional erosion, 

resulting in minor, short-term, beneficial 

impacts on park operations from reduced 

cyclic maintenance and reduced restoration 

demands. The shorelines downdrift of reach 3 

would receive an infusion of sediment from 

the beach nourishment activities associated 

with this alternative, impacting reach 4, 

reducing cyclic maintenance and restoration 

demands in that area as well. 

Cumulative Impacts. The same scenario of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described under the no-action 

alternative would also apply under alternative 

D. Compared to the cumulative impacts 

expected under the no-action alternative, 

under alternative D, these differences in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

230 

relation to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects would result in a 

large difference. Cumulative impacts would be 

minor to moderate, short- and long-term and 

adverse and beneficial from the short-term 

impacts on park staff workloads and operating 

budgets during the construction of the 

permanent bypass system and the long-term 

monitoring and maintenance of the 

permanent bypass system for the life of this 

plan. The actions associated with alternative D 

would provide a large incremental 

contribution to overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Under alternative D, there would 

be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations from the 

additional staff time and operating dollars the 

associated beach nourishment actions would 

require, especially the routine monitoring and 

maintenance of the permanent bypass system 

for the life of this plan. There would also be a 

minor, short-term, beneficial impact from the 

associated erosion decrease and resultant 

decrease in required maintenance and 

restoration work by park staff (reducing 

operating budget drains). The actions of this 

alternative, when combined with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have minor to moderate, shortand long-term and adverse and beneficial, 

cumulative effects. 

FOREDUNE AND DUNE COMPLEX, 

REACHES 1 THROUGH 4 

Current Management Actions 

The current management actions described in 

“The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 

and dune complex have multiple impacts on 

park operations. 

Current actions to maintain/preserve/restore 

areas of the park from invasive vegetation and 

anthropogenic influences, like fencing off 

highly eroded areas, revegetating eroded areas 

with native seeds, and conducting visitor 

education and outreach efforts, have a 

negligible, short-term, adverse effect on park 

operations from the workloads these actions 

require of staff and from the drain on 

operating budgets. These actions also have a 

minor, long-term, beneficial impact on park 

operations from reduced future work 

requirements related to preserving the 

foredune and dune complex and reducing 

anthropogenic influences in the park. 

Existing beach nourishment activities in 

reaches 1 and 3 have a minor, long-term, 

adverse effect on park operations from the 

ongoing commitment of park staff and dollars 

to these efforts. 

Education and outreach activities have 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on 

park operations due to the resource 

commitments they require; however, such 

activities also have a negligible to minor, longterm, beneficial impact from reduced cyclic 

maintenance and invasive vegetation 

management work as anthropogenic 

influences are reduced. 

Proposed Management Actions 

The proposed management actions described 

in “The Alternatives” chapter for the foredune 

and dune complex would have multiple 

impacts on park operations. 

The park proposes to expand its education 

and outreach efforts about the impacts of 

invasive nonnative plant species and 

anthropogenic influences in the park. This 

would have negligible, short-term, adverse 

impacts on park operations from the 

additional park resources this would require; 

however, there would also be negligible to 

minor, long-term, beneficial impacts from a 

better educated visitor population and a 

resultant decrease in anthropogenic 

influences in the park. 

To address the apparent anthropogenic 

influences in the park, the park is considering 

realigning some trails and is developing a 

mitigation plan for new/proposed access 

points and trails to Crescent Dune. Such 
Park Operations 

231 

actions would result in minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations due to 

increased workloads and additional operating 

budget drains to plan, design, and 

construct/implement trail realignments. In 

addition, there would be minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on park operations from 

decreased demands on park staff for cyclic 

maintenance and restoration after trails were 

realigned. Development of a mitigation plan 

for new/proposed access points in reach 1 

would have negligible, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations from 

increased workloads to develop, implement, 

and monitor the success of such a plan; 

however, there would also be minor, longterm, beneficial impacts on park operations 

from reduced cyclic maintenance demands 

and reduced restoration requirements in this 

area over the long-term. 

Cumulative Impacts. Proceeding with 

proposed developments, like a picnic area 

near the Porter access point or other 

development projects proposed in Phase II of 

the Marquette Plan (IDNR et al. 2005), would 

have minor, short-term, adverse impacts on 

park operations because of the additional 

work demands that would be placed on park 

staff to plan, develop, and construct such 

facilities. Cumulative impacts on the foredune 

and dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 

under park operations as a result of proposed 

management actions would be minor, shortand long-term, and adverse and beneficial 

from the short-term impacts on park staff 

workloads and operating budgets during 

planning, coordinating, and construction 

efforts related to the proposed management 

actions, and the long-term benefits of reduced 

future maintenance and restoration work. 

 

Conclusion. Impacts on the foredune and 

dune complex in reaches 1 through 4 under 

park operations as a result of proposed 

management actions would be negligible, 

short-term, and adverse from expanding 

education and outreach efforts about the 

impacts of invasive nonnative plant species 

and anthropogenic influences in the park 

because such activities would require park 

staff time; however, there would also be 

negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts from a better educated visitor 

population and a resultant decrease in 

anthropogenic influences in the park. 

Realigning some trails and developing a 

mitigation plan for new/proposed access 

points and trails to Crescent Dune would 

result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts 

on park operations due to increased 

workloads and additional operating budget 

drains to plan, design, and construct/

implement trail realignments. In addition, 

there would be minor, long-term, beneficial 

impacts on park operations from decreased 

demands on park staff for maintenance and 

restoration work after trails were realigned. 

Development of a mitigation plan for 

new/proposed access points in reach 1 would 

have negligible, short- and long-term, adverse 

impacts on park operations from increased 

workloads to develop, implement, and 

monitor the success of such a plan; however, 

there would also be minor, long-term, 

beneficial impacts on park operations from 

reduced cyclic maintenance demands and 

reduced restoration requirements over the 

long-term. Proceeding with proposed 

developments would have minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts on park operations because 

of the additional work demands that would be 

placed on park staff to plan, develop, and 

construct such facilities. Cumulative impacts 

on the foredune and dune complex in reaches 

1 through 4 under park operations as a result 

of proposed management actions would be 

minor, short- and long-term, and adverse and 

beneficial. 
232 

SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The National Park Service is required to 

consider if the alternative actions of a 

proposed action would result in adverse 

impacts that would not be fully mitigated or 

avoided. A summary of unavoidable adverse 

impacts is presented below by reach and 

alternative. 

Reaches 1 and 2 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative).

Under the no-action alternative, erosion of 

the shoreline would continue to occur in 

reach 1, threatening aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats and the sediment budget deficit 

would also continue, resulting in a deficit of 

material for foredune and dune formation. 

Taking no new actions in the park would 

result in continued erosion and destabilization 

of terrestrial habitat for plants and animals 

(thus adversely affecting threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, as 

well) and would not improve the ability of the 

beach to withstand storm events. Short-term, 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape 

would continue during current beach 

nourishment activities and during high-use 

times (e.g., summer weekends and holidays) 

under the no-action alternative. Visitors 

would continue to be adversely impacted by 

ongoing beach nourishment activities under 

the no-action alternative from the continued 

temporary beach closings and ongoing 

degradation of popular visitor amenities from 

shoreline erosion. Aquatic fauna would 

continue to be adversely affected under the 

no-action alternative from temporary 

displacement due to turbidity and the benthic 

fauna that would be smothered during 

placement of sediment; additionally, current 

nourishment activities would result in a 

disrupted environment which would continue 

to allow for the introduction/establishment of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic species. Under 

the no-action alternative, park operations 

would continue to be adversely impacted as a 

result of the ongoing workload demands and 

maintenance costs associated with existing 

beach nourishment activities and shoreline 

erosion. 

Alternative B-1 (Beach Nourishment via 

Upland Sources, Annual Frequency).

Under alternative B-1, adverse impacts on 

terrestrial habitat for plants and animals and 

on threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern would result from the 

introduction of invasive and nonnative plant 

species. The natural soundscape of the park 

would be adversely impacted on a temporary 

basis from the beach nourishment activities 

related to this alternative, including the trucks 

hauling sediment and the construction 

equipment grading the nourishment material 

along the beach. Native aquatic fauna would 

be adversely impacted by the actions 

associated with alternative B-1 as fish would 

be temporarily displaced due to turbidity and 

benthic fauna would be temporarily 

smothered during placement of sediment. 

Nourishment activities would result in a 

disrupted environment which would allow for 

the introduction and/or establishment of 

invasive and nonnative aquatic fauna species. 

Visitor experience would be affected 

adversely on a short-term basis from 

temporary beach and trail closings for 

nourishment activities in reach 1 and the 

visual intrusions that would be introduced in 

to the park (e.g., construction and grading 

equipment). The actions associated with 

alternative B-1 would have an adverse impact 

on park operations from the increased 

demands that would be placed on park staff 

and park budgets annually. 

Alternative B-5 (Beach Nourishment via 

Upland Sources, Five-Year Frequency). 

The actions associated with alternative B-5 

would be similar to those under alternative 

B-1 except actions would result in long-term, 

adverse impacts on aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat for plants and animals, threatened and 
Summary of Impact Analysis 

233 

endangered species and species of concern, 

the natural soundscape, visitor experience, 

and park operations as beach nourishment 

activities would last for approximately 18 

months every five years. In addition, the 

placement area would have a larger footprint 

than under alternative B-1 due to the larger 

volume of material that would be placed. 

Under alternative B-5, fish life-cycles would 

be interrupted due to the longer duration 

(approximately 18 months every five years) 

for nourishment placement. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Annual Frequency). 

Under Alternative C-1, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the natural aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats for plants and animals, threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern, the park soundscape, visitor 

experience, and park operations would occur 

during the beach nourishment activities. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Five-Year Frequency).

Under Alternative C-5, there would be shortterm, adverse impacts on terrestrial habitat for 

plants and animals, threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, 

the natural soundscape of the park, aquatic 

fauna, visitor experience, and park operations. 

There would also be long-term adverse 

impacts on native aquatic fauna from the 

duration (approximately 10 months every five 

years) of placement activities (i.e., fish would 

be displaced for under a year but fish life 

cycles would be interrupted). 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System). Under 

alternative D, short-term, adverse impacts on 

the natural aquatic and terrestrial habitats for 

plants and animals, as well as the park 

soundscape, threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern, visitor 

experience, and park operations would occur 

during ongoing beach nourishment activities 

and during construction of the permanent 

bypass system. Long-term adverse impacts 

would also result from the actions associated 

with this alternative from the visual intrusion 

the small lift stations would introduce in to 

the park, and from the additional staff time 

and operating dollars the routine monitoring 

and maintenance of the permanent bypass 

system would require. 

Alternative E (Submerged Cobble Berm 

and Beach Nourishment, Annual 

Frequency) – Preferred Alternative. Under 

the preferred alternative, there would be 

short-term, adverse impacts on the natural 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats for plants and 

animals, the park soundscape, threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, 

visitor experience, and park operations during 

the construction of the submerged cobble 

berm, as well as during beach nourishment 

activities. There would also be long-term 

adverse impacts from the visual intrusion the 

submerged cobble berm would introduce into 

the park and the safety concerns it would pose 

to boaters before dissipation (though the park 

would consider implementing mitigation 

measures to offset these safety concerns). 

For the impacts mentioned above for reaches 

1 and 2, the mitigation measures described in 

“The Alternatives” chapter, would help 

minimize, but not eliminate, these impacts. 

Reaches 3 and 4 

Alternative A (No-action Alternative).

Under the no-action alternative, erosion of 

the shoreline would continue to occur in 

reach 3, threatening aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats and the sediment budget deficit 

would also continue, resulting in a deficit of 

material for foredune and dune formation. 

Taking no new actions in the park would 

result in continued erosion and destabilization 

of terrestrial habitat for plants and animals 

(thus adversely affecting threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern, as 

well) and would not improve the ability of the 

beach to withstand storm events. Short-term, 

adverse impacts on the natural soundscape 

would continue during current beach 

nourishment activities and during high-use 

times (e.g., summer weekends and holidays) 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

234 

under the no-action alternative. Visitors 

would continue to be adversely impacted by 

ongoing beach nourishment activities from 

the temporary beach closings and ongoing 

degradation of popular visitor amenities that 

result from shoreline erosion. Aquatic fauna 

would continue to be adversely affected under 

the no-action alternative from temporary 

displacement due to turbidity and the benthic 

fauna that would be smothered during 

placement of sediment; additionally, current 

nourishment activities would result in a 

disrupted environment which would continue 

to allow for the introduction and/or 

establishment of invasive and nonnative 

aquatic species. Park operations would 

continue to be adversely impacted from the 

ongoing workload demands and maintenance 

costs associated with existing beach 

nourishment activities and shoreline erosion. 

Alternative C-1 (Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Annual Frequency).

Under alternative C-1, short-term, adverse 

impacts on the natural aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats for plants and animals, threatened 

and endangered species and species of 

concern, park soundscape, visitor experience, 

and park operations would occur during the 

beach nourishment activities. 

Alternative C-5 (Beach Nourishment via 

Dredged Sources, Five Year Frequency) - 

Preferred Alternative. Under alternative C5, there would be short-term, adverse impacts 

on terrestrial habitat for plants and animals, 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern, the natural soundscape of 

the park, aquatic fauna, visitor experience, 

and park operations. There would also be 

long-term adverse impacts on native aquatic 

fauna from the duration (approximately six 

months every five years) of placement 

activities (i.e., fish would be displaced for 

under a year but fish life cycles would be 

interrupted). 

Alternative D (Beach Nourishment via 

Permanent Bypass System). Under 

alternative D, short-term, adverse impacts on 

the natural aquatic and terrestrial habitats for 

plants and animals, as well as the park 

soundscape, threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern, visitor 

experience, and park operations would occur 

during ongoing beach nourishment activities 

and during construction of the permanent 

bypass system. Long-term adverse impacts 

would also result from the actions associated 

with this alternative from the visual intrusion 

the small lift stations would introduce in to 

the park, from the additional staff time and 

operating dollars the routine monitoring and 

maintenance of the permanent bypass system 

would require. 

For the impacts mentioned above for reaches 

3 and 4, the mitigation measures listed in “The 

Alternatives” chapter would help minimize, 

but not eliminate, these impacts. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The National Park Service is required to 

consider if its actions involve an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources. A 

resource commitment is irreversible if it 

results in loss of resources that cannot be 

reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long 

term. Irreversible impacts involve use of and 

impacts on a non-renewable resource (or a 

resource renewable only over a long period of 

time) such that future options for use of that 

resource are limited. Irretrievable 

commitments of resources are actions that 

result in the loss of resources or the 

consumption of resources that are not 

renewable or recoverable for future use. 

Reaches 1 through 4 

For all alternatives presented in this plan / 

draft EIS there would be an irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources 

associated with shoreline restoration 

activities. 

Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized 

for the proposed action alternatives would be 
Summary of Impact Analysis 

235 

irreversibly lost. These include petroleumbased products (such as gasoline and diesel) 

and electricity. During shoreline restoration 

activities, gasoline and diesel would be used 

for the operation of heavy equipment, barges, 

haul trucks, and maintenance vehicles. During 

terrestrial habitat restoration activities, 

gasoline would be used for the operation of 

private and government-owned vehicles. 

Consumption of these energy resources 

would not place a substantial demand on 

these resources or on the availability of them 

in the region. Therefore, no major impacts 

would occur. 

Human Resources. The use of human 

resources for shoreline and terrestrial 

restoration activities would be an irretrievable 

loss, only in that it would preclude such 

personnel from engaging in other work 

activities. The use of human resources for the 

proposed action would also represent 

employment opportunities, and would be 

considered beneficial. 

Soil Resources. The loss of soils and 

sediment due to erosion would be an 

irreversible commitment of resources under 

each of the action alternatives presented 

because it takes so long for soils to form. The 

proposed action alternatives would also lessen 

the erosive loss of soils compared to the loss 

that would occur under the no-action 

alternatives, and would be considered 

beneficial in the long-term. 

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USE 

AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The National Park Service is required to 

consider the relationship between short-term 

uses of the environment and the maintenance 

and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

In doing so, the National Park Service 

considers the long-term impacts of its actions, 

and whether its actions involve tradeoffs 

between immediate use of resources and 

long-term productivity and sustainability of 

resources. This analysis examines whether the 

productivity of park resources would be 

traded for the immediate use of land. 

Reaches 1 through 4 

Under any of the action alternatives, the 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage the park and its shoreline to maintain 

ecological processes and native biological 

communities and to provide appropriate 

recreational and visitor use opportunities 

consistent with preservation of natural 

resources. The park’s resources would 

continue to be protected in their current, 

relatively natural state to the greatest extent 

possible, and would maintain their long-term 

productivity. The primary short-term uses of 

the shoreline would continue to be 

recreational/visitor uses. 

Under the no-action alternative, continuing 

adverse impacts on the shoreline and beach 

and aquatic and terrestrial habitats due to 

erosion would reduce the productivity of 

natural resources and processes in localized 

areas over time, resulting in a large effect on 

the park’s long-term productivity as the 

erosion of the shoreline would threaten the 

integrity of natural resources. 

Under the action alternatives presented in this 

plan / draft EIS, these management actions 

would be implemented to restore coastal and 

natural processes and terrestrial habitat. 

Although there would be short- and longterm, adverse impacts that would result from 

the localized loss of aquatic fauna and 

terrestrial habitat, overall, no noticeable effect 

on the park’s long-term productivity would 

result. Conversely, the actions proposed 

would restore the shoreline and would 

increase long-term productivity of the 

shoreline environment through natural 

processes.































 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A: ENABLING LEGISLATION 

PUBLIC LAW 89-761

PUBLIC LAW 94-549

PUBLIC LAW 96-612

PUBLIC LAW 99-583

PUBLIC LAW 102-430

COMPILATION OF LEGISLATION

269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277

279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289

Compilation of Legislation 

 An Act

To provide for the establishment of 

the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, That in order to preserve for the educational, 

inspirational, and recreational use of the public certain portions of the Indiana dunes and other areas 

of scenic, scientific, and historic interest and recreational value in the State of Indiana, the Secretary 

of the Interior is authorized to establish and administer the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

(hereinafter referred to as the "lakeshore") in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The 

lakeshore shall comprise the area within the boundaries delineated on a map identified as 

"'Boundary Map, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore', dated October 1992, and numbered 626-

80,039-C" which map is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director of 

the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

 Sec. 2. (a) Within the boundaries of the lakeshore the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred 

to as the "Secretary") is authorized to acquire lands, waters, and other property, or any interest 

therein, by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or otherwise. The 

Indiana Dunes State Park may be acquired only by donation of the State of Indiana, and the 

Secretary is hereby directed to negotiate with the State for the acquisition of said park. In 

exercising his authority to acquire property by exchange for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary 

may accept title to non-Federal property located within the area described in section 1 of this Act 

and convey to the grantor of such property any federally owned property under the jurisdiction of 

the Secretary which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal within the State of 

Indiana or Illinois. Properties so exchanged shall be approximately equal in fair market value, as 

determined by the Secretary who may, in his discretion, base his determination on an independent 

appraisal obtained by him: Provided, That the Secretary may accept cash from or pay cash to the 

grantor in such an exchange in order to equalize the values of the properties exchanged. The 

Secretary is expressly authorized to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 

funds, or exchange, lands or interests therein which are owned for school or educational purposes 

by a State or a political subdivision thereof. 

 (b) In exercising his authority to acquire property under subsection (a) of this section, the 

Secretary may enter into contracts requiring the expenditure, when appropriated, of funds 

authorized to be appropriated by section 9 of this Act, but the liability of the United States under 

any such contract shall be contingent on the appropriation of funds sufficient to fulfill the 

obligations thereby incurred. 

 Sec. 3. As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Act and following the acquisition by 

the Secretary of an acreage within the boundaries of the area described in section 1 of this Act 

which in his opinion is efficiently administrable for the purposes of this Act, he shall establish the 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore by publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. By no 

later than October 1, 1977, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed description 

of the boundaries of the lakeshore and shall from time to time so publish any additional boundary 

changes as may occur. Following such establishment and subject to the limitations and conditions 

prescribed in section 1 hereof, the Secretary may continue to acquire lands and interests in lands for 

the lakeshore. 

291
 2 

 Sec. 4. As used in this Act, the term 'improved property' means detached, one-family dwelling 

which meets each of the following and construction criteria: 

 (1) The construction of the dwelling began before the date (shown in the table contained in this 

section) corresponding to the appropriate map. 

 (2) The property is located within the boundaries delineated on the map described in such table 

which corresponds to such date. 

 (3) The property is not located within the boundaries of any other map referred to in such table 

which bears an earlier date. 

The term 'appropriate map', means a map identified as 'Boundary Map--Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore' (or 'A Proposed Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore' in the case of a dwelling the 

construction of which was begun before January 4, 1965) which is dated and numbered as 

provided in the following table. 

 Property Within Boundaries of Map Construction Began Before 

Dated October 1992, No. 626-80,039-C.......October 1, 1991 

Dated October 1986, No. 626-80,033-B.......February 1, 1986 

Dated December 1980, No. 626-91014.........January 1, 1981 

Dated September 1976, No. 626-91007........February 1, 1973 

Dated September 1966, No. LNPNE-1008-ID....January 4, 1965 

The term 'improved property' also includes the lands on which the dwelling is situated which meets 

both of the following criteria: 

 (A) The land is in the same ownership as the dwelling. 

 (B) The Secretary has designated the lands as reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the 

dwelling for the sole purpose of noncommercial residential use. 

Such term also includes any structures accessory to the dwelling which are situated on the lands so 

designated. The maps referred to in this section shall be on file and available for public inspection 

in the Office of the Director of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The Secretary 

shall designate the land referred to in subparagraph (B). The amount of land so designated shall in 

every case be not more than three acres in area, and in making such designation the Secretary shall 

take into account the manner of noncommercial residential use in which the dwelling and land have 

customarily been enjoyed: Provided, That the Secretary may exclude from the land so designated 

any beach or waters, together with so much of the land adjoining such beach or waters, as he may 

deem necessary for public access thereto or public use thereof. All rights of use and occupancy 

shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems appropriate to assure the use 

of such property in accordance with the purposes of this Act. 

 Sec. 5. (a) (1) Except for owners described in paragraph (2) and owners of improved property 

within the area on the map referred to in section 4, dated December 1980, and numbered 626-

91014, of this act as area II-B, any owner or owners of record of improved property may retain a 

right of use and occupancy of said improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a 

term (A) ending on his or her death or the death of his or her spouse, whichever occurs last, or (B) 

for a fixed term not to extend beyond September 30, 2010, or such lesser term as the owner or 

owners may elect at the time of acquisition by the Secretary. 

In the case of improved property within the boundaries of the map dated December 1980 and 

numbered 626-91014 the retention of a retained right under clause numbered (A) shall only be 

292
 3 

available to homeowners of record as of October 1, 1980, who have attained the age of majority as 

of that date and make a bona fide written offer not later than October 1, 1985, to sell to the 

Secretary. Where any such owner retains a right of use and occupancy as herein provided, such 

right during its existence may be conveyed or leased for noncommercial residential purposes. The 

Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of such 

acquisition, less the fair market value on such date of the right retained by the owner. 

 (2)(A) In the case of property included within the boundaries of the lakeshore after 1980, any 

owner or owners of record of improved property may retain a right of use and occupancy for 

noncommercial residential purposes for a term ending at either of the following: 

 (i) A fixed term not to extend beyond September 30, 2010, or such lesser fixed term 

as the owner or owners may elect at the time of acquisition. 

 (ii) A term ending at the death of any owner or of a spouse of any owner, whichever 

occurs last. 

The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. 

 (B) The retention of rights under subparagraph (A) shall be available only to individuals who are 

homeowners of record as of July 1, 1986, who have attained the age of majority as of that date 

and who make a bona fide written offer not later than July 1, 1991, to sell to the Secretary. 

 (3)(A) In the case of improved property included within the boundaries of the lakeshore after 

October 1, 1991, that was not included within such boundaries on or before that date, an individual 

who is an owner of record of such property as of that date may retain a right of use and occupancy 

of such improved property for noncommercial residential purposes for a term ending at either of the 

following: 

 (i) A fixed term not to extend beyond October 1, 2020, or such lesser fixed term as 

the owner may elect at the time of acquisition. 

 (ii) A term ending at the death of the owner or the owner's spouse, whichever 

occurs later. 

The owner or owners shall elect the term to be reserved. 

 (B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply only to improved property owner by an individual who: 

 (i) was an owner of record of the property as of October 1, 1991; 

 (ii) had attained the age of majority as of that date; and 

(iii) made a bona fide written offer not later than October 1, 1997, to sell the 

property to the Secretary. 

 (b) Upon his determination that the property, or any portion thereof, has ceased to be used in 

accordance with the applicable terms and conditions, the Secretary may terminate a right of use and 

 occupancy. Nonpayment of property taxes, validly assessed, on any retained right of use and 

occupancy shall also be grounds for termination of such right by the Secretary. In the event the 

Secretary terminates a right of use and occupancy under this subsection he shall pay to the owners 

of the retained right so terminated an amount equal to the fair market value of the portion of said 

right which remained unexpired on the date of termination. With respect to any right of use and 

occupancy in existence on the effective date of this sentence, standards for retention of such rights 

in effect at the time such rights were reserved shall constitute the terms and conditions referred to 

in section 4. 

 

 (c) With respect to improved properties acquired prior to the enactment of this subsection and 

upon which a valid existing right of use and occupancy has been reserved for a term of not more 

than twenty years, the Secretary may, in his discretion, extend the term of such retained right for a 

period of not more than nine years upon receipt of payment prior to September 30, 1983, from the 

293
 4 

holder of the retained right. The amount of such payment shall be equivalent to the amount 

discounted from the purchase price paid by the Secretary for the identical period of time under the 

terms of the original sale adjusted by a general index adopted by the Secretary reflecting overall 

value trends within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore between the time of the original sale and the 

time of the retained right of extension offered by this subsection. 

 Sec. 6. (a) In the administration of the lakeshore the Secretary may utilize such statutory 

authorities relating to areas of the national park system and such statutory authority otherwise 

available to him for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate 

to carry out the purposes of this Act. 

 (b) In order that the lakeshore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development 

or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with 

the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing or with 

the preservation of such historic sites and structures as the Secretary may designate: Provided, That 

the Secretary may provide for the public enjoyment and understanding of the unique natural, 

historic, and scientific features within the lakeshore by establishing such trails, observation points, 

and exhibits and providing such services as he may deem desirable for such public enjoyment and 

understanding: Provided further, That the Secretary may develop for appropriate public uses such 

portions of the lakeshore as he deems especially adaptable for such uses. 

 Sec. 7. (a) There is hereby established an Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Advisory Commission. 

 Said Commission shall terminate on September 30, 1985. 

 (b) The Commission shall be composed of thirteen members each appointed for a term of two 

years by the Secretary, as follows: 

(1) one member who is a year-round resident of Porter County to be appointed from 

recommendations made by the commissioners of such county; (2) one member who is a year-round 

resident of the town of Beverly Shores to be appointed from the recommendations made by the 

board of such town; (3) one member who is a year-round resident of the towns of Porter, Dune 

Acres, Pines, Chesterton, Ogden Dunes, or the village of Tremont, such member to be appointed 

from recommendations made by the boards of trustees or the trustee of the affected town or 

township; (4) two members who are year-round residents of the city of Michigan City to be 

appointed from recommendations made by such city; (5) two members to be appointed from 

recommendations made by the Governor of the State of Indiana; 

(6) one member to be designated by the Secretary; (7) two members who are year-round residents 

of the city of Gary to be appointed from recommendations made by the mayor of such city; (8) one 

member to be appointed from recommendations made by a regional planning agency established 

under the authority of the laws of the State of Indiana and composed of representatives of local and 

county governments in northwestern Indiana; (9) one member who is a year-round resident of the 

city of Portage to be appointed from recommendations made by the mayor of such city; and (10) 

one member who holds a reservation of use and occupancy and is a year-round resident within the 

lakeshore to be designated by the Secretary. 

 (c) The Secretary shall designate one member to be Chairman. Any vacancy in the Commission 

shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. 

 (d) A member of the Commission shall serve without compensation as such. The Secretary is 

authorized to pay the expense reasonably incurred by the Commission in carrying out its 

responsibilities under this Act on vouchers signed by the Chairman. 

 (e) The Secretary or his designee shall, from time to time, consult with the Commission with 

respect to matters relating to the development of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and with 

respect to the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act. 

 (f) The Advisory Commission is authorized to assist with the identification of economically and 

environmentally acceptable areas, outside of the boundaries of the lakeshore, for the handling and 

294
 5 

disposal of industrial solid wastes produced by the coal-fired powerplant in Porter County, Indiana, 

section 21, township 37 north, range 6 west. 

 Sec. 8. Nothing in this Act shall deprive the State of Indiana or any political subdivision thereof of 

its civil and criminal jurisdiction over persons found, acts performed, and offenses committed within 

the boundaries of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore or of its right to tax persons, corporations, 

franchises, or other non-Federal property on lands included therein. 

 Sec. 9. The Secretary may expend such sums as may be necessary from the Land and Water 

Conservation Funds for acquisition of lands and interests in lands, and not to exceed $27,500,000 

for development: Provided, That not more than $500,000 of said amount may be appropriated for 

the development of the Paul H. Douglas Environmental Education Center authorized pursuant to 

section 20 of this Act; and By October 1, 1979, the Secretary shall develop and transmit to the 

Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Congress a general management 

plan detailing the development of the national lakeshore consistent with the preservation objectives 

of this Act, indicating: (1) the facilities needed to accommodate the health, safety, and recreation 

needs of the visiting public; (2) the location and estimated costs of all facilities, together with a 

review of the consistency of the master plan with State, areawide, and local governmental 

development plans; (3) the projected need for any additional facilities within the national lakeshore; 

and (4) specific opportunities for citizen participation in the planning and development of proposed 

facilities and in the implementation of the general management plan generally. 

The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study of establishing United States Highway 12 as the 

'Indiana Dunes Parkway' under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. The Secretary shall 

submit the results of such study to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United 

States House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 

States Senate within two years after the enactment of this sentence. Effective October 1, 1986, 

there is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of 

conducting the feasibility study. 

 Sec. 10. Nothing in this Act shall diminish any existing (as of March 1, 1975) rights-of-way or 

easements which are necessary for high voltage electrical transmission, pipelines, water mains, or 

line-haul railroad operations and maintenance. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish the 

existing property rights of Northern Indiana Public Service Company (as of October 1, 1986) with 

respect to-- 

 (1) a parcel of land owned in fee by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company and used for 

high voltage electrical transmission lines, pipelines, and utility purposes, beginning at said 

Company's Dune Acres substation and extending east to said Company's Michigan City Generating 

Station, which parcel by this Act is included within the boundaries of the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore and herein designated as area II-I on National Park Service Boundary Map No. 626-

80,033-B, dated October 1986, excluding that certain parcel of approximately 6.0 acres adjacent to 

Mineral Springs Road in area II-I, and 

 (2) land owned in fee by the Northern Indiana Public Service Company and used for high voltage 

electrical transmission lines, pipelines, and utility purposes as has by this Act been included within 

the boundaries of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and herein designated as area II-H on said 

National Park Service Boundary Map No. 626-80,033-B. 

 Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in the Act shall be construed as prohibiting any otherwise legal cooling, 

process, or surface drainage into the part of the Little Calumet River located within the lakeshore: 

Provided, That this subsection shall not affect nor in any way limit the Secretary's authority and 

responsibility to protect park resources. 

 (b) The authorization of lands to be added to the lakeshore by the Ninety-fourth Congress and the 

295
 6 

administration of such lands as part of the lakeshore shall in and of itself in no way operate to 

render more restrictive the application of Federal, State, or local air and water pollution standards to 

the uses of property outside the boundaries of the lakeshore, nor shall it be construed to augment 

the control of water and air pollution sources in the State of Indiana beyond that required pursuant 

to applicable Federal, State, or local law. 

Sec. 12. DELETED

 Sec. 13. (a) The Secretary may acquire that portion of area I-C Area which is shaded on the map 

referred to in section 4, dated December 1980 and numbered 626-91014 of this Act only with the 

consent of the owner unless the present owner attempts to sell or otherwise dispose of such area. 

 (b) The Secretary may acquire that portion of area IV-B in private ownership on the map referred to 

in section 1 of this Act only with the consent of the owner: Provided, That the Secretary may 

acquire an agricultural easement should the owner change the use in existence as of September 19, 

1986, through eminent domain. 

 Sec. 14. Within one year after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 

submit, in writing, to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the United States Congress a detailed plan which shall indicate: (1) the lands 

which he has previously acquired by purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer for administration for 

the purpose of the lakeshore; and (2) the annual acquisition program (including the level of funding) 

which he recommends for the ensuing five fiscal years. 

 Sec. 15. The Secretary may acquire only such interest in the right-of-way designated 'Crossing A' 

on map numbered 626-91007 as he determines to be necessary to assure public access to the 

banks of the Little Calumet River within fifty feet north and south of the centerline of said river. 

The Secretary may acquire only such interest in the rights-of-way designated 'Crossing B' and 

'Crossing C' on the map dated October 1986 and numbered 626-80,033-B as he determines to be 

necessary to assure public access to the banks of the Little Calumet River and the banks of Salt 

Creek within fifty feet on either side of the centerline of said river and creek. 

 Sec. 16. The Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the landowner of those 

lands north of the Little Calumet River between the Penn Central Railroad bridge within area II-E and 

'Crossing A' within area IV-C on the map referred to in section 4, dated October 1976, and 

numbered 626-91007. Such agreement shall provide that any roadway constructed by the 

landowner south of United States Route 12 within such vicinity shall include grading, landscaping, 

and plantings of vegetation designed to prevent soil erosion and to minimize the aural and visual 

impacts of said construction, and of traffic on such roadway, as perceived from the Little Calumet 

River. 

 Sec. 17. (a) The Secretary may not acquire such lands within Area I-E. the western section of

area I-E, as designated on map numbered 626-91007, which have been used for solid waste 

disposal until he has received a commitment in accordance with a plan acceptable to him, to reclaim 

such lands at no expense to the Federal Government. 

 (b) With respect to the property identified as area I-E on map numbered 626-91007, the Secretary 

may enter into a cooperative agreement whereby the State of Indiana or any political subdivision 

thereof may undertake to develop, manage and interpret such area in a manner consistent with the 

purposes of this Act. 

 Sec. 18. (a) By July 1, 1977, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committees on 

Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Congress a study of areas III-A, III-C, and II-A, as 

designated on map numbered 626-91007. The Secretary shall make reasonable provision for the 

296
 7 

timely participation of the State of Indiana, local public officials, affected property owners, and the 

general public in the formulation of said study, including, but not limited to, the opportunity to 

testify at a public hearing. The record of such hearing shall accompany said study. With respect to 

areas III-A and III-C, the study shall (a) address the desirability of acquisition of any or all of the area 

from the standpoint of resource management, protection, and public access; (b) develop alternatives 

for the control of beach erosion if desirable, including recommendations, if control is necessary, of 

assessing the costs of such control against those agencies responsible for such erosion; (c) consider 

and propose options to guarantee public access to and use of the beach area, including the location 

of necessary facilities for transportation, health, and safety; (d) detail the recreational potential of 

the area and all available alternatives for achieving such potential; (e) review the environmental 

impact upon the lakeshore resulting from the potential development and improvement of said areas; 

and (f) assess the cost to the United States from both the acquisition of said areas together with 

the potential savings from the retention of rights of use and occupancy and from the retention of 

the boundaries of the lakeshore, as designated on map numbered 626-91007, including the costs of 

additional administrative responsibilities necessary for the management of the lakeshore, including 

the maintenance of public services in the town of Beverly Shores, Indiana. With respect to area IIA, the Secretary shall study and report concerning the following objectives: (a) preservation of the 

remaining dunes, wetlands, native vegetation, and animal life within the area; (b) preservation and 

restoration of the watersheds of Cowles Bog and its associated wetlands; (c) appropriate public 

access to and use of lands within the area; (d) protection of the area and the adjacent lakeshore 

from degradation caused by all forms of construction, pollution, or other adverse impacts including, 

but not limited to, the discharge of wastes and any excessive subsurface migration of water; and (e) 

the economic consequences to the utility and its customers of acquisition of such area. 

 (b)(1) The Secretary shall enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Northern Indiana Public 

Service Company (referred to as 'NIPSCO') that shall provide for the following with respect to the 

area referred to as Unit II-A on the map described in the first section of this Act (referred to as the 

"Greenbelt"): 

 (A) NIPSCO shall provide the National Park Service with access for resource management and 

interpretation through the Greenbelt and across the dike for purposes of a public hiking trail. 

 (B) The National Park Service shall have rights of access for resource management and 

interpretation of the Greenbelt area. 

 (C) NIPSCO shall preserve the Greenbelt in its natural state. If NIPSCO utilizes the Greenbelt 

temporarily for a project involving pollution mitigation or construction on its adjacent facilities, it 

shall restore the project area to its natural state. 

 (D) If NIPSCO proposes a different use for the Greenbelt, NIPSCO shall notify the National Park 

Service, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and make no change in the use of the 

property until 3 years after the date notice is given. 

 (2) If a memorandum of agreement is entered into pursuant to paragraph (1), so long as the 

memorandum of agreement is in effect and is being performed, the Secretary may not acquire lands 

or interests in land in the Greenbelt belonging to NIPSCO. 

 Sec. 19. After notifying the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States 

Congress, in writing, of his intentions to do so and of the reasons therefore, the Secretary may, if 

he finds that such lands would make a significant contribution to the purposes for which the 

lakeshore was established, accept title to any lands, or interests in lands, located outside the 

present boundaries of the lakeshore but contiguous thereto or to lands acquired under this section, 

such lands the State of Indiana or its political subdivisions may acquire and offer to donate to the 

United States or which any private person, organization, or public or private corporation may offer 

to donate to the United States and he shall administer such lands as a part of the lakeshore after 

297
 8 

publishing notice to that effect in the Federal Register. 

 Sec. 20 (a) The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is hereby dedicated to the memory of Paul H. 

Douglas in grateful recognition of his leadership in the effort to protect, preserve, and enhance the 

natural, scientific, historic, and recreational value of the lakeshore for the use, enjoyment, and 

edification of present and future generations. 

 (b) To further accomplish the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of the 

Interior shall designate the west unit of the lakeshore as the "Paul H. Douglas Ecological and 

Recreational Unit" and shall, subject to appropriations being granted, design and construct a suitable 

structure or designate an existing structure within the lakeshore to be known as the "Paul H. 

Douglas Center for Environmental Education" which shall provide facilities designed primarily to 

familiarize students and other visitors with, among other things: (1) the natural history of the 

lakeshore and its association with the natural history of the Great Lakes region; (2) the evolution of 

human activities in the area; and (3) the historical features which led to the establishment of the 

lakeshore by the Congress of the United States. 

 (c) To inform the public of the contributions of Paul H. Douglas to the creation of the lakeshore, 

the Secretary of the Interior shall provide such signs, markers, maps, interpretive materials, 

literature, and programs as he deems appropriate. 

 Sec. 21. (a) The Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a 

study of various modes of public access into and within the lakeshore which are consistent with the 

preservation of the lakeshore and conservation of energy by encouraging the use of transportation 

modes other than personal motor vehicles. 

 (b) In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize to the greatest extent practicable the 

resources and facilities of the organizations designated as clearinghouses under title IV of the 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 as implemented by Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-95, and which have comprehensive planning responsibilities in the regions where the 

lakeshore is located, as well as any other agencies or organizations which the Secretary may 

designate. The Secretary shall make provision for timely and substantive consultations with the 

appropriate agencies of the States of Indiana and Illinois, local elected officials, and the general 

public in the formulation and implementation of the study. 

 (c) The study shall address the adequacy of access facilities for members of the public who desire 

to visit and enjoy the lakeshore. Consideration shall be given to alternatives for alleviating the 

dependence on automobile transportation. The study of public transportation facilities shall cover 

the distance from cities of thirty-five thousand population or more within fifty miles of the 

lakeshore. 

 (d) The study shall include proposals deemed necessary to assure equitable visitor access and 

public enjoyment by all segments of the population, including those who are physically or

economically disadvantaged. It shall provide for retention of the natural, scenic, and historic values 

for which the lakeshore was established, and shall propose plans and alternatives for the protection 

and maintenance of these values as they relate to transportation improvements. 

 (e) The study shall examine proposals for the renovation and preservation of a portion of the 

existing South Shore Railroad passenger car fleet. The study shall consider the historic value of the 

existing rolling stock and its role in transporting visitors into and within the lakeshore. 

 (f) The study shall present alternative plans to improve, construct, and extend access roads, public 

transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian trails. It shall include cost estimates of all plans 

considered in this study, and shall discuss existing and proposed sources of funding for the 

implementation of the recommended plan alternatives. 

 (g) The study shall be completed and presented to the Congress within two complete fiscal years 

from the effective date of this provision. 

 (h) Effective October 1, 1981, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 

298
 9 

$200,000 for this study. 

 Sec. 22. In exercising his authority to acquire property under this act, the Secretary shall give 

prompt and careful consideration to any offer made by an individual owning property within the 

lakeshore to sell such property, if such individual notifies the Secretary in writing that the continued 

ownership of such property is causing, or would result in, undue hardship. 

 Sec. 23. (a) The Secretary may acquire only such interest in that portion of area VII-A which is 

described in subsection (b) as the Secretary determines is necessary to assure public access over 

said portion of area VII-A. 

 (b) The portion of area VII-A, as designated on the map referred to in section 1, to which 

subsection (a) applies is a parcel of land bounded; (1) on the east by a line three hundred feet east 

of the electrical transmission line crossing area VII-A on January 1, 1979; (2) on the west by a line 

fifty feet west of such electrical transmission line; and (3) on the north and south by the northern 

and southern boundaries, respectively, of area VII-A. 

 (c) Area VII-A includes the bed of the railroad tracks forming the northern and northwestern 

boundaries of this area and extends to the northern edge of the bed of the railroad tracks forming 

the southern boundaries of this area. (d) Area I-D includes the bed of the railroad tracks along the 

northern boundary of this area. 

 (e) The area designated as area VII-C on the map referred to in section 1 does not include 

approximately 1.3 acres of land on which the Linde Air Products plant is situated, nor does it 

include approximately 1 acre of land on which the Old Union Station building and the adjacent REA 

building are situated. Except as provided in the foregoing sentence, area VII-C extends to, but does 

not include, the beds of the railroad tracks forming the northern and southern boundaries of such 

area. 

 Sec. 24. (a) The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the Little Calumet River 

Basin Development Commission, State of Indiana or any political subdivision thereof for the 

planning, management, and interpretation of recreational facilities on the tract within the boundaries 

of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore identified as tract numbered 09-117 or on lands under the 

jurisdiction of the State of Indiana or political subdivision thereof along the Little Calumet River and 

Burns Waterway. The cooperative agreement may include provision for the planning of public 

facilities for boating, canoeing, fishing, hiking, bicycling, and other compatible recreational activities. 

 Any recreational developments on lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service planned 

pursuant to this cooperative agreement shall be in a manner consistent with the purposes of this 

Act, including section 6(b). 

 (b) The Secretary shall conduct a study regarding the options available for linking the portions of 

the lakeshore which are divided by the Little Calumet River and Burns/Portage Waterway so as to 

coordinate the management and recreational use of the lakeshore. The Secretary shall submit the 

results of the study to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate 

within two years after the enactment of this section. Effective October 1, 1986, there is authorized 

to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of conducting this study. 

 Sec. 25. In furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the Secretary may enter into a cooperative 

agreement with the city of Gary, Indiana, pursuant to which the Secretary may provide technical 

assistance in interpretation, planning, and resource management for programs and developments in 

the city of Gary's Marquette Park and Lake Street Beach. 

 Sec. 26. (a) Before acquiring lands or interests in lands in Unit VII-D (as designated on the map 

described in the first section of this Act) the Secretary shall consult with the Commissioner of the 

Indiana Department of Transportation to determine what lands or interests in lands are required by 

299
 10 

the State of Indiana for improvements to 15th Avenue (including the extension known as Old Hobart

Road) and reconstruction and relocation of the intersection of 15th Avenue and State Road 51 so 

that the acquisition by the Secretary of lands or interests in lands in Unit VII-D will not interfere with 

planned improvements to the interchange and 15th Avenue in the area. 

 (b) Before acquiring lands or interests in lands in Unit I-M (as designated on the map referred to in 

the first section of this Act) the Secretary shall consult with the Commissioner of the Indiana 

Department of Transportation to determine what lands or interests in lands are required by the State 

of Indiana for improvements to State Road 49 and reconstruction and relocation of the interchange 

with State Road 49 and U.S. 20 so that the acquisition by the Secretary of lands or interests in 

lands in Unit I-M will not interfere with planned improvements to such interchange and State Road 

49 in the area. 

 Sec. 27. In order to commemorate the vision, dedication, and work of Dorothy Buell in saving the 

Indiana Dunes, the National Park Service visitor center at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is 

designated as the "Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center". 

NOTE

This is a compilation of the act establishing Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and four subsequent 

acts amending that original legislation. 

P.L. 89-761, 89th Congress (11/05/66) ( 80 Stat 1309) 

P.L. 94-549, 94th Congress (10/18/76) ( 90 Stat 2529) 

P.L. 96-612, 96th Congress (12/28/80) ( 94 Stat 3575) 

P.L. 99-583, 99th Congress (10/29/86) (100 Stat 3318) 

P.L. 102-430, 102st Congress (10/23/92) (106 Stat 2208) 

300
 

 

 

APPENDIX B: INITIAL AGENCY COORDINATION 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO INDIANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO). 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHORELINE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

DATED APRIL 25, 2011

INDIANA SHPO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS. 

DATED MAY 23, 2011

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. 

REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSULTATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

THE SHORELINE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2011

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 

COMMENTS PROVIDED ON POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA. 

DATED AUGUST 8, 2011

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND

THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 

DATED AUGUST 9, 2010

REQUEST FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA TO BE COOPERATING AGENCY AND

RESPONSE FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA. 

DATED APRIL 21, 2011 AND MAY 24, 2011

REQUEST AND RESPONSE FOR INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

TO BE COOPERATING AGENCY. 

DATED JUNE 3, 2011

303

305



309
310
311

313
314
315
316
317
318
319

Brenda Waters/INDU/NPS

06/03/2011 09:34 AM

To "McAhron, Ron" <rmcahron@dnr.IN.gov>

cc Bob_Daum@nps.gov, Charles_Morris@nps.gov, 

Erin_Flanagan@nps.gov, "Molnar, Mike" 

<mmolnar@dnr.IN.gov>, "Davis, Steve" 

<sdavis@dnr.IN.gov>, Nicholas 

Chevance/Omaha/NPS@NPS

bcc

Subject RE: Shoreline MOU

Ron,

Thank you for getting back to with the decision on the Shoreline MOU between NPS and IDNR. We 

appreciate the assistance and expertise that IDNR has provided through Steve Davis as we work to 

develop the Shoreline Plan/EIS. At this point in the planning process, it seems most appropriate for us to 

continue our with informal communication and cooperation. We look forward to your comments on the 

draft Plan/EIS. It is scheduled to be available for public review this winter. 

Sincerely,

Brenda

*********************************

Brenda Waters

Assistant Chief of Natural Resources

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

1100 N Mineral Springs Road

Porter, IN 46304

Office: (219) 395-1552

Fax: (219) 395-1588

*********************************

321

"McAhron, Ron" 

<rmcahron@dnr.IN.gov> 

05/24/2011 08:12 AM

To <Brenda_Waters@nps.gov>

cc <Bob_Daum@nps.gov>, <Charles_Morris@nps.gov>, 

"Davis, Steve" <sdavis@dnr.IN.gov>, "Molnar, Mike" 

<mmolnar@dnr.IN.gov>, <Erin_Flanagan@nps.gov>

Subject RE: Shoreline MOU

Brenda:

Sorry for the delayed response. I have been advised that our procedures strongly discourage IDNR from 

entering MOU's with agencies and entities outside state government. We are not opposed to Steve being 

involved in the project; in fact we believe he would be an asset. If you have a less formal vehicle to 

accomplish that end, we would be glad to work with you on that. I am thinking along the lines of a 

confidentiality agreement. 

Ron McAhron

Deputy Director

IDNR

402 W. Washington St Rm 256

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone (317) 232-1557

Cell (317) 696-9307 

-----Original Message-----

From: Brenda_Waters@nps.gov [mailto:Brenda_Waters@nps.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:48 AM

To: McAhron, Ron

Cc: Bob_Daum@nps.gov; Charles_Morris@nps.gov; Davis, Steve; Molnar, Mike; 

Erin_Flanagan@nps.gov

Subject: Shoreline MOU

Dear Ron,

Thank you for calling me last week, it was good to get to speak with you about the shoreline plan and our 

draft MOU. Spring is a busy time of the year so I want to let you know I will be out of the office from April 

22 to May 2. I don't want to slow down our progress while I am out. If you have the red-lined MOU for 

the Shoreline Plan ready while I am out of the office, could you please send it to Bob Daum and Charlie 

Morris? They will be able to move it forward. Their emails are bob_daum@nps.gov and

charles_morris@nps.gov.

I appreciate your help and IDNR's continued participation by Steve Davis. His expertise in coastal 

processes continues to add value to our planning process.

Sincerely,

Brenda

*********************************

Brenda Waters

Assistant Chief of Natural Resources

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore

1100 N Mineral Springs Road

Porter, IN 46304

Office: (219) 395-1552

Fax: (219) 395-1588

*********************************

323

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES (PAGES 325 THROUGH 376)

IS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT AT

HTTP://PARKPLANNING.NPS.GOV/PROJECTHOME.CFM?PROJECTID=33151

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES 

(AVAILABLE ONLINE ONLY) 

C1: WAVE CLIMATE AND LONGSHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS

C2: LAKE MICHIGAN WAVAD HINDCAST — 1982 TO 2007

C3: 1951/1952 TO 2010 SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS

C4: SUMMARY OF REGIONAL SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS (1951/52 TO 2010)

C5: DETAILED SHORELINE CHANGE MEASUREMENTS

APPENDIX C1: WAVE CLIMATE AND LONGSHORE SEDIMENT 

TRANSPORT ANALYSIS 

SITE 

The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (INDL) 

is located at the southern end of Lake Michigan, 

with the coastal boundaries of the park defined 

by Michigan City Harbor in the northeast and 

Gary/USX Steel Harbor in the west. Refer to 

figure 1 for a location map. This is a highly 

modified coastal environment. It is also a 

landscape of contrast, featuring some of the 

most unique beaches and coastal dune habitat in 

North America, located in between large lakefill 

projects, ports and harbors. 

This report describes our technical analysis 

performed for the lake levels and waves at the 

site, along with longshore sediment transport 

modeling. Based on this technical analysis, it also 

describes the implications for the shoreline 

change rates documented in a companion report 

(1951/1952 to 2010 Shoreline Change Analysis, 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Baird 2011). 

Collectively, this information was utilized to 

develop long-term potential Shoreline 

Restoration Plans for the INDL. 

WATER LEVEL AND WAVE ANALYSIS 

This section of the report describes the 

procedures undertaken in order to quantify the 

lake level conditions and wave climate at the 

project site. Together, the waves and water levels 

determine the design conditions used to 

establish the level of shore protection required. 

For example, the established conditions will be 

used to design “soft” erosion mitigation 

techniques, such as beach nourishment and 

“hard” structures, such as breakwaters or groins 

(emergent or submerged). 

Typically, various conditions are analyzed to 

determine the wave climate at a site in the Great 

Lakes. The USACE utilizes a set of design 

conditions established using the (10:20 and 

(20:10) criteria. The (10:20) and (20:10) method 

is a combined return period criteria that uses 

both the 1:10 year water level with the 1:20 year 

wave height, and the 1:20 year water level with 

the 1:10 year wave height, respectively. 

Whichever combination results in a larger design 

wave at the structure governs as the design 

condition. 

Coastal erosion protection structures around the 

Great Lakes typically use 25 to 50-year design 

life engineering calculations. It is important to 

recognize that this assumption is no guarantee 

that the coastal structure will actually last for 25 

or 50 years. A storm event that exceeds the 

design conditions may occur in any given year. 

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP FOR THE INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE

327

Appendix C1: Wave Climate and Longshore Sediment Transport Analysis 

low”, and this relates to a condition where there 

is no direct risk of human injury and small 

environmental or economic consequences 

associated with the failure of the structure (i.e. 

impacts before it can be repaired). According to 

Serviceability Limit State (SLS), the acceptable 

maximum probability of failure during the 

lifetime of a structure of this description is 40% 

(PIANC 2003). These assumptions will have to 

be further discussed and verified with the NPS 

in a final design project phase. 

Assuming a design life of 50-years and applying 

the standard formula (refer Equation 1) for 

calculating the risk of an event occurring, it was 

determined that the corresponding design 

return period event is 100 years. 

EQUATION 1: RISK OF AN EVENT OCCURRING WITHIN A 

SPECIFIED DESIGN LIFE

DesignLife

Tr

Risk  ̧

1

·  ̈

©

§  1 11

Lake Level and Storm Surge Analysis 

Water levels on Lake Michigan vary both in the 

long-term in response to continental scale 

climatic conditions, as well as in the short term 

due to the passage of individual storm events, 

creating short duration storm surges. Storm 

surge is a local increase in the water level caused 

by wind stresses applied to the water surface and 

regional scale pressure gradients. 

The computer model HYDSTAT was used to 

complete a joint probability analysis (JPA) for 

long term monthly mean lake levels and short 

term surge data. HYDSTAT is a well recognized 

model that has been used extensively around the 

Great Lakes for flood level and water related 

hazard studies (USACE 1988; OMNR 1989). 

Refer to Baird (2010) for additional information 

on the model and recent applications 

throughout the Great Lakes Basin. 

To assess storm surge, 41 years of hourly 

measured water level data from the National 

Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Calumet Harbor gage (9087044) on 

Lake Michigan were obtained for the period 

1970-2010. A surge event was defined as any 

period of time where the lake level was greater 

than +0.8 ft above the still water level for more 

than 3 consecutive hours, with a minimum of 24 

hours between successive events. From this 

population of events, the largest annual surge 

was selected for the 41 year period of record. 

These surge events were used for the first 

independent variable and extreme value analysis 

in HYDSTAT. 

The lakewide monthly mean data for Lake 

Michigan was analyzed from 1954 to 2010 to 

establish an annual maximum monthly mean 

lake level. 1954 corresponded to the beginning 

of the temporal analysis in the 1988 USACE 

study. This annual maximum series of monthly 

mean lake levels was used as the second 

independent variable for the HYDSTAT 

analysis. 

HYDSTAT was then used to perform a JPA on 

the two independent variables (still water level 

and storm surge) and select an appropriate 

probability distribution for the data. The Log 

Pearson 3 distribution was selected for the 

HYDSTAT output and used to establish the 

return period lake levels in table 2 on page 330. 

The lake levels are presented as an elevation 

relative to Vertical Datum IGLD85, and above 

Low Water Datum of 577.5 feet. For reference, 

table 2 also includes the extreme lake levels with 

a return period of 10, 50, 100 and 500, as 

published by the USACE 1988 study. It should 

be noted that this study relied on data from 1954 

to 1986, which is a much shorter temporal 

duration than our present analysis (e.g., 24 years 

of additional information is now available). 

Since some of those years featured very high lake 

levels (e.g., 1998), the updated results in table 2 

are approximately 0.7 ft higher than the levels 

reported in the 1988 USACE report. 

The 1988 USACE report was updated in 1993 

and the findings are summarized in a report 

entitled Design Water Level Determination on 

the Great Lakes (USACE, 1993). The reported 

10-, 50-, and 100-Year lake level (still water with 

combined surge) values are 582.94, 583.41 and 

584.34 feet IGLD85, respectively. Refer to table 

2 for summarized information. 

 

329




APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE 

SHORELINE CHANGE RATES 

The following sections discuss the implications 

of the sediment transport modeling for future 

shoreline change rates in the study area, and 

provide baseline conditions for development of 

project restoration plans. 

Future Trends at Harbors 

There are three main areas within the project 

shoreline that constitute littoral barriers, 

disrupting the natural sediment flow in an 

alongshore direction. These man-made harbors 

trap sediment on the northeast or updrift side 

and lead to erosion on the southwest or 

downdrift side. 

The three main harbors are: 

 Michigan City Harbor (initial 

construction in 1834, Harbor completed 

in early 1900s) 

 Port of Indiana Industrial Complex 

(constructed in the late 1960s) 

 Gary USX Steel (constructed in early 

1900s) 

The total impacts of these harbors are somewhat 

difficult to quantify. The analysis to estimate the 

total sediment volumes is based on detailed 

aerial photographs from pre-Harbor conditions 

to present; quantities dredged, and harbor 

bypassing. Based on preliminary calculations, 

the total quantities of accreted sediment 

immediately north-east of the harbors is: 

 Michigan City Harbor: 28.2M cubic 

meters (36.8M cubic yards). Does not 

include the volume of sediment dredged 

in the navigation channel and artificially 

bypassed; 

 Port of Indiana Industrial Complex: 

3.5M cubic meters (4.6M cubic yards). 

Does not include sediment dredged and 

artificially bypassed/backpassed, which 

totals 1.7M cubic meters (2.2M cubic 

yards); and 

 Gary USX Steel: 2.2M cubic meters 

(2.9M cubic yards). This is based on the 

current shoreline orientation defined by 

the confined disposal facility 

constructed post-1950. 

Figures 6, 7, and 8 on pages 335 and 336 

document the fillet beaches and historical 

shoreline change rates at the three harbors. 

Trends for the National Lakeshore 

A companion report entitled 1951/52 to 2010 

Shoreline Change Analysis, Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore (Baird 2011) documented 

trends in the study area shoreline over the last 60 

years. The following bullet points comment on 

anticipated future trends based on the findings 

of this report and the status quo for sediment 

bypassing and beach nourishment activities 

within the study area (refer to figure 6 in the 

Baird (2011) report for the locations of Reaches 

A to G): 

 Reach A - Mount Baldy Erosion Zone: 

Despite the placement of over 1 million 

cubic yards of beach nourishment since 

1974, the beach and dunes immediate 

downdrift of the Michigan City Harbor 

continued to erode. Based on the LST 

modeling and the downdrift sediment 

budget deficit, this trend will continue 

for the status quo beach nourishment 

program (approximately 29,000 cubic 

yards per year, long-term average 

quantity); 

 Reach B – Beverly Shores to the 

Middle of Dune Acres: The long term 

trend of “dynamically stable” is 

anticipated to continue. Beach position 

will be dynamic and respond to changes 

in lake levels. Locally, periods of erosion 

may threaten infrastructures, such as the 

revetment protecting portions of Lake 

Front Drive along Beverly Shores; 

 Reach C (Port of Indiana Industrial 

Complex Fillet Beach) and Reach E 

(Town of Ogden Dunes): The shoreline 

position in these two reaches is highly 

modified by the Port of Indiana 

Industrial Complex, dredging and 

mechanical sediment bypassing. The 

shoreline trend for Reaches C and E will 

be highly dependent on the degree of 

sediment management in the future, 

which may be investigated by as part of a 

reconnaissance study by the USACE 

(anticipated 2012). The current trends 

are anticipated in the future; 

334
Appendix C1: Wave Climate and Longshore Sediment Transport Analysis 

 Reach F – West Beach to Miller: The 

trend of dynamically stable will continue 

in the future if the status quo for 

sediment bypassing continues; and 

 Reach G – Gary USX Steel Harbor Fillet 

Beach: Continued fillet beach growth is 

anticipated. 

FIGURE 6: 1834 TO 2002 SHORELINE COMPARISON AT MICHIGAN CITY

FIGURE 7: 1951/1952 TO 2010 FILLET BEACH AT THE PORT OF INDIANA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

335
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

FIGURE 8: 1951/1952 TO 2010 FILLET BEACH AT THE GARY/USX STEEL HARBOR

REFERENCES 

Baedke, S.J., and T.A. Thompson 

2000 A 4,700 Year Record of Lake Level 

and Isostasy for Lake Michigan. 

Journal of Great Lakes Research, 

Vol. 26. 

Baird 

2003 Lake Ontario WAVAD Hindcast for 

IJC Study. Prepared for the IJC and 

USACE. 

2004 Evaluation of Dredged Material 

Management Plans for Michigan 

City. Prepared for the USACE, 

Detroit District. 

2008 Colchester to Southeast Shoal 

Littoral Cell Study. Prepared for the 

Essex Region Conservation 

Authority. 

2010 Upper Great Lakes Study Flooding 

Evaluation: Return Period Analysis 

for Alternative Regulation Plans. 

Prepared for the International Joint 

Commission: Coastal Zone 

Technical Working Group. 

2011 1951/52 to 2010 Shoreline Change 

Analysis, Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. Prepared for the 

National Parks Service. 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

1989 Great Lakes System Flood Levels 

and Water Related Hazards. 

Conservation Authorities and Water 

Management Branch, Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources. 

PIANC 

2003 Breakwaters with Vertical and 

Inclined Concrete Walls. Report of 

Working Group 28 of the Maritime 

Navigation Commission. 

Resio, D., and W. Perrie 

1989 Implications of an f4 Equilibrium 

Range for Wind-Generated Waves, 

Journal of Physical Oceanography. 

Volume 19. pp. 193-204. 

Scott, D., D. Schwab, P. Zuzek, P. and C. Padala 

2004 Hindcasting Wave Conditions on 

the North American Great Lakes. 

Proceedings of the 8th International 

Workshop on Wave Hindcasting 

and Forecasting. Hawaii. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

1988 Revised Report on Great Lakes 

Open-Coast Flood Levels. Prepared 

by the USACE for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

1993 Design Water Level Determination 

on the Great Lakes. 

336
APPENDIX C2: LAKE MICHIGAN WAVAD HINDCAST — 1982 TO 2007 

The wave climate for the southern end of Lake 

Michigan was initially evaluated with the aid of 

WIS data (specifically LM007) but it did not 

cover a suitable temporal period (WIS extends 

from 1956-1987) and was only 3 hour data. 

Therefore, a limited WAVAD wind-wave 

hindcast was completed for Lake Michigan 

(1982-2007), with output saved for the grid cells 

for the southern end of the lake. The primary 

input to WAVAD was 25 years of wind data 

obtained from offshore NOAA buoy #45007. 

Since the buoy is decommissioned in the winter, 

this period was covered using wind data from 

Milwaukee Mitchel Airport. Figure 1 shows the 

model grid, which contains 82 x 116 grid points. 

The grid spacing is 0.04 deg. 

A detailed description of the WAVAD model 

and application on Lake Ontario is provided in 

Baird (2003) and Scott et al.(2004). A description 

of a recent application on Lake Erie is provided 

in Baird (2008). 

FIGURE 1: WAVE MODEL GRID

337
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

The model results were verified against the 

offshore buoy data. Figure 2 presents the 

quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot between measured 

and modeled output at the offshore buoy 

location. Figure 3 on page 339 shows the time 

series comparison of measured and modeled 

data. In general, the modeled wave height results 

agree well with measured data, but slightly 

underestimates the large waves (Hm0 >2.5 m). 

Figure 4 on page 340 presents a snapshot of the 

model result. 

FIGURE 2: Q-Q COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED AND MODELED WAVE HEIGHT

338
Appendix C2: Lake Michigan WAVAD Hindcast — 1982 to 2007 

FIGURE 3: TIME SERIES COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED AND MODELED RESULT

339
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

FIGURE 4: A SNAPSHOT OF WAVE MODEL RESULT

340
APPENDIX C3: 1951/1952 TO 2010 SHORELINE CHANGE ANALYSIS 

SITE 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (INDL) is 

located at the southern end of Lake Michigan, 

with the coastal boundaries of the park defined 

by Michigan City Harbor in the northeast and 

Gary/USX Steel Harbor in the west. Refer to 

figure 1 for a location map. This is a highly 

modified coastal environment. It is also a 

landscape of contrast, featuring some of the 

most unique beaches and coastal dune habitat in 

North America, located in between large lakefill 

projects, ports and harbors. 

This report describes the methods, results and 

implications of a shoreline change analysis for 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore completed 

with aerial photography from 1951/52 to 2010. 

The analysis is regional in nature, not focused on 

individual properties or a small segment of 

beach. Rather, this is a high level analysis of long 

term changes in the shoreline position over the 

last 60 years. 

Older aerial photographs than 1951 might exist 

to document the shoreline evolution and the 

construction of man-made structures (the first 

jetties at Michigan City were constructed in 

1836). However, the shoreline chance focus is 

on understanding the last 60 years of data and 

using this information to make management 

decisions for future project planning and 

implementation. 

Another set of acquired aerial photographs 

covered the period of May 1971, which closely 

follows the completion of the lakefill project for 

the Port of Indiana. 

INFLUENCE OF LAKE LEVELS AND 

STORMS 

This region of Lake Michigan is classified as a 

sandy shoreline and in fact is one of the sandiest 

regions of the entire Great Lakes (Baird 2001). In 

other words, there is an abundance of sand on 

the lake bottom, along the beaches and in the 

dunes. In a completely natural system, which 

this is not, sand is transported in both a 

longshore and cross-shore direction in response 

to waves and currents generated during storms. 

Over long temporal periods, the magnitude and 

directionality of the storms influences the rate at 

which sand is transported along the coast and 

ultimately the resulting morphology of the 

shoreline. From previous technical studies, the 

net direction for longshore sediment transport 

within the limits of the study are from the 

northeast to the southwest (Baird 2004). 

Additional sediment transport modeling was 

completed to quantify the longshore rates (see 

Wave Climate and Longshore Sediment 

Transport Analysis). 

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP FOR INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE

341
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

Sandy shorelines are, by definition, dynamic. 

The position of the waterline, beach width and 

dunes are constantly responding to changes in 

lake levels and severe storm events. For 

example, the nearshore lake bottom, bars and 

beach respond to periods of rising lake levels by 

transferring sediment offshore (in a cross-shore 

direction), often leading to erosion of the dune 

and beach. Conversely, during periods of falling 

or low lake levels, sand is transferred onshore, 

beach width increases and aeolian processes 

transfer more sand into the foredune. This is 

typically a period of beach and dune building in 

the Great Lakes. 

The long term lake level cycles for Lake 

Michigan, as recorded by the lakewide monthly 

mean water level, are presented in figure 2. Low 

Water Datum (LWD) is noted with the red line. 

The natural range for the still water level is 

almost 7 feet, which excludes the effects of 

storm surge. Since 1998, Lake Michigan water 

levels have been fluctuating in a range close to 

LWD, and for many locations within the study 

area, beaches have responded by migrating 

lakeward, new foredunes are growing and dune 

vegetation has migrated lakeward. Refer to the 

beach conditions in figures 3 and 4. Both 

pictures document a growing broad wide 

foredune; given the lack of shrub/woody 

vegetation, this accumulation began during the 

current low lake level period. 

During periods of rising lake levels or the highs 

recorded in the early 1970s, mid 1980s or late 

1990s, the beaches within the study area would 

have been significantly smaller as sand is 

transported in an offshore direction. In some 

locations, active dune erosion was likely 

occurring during severe storm events. In figures 

3 and 4, the limit of vegetation was likely much 

closer to the deciduous tree line along the older 

dune crest. 

In addition to the cross-shore response of the 

beaches to fluctuating lake levels, the change in 

the water surface elevation from the low to high 

cycles also exerts a strong influence on beach 

conditions by either exposing or covering a 

significant portion of the sandy beach. 

FIGURE 2: LAKE MICHIGAN MONTHLY MEAN LAKE LEVELS, 1865 TO PRESENT

342
Appendix C3: 1951/1952 to 2010 Shoreline Change Analysis 

FIGURE 3: BEACH AT THE BOUNDARY OF BEVERLY SHORES AND 

INDIANA DUNES STATE PARK (LOOKING NORTHEAST) 

FIGURE 4: BEACH CONDITIONS AT WEST BEACH, LOOKING WEST

343
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

INFLUENCE OF COASTAL STRUCTURES 

ON LONGSHORE SEDIMENT 

TRANSPORT 

As discussed in Section 2.0, the direction of net 

longshore sediment transport within the study 

area is from the northeast to the southwest. 

When large coastal structures, such as a harbor 

or port, are constructed along the shoreline, they 

disrupt the natural flow of sediment. Typically, 

sediment accumulates on the updrift side of the 

structure, as it acts much like a large groyne. 

Refer to figure 5 for a conceptual sketch of this 

process. Downdrift of the structure, erosion 

typically occurs on the shadow of the port or 

harbor, as depicted in figure 5 for the groyne. 

Within the limits of the study area, the shoreline 

evolution has been influenced by three very 

large port and harbor structures, namely the 

Michigan City Harbor, which is protected by 

Federal jetty structures, the Port of Indiana 

Industrial Complex, and the Gary Indiana/US 

Steel Harbor. The first structures at Michigan 

City were constructed in 1836 and have trapped 

approximately 36.6 million cubic yards of 

sediment (Baird 2005). The Port of Indiana 

Industrial Complex was much more recent, with 

construction completed in the late 1960s. The 

Gary Indiana/US Steel followed shortly after the 

Port of Indiana Industrial Complex. The 

influence of these large coastal structures on 

shoreline evolution within the study area is 

discussed in Section 5 of this report. 

METHODS 

The comparison of the shoreline position is 

based on aerial photo interpretation. Using 

photos from different temporal periods provides 

insight into long term trends. In order to 

compare photos from different temporal 

periods, the photos must be orthorectified. The 

orthorectification process takes aerial photos 

and removes the visual distortions created by 

topographical variations and the camera lens. 

Once an aerial photo has been orthorectified, it 

is commonly referred to as an orthophoto. 

When aerial photos from different time periods 

are orthorectified to a common geographic base, 

direct measurements and comparisons can be 

made between them. 

The most recent set of aerial photographic 

imagery obtained for the study area is Summer 

2010 from the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Aerial 

Photography Field Office (APFO), National 

Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). 

These are provided by the USDA as ready-to-use 

orthophotos. The orthophotos have a 1 meter (3 

feet) ground resolution. The oldest set of 

available and acquired aerial photos with 

sufficient resolution detail is a set of photos 

FIGURE 5: INFLUENCE OF COASTAL STRUCTURES (GROYNES) ON BEACH ACCRETION AND EROSION

344
Appendix C3: 1951/1952 to 2010 Shoreline Change Analysis 

from December 1951 and March 1952 from the 

US Department of the Interior (USDI), US 

Geological Survey (USGS). These photos were 

orthorectified using PCI Geomatica’s 

OrthoEngine software, using ground control 

information taken from the USDA 2010 

orthophotos and using an elevation model 

provided by the USGS. These orthophotos have 

a ground resolution of 3 meters (9 feet). 

To compare the shoreline position change 

between these two time periods, the visible 

water’s edge was digitally traced using E.S.R.I.’s 

ArcGIS ArcMap software at a scale of 1:3,000 

and is considered as shoreline for the water level 

on the day of the photography. Since the water 

level in 1951/52 and 2010 were not identical, 

direct measurements between these two 

shorelines would introduce a bias associated 

with the lower lake level conditions during the 

2010 photography. Table 1 summarizes all the 

photographs utilized in this analysis, along with 

the date of capture and the associated monthly 

mean lake level (ft, IGLD’85). 

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF AIR PHOTOGRAPHS AND 

MONTHLY MEAN LAKE LEVELS

Date Shoreline Extent 

Monthly 

Mean Lake 

Level (feet) 

12/9/1951 Gary to Beverly Shores 580.5 

3/27/1952 Beverly Shores to 

Michigan City 

580.6 

5/3/1971 

Gary to Port of 

Indiana Industrial 

Complex 

580.3 

5/14/1971 

Port of Indiana 

Industrial Complex to 

Michigan City 

580.3 

06 to 

08/2010 Entire Study Area 578.3 

The lake surface elevation difference between 

the 1951/52 photos and those captured in 2010 

was 2.25 ft. To correct for this difference in lake 

levels, the beach and nearshore slopes for the 

sections of shoreline between Michigan City and 

the Port of Indiana Industrial Complex were 

analyzed next. Using recent LIDAR topography 

and bathymetry, the average beach slope 

between the 580.5 to 583.5 ft contours 

(IGLD’85) was calculated to be 1:18 (V:H). The 

same procedure was applied to a 2,300-foot 

stretch of shoreline between the Port of Indiana 

Industrial Complex and Gary. Here the 

calculated beach slope was 1:15 (V:H). 

Since the trend in lake levels between the 

1951/52 aerial photograph and 2010 was a drop 

in water level of 2.25 ft, and the former lakebed 

in 1951/52 is now exposed due to lower water 

level conditions, the nearshore slope was also 

calculated between the 570 and 580 ft contours 

for the shoreline between Michigan City and the 

Port of Indiana Industrial Complex. Based on 

the detailed LIDAR bathymetry, an average 

nearshore slope of 1:35 (V:H) was calculated. 

This slope (1:35) was used to correct the 

shoreline change transects described in the 

following paragraphs. 

To measure the change between these two 

shorelines, Baird has developed a tool that 

automates the process of measuring transects 

between the shorelines at a user defined interval 

(Zuzek et al, 2003) along a fixed baseline. For 

this study area, an interval of 66 feet was chosen, 

resulting in 1,450 transect lines measuring the 

difference in the shoreline position from 

1951/52 and 2010. The individual transects are 

coded with information such as length, angle 

and trend (erosion/accretion). The length of 

each individual transect was corrected in our 

spreadsheet to account for the lakeward 

position of the 2010 shoreline due to a lake level 

that was 2.25 feet lower than the conditions that 

existed in 1951/52. The corrected transect 

information was used to characterize the change 

in shoreline position at the individual transects 

and establish regional trends or reaches within 

the study limits. 

RESULTS 

The study area from Michigan City to Gary 

Indiana has been sub-divided into seven reaches 

based on the recorded long term shoreline 

change trends. The reach name, length, trend 

and average shoreline change rate is summarized 

in table 2 and visually in the figures attached at 

the end of this report. To note that the erosion 

transects are shown in red and the accretion 

transects are depicted in yellow. 

345
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

TABLE 2: SHORELINE REACHES AND LONG-TERM TREND (1951/52 TO 2010) 

Reach Name Approximate 

Length 

Trend 

1951/52 to 2010 

Average Shoreline 

Change Rate 

Michigan City 

A Mount Baldy Erosion Zone 11,300 ft Erosion 4.5 ft/yr 

B Beverly Shores to Dune Acres 42,600 ft Dynamically Stable n/a 

C 

Port of Indiana Industrial 

Complex Fillet Beach 7,700 ft Accretion 7.6 ft/yr 

Port of Indiana Industrial Complex 

D Burns Waterway Small Boat 

Harbor-Fillet Beach 3,900 Accretion 2.1 ft/yr 

E Town of Ogden Dunes 3,900 ft Erosion 2.7 ft/yr 

Gary Indiana / U.S. Steel 

F West Beach to Miller 15,100 ft Dynamically Stable n/a 

G Gary USX Steel Harbor-Fillet 

Beach 11,500 ft Accretion 5.1 ft/yr 

Notes: 

ft = feet 

ft/yr = feet per year 

U.S. = United States 

The shoreline transects for the study area are 

plotted in detail on a series of formatted map 

panels and attached to this report. Each map 

presents the 1951/52 photograph with the 

1951/52 and 2010 shorelines and the 2010 

photograph with the 1951/52 and 2010 

shorelines overlaid. On these maps, the 

shoreline position was not corrected. However, 

the individual transect measurements were 

corrected for the shoreline change rates 

reported in table 2 above. 

It is also worth noting that the 1971 shoreline is 

also included on the individual map tiles. The 

difference in the lake level from 1951/52 to 1971 

was 0.25 ft and thus the actual positions can be 

compared without a correction. This photo 

series was selected for the analysis since it 

corresponded closely to the post-construction 

era for the Port of Indiana and Gary. A summary 

of the shoreline change analysis results is 

presented as follows. 

Reach A: Downdrift of the Michigan City jetties 

and the steel sheet pile wall protecting the 

NIPSCO property, the Mount Baldy erosion 

zone extends approximately 2 miles. The longterm erosion rate for this reach is 4.5 ft/yr. 

Without the ongoing nourishment program, the 

erosion rate would be even higher. 

Reach B: This reach extends from the Beverly 

Shores community to the western limits of the 

Dune Acres, a total distance of 8 miles. Between 

1951/52 and present, once the transect 

measurements were corrected for lake level 

differences, the average rate of change was 

accretion of approximately 0.3 ft/yr (which is 

likely within the error limits of the analysis). The 

present waterline position is heavily influenced 

by the current period of low lake levels. Once 

high lake levels return, a considerable amount of 

this accreted beach will erode. Also, for many of 

the transects, the trend from 1951/52 and 1971 

was actually erosion. Therefore, this portion of 

the study area has been classified as dynamically 

stable. In other words, both periods of erosion 

and accretion have occurred and will occur in 

the future. The product of these shoreline 

fluctuations is a net change of close to zero. 

The dynamic nature of this shoreline is further 

highlighted by the 1951/52 to 2010 shoreline 

comparison for the Beverly Shores area. 

Although the beach has migrated lakeward from 

1951/52 to 2010, some of cottages that were 

346
Appendix C3: 1951/1952 to 2010 Shoreline Change Analysis 

located lakeward of the road are now gone. It is 

possible they were lost or damaged during the 

high lake period between early 1970 and late 

1990. The visible waterline in the 1971 photo 

series confirms that parts of the shoreline 

eroded during this period of high lake levels. 

Reach C: The updrift fillet beach at the Port of 

Indiana Industrial Complex is 1.5 miles in length 

and has been rapidly accreting since the port was 

constructed. The average accretion rate is 7.6 

ft/yr. Without the Port of Indiana Industrial 

Complex, this sediment would be spread along 

the beaches of Ogden Dunes to Marquette Park. 

Reach D: Since the construction of the jetties at 

the mouth of the Burns Waterway Small Boat 

Harbor, the relatively straight 1971 shoreline is 

re-aligned against the jetties. The average 

accretion rate from 1951/52 to 2010 is 2.1 ft/yr) 

for a distance of approximately 0.75 miles. 

However, based on the position of the 1971 

shoreline, it appears the sand in this sub-cell has 

just migrated into the present fillet beach (not a 

net gain to the sub-cell). 

Reach E: The beach fronting the Town of 

Ogden Dunes community has a long-term 

erosion rate of 2.7 ft/yr, which is attributed to 

the sediment starved conditions created by the 

Port of Indiana Industrial Complex. 

Reach F: Between the Port of Indiana Industrial 

Complex and Gary USX Steel Harbor, 2.8 miles 

of shoreline is classified as dynamically stable. 

Although the average transect change rate was 

accretion of 0.65 ft/yr, this rate of change is 

considered to be within the error of the analysis 

and is also highly influenced by the present low 

water conditions. The position of the 1971 

shoreline was very similar to the 1951/52 

conditions. The present wide beach conditions 

could change significantly during average or 

high lake levels. 

Reach G: The fillet beach adjacent to the Gary 

USX Steel Harbor-east breakwater is 2.2 miles in 

length and features an average accretion rate of 

5.1 ft/yr. A significant volume of sediment has 

accumulated in this region and this process will 

continue, especially if dredging around NIPSCO 

intake and mechanical bypassing continue. At 

some point in the future, sediment will migrate 

along the outer limit of the Gary USX Steel 

Harbor and some will accumulate in the 

navigation channel. 

USACE INDIANA SHORELINE 

MONITORING REPORT (2008) 

The USACE has been nourishing the shoreline 

downdrift of Michigan City since 1974. In 2008 a 

comprehensive monitoring report was prepared 

to review the shoreline evolution between 

Michigan City and the Port of Indiana using 

aerial photographs and beach profile surveys. 

The following bullet points highlight key 

findings relevant to the present investigation for 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore: 

 Between 1974 and 2004, nourishment 

was placed on the beach immediate east 

of Mount Baldy on 11 out of 30 years. A 

total of 925,000 cubic yards was placed 

from upland sources and sediment 

bypassed at Michigan City, for an annual 

average of approximately 30,800 cubic 

yards. 

 Baird’s (2004) sediment budget study 

determined there was a 105,000 cubic 

yard deficit at Mount Baldy due to the 

sand trapped at Michigan City. 

Therefore, despite the substantial effort 

to nourish the beaches downdrift of the 

harbor, erosion will continue until this 

deficit is substantially reduced. 

 Since the focus of the investigation was 

monitoring downdrift shoreline 

evolution following the beach 

nourishment, aerial photographs were 

analyzed from 1979, 2000 and 2005. A 2 

ft contour was derived from the 

photographs by digitizing the shoreline 

and adjusting the position landward or 

lakeward using a fixed beach slope. A 

fourth 2 ft contour was derived from a 

1997 SHOALS survey of the study area. 

 Shoreline change measurements were 

made of 400 ft intervals along a baseline 

from 1979 to 2005, then annualized as 

ft/yr. Qualitative descriptors were also 

generated for the measurements at 400 ft 

intervals. Figure 18 from the USACE 

report is reproduced in this report. 

 The shoreline change analysis generally 

identified similar trends to the results 

summarized in this report, with 

significant erosion fronting the Mount 

347
APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

Baldy dunes even in light of the beach 

nourishment and a large accretion zone 

to the east of the Port of 

Indiana/NIPSCO plant. For the central 

portion of the shoreline (Beverly Shores 

and State Park), the USACE report 

identified accretion rates ranging from 

“very slow” to “moderate” to a few 

isolated cases of “rapid”. The “rapid” 

classification appears to be attributed to 

sand waves moving along the coastline. 

The Baird analysis in this report for the 

central region concluded the shoreline 

was dynamically stable but it should be 

noted the duration of our analysis was 

much longer (1952/52 to 2010). From 

1951/52 to 1971 the shoreline actually 

eroded in some locations, which was 

part of the rationale for classifying this 

region as dynamically stable. It should 

also be noted when positional errors 

due to photo registration and digitizing 

the shorelines are considered, small 

rates of change actually fall within the 

error limits of the analysis. Refer to 

Zuzek et al. (2003). 

 Nine beach profiles offshore of Mount 

Baldy were analyzed from 1997 to 2005. 

Based on a 3 dimensional surface 

comparison of the raw point data, the 

net lakebed change was a small gain of 

0.1 ft (averaged across the entire area). 

Refer to the figure reproduced in this 

report. It should be noted that the 

change was not uniform, with significant 

accretion at the shoreline (0 to +6 ft). 

This accretion was likely attributed to 

both the beach nourishment program 

and the significant drop in lake levels 

from 1997 to 2005. Offshore of the 

beach, there are significant areas were 

lakebed erosion ranging from 1 to 4 feet 

were documented. As the lakebed in this 

region is presumed to be exposed glacial 

sediment (lacustrine clay), this erosion 

represents the permanent removal and 

lowering of the lake bottom. This 

finding is an important design 

consideration for developing long-term 

shoreline stabilization options for the 

park in the future. 

DREDGING AND BEACH 

NOURISHMENT SUMMARY 

Dredging and beach nourishment data in the 

project area has been compiled from various 

sources. This data, together with the shoreline 

evolution analysis, will provide useful 

information in support of the shoreline 

restoration alternatives. The dredging and beach 

nourishment records for Michigan City were 

assembled by the USACE-Chicago District from 

1920 to 2000. Data for Burns Harbor Waterway, 

Burns Small Boat Harbor and NIPSCO/Bailly 

Intake has been summarized from USACE from 

1980 to 2009. The Mount Baldy beach 

nourishment data has been assembled from both 

NPS and USACE data. 

Michigan City 

The historical records provided the year and 

volume of sediment removed from the lake bed, 

but the location of the dredging is not specified. 

Consequently, the location of the dredging is 

categorized as: inner harbor, outer harbor, 

combined inner and outer harbor or unknown. 

The results of this analysis are presented 

graphically for the period of 1920 to 2000 in 

figure 6. The individual colored symbols indicate 

the location of the dredging, while the green line 

is the cumulative yearly total, regardless of 

location. 

348

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL REFERENCES

The Beverly Shores area was nourished only 

between 1986 and 1999, with an average 

quantity of 52,000 cubic yards per dredging 

event. No other nourishment records were 

found. Table 3 shows a summary of the Burns 

Waterway, Small Boat Harbor, and 

NIPSCO/Bailly quantities dredged. 

TABLE 3: DREDGING SUMMARY FOR BURNS 

WATERWAY 

SMALL BOAT HARBOR (1980 TO 2009) 

Project Year Qty. (cyds) 

Burns Waterway Harbor 

2009 49,000 

2008 55,000 

2007 100,0000 

1996 266,000 

1986 67,000 

Burns Small Boat 

Harbor 

2009 80,000 

2000 143,000 

1985 59,000 

NIPSCO Intake 

(USACE Dredging) 

2009 110,000 

2008 105,000 

2007 228,000 

2006 30,000 

NIPSCO Intake 

(USACE Dredging) 

1999 165,000 

1997 146,000 

1995 118,000 

1992 209,000 

1989 288,000 

1986 320,000 

1982 218,000 

1980 275,000 

Total 3,3031,000 

Mount Baldy 

The beaches fronting Mount Baldy have been 

nourished since 1974. A total of 792,884 cubic 

yards have been trucked to the site from upland 

sources and placed on the beach. In addition, 

371,373 cubic yards of sediment dredged 

hydraulically from the Michigan City Harbor 

has been placed on the beach. When annualized, 

approximately 31,465 cubic yards of sand has 

been placed since 1974 as a long-term average 

quantity. To note this is a lot less than the 

calculated 105,000 cubic yards deficit needed 

due to the sand trapped at Michigan City. 

Therefore, despite the efforts to stabilize the 

shore, the beach and dune continue to erode at 

Mount Baldy. A summary of the Mount Baldy 

beach nourishment is presented in table 4. 

TABLE 4: BEACH NOURISHMENT FOR MOUNT BALDY 

(1974 TO 2008) 

Project Year 

Upland 

(Trucking) 

Qty. (cyds) 

Michigan 

City Harbor 

(Hydraulic 

Dredging) 

Qty. (cyds) 

Mount Baldy 

Beach 

Nourishment* 

2010 56250 

2008 17,273 30,159 

2007 17,273 

2005 9500 13,962 

2004 17,500 

2003 52,298 51,119 

2001 42,750 

2000 85,251 

1999 36,000 

1998 107,000 

1997 73,000 

1996 57,000 48,201 

1992 74,642 

1987 68,039 

1981 80,000 

1974 227,000 

Total 792,844 371,373 

Notes: 

cyds = cubic yards 

qty = quantity 

REFERENCES 

Baird 

2001 FEPS Development and Application 

to the Lake Michigan Potential 

Damages Study Prototype Counties. 

Prepared for the USACE, Detroit 

District. 

2004 Evaluation of Dredged Material 

Management Plans for Michigan 

City. Prepared for the USACE, 

Detroit District. 

350
Appendix C3: 1951/1952 to 2010 Shoreline Change Analysis 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Chicago District 

2010 Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana 

Shoreline Damage Mitigation 

Reconnaissance Study. 

Zuzek, P.J., R.B. Nairn, and S.J. Thieme 

2003 Spatial and Temporal 

Considerations for Calculating 

Shoreline Change Rates in the Great 

Lakes Basin. Journal of Coastal 

Research, Special Issue No. 38. 

351

























 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS 

D1: REACH 1 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST

D2: REACH 2 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST

D3: REACH 3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST

D4: REACH 4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST

D5: SUMMARY OF PARK PLANTS OF CONCERN

D6: PANNE WETLAND SPECIES TABLE

D7: PARK PLANTS OF CONCERN AND LIST OF SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE DUNE COMPLEX

D8: WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

D9: BIRD SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

D10: SUMMARY OF BENTHIC SPECIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN NEARSHORE

APPENDIX D1: REACH 1 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, 

AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST 

INDIANA COUNTY ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE SPECIES LIST FOR REACH 1 

LAPORTE COUNTY (CRESCENT DUNE TO LAKEFRONT DRIVE EAST/CENTRAL BEACH) 

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/ 

Notes 

Vascular Plants 

Arctostaphylos uvaursi 

bearberry, bearberry 

manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

SR Foredune complex, dune complex

Minuartia michauxii 

var. michauxii SR Prairie-dry, foredune complex

Aristida longespica 

var. geniculata SR

Aristida tuberculosa seaside threeawn SR

Symphyotrichum 

sericeum

western silver aster SR

Cornus rugosa

round-leaf dogwood, 

roundleaf dogwood SR

Corydalis 

sempervirens rock harlequin ST

Diervilla lonicera

northern bush 

honeysuckle, northern 

bush-honeysuckle

SR

Drosera intermedia spoonleaf sundew SR

Eleocharis 

melanocarpa blackfruit spikerush ST

Epigaea repens trailing arbutus WL

Equisetum 

variegatum

variegated horsetail, 

variegated scouringrush, variegated 

scouringrush

SE

Juncus balticus var.

littoralis Baltic rush SR

Juncus pelocarpus brownfruit rush SE

Juncus scirpoides needlepod rush ST

Juniperus communis 

var. depressa common juniper SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Lathyrus japonicus 

var. maritimus beach pea SE Foredune complex

Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid 

flax WL

Lycopodiella 

inundata inundated clubmoss SE

379
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/ 

Notes 

Myriophyllum 

pinnatum

cut-leaf water-milfoil, 

cutleaf watermilfoil, 

green parrotfeather

SE

Najas gracillima slender waternymph ST

Oenothera perennis little evening-primrose SR

Oryzopsis asperifolia

roughleaf ricegrass, 

white-grain mountainrice grass

SE

Piptatherum 

pungens

mountain ricegrass SX

Pinus banksiana

black pine, gray pine, 

hudson bay pine, jack 

pine, scrub pine

SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Pinus strobus

eastern white pine, 

eastern white pine, 

northern white pine, soft 

pine, weymouth pine, 

white pine

SR

Platanthera 

hyperborea

northern bogorchid, 

northern green orchid ST

Polygonella articulata coastal jointweed SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Polygonum careyi

carey's smartweed, 

Carey's smartweed, 

renouée de Carey

ST

Potamogeton friesii flat-stalk pondweed, 

Fries' pondweed ST

Potamogeton 

praelongus

white-stem pondweed, 

whitestem pondweed ST

Potamogeton pulcher heartleaf pondweed, 

spotted pondweed SE

Potamogeton 

pusillus

baby pondweed, small 

pondweed WL

Potamogeton 

robbinsii

Robbins pondweed, 

Robbins' pondweed SR

Potamogeton 

strictifolius

narrowleaf pondweed, 

straight-leaf pondweed ST

Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil ST Foredune complex

Prunus pensylvanica fire cherry, pin cherry SR

Rhynchospora 

scirpoides longbeak beaksedge ST

Pyrola americana American wintergreen SR

Clinopodium 

arkansanum limestone calamint SE

380
Appendix D1: Reach 1 Endangered, Threatened, 

and Rare Plant Species List

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/ 

Notes 

Sisyrinchium 

montanum

mountain blue-eyed 

grass, mountain 

blue-eyed grass, strict 

blue-eyed grass, strict 

blue-eyed-grass

SE

Solidago simplex var.

gillmanii

Deam's goldenrod, 

Rand's goldenrod ST Foredune complex, blowouts/open dunes

Sparganium 

androcladum

branched bur-reed, 

branched burreed, 

branching bur-reed

ST

Triantha glutinosa sticky tofieldia SR

Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort ST

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990) 

Notes: 

SX = state extirpated

SE = state endangered

ST = state threatened

SR = state rare

SRE = reintroduced

WL = watch list

381

APPENDIX D2: REACH 2 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, 

AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST 

INDIANA COUNTY ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE SPECIES LIST FOR REACH 2 

PORTER COUNTY (BEVERLY SHORES TO INDIANA DUNES SP) 

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Vascular Plant 

Arctostaphylos uvaursi 

bearberry, bearberry 

manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

SR

Minuartia michauxii 

var. michauxii Michaux's stitchwort SR Prairie-dry, foredune complex

Aristida longespica 

var. geniculata SR

Aristida tuberculosa seaside threeawn SR

Symphyotrichum 

sericeum

western silver aster SR

Carex aurea golden sedge, golden-fruit 

sedge SR

Carex eburnea bristle-leaf sedge, 

bristleleaf sedge SR

Carex garberi elk sedge, Garber's sedge ST

Chimaphila umbellata 

ssp. cisatlantica pipsissewa ST

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle, sand dune 

thistle LT ST

Foredune complex, confined 

to blowouts

Cornus rugosa 

round-leaf dogwood, 

roundleaf dogwood SR

Cyperus houghtonii Houghton's flatsedge SE

Dichanthelium 

portoricense Hemlock Witchgrass SR

Diervilla lonicera

northern bush 

honeysuckle, northern 

bush-honeysuckle

SR

Drosera intermedia spoonleaf sundew SR

Eleocharis 

melanocarpa blackfruit spikerush ST

Epigaea repens trailing arbutus WL

Chamaesyce 

polygonifolia

chamésyce à feuilles de 

renouée, seaside sandmat, 

seaside spurge

SR Foredune complex

Fuirena pumila dwarf umbrella-sedge, 

dwarf umbrellasedge ST

Geranium bicknellii Bicknell's cranesbill, 

northern crane's-bill SE

383
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Lipocarpha micrantha

dwarf bulrush, lipocarphe à 

petites fleurs, small-flower 

halfchaff sedge, 

smallflower halfchaff 

sedge, smallflower 

hemicarpha

SE

Hudsonia tomentosa

hudsonie tomenteuse, sand 

golden-heather, sandheather, woolly 

beachheather

ST

Juncus balticus var.

littoralis Baltic rush SR

Juncus pelocarpus brownfruit rush SE

Juncus scirpoides needlepod rush ST

Juniperus communis 

var. depressa common juniper SR

Dune complex, foredune

complex

Lathyrus japonicus 

var. maritimus beach pea SE

Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid 

flax WL

Ludwigia 

sphaerocarpa

globefruit primrose-willow, 

globefruit primrosewillow SE

Lycopodiella inundata inundated clubmoss SE

Myriophyllum 

pinnatum

cut-leaf water-milfoil, 

cutleaf watermilfoil, green 

parrotfeather

SE

Myriophyllum 

verticillatum

whorl-leaf watermilfoil, 

whorled water-milfoil, 

whorlleaf milfoil, whorlleaf 

watermilfoil

SR

Najas gracillima slender waternymph ST

Orobanche fasciculata

clustered broom-rape, 

clustered broomrape, 

purple broomrape, tufted 

broomrape

SE

Oryzopsis asperifolia roughleaf ricegrass, whitegrain mountain-rice grassSE

Piptatherum pungens mountain ricegrass SX

Piptatherum 

racemosum SR

Pinus banksiana

black pine, gray pine, 

hudson bay pine, jack pine, 

scrub pine

SR

Dune complex, foredune

complex

Pinus strobus

eastern white pine, eastern 

white pine, northern white 

pine, soft pine, weymouth 

pine, white pine

SR

Platanthera 

hyperborea

northern bogorchid, 

northern green orchid ST

384
Appendix D2: Reach 2 Endangered, Threatened, 

and Rare Plant Species List

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Polygala paucifolia gaywings SE

Polygonella articulata coastal jointweed SR

Dune complex, foredune

complex

Polygonum careyi

carey's smartweed, Carey's 

smartweed, renouée de 

Carey

ST

Polygonum 

hydropiperoides swamp smartweed ST

Potamogeton pulcher heartleaf pondweed, 

spotted pondweed SE

Potamogeton pusillus baby pondweed, small 

pondweed WL

Potamogeton 

richardsonii

red-head pondweed, 

Richardson pondweed, 

Richardson's pondweed

SR

Potamogeton 

strictifolius

narrowleaf pondweed, 

straight-leaf pondweed ST

Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil ST Foredune complex

Prunus pensylvanica fire cherry, pin cherry SR

Rhynchospora 

scirpoides longbeak beaksedge ST

Pyrola americana American wintergreen SR

Rhus aromatica var.

arenaria fragrant sumac SR

Rhynchospora 

macrostachya tall horned beaksedge SR

Salix cordata heartleaf willow ST Foredune complex

Schoenoplectus hallii Hall's bulrush SE

Scirpus purshianus 

var. purshianus weakstalk bulrush SR

Selaginella rupestris

ledge spike-moss, 

northern selaginella, rock 

spikemoss

ST

Sisyrinchium 

montanum

mountain blue-eyed grass, 

mountain blueeyed grass, 

strict blue-eyed grass, 

strict blue-eyed-grass

SE

Solidago ptarmicoides

prairie goldenrod, upland 

white aster, verge-d'or 

faux-ptarmica, white flattop goldenrod

SR

Solidago simplex var.

gillmanii

Deam's goldenrod, Rand's 

goldenrod ST

Foredune complex, blowouts/

open dunes

Sparganium 

androcladum

branched bur-reed, 

branched burreed, 

branching bur-reed

ST

Spiranthes 

magnicamporum

Great Plains ladies'-tresses, 

Great Plains ladiestresses SE

385
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Talinum 

rugospermum

prairie fameflower ST

Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort ST

Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort ST

Zannichellia palustris

horned pondweed, horned 

poolmat, hornedpondweed

SR

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990) 

Notes: 

LT = federally listed threatened

SX = state extirpated

SE = state endangered

ST = state threatened

SR = state rare

SRE = reintroduced

WL = watch list

386
APPENDIX D3: REACH 3 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, 

AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST 

INDIANA COUNTY ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE SPECIES LIST FOR REACH 3 

PORTER COUNTY (DUNES ACRES/BAILLY TO PORTAGE LAKEFRONT PARK/OGDEN DUNES) 

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations 

Vascular Plants 

Arctostaphylos uvaursi 

bearberry, bearberry 

manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

SR Portage Lakefront Park, located along 

Burns Ditch. Population in decline

Minuartia michauxii 

var. michauxii Michaux's stitchwort SR Prairie-dry, foredune complex

Aristida longespica 

var. geniculata SR

Aristida tuberculosa seaside threeawn SR

Symphyotrichum 

sericeum

western silver aster SR

Carex aurea golden sedge, golden-fruit 

sedge SR

Carex eburnea bristle-leaf sedge, 

bristleleaf sedge SR

Carex garberi elk sedge, Garber's sedge ST

Chimaphila umbellata 

ssp. cisatlantica pipsissewa ST

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle, sand dune 

thistle LT ST Confined to blowout at Bailly 

Cornus rugosa 

round-leaf dogwood, 

roundleaf dogwood SR

Cyperus houghtonii Houghton's flatsedge SE

Dichanthelium 

portoricense Hemlock Witchgrass SR

Diervilla lonicera northern bush honeysuckle, 

northern bush-honeysuckle SR

Drosera intermedia spoonleaf sundew SR

Eleocharis 

melanocarpa blackfruit spikerush ST

Epigaea repens trailing arbutus WL

Chamaesyce 

polygonifolia

chamésyce à feuilles de 

renouée, seaside sandmat, 

seaside spurge

SR Foredune complex

Fuirena pumila dwarf umbrella-sedge, 

dwarf umbrellasedge ST

Geranium bicknellii Bicknell's cranesbill, 

northern crane's-bill SE

387
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations 

Lipocarpha micrantha

dwarf bulrush, lipocarphe à 

petites fleurs, small-flower 

halfchaff sedge, 

smallflower halfchaff 

sedge, smallflower 

hemicarpha

SE

Hudsonia tomentosa

hudsonie tomenteuse, sand 

golden-heather, sandheather, woolly 

beachheather

ST

Juncus balticus var.

littoralis Baltic rush SR

Juncus pelocarpus brownfruit rush SE

Juncus scirpoides needlepod rush ST

Juniperus communis 

var. depressa common juniper SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Lathyrus japonicus 

var. maritimus beach pea SE

Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid 

flax WL

Ludwigia 

sphaerocarpa

globefruit primrose-willow, 

globefruit primrosewillow SE

Lycopodiella inundata inundated clubmoss SE

Myriophyllum 

pinnatum

cut-leaf water-milfoil, 

cutleaf watermilfoil, green 

parrotfeather

SE

Myriophyllum 

verticillatum

whorl-leaf watermilfoil, 

whorled water-milfoil, 

whorlleaf milfoil, whorlleaf 

watermilfoil

SR

Najas gracillima slender waternymph ST

Orobanche fasciculata

clustered broom-rape, 

clustered broomrape, 

purple broomrape, tufted 

broomrape

SE

Oryzopsis asperifolia roughleaf ricegrass, whitegrain mountain-rice grassSE

Piptatherum pungens mountain ricegrass SX

Piptatherum 

racemosum SR Unique to West Beach

Pinus banksiana

black pine, gray pine, 

hudson bay pine, jack pine, 

scrub pine

SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Pinus strobus

eastern white pine, eastern 

white pine, northern white 

pine, soft pine, weymouth 

pine, white pine

SR

Platanthera 

hyperborea

northern bogorchid, 

northern green orchid ST

388
Appendix D3: Reach 3 Endangered, Threatened, 

and Rare Plant Species List

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations 

Polygala paucifolia gaywings SE

Polygonella articulata coastal jointweed SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Polygonum careyi

carey's smartweed, Carey's 

smartweed, renouée de 

Carey

ST

Polygonum 

hydropiperoides swamp smartweed ST

Potamogeton pulcher heartleaf pondweed, 

spotted pondweed SE

Potamogeton pusillus baby pondweed, small 

pondweed WL

Potamogeton 

richardsonii

red-head pondweed, 

Richardson pondweed, 

Richardson's pondweed

SR

Potamogeton 

strictifolius

narrowleaf pondweed, 

straight-leaf pondweed ST

Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil ST Foredune complex

Prunus pensylvanica fire cherry, pin cherry SR

Rhynchospora 

scirpoides longbeak beaksedge ST

Pyrola americana American wintergreen SR

Rhus aromatica var.

arenaria fragrant sumac SR

Rhynchospora 

macrostachya tall horned beaksedge SR

Salix cordata heartleaf willow ST Foredune complex

Schoenoplectus hallii Hall's bulrush SE

Scirpus purshianus 

var. purshianus weakstalk bulrush SR

Selaginella rupestris ledge spike-moss, northern 

selaginella, rock spikemoss ST

Sisyrinchium 

montanum

mountain blue-eyed grass, 

mountain blueeyed grass, 

strict blue-eyed grass, 

strict blue-eyed-grass

SE

Solidago ptarmicoides

prairie goldenrod, upland 

white aster, verge-d'or 

faux-ptarmica, white flattop goldenrod

SR

Solidago simplex var.

gillmanii

Deam's goldenrod, Rand's 

goldenrod ST

Foredune complex, blowouts/open 

dunes, Portage Lakefront Park 

population

Sparganium 

androcladum

branched bur-reed, 

branched burreed, 

branching bur-reed

ST

Spiranthes 

magnicamporum

Great Plains ladies'-tresses, 

Great Plains ladiestresses SE

389
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations 

Talinum 

rugospermum

prairie fameflower ST

Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort ST

Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort ST

Zannichellia palustris

horned pondweed, horned 

poolmat, hornedpondweed

SR

Selaginella apoda

meadow spike-moss, 

meadow spikemoss, 

sélaginelle apode

WL

Shepherdia canadensis russet buffalo-berry, russet 

buffaloberry SX

Triantha glutinosa sticky tofieldia SR

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990) 

Notes: 

LT = federally listed threatened

SX = state extirpated

SE = state endangered

ST = state threatened

SR = state rare

SRE = reintroduced

WL = watch list

390
APPENDIX D4: REACH 4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, 

AND RARE PLANT SPECIES LIST 

INDIANA COUNTY ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE SPECIES LIST FOR REACH 4 

PORTER AND LAKE COUNTIES (WEST BEACH TO MILLER UNIT) 

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU locations/Notes 

Vascular Plants 

Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's false foxglove ST

Arctostaphylos uvaursi 

bearberry, bearberry 

manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

SR

Minuartia michauxii 

var. michauxii Michaux's stitchwort SR Prairie-dry, foredune complex

Aristida longespica 

var. geniculata SR

Aristida tuberculosa seaside threeawn SR

Symphyotrichum 

sericeum

western silver aster SR

Carex aurea golden sedge, golden-fruit 

sedge SR Unique to Miller unit

Carex crawei crawe sedge, Crawe's sedge ST

Carex eburnea

bristle-leaf sedge, 

bristleleaf sedge SR Unique to West Beach

Carex garberi elk sedge, Garber's sedge ST

Ceanothus herbaceus

céanothe à feuilles étroites, 

inland ceanothus, Jersey 

tea, prairie redroot

SE

Chimaphila umbellata 

ssp. cisatlantica pipsissewa ST Extremely rare at West Beach

Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle, sand dune 

thistle LT ST

Foredune complex, confined to 

blowouts

Cornus rugosa 

round-leaf dogwood, 

roundleaf dogwood SR

Corydalis sempervirens rock harlequin ST

Cyperus houghtonii Houghton's flatsedge SE

Dichanthelium 

portoricense Hemlock Witchgrass SR

Diervilla lonicera northern bush honeysuckle, 

northern bush-honeysuckle SR

Drosera intermedia spoonleaf sundew SR

Eleocharis microcarpa smallfruit spikerush Unique to West Beach

Eleocharis 

melanocarpa blackfruit spikerush ST Unique to West Beach

Epigaea repens trailing arbutus WL

Equisetum variegatum

variegated horsetail, 

variegated scouring-rush, 

variegated scouringrush

SE Unique to Miller unit

391
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU locations/Notes 

Chamaesyce 

polygonifolia

chamésyce à feuilles de 

renouée, seaside sandmat, 

seaside spurge

SR

Foredune complex, declining in 

beach area throughout

Fuirena pumila dwarf umbrella-sedge, 

dwarf umbrellasedge ST

Geranium bicknellii Bicknell's cranesbill, 

northern crane's-bill SE

Glyceria borealis

northern mannagrass, small 

floating manna grass, small 

floating mannagrass

SE

Lipocarpha micrantha

dwarf bulrush, lipocarphe à 

petites fleurs, small-flower 

halfchaff sedge, smallflower 

halfchaff sedge, smallflower 

hemicarpha

SE

Hudsonia tomentosa

hudsonie tomenteuse, sand 

golden-heather, sandheather, woolly 

beachheather

ST

Juncus balticus var.

littoralis Baltic rush SR

Juncus pelocarpus brownfruit rush SE

Juncus scirpoides needlepod rush ST

Juniperus communis 

var. depressa common juniper SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Lathyrus japonicus var.

maritimus beach pea SE

Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid flax WL

Ludwigia sphaerocarpa globefruit primrose-willow, 

globefruit primrosewillow SE

Lycopodiella inundata inundated clubmoss SE

Myriophyllum 

pinnatum

cut-leaf water-milfoil, 

cutleaf watermilfoil, green 

parrotfeather

SE

Myriophyllum 

verticillatum

whorl-leaf watermilfoil, 

whorled water-milfoil, 

whorlleaf milfoil, whorlleaf 

watermilfoil

SR Unique to Miller unit

Najas gracillima slender waternymph ST

Oenothera perennis little evening-primrose SR

Orobanche fasciculata

clustered broom-rape, 

clustered broomrape, 

purple broomrape, tufted 

broomrape

SE

Oryzopsis asperifolia roughleaf ricegrass, whitegrain mountain-rice grassSE

Piptatherum pungens mountain ricegrass SX

392
Appendix D4: Reach 4 Endangered, Threatened, 

and Rare Plant Species List

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU locations/Notes 

Piptatherum 

racemosum SR Unique to West Beach

Pinus banksiana

black pine, gray pine, 

hudson bay pine, jack pine, 

scrub pine

SR

Foredune complex, located around 

pannes

Pinus strobus

eastern white pine, eastern 

white pine, northern white 

pine, soft pine, weymouth 

pine, white pine

SR

Platanthera hyperborea northern bogorchid, 

northern green orchid ST

Platanthera lacera green fringed orchid WL

Polygala paucifolia gaywings SE

Polygonella articulata coastal jointweed SR Dune complex, foredune complex

Polygonum careyi

carey's smartweed, Carey's 

smartweed, renouée de 

Carey

ST

Polygonum 

hydropiperoides swamp smartweed ST

Potamogeton pulcher heartleaf pondweed, 

spotted pondweed SE Unique to Miller unit

Potamogeton pusillus baby pondweed, small 

pondweed WL

Potamogeton 

richardsonii

red-head pondweed, 

Richardson pondweed, 

Richardson's pondweed

SR

Potamogeton robbinsii Robbins pondweed, 

Robbins' pondweed SR

Potamogeton 

strictifolius

narrowleaf pondweed, 

straight-leaf pondweed ST

Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil ST Foredune complex

Dasiphora floribunda shrubby cinquefoil Unique to Miller unit (pannes)

Prunus pensylvanica fire cherry, pin cherry SR

Rhynchospora 

scirpoides longbeak beaksedge ST

Pyrola americana American wintergreen SR

Rhus aromatica var.

arenaria fragrant sumac SR

Rhynchospora 

macrostachya tall horned beaksedge SR

Rubus flagellaris northern dewberry, 

whiplash dewberry SE

Salix cordata heartleaf willow ST Foredune complex

Clinopodium 

arkansanum limestone calamint SE

Schoenoplectus hallii Hall's bulrush SE

393
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU locations/Notes 

Scirpus purshianus var.

purshianus weakstalk bulrush SR

Selaginella apoda

meadow spike-moss, 

meadow spikemoss, 

sélaginelle apode

WL

Selaginella rupestris ledge spike-moss, northern 

selaginella, rock spikemoss ST

Shepherdia canadensis russet buffalo-berry, russet 

buffaloberry SX

Sisyrinchium 

montanum

mountain blue-eyed grass, 

mountain blueeyed grass, 

strict blue-eyed grass, strict 

blue-eyed-grass

SE

Solidago ptarmicoides

prairie goldenrod, upland 

white aster, verge-d'or 

faux-ptarmica, white flattop goldenrod

SR

Solidago simplex var.

gillmanii

Deam's goldenrod, Rand's 

goldenrod ST

Foredune complex, blowouts/open 

dunes

Sparganium 

androcladum

branched bur-reed, 

branched burreed, 

branching bur-reed

ST

Spiranthes 

magnicamporum

Great Plains ladies'-tresses, 

Great Plains ladiestresses SE

Talinum rugospermum prairie fameflower ST

Triantha glutinosa sticky tofieldia SR

Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort ST

Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort ST

Zannichellia palustris horned pondweed, horned 

poolmat, horned-pondweed SR

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990) 

Notes: 

LT = federally listed threatened

LE = federally listed endangered

SX = state extirpated

SE = state endangered

ST = state threatened

SR = state rare

SRE = reintroduced

WL = watch list

394
APPENDIX D5: SUMMARY OF PARK PLANTS OF CONCERN

Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal Status Common 

Name 

ITIS Common 

Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare 

Lathyrus 

japonicus 

glaber

Lathyrus 

japonicus var.

maritimus

Jul Foredune

complex Endangered beach pea beach pea Vine Perennial Fabac

Arctostaphylos 

uva-ursi 

coactilis

Arctostaphylos 

uva-ursi 

Apr 

May 

Jun

Foredune

complex, dune

complex

Rare bearberry

bearberry, 

bearberry 

manzanita, 

kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

Shrub Perennial Ericac

Arenaria stricta

Minuartia 

michauxii 

var. michauxii

May 

Jun 

Jul

Prairie dry, 

foredune

complex

Rare

stiff 

sandwort

Michaux's 

stitchwort Forb Annual,Perennial Caryo

Euphorbia 

polygonifolia

Chamaesyce 

polygonifolia

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune

complex Rare

seaside 

spurge

chamésyce à 

feuilles 

de renouée, 

seaside 

sandmat, 

seaside 

spurge

Forb Annual Eupho

Juniperus 

communis 

depressa

Juniperus 

communis var.

depressa

Dune complex,

foredune

complex

Rare common 

juniper

common 

juniper

Shrub Perennial Cupre

Pinus 

banksiana

Pinus 

banksiana

Dune complex,

foredune

complex

Rare jack pine

black pine, 

gray pine, 

hudson bay 

pine, jack 

pine, scrub 

pine

Tree Perennial Pinace

Polygonella 

articulata

Polygonella 

articulata

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Dune complex, 

foredune

complex

Rare jointweed

coastal 

jointweed Forb Annual Polygo

395
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal Status Common 

Name 

ITIS Common 

Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Rhus aromatica 

var arenaria

Rhus 

aromatica var.

arenaria

Foredune

complex, 

savanna 

complex

Rare fragrant 

sumac

fragrant 

sumac Shrub Perennial Anaca

Cirsium 

pitcheri

Cirsium 

pitcheri

Jun 

Jul

Foredune

complex Threatened Threatened sand thistle

Pitcher's 

thistle, sand 

dune thistle

Forb Perennial Astera

Potentilla 

anserina

Argentina 

anserina

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune

complex Threatened silverweed silverweed cinquefoil Forb Perennial Rosac

Salix 

syrticola(FC) 

indianaCordata

Salix cordata

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul

Foredune

complex Threatened dune willow

heartleaf 

willow Shrub Perennial Salicac

Solidago 

racemosa

gillmani

Solidago 

simplex var.

gillmanii

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov

Pannes, 

foredune

complex

Threatened

dune 

goldenrod

Deam's 

goldenrod, 

Rand's 

goldenrod

Forb Perennial Astera

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990)

396
APPENDIX D6: PANNE WETLAND SPECIES TABLE

INDU LIST OF PANNE WETLAND SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE EARLY 2000S IN NUTRIENT 

POOR SAND BASED WETLANDS AT WEST BEACH; OGDEN DUNES; MILLER

APRIL 2011

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

West Beach 

Acer rubrum Acer rubrum red maple

Agalinis purpurea Agalinis purpurea purple false foxglove

Ailanthus altissima Ailanthus altissima ailanthus, copal tree, tree of heaven, tree-ofheaven

Amaranthus hybridus Amaranthus hybridus green pigweed, slim amaranth, smooth 

amaranth, smooth pigweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ambrosia artemisiifolia

annual ragweed, common ragweed, low 

ragweed, ragweed, Roman wormwood, short 

ragweed, small ragweed

Amelanchier sp.

(A. arborea/A. laevis)

Amelanchier sp. 

(A. arborea/A. laevis) serviceberry

Ammophila breviligulata Ammophila breviligulata American beachgrass

Andropogon scoparius Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem

Anemone cylindrica Anemone cylindrica candle anemone, cottonweed

Arabis lyrata Arabis lyrata lyrate rockcress

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi coactilis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry, bearberry manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

Aristida intermedia Aristida longespica var.

geniculata slimspike threeawn

Aristida purpurascens Aristida purpurascens arrowfeather threeawn

Aristida tuberculosa Aristida tuberculosa seaside threeawn

Artemisia caudata Artemisia campestris ssp.

caudata

field sagewort, field wormwood, Pacific 

wormwood

Asclepias incarnata Asclepias incarnata rose milkweed, swamp milkweed

Asclepias syriaca Asclepias syriaca broadleaf milkweed, common milkweed

Asclepias verticillata Asclepias verticillata eastern whorled milkweed, whorled milkweed

Aster dumosus Symphyotrichum dumosum rice button aster

Aster lateriflorus Symphyotrichum lateriflorum calico aster

Aster novae-angliae Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England aster

Aster ptarmicoides 

(Solidago ptarmicoides) Solidago ptarmicoides prairie goldenrod, upland white aster, verged'or faux-ptarmica, white flat-top goldenrod

Aster simplex Symphyotrichum lanceolatum white panicle aster

Berberis thunbergii Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry

Bidens spp. Bidens spp. beggartick, beggarticks, devil's sticktight, 

Spanish needles

Cakile edentula Cakile edentula American searocket

Calamagrostis canadensis Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint, bluejoint reedgrass

Calamovilfa longifolia Calamovilfa longifolia var. magna prairie sandreed

Campylium sp. (moss) Campylium sp. campylium moss

397
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Carex garberi Carex garberi elk sedge, Garber's sedge

Carex viridula Carex viridula green sedge, little green sedge

Celastrus orbiculatus Celastrus orbiculatus Asian bittersweet, Asiatic bittersweet, 

oriental bittersweet, tsuru-ume-mo-doki

Cephalanthus occidentalis Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush, common buttonbush

Chara spp. Chara spp. muskgrass, stonewort, muskwort

Cirsium arvense Cirsium arvense Californian thistle, Canada thistle, Canadian 

thistle, creeping thistle, field thistle

Cladium mariscoides Cladium mariscoides smooth sawgrass

Corispermum hyssopifolium Corispermum americanum American bugseed

Cornus obliqua Cornus obliqua silky dogwood

Cornus stolonifera Cornus sericea redosier, redosier dogwood

Cotoneaster sp. (C. acutifolia?) Cotoneaster sp. (C. acutifolius?) cononeaster (Peking cotoneaster?)

Cycloloma atriplicifolium Cycloloma atriplicifolium tumble ringwing, winged pigweed, wingedpigweed

Cyperus erythrorhizos Cyperus erythrorhizos red-root flat sedge, redroot flatsedge, 

redroot nutgrass

Cyperus ferruginescens Cyperus odoratus fragrant flatsedge, rusty flat sedge

Cyperus rivularis Cyperus bipartitus brook flatsedge, shining flat sedge, slender 

flatsedge

Cyperus strigosus Cyperus strigosus

stawcolored flatsedge, strawcolor flatsedge, 

strawcolor nutgrass, strawcolored flatsedge, 

strawcolored nutgrass

Daucus carota Daucus carota bird's nest, Queen Anne's lace, wild carrot

Dryopteris thelypteris / T. 

palustris

Thelypteris palustris var.

pubescens

eastern marsh fern

Echinochloa crusgalli Echinochloa crus-galli

barnyard grass, barnyardgrass, cockspur, 

Japanese millet, large barnyard grass, 

watergrass

Eleocharis compressa Eleocharis compressa flat-stem spike-rush, flatstem spikerush, 

flatstemmed spikesedge

Eleocharis elliptica Eleocharis elliptica elliptic spikerush

Eleocharis geniculata Eleocharis geniculate Canada spikesedge

Eleocharis olivacea Eleocharis flavescens var.

olivacea

bright green spikerush

Eleocharis pauciflora Eleocharis quinqueflora few-flower spike-rush, few-flower spikerush, 

fewflower spikerush, fewflowered spikesedge

Epilobium coloratum Epilobium coloratum purple-leaf willowherb, purpleleaf 

willowherb, willowweed

Equisetum hyemale Equisetum hyemale

horsetail, scouring horsetail, scouringrush, 

scouringrush horsetail, tall scouring-rush, 

western scouringrush

Equisetum variegatum Equisetum variegatum variegated horsetail, variegated scouringrush, variegated scouringrush

Equisetum x ferrissii Equisetum x ferrissii ferris horsetail, Ferriss' horsetail

Eragrostis spectabilis Eragrostis spectabilis petticoat-climber, purple lovegrass

Erechtites hieracifolia Erechtites hieraciifolius American burnweed, burnweed

398
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Erigeron canadensis Conyza Canadensis

Canada horseweed, Canadian horseweed, 

horseweed, horseweed fleabane, mares tail, 

marestail

Eupatorium altissimum Eupatorium altissimum tall joepyeweed, tall thoroughwort

Eupatorium maculatum Eutrochium maculatum eupatoire maculée, spotted joepyeweed

Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset, Chapman's thoroughwort, common 

boneset

Eupatorium serotinum Eupatorium serotinum late eupatorium, lateflowering thoroughwort

Euphorbia corollata Euphorbia corollata flowering spurge, floweringspurge euphorbia

Fragaria virginiana Fragaria virginiana thickleaved wild strawberry, Virginia 

strawberry, wild strawberry

Fraxinus sp. Fraxinus sp. ash

Galium pilosum Galium pilosum hairy bedstraw

Gentiana crinita Gentianopsis crinita fringed gentian, greater fringed gentian, 

greater fringed-gentian

Gnaphalium sp. Pseudognaphalium sp. cudweed, false cudweed, pseudognaphalium

Habenaria hyperborea Platanthera hyperborea northern bogorchid, northern green orchid

Helianthus petiolaris Helianthus petiolaris prairie sunflower, showy sunflower

Hypericum kalmianum Hypericum kalmianum kalm's st. john's-wort, Kalm's St. Johnswort, 

millepertuis de Kalm

Juncus alpinus Juncus alpinoarticulatus northern green rush

Juncus articulatus Juncus articulatus jointed rush, jointleaf rush

Juncus balticus Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic rush

Juncus brachycephalus Juncus brachycephalus small-head rush, smallhead rush

Juncus nodosus Juncus nodosus jointed rush, knotted rush

Juncus torreyi Juncus torreyi torrey rush, Torrey's rush

Juniperus communis Juniperus communis var.

depressa

common juniper

Juniperus virginiana Juniperus virginiana

eastern red-cedar, eastern redcedar, 

genévrier rouge, red cedar juniper

Leersia oryzoides Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass, rice cutgrass

Liatris aspera Liatris aspera rough gayfeather, tall blazing star, tall 

gayfeather

Linum medium Linum medium var. texanum stiff yellow flax, sucker flas

Linum striatum Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid flax

Liparis loeselii Liparis loeselii yellow wide-lip orchid, yellow widelip orchid

Lobelia kalmii Lobelia kalmii brook lobelia, Ontario lobelia

Lonicera sp. Lonicera sp. honeysuckle

Lycopus americanus Lycopus americanus

American bugleweed, American water 

horehound, American waterhorehound, cutleaf water-horehound, water horehound, 

waterhorehound

Lycopus uniflorus Lycopus uniflorus bugleweed, northern bugleweed, northern 

water-horehound, oneflower bugleweed

Lythrum salicaria Lythrum salicaria

purple loosestrife, purple loosestrife or 

lythrum, purple lythrum, rainbow weed, 

salicaire, spiked loosestrife

399
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Mahonia repens Mahonia repens creeping barberry, creeping mahonia, oregon 

grape, Oregongrape, trunkee barberry

Maianthemum canadense interius Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower, false lily-of-the-valley, 

twoleaved Solomonseal

Melilotus alba Melilotus alba white sweetclover

Morus alba (often just seedlings) Morus alba mulberry, white mulberry

Oenothera biennis Oenothera biennis

common evening primrose, common 

evening-primrose, common 

eveningprimrose, evening primrose 

(common), hoary eveningprimrose, king'scureall

Opuntia humifusa Opuntia humifusa devil's-tongue, Nopal del este, pricklypear

Panicum capillare Panicum capillare

annual witchgrass, common panic grass, 

common witchgrass, panicgrass, ticklegrass, 

tumble panic, tumbleweed grass, witches 

hair, witchgrass

Panicum implicatum Dichanthelium acuminatum 

var. acuminatum

tapered rosette grass

Panicum virgatum Panicum virgatum old switch panic grass, switchgrass

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Parthenocissus quinquefolia American ivy, fiveleaved ivy, Virginia creeper, 

woodbine

Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass, reed canarygrass

Phragmites australis Phragmites australis common reed

Pinus banksiana Pinus banksiana black pine, gray pine, hudson bay pine, jack 

pine, scrub pine

Plantago rugelii Plantago rugelii black-seed plantain, blackseed plantain, 

Rugel's plantain

Poa compressa Poa compressa Canada bluegrass, flat-stem blue grass

Pogonia ophioglossoides Pogonia ophioglossoides snake-mouth orchid, snakemouth orchid

Polygonum hydropiperoides Polygonum hydropiperoides swamp smartweed

Polygonum lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium

curltop ladysthumb, curlytop knotweed, 

curlytop smartweed, dock-leaf smartweed, 

nodding smartweed, pale smartweed, 

smartweed

Polygonum pensylvanicum Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania knotweed, Pennsylvania 

smartweed, pinkweed, pinweed

Polygonum persicaria Polygonum persicaria

lady's-thumb, ladysthumb, ladysthumb 

smartweed, smartweed, spotted knotweed, 

spotted ladysthumb, spotted smartweed

Polygonum punctatum Polygonum punctatum dotted smartweed

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides common cottonwood, cottonwood, eastern 

cottonwood, plains cottonwood

Potamogeton sp. (P. 

div.,gram.,ill.)

Potamogeton sp. (P. diversifolius; 

P. gramineus; P. illinoensis)

pondweed (waterthread, waterthread 

pondweed; grassy pondweed, variableleaf 

pondweed; illinois pondweed, Illinois 

pondweed, potamot de l'Illinois)

Potentilla anserina Argentina anserina silverweed cinquefoil

400
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Potentilla simplex Potentilla simplex common cinquefoil, oldfield cinquefoil, 

oldfield fivefingers, spreading cinquefoil

Proserpinaca palustris crebra Proserpinaca palustris var. crebra marsh mermaidweed

Prunus pumila Prunus pumila sand cherry, sandcherry

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry, chokecherry (common), 

common chokecherry, Virginia chokecherry

Ptelea trifoliata Ptelea trifoliata var. mollis common hoptree

Quercus velutina Quercus velutina black oak

Rhamnus frangula Frangula alnus glossy buckthorn

Rhus aromatica Rhus aromatica var. arenaria fragrant sumac

Rhus typhina Rhus hirta staghorn sumac

Rhynchospora capillacea Rhynchospora capillacea horned beakrush, needle beaksedge

Robinia pseudoacacia Robinia pseudoacacia black locust, false acacia, yellow locust

Rubus sp. (seedlings) Rubus sp. blackberry, brambles, framboises, ronces

Rudbeckia hirta Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan, blackeyed Susan

Sabatia angularis Sabatia angularis rosepink, squarestem rosegentian

Salix fragilis Salix fragilis crack willow

Salix glaucophylloides Salix myricoides var. myricoides bayberry willow

Salix interior Salix interior sandbar willow

Salix syrticola Salix cordata heartleaf willow

Salsola kali Salsola kali prickly Russian thistle, Russian thistle, 

tumbleweed

Sassafras albidum Sassafras albidum sassafras

Scirpus acutus Schoenoplectus acutus var.

acutus

hardstem bulrush, Tule bulrush

Scirpus pungens (S. amer.) Schoenoplectus pungens var.

pungens

common threesquare

Scirpus validus Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani great bulrush, soft-stem bulrush, softstem 

bulrush

Scleria verticillata Scleria verticillata low nutrush

Scutellaria lateriflora Scutellaria lateriflora blue skullcap, mad dog skullcap

Senecio pauperculus Packera paupercula balsam groundsel

Silene cucubalus Silene vulgaris

bladder campion, bladder silene, cowbell, 

maiden's tears, maiden's-tears, 

maidenstears, rattleweed

Smilacina stellata Maianthemum stellatum

false Solomon's seal, little false Solomon'sseal, star false Solomon's-seal, star-flower 

Solomon's-seal, starry false lily of the valley, 

starry false Solomon's seal, starry false 

Solomon's-seal, starry Solomon's-seal

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara

bitter nightshade, bittersweet nightshade, 

blue nightshade, climbing nightshade, 

European bittersweet, fellenwort, woody 

nightshade

Solidago altissima Solidago altissima ssp. altissima Canada goldenrod, late goldenrod

Solidago caesia Solidago caesia wreath goldenrod

Solidago gigantea Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod

401
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Solidago graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-top goldentop, flattop goldentop, 

slender goldentop

Solidago nemoralis Solidago nemoralis dyersweed goldenrod, gray goldenrod

Solidago racemosa Solidago simplex var. gillmanii Deam's goldenrod, Rand's goldenrod

Solidago rugosa Solidago rugosa wrinkleleaf goldenrod

Sonchus sp. Sonchus sp. sow thistle, sowthistle

Sonchus uliginosus Sonchus arvensis ssp. uliginosus

field sow-thistle, field sowthistle, marsh 

sowthistle, moist sowthistle, perennial 

sowthistle, sowthistle

Spiranthes cernua Spiranthes cernua nodding ladies'-tresses, nodding 

ladiestresses, white nodding ladies'-tresses

Taraxacum sp. Taraxacum sp. dandelion

Thuidium sp. (fern-moss) Thuidium sp. thuidium moss

Toxicodendron radicans Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy, poison ivy, poisonivy

Tradescantia ohiensis Tradescantia ohiensis bluejacket, Ohio spiderwort

Triglochin maritimum Triglochin maritimum arrowgrass, seaside arrow-grass, seaside 

arrowgrass, shore arrowgrass

Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia narrow-leaf cat-tail, narrowleaf cattail

Typha x hybrid Typha x glauca white cattail

Ulmus seedling Ulmus sp. elm

Utricularia cornuta Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort

Utricularia subulata Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort

Verbascum thapsus Verbascum thapsus

big taper, common mullein, flannel mullein, 

flannel plant, great mullein, mullein, velvet 

dock, velvet plant, woolly mullein

Verbena hastata Verbena hastata blue verbena, blue vervain, Simpler's-joy, 

swamp verbena

Viburnum opulus Viburnum opulus var. opulus European cranberrybush

Vitis riparia Vitis riparia river-bank grape, riverbank grape

Yucca smalliana Yucca flaccida weak-leaf yucca

Miller 

Agalinis purpurea Agalinis purpurea purple false foxglove

Agrostis alba Agrostis gigantea black bent, redtop, water bentgrass

Ailanthus altissima Ailanthus altissima ailanthus, copal tree, tree of heaven, tree-ofheaven

Alisma subcordatum Alisma subcordatum alisma subcorde, American water plantain, 

southern water plantain, waterplaintain

Andropogon scoparius Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem

Apocynum sibiricum Apocynum cannabinum

common dogbane, dogbane, hemp dogbane, 

Indian hemp, Indian-hemp, Indianhemp, 

prairie dogbane

Arabis lyrata Arabis lyrata lyrate rockcress

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi coactilis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry, bearberry manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

Aristida intermedia Aristida longespica var.

geniculata

slimspike threeawn

402
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Artemisia caudata Artemisia campestris ssp.

caudata

field sagewort, field wormwood, Pacific 

wormwood

Asclepias incarnata Asclepias incarnata rose milkweed, swamp milkweed

Asclepias syriaca Asclepias syriaca broadleaf milkweed, common milkweed

Asparagus officinalis Asparagus officinalis asparagus, garden asparagus, gardenasparagus

Aster azureus Symphyotrichum oolentangiense skyblue aster

Aster dumosus Symphyotrichum dumosum rice button aster

Aster ptarmicoides (Solidago) Solidago ptarmicoides prairie goldenrod, upland white aster, verged'or faux-ptarmica, white flat-top goldenrod

Berberis thunbergii Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry

Bidens vulgata Bidens vulgata big devil's beggartick, tall beggarticks, 

western sticktight

Calamagrostis canadensis Calamagrostis canadensis bluejoint, bluejoint reedgrass

Calamovilfa longifolia Calamovilfa longifolia var. magna prairie sandreed

Carex comosa Carex comosa longhair sedge

Carex viridula Carex viridula green sedge, little green sedge

Celastrus orbiculatus Celastrus orbiculatus Asian bittersweet, Asiatic bittersweet, 

oriental bittersweet, tsuru-ume-mo-doki

Cephalanthus occidentalis Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush, common buttonbush

Chara spp. Chara spp. muskgrass, stonewort, muskwort

Cirsium arvense Cirsium arvense Californian thistle, Canada thistle, Canadian 

thistle, creeping thistle, field thistle

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle, common thistle, spear thistle

Cladium mariscoides Cladium mariscoides smooth sawgrass

Corispermum hyssopifolium Corispermum americanum American bugseed

Cornus obliqua Cornus obliqua silky dogwood

Cornus stolonifera Cornus sericea redosier, redosier dogwood

Cyperus erythrorhizos Cyperus erythrorhizos red-root flat sedge, redroot flatsedge, 

redroot nutgrass

Cyperus ferruginescens Cyperus odoratus fragrant flatsedge, rusty flat sedge

Cyperus rivularis Cyperus bipartitus brook flatsedge, shining flat sedge, slender 

flatsedge

Dryopteris thelypteris / T. 

palustris

Thelypteris palustris var.

pubescens

eastern marsh fern

Dulichium arundinaceum Dulichium arundinaceum threeway sedge

Eleocharis compressa Eleocharis compressa flat-stem spike-rush, flatstem spikerush, 

flatstemmed spikesedge

Eleocharis elliptica Eleocharis elliptica elliptic spikerush

Eleocharis erythropoda Eleocharis erythropoda bald spike-rush, bald spikerush, spikesedge

Eleocharis olivacea Eleocharis flavescens var.

olivacea

bright green spikerush

Epilobium ciliatum Epilobium ciliatum fringed willowherb, hairy willowherb, hairy 

willowweed

403
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Equisetum hyemale Equisetum hyemale

horsetail, scouring horsetail, scouringrush, 

scouringrush horsetail, tall scouring-rush, 

western scouringrush

Equisetum variegatum Equisetum variegatum variegated horsetail, variegated scouringrush, variegated scouringrush

Equisetum x ferrissii Equisetum x ferrissii ferris horsetail, Ferriss' horsetail

Erechtites hieracifolia Erechtites hieraciifolius American burnweed, burnweed

Eupatorium altissimum Eupatorium altissimum tall joepyeweed, tall thoroughwort

Eupatorium maculatum Eutrochium maculatum eupatoire maculée, spotted joepyeweed

Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset, Chapman's thoroughwort, common 

boneset

Eupatorium serotinum Eupatorium serotinum late eupatorium, lateflowering thoroughwort

Euphorbia corollata Euphorbia corollata flowering spurge, floweringspurge euphorbia

Fragaria virginiana Fragaria virginiana thickleaved wild strawberry, Virginia 

strawberry, wild strawberry

Fraxinus sp. Fraxinus sp. ash

Gentiana crinita Gentianopsis crinita fringed gentian, greater fringed gentian, 

greater fringed-gentian

Hypericum kalmianum Hypericum kalmianum kalm's st. john's-wort, Kalm's St. Johnswort, 

millepertuis de Kalm

Hypericum majus Hypericum majus greater Canadian St. John's-wort, large St 

Johnswort, large St. Johnswort

Iris virginica Iris virginica Virginia iris

Juncus alpinus Juncus alpinoarticulatus northern green rush

Juncus balticus Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic rush

Juncus brachycephalus Juncus brachycephalus small-head rush, smallhead rush

Juncus canadensis Juncus canadensis Canadian rush

Juncus nodosus Juncus nodosus jointed rush, knotted rush

Juniperus communis Juniperus communis common juniper, dwarf juniper, genévrier 

commun

Juniperus virginiana Juniperus virginiana

eastern red-cedar, eastern redcedar, 

genévrier rouge, red cedar juniper

Leersia oryzoides Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass, rice cutgrass

Lemna sp. (most likely L. minor) Lemna sp. (most likely L. minor) duckweed (most likely common duckweed, 

least duckweed, lesser duckweed)

Liatris aspera Liatris aspera rough gayfeather, tall blazing star, tall 

gayfeather

Linum medium Linum medium var. texanum stiff yellow flax, sucker flas

Linum striatum Linum striatum ridged yellow flax, rigid flax

Lithospermum croceum Lithospermum caroliniense var.

croceum

Carolina puccoon

Lobelia kalmii Lobelia kalmii brook lobelia, Ontario lobelia

Lonicera sp. Lonicera sp. honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica Lonicera tatarica bush honeysuckle, Tartarian honeysuckle, 

Tatarian honeysuckle

404
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Lycopus americanus Lycopus americanus

American bugleweed, American water 

horehound, American waterhorehound, cutleaf water-horehound, water horehound, 

waterhorehound

Lycopus rubellus Lycopus rubellus taperleaf bugleweed, taperleaf water 

horehound

Lycopus uniflorus Lycopus uniflorus bugleweed, northern bugleweed, northern 

water-horehound, oneflower bugleweed

Lythrum alatum Lythrum alatum wing-angle loosestrife, winged lythrum

Lythrum salicaria Lythrum salicaria

purple loosestrife, purple loosestrife or 

lythrum, purple lythrum, rainbow weed, 

salicaire, spiked loosestrife

Mimulus ringens Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkey-flower, Allegheny 

monkeyflower, ringen monkeyflower

Muhlenbergia mexicana Muhlenbergia mexicana Mexican muhly

Nuphar advena Nuphar lutea ssp. advena yellow pond-lily, yellow pondlily

Panicum capillare Panicum capillare

annual witchgrass, common panic grass, 

common witchgrass, panicgrass, ticklegrass, 

tumble panic, tumbleweed grass, witches 

hair, witchgrass

Panicum implicatum Dichanthelium acuminatum var.

acuminatum

tapered rosette grass

Panicum virgatum Panicum virgatum old switch panic grass, switchgrass

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Parthenocissus quinquefolia American ivy, fiveleaved ivy, Virginia creeper, 

woodbine

Pedicularis lanceolata Pedicularis lanceolata swamp lousewort

Phragmites australis Phragmites australis common reed

Pinus banksiana Pinus banksiana black pine, gray pine, hudson bay pine, jack 

pine, scrub pine

Polygonum amphibium Polygonum amphibium water knotweed, water smartweed

Polygonum hydropiperoides Polygonum hydropiperoides swamp smartweed

Polygonum lapathifolium Polygonum lapathifolium

curltop ladysthumb, curlytop knotweed, 

curlytop smartweed, dock-leaf smartweed, 

nodding smartweed, pale smartweed, 

smartweed

Polygonum persicaria Polygonum persicaria

lady's-thumb, ladysthumb, ladysthumb 

smartweed, smartweed, spotted knotweed, 

spotted ladysthumb, spotted smartweed

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides common cottonwood, cottonwood, eastern 

cottonwood, plains cottonwood

Populus tremuloides Populus tremuloides quaking aspen

Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton crispus curly pondweed, curly-leaved pondweed

Potamogeton robbinsii Potamogeton robbinsii Robbins pondweed, Robbins' pondweed

Potamogeton sp. (P. 

div.,gram.,ill.)

Potamogeton sp. (P. diversifolius; 

P. gramineus; P. illinoensis)

pondweed (waterthread, waterthread 

pondweed; grassy pondweed, variableleaf 

pondweed; illinois pondweed, Illinois 

pondweed, potamot de l'Illinois)

Proserpinaca palustris crebra Proserpinaca palustris var. crebra marsh mermaidweed

405
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Prunus pumila Prunus pumila sand cherry, sandcherry

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry, chokecherry (common), 

common chokecherry, Virginia chokecherry

Ptelea trifoliata Ptelea trifoliata var. mollis common hoptree

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium Pycnanthemum tenuifolium narrowleaf mountainmint, narrowleaf 

mountianmint

Pycnanthemum virginianum Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia mountain-mint, Virginia 

mountainmint, Virginia mountianmint

Quercus palustris Quercus palustris pin oak

Quercus velutina Quercus velutina black oak

Rhus aromatica Rhus aromatica var. arenaria fragrant sumac

Rhynchospora capillacea Rhynchospora capillacea horned beakrush, needle beaksedge

Rosa palustris Rosa palustris swamp rose

Rudbeckia hirta Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan, blackeyed Susan

Sabatia angularis Sabatia angularis rosepink, squarestem rosegentian

Salix glaucophylloides Salix myricoides var. myricoides bayberry willow

Salix interior Salix interior sandbar willow

Salix nigra Salix nigra black willow

Salix syrticola Salix cordata heartleaf willow

Satureja arkansana Clinopodium arkansanum limestone calamint

Scirpus acutus Schoenoplectus acutus var.

acutus

hardstem bulrush, Tule bulrush

Scirpus pungens (S. amer.) Schoenoplectus pungens var.

pungens

common threesquare

Scirpus validus Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani great bulrush, soft-stem bulrush, softstem 

bulrush

Scleria verticillata Scleria verticillata low nutrush

Scutellaria epilobifolia Scutellaria galericulata hooded skullcap, marsh scullcap, marsh 

skullcap

Senecio pauperculus Packera paupercula balsam groundsel

Smilacina stellata Maianthemum stellatum

false Solomon's seal, little false Solomon'sseal, star false Solomon's-seal, star-flower 

Solomon's-seal, starry false lily of the valley, 

starry false Solomon's seal, starry false 

Solomon's-seal, starry Solomon's-seal

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara

bitter nightshade, bittersweet nightshade, 

blue nightshade, climbing nightshade, 

European bittersweet, fellenwort, woody 

nightshade

Solidago altissima Solidago altissima ssp. altissima Canada goldenrod, late goldenrod

Solidago gigantea Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod

Solidago graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-top goldentop, flattop goldentop, 

slender goldentop

Solidago nemoralis Solidago nemoralis dyersweed goldenrod, gray goldenrod

Sorghastrum nutans Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass, yellow indian-grass

Sphagnum sp. Sphagnum sp. sphagnum

406
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Spiranthes cernua Spiranthes cernua nodding ladies'-tresses, nodding 

ladiestresses, white nodding ladies'-tresses

Toxicodendron radicans Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy, poison ivy, poisonivy

Triglochin maritimum Triglochin maritimum arrowgrass, seaside arrow-grass, seaside 

arrowgrass, shore arrowgrass

Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia narrow-leaf cat-tail, narrowleaf cattail

Typha x hybrid Typha x glauca white cattail

Ulmus pumila Ulmus pumila Chinese elm, Siberian elm

Utricularia cornuta Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort

Utricularia gibba Utricularia gibba conespur bladderpod, humped bladderwort

Utricularia vulgaris Utricularia macrorhiza common bladderpod, common bladderwort, 

greater bladderwort

Vitis riparia Vitis riparia river-bank grape, riverbank grape

Xanthium strumarium Xanthium strumarium

Canada cocklebur, cocklebur, cockleburr, 

common cocklebur, rough cocklebur, rough 

cockleburr

Ogden Dunes 

Agalinis purpurea Agalinis purpurea purple false foxglove

Ammophila breviligulata Ammophila breviligulata American beachgrass

Andropogon scoparius Schizachyrium scoparium little bluestem

Arabis lyrata Arabis lyrata lyrate rockcress

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi coactilis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi bearberry, bearberry manzanita, kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

Artemisia caudata Artemisia campestris ssp. 

caudata

field sagewort, field wormwood, Pacific 

wormwood

Aster dumosus Symphyotrichum dumosum rice button aster

Aster ptarmicoides (Solidago) Solidago ptarmicoides prairie goldenrod, upland white aster, verged'or faux-ptarmica, white flat-top goldenrod

Aster simplex Symphyotrichum lanceolatum white panicle aster

Berberis thunbergii Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry

Calamovilfa longifolia Calamovilfa longifolia var. magna prairie sandreed

Campylium sp. (moss) Campylium sp. campylium moss

Carex viridula Carex viridula green sedge, little green sedge

Celastrus orbiculatus Celastrus orbiculatus Asian bittersweet, Asiatic bittersweet, 

oriental bittersweet, tsuru-ume-mo-doki

Chara spp. Chara spp. muskgrass, stonewort, muskwort

Cirsium vulgare Cirsium vulgare bull thistle, common thistle, spear thistle

Cladium mariscoides Cladium mariscoides smooth sawgrass

Corispermum hyssopifolium Corispermum americanum American bugseed

Cornus stolonifera Cornus sericea redosier, redosier dogwood

Cyperus rivularis Cyperus bipartitus brook flatsedge, shining flat sedge, slender 

flatsedge

Daucus carota Daucus carota bird's nest, Queen Anne's lace, wild carrot

Eleocharis elliptica Eleocharis elliptica elliptic spikerush

Eleocharis geniculata Eleocharis geniculata Canada spikesedge

407
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Eleocharis pauciflora Eleocharis quinqueflora few-flower spike-rush, few-flower spikerush, 

fewflower spikerush, fewflowered spikesedge

Equisetum variegatum Equisetum variegatum variegated horsetail, variegated scouringrush, variegated scouringrush

Equisetum x ferrissii Equisetum x ferrissii ferris horsetail, Ferriss' horsetail

Erigeron canadensis Conyza canadensis

Canada horseweed, Canadian horseweed, 

horseweed, horseweed fleabane, mares tail, 

marestail

Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset, Chapman's thoroughwort, common 

boneset

Fimbristylis autumnalis Fimbristylis autumnalis slender fimbry

Fragaria virginiana Fragaria virginiana thickleaved wild strawberry, Virginia 

strawberry, wild strawberry

Gentiana crinita Gentianopsis crinita fringed gentian, greater fringed gentian, 

greater fringed-gentian

Helianthus petiolaris Helianthus petiolaris prairie sunflower, showy sunflower

Hemicarpha micrantha Lipocarpha micrantha

dwarf bulrush, lipocarphe à petites fleurs, 

small-flower halfchaff sedge, smallflower 

halfchaff sedge, smallflower hemicarpha

Hypericum kalmianum Hypericum kalmianum kalm's st. john's-wort, Kalm's St. Johnswort, 

millepertuis de Kalm

Juncus alpinus Juncus alpinoarticulatus northern green rush

Juncus balticus Juncus balticus var. littoralis Baltic rush

Juncus brachycephalus Juncus brachycephalus small-head rush, smallhead rush

Juncus nodosus Juncus nodosus jointed rush, knotted rush

Juniperus communis Juniperus communis common juniper, dwarf juniper, genévrier 

commun

Juniperus virginiana Juniperus virginiana

eastern red-cedar, eastern redcedar, 

genévrier rouge, red cedar juniper

Lechea tenuifolia Lechea tenuifolia narrowleaf pinweed

Lemna sp. (most likely L. minor) Lemna sp. (most likely L. minor) duckweed (most likely common duckweed, 

least duckweed, lesser duckweed)

Lobelia kalmii Lobelia kalmii brook lobelia, Ontario lobelia

Lycopus americanus Lycopus americanus

American bugleweed, American water 

horehound, American waterhorehound, cutleaf water-horehound, water horehound, 

waterhorehound

Lycopus uniflorus Lycopus uniflorus bugleweed, northern bugleweed, northern 

water-horehound, oneflower bugleweed

Lythrum salicaria Lythrum salicaria

purple loosestrife, purple loosestrife or 

lythrum, purple lythrum, rainbow weed, 

salicaire, spiked loosestrife

Mahonia repens Mahonia repens creeping barberry, creeping mahonia, oregon 

grape, Oregongrape, trunkee barberry

Morus alba (often just seedlings) Morus alba mulberry, white mulberry

Nepeta cataria Nepeta cataria catmint, catnip, catwort, field balm

408
Appendix D6: Panne Wetland Species Table

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Oenothera biennis Oenothera biennis

common evening primrose, common 

evening-primrose, common 

eveningprimrose, evening primrose 

(common), hoary eveningprimrose, king'scureall

Opuntia humifusa Opuntia humifusa devil's-tongue, Nopal del este, pricklypear

Panicum implicatum Dichanthelium acuminatum var.

acuminatum

tapered rosette grass

Panicum virgatum Panicum virgatum old switch panic grass, switchgrass

Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass, reed canarygrass

Phragmites australis Phragmites australis common reed

Pinus banksiana Pinus banksiana black pine, gray pine, hudson bay pine, jack 

pine, scrub pine

Populus deltoides Populus deltoides common cottonwood, cottonwood, eastern 

cottonwood, plains cottonwood

Prunus virginiana Prunus virginiana chokecherry, chokecherry (common), 

common chokecherry, Virginia chokecherry

Ptelea trifoliata Ptelea trifoliata var. mollis common hoptree

Quercus velutina Quercus velutina black oak

Rhynchospora capillacea Rhynchospora capillacea horned beakrush, needle beaksedge

Rosa multiflora Rosa multiflora multiflora rose

Rosa palustris Rosa palustris swamp rose

Rubus sp. (seedlings) Rubus sp. blackberry, brambles, framboises, ronces

Sabatia angularis Sabatia angularis rosepink, squarestem rosegentian

Salix discolor Salix discolor pussy willow

Salix fragilis Salix fragilis crack willow

Salix glaucophylloides Salix myricoides var. myricoides bayberry willow

Salix interior Salix interior sandbar willow

Salsola kali Salsola kali prickly Russian thistle, Russian thistle, 

tumbleweed

Sassafras albidum Sassafras albidum sassafras

Scirpus acutus Schoenoplectus acutus var.

acutus

hardstem bulrush, Tule bulrush

Scirpus pungens (S. amer.) Schoenoplectus pungens var.

pungens

common threesquare

Scirpus validus Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani great bulrush, soft-stem bulrush, softstem 

bulrush

Scleria verticillata Scleria verticillata low nutrush

Senecio pauperculus Packera paupercula balsam groundsel

Smilacina stellata Maianthemum stellatum

false Solomon's seal, little false Solomon'sseal, star false Solomon's-seal, star-flower 

Solomon's-seal, starry false lily of the valley, 

starry false Solomon's seal, starry false 

Solomon's-seal, starry Solomon's-seal

409
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS) Name Common Name 

Solanum dulcamara Solanum dulcamara

bitter nightshade, bittersweet nightshade, 

blue nightshade, climbing nightshade, 

European bittersweet, fellenwort, woody 

nightshade

Solidago altissima Solidago altissima ssp. altissima Canada goldenrod, late goldenrod

Solidago gigantea Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod

Solidago graminifolia Euthamia graminifolia flat-top goldentop, flattop goldentop, 

slender goldentop

Solidago nemoralis Solidago nemoralis dyersweed goldenrod, gray goldenrod

Solidago rugosa Solidago rugosa wrinkleleaf goldenrod

Sonchus uliginosus Sonchus arvensis ssp. uliginosus

field sow-thistle, field sowthistle, marsh 

sowthistle, moist sowthistle, perennial 

sowthistle, sowthistle

Triglochin maritimum Triglochin maritimum arrowgrass, seaside arrow-grass, seaside 

arrowgrass, shore arrowgrass

Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia narrow-leaf cat-tail, narrowleaf cattail

Utricularia cornuta Utricularia cornuta horned bladderwort

Utricularia subulata Utricularia subulata zigzag bladderwort

Viburnum opulus Viburnum opulus var. opulus European cranberrybush

SOURCE: Prepared by Daniel Mason, NPS

Note: 

For the most part nomenclature follow Flora of Chicago; however a few names may reflect recent changes per the Flora of 

North America. 

410
APPENDIX D7: PARK PLANTS OF CONCERN AND LIST OF SPECIE

OCCURRING IN THE DUNE COMPLEX

Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare 

Lathyrus 

japonicus 

glaber

Lathyrus 

japonicus var.

maritimus

Jul Foredune complex Endangered beach pea beach pea Vine Perennial Fabace

Arctostaphylos 

uva-ursi 

coactilis

Arctostaphylos 

uva-ursi 

Apr 

May 

Jun

Foredune 

complex, dune 

complex

Rare bearberry

bearberry, bearberry 

manzanita, 

kinnikinnick, 

mealberry

Shrub Perennial Ericace

Arenaria stricta

Minuartia 

michauxii var.

michauxii 

May 

Jun 

Jul

Prairie dry, 

foredune complex Rare stiff sandwort Michaux's stitchwort Forb Annual, Perennial Caryop

Euphorbia 

polygonifolia

Chamaesyce 

polygonifolia

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune complex Rare seaside spurge

chamésyce à feuilles 

de renouée, seaside 

sandmat, seaside 

spurge

Forb Annual Eupho

Juniperus 

communis 

depressa

Juniperus 

communis var.

depressa

Dune complex,

foredune complex Rare common juniper common juniper Shrub Perennial Cupre

Pinus 

banksiana 

Pinus 

banksiana 

Dune complex, 

foredune complex Rare jack pine

black pine, gray 

pine, hudson bay 

pine, jack pine, 

scrub pine

Tree Perennial Pinace

Polygonella 

articulata

Polygonella 

articulata

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Dune complex, 

foredune complex Rare jointweed coastal jointweed Forb Annual Polygo

Rhus aromatica 

var arenaria

Rhus aromatica 

var. arenaria 

Foredune 

complex, savanna

complex

Rare fragrant sumac fragrant sumac Shrub Perennial Anaca

Cirsium 

pitcheri

Cirsium 

pitcheri

Jun 

Jul Foredune complex Threatened Threatened sand thistle Pitcher's thistle, sand dune thistle Forb Perennial Astera

411
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Potentilla 

anserina 

Argentina 

anserina 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune complex Threatened silverweed

silverweed 

cinquefoil Forb Perennial Rosace

Salix 

syrticola(FC) 

indianaCordata

Salix cordata

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul

Foredune complex Threatened dune willow heartleaf willow Shrub Perennial Salicac

Solidago 

racemosa 

gillmani

Solidago 

simplex var.

gillmanii

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov

Pannes, foredune 

complex Threatened dune goldenrod Deam's goldenrod, Rand's goldenrod Forb Perennial Astera

Desirable Beach Plant Assemblage (would also include E. polygonifoilia) 

Arabis lyrata Arabis lyrata

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex, savanna

complex

No status sand cress lyrate rockcress Forb Annual Brassic

Artemisia 

caudata 

Artemisia 

campestris 

ssp. caudata 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex

No status

beach 

wormwood

field sagewort, field 

wormwood, Pacific 

wormwood

Forb Biennial Astera

Cakile edentula Cakile edentula

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Foredune complex No status sea rocket American searocket Forb Annual Brassic

Corispermum 

hyssopifolium

Corispermum 

americanum 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex

No status common 

bugseed American bugseed Forb Annual Cheno

Cycloloma 

atriplicifolium

Cycloloma 

atriplicifolium

Jul 

Aug 

Sep

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex, savanna

complex

No status winged 

pigweed

tumble ringwing, 

winged pigweed, 

winged-pigweed

Forb Annual Cheno

List of Species (native and non-native) Occurring in the Beach/Dune Complex (not including wetlands/pannes) 

Ammophila 

breviligulata

Ammophila 

breviligulata Foredune complex No status marram grass

American 

beachgrass Graminoid Perennial Poacea

412
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Andropogon 

scoparius 

Schizachyrium 

scoparium 

Prairie wet, prairie

dry, foredune

complex

No status

little bluestem 

grass

little bluestem Graminoid Perennial Poacea

Asclepias 

viridiflora

Asclepias 

viridiflora

Jun 

Jul

Foredune 

complex, prairie

dry, dist dry

No status short green 

milkweed

green antelopehorn 

milkweed, green 

comet milkweed, 

green milkweed

Forb Perennial Asclep

Calamovilfa 

longifolia

Calamovilfa 

longifolia var.

magna

Dist dry, dune 

complex, foredune 

complex

No status sand reed prairie sandreed Graminoid Perennial Poacea

Carex tonsa

Carex tonsa 

var. tonsa 

Foredune complex No status sedge shaved sedge Graminoid Perennial Cypera

Carex 

umbellata 

Carex 

umbellata Foredune complex No status hairy false early sedge parasol sedge Graminoid Perennial Cypera

Celastrus 

orbiculatus 

Celastrus 

orbiculatus 

Dune complex, 

savanna complex No status

oriental 

bittersweet

Asian bittersweet, 

Asiatic bittersweet, 

oriental bittersweet, 

tsuru-ume-modoki

Shrub Perennial Celast

Celastrus 

scandens 

Celastrus 

scandens 

May 

Jun

Dist-dry, 

Foredune 

complex, savanna

complex

No status climbing 

bittersweet

American 

bittersweet, 

staffvine, waxwork

Shrub Perennial Celast

Centaurea 

maculosa 

Centaurea 

stoebe ssp.

micranthos 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sept 

Oct

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex, savanna

complex

No status spotted 

knapweed spotted knapweed Forb Perennial Astera

Cirsium 

arvense 

Cirsium 

arvense 

Dune complex, 

Savanna complex No status Canada thistle

Californian thistle, 

Canada thistle, 

Canadian thistle, 

creeping thistle, 

field thistle

Forb Perennial Astera

413
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Cynoglossum 

officinale

Cynoglossum 

officinale Foredune No status hound's tongue

common 

houndstongue, 

gypsy-flower, 

gypsyflower, 

hound's tongue, 

houndstongue 

Forb Bi-annual Boragi

Diervilla 

lonicera

Diervilla 

lonicera

Dune complex, 

savanna complex No status

bush 

honeysuckle 

northern bush 

honeysuckle, 

northern bushhoneysuckle

Shrub Perennial Caprif

Elymus 

canadensis 

Elymus 

canadensis 

Foredune 

complex, dune

complex

No status Canada wild rye Canada wildrye Graminoid Perennial Poacea

Helianthus 

petiolaris

Helianthus 

petiolaris

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov

Dist dry, dune 

complex, foredune

complex

No status petioled 

sunflower 

prairie sunflower, 

showy sunflower Forb Perennial Astera

Juniperus 

virginiana 

crebra

Juniperus 

virginiana 

Foredune 

complex, dune 

complex

No status

eastern red 

cedar

eastern red-cedar, 

eastern redcedar, 

genévrier rouge, red 

cedar juniper

Tree Perennial Pinace

Leymus 

arenarius 

Leymus 

arenarius 

Foredune complex No status lyme grass sand ryegrass Graminoid Perennial Poacea

Lithospermum 

croceum

Lithospermum 

caroliniense 

var. croceum

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Foredune 

complex, dist dry No status hairy puccoon Carolina puccoon Forb Perennial Boragi

Melilotus 

officinalis

Melilotus 

officinalis

Dune complex, 

savanna complex No status sweet clover yellow sweet-clover, yellow sweetclover Forb Perennial Fabeac

414
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Oenothera 

biennis 

Oenothera 

biennis 

Jun 

Jul 

Aug 

Sep 

Oct

Savanna complex, 

dune complex, 

dist dry, foredune

complex

No status

common 

evening 

primrose

common evening 

primrose, common 

evening-primrose, 

common 

eveningprimrose, 

evening primrose 

(common), hoary 

eveningprimrose, 

king's-cureall 

Forb Biennial Onagr

Opuntia 

humifusa 

Opuntia 

humifusa 

Jun 

Jul

Savanna complex, 

dune complex, 

foredune complex

No status prickly pear

devil's-tongue, 

Nopal del este, 

pricklypear

Forb Perennial Cactac

Populus 

candicans X 

jackii

Populus 

candicans X 

jackii

Apr 

May 

Foredune complex No status

balm-ofGilead, Jack’s 

poplar

balm-of-Gilead, 

Jack’s poplar

Populus 

deltoides

Populus 

deltoides

Apr 

May 

Foredune 

complex, No status cottonwood

common 

cottonwood, 

cottonwood, eastern 

cottonwood, plains 

cottonwood

Tree Perennial Salicac

Populus nigra 

italica Populus nigra Foredune complex No status lombardy 

poplar

black cottonwood, 

black poplar, 

Lombardy poplar, 

Lombardy's poplar

Tree Perennial Salicac

Populus X 

jackii

Populus x 

jackii Foredune complex No status balm-of-Gilead balm-of-Gilead Tree Perennial Salicac

Prunus pumila Prunus pumila

Apr 

May 

Jun

Foredune 

complex, savanna 

complex

No status sand cherry sand cherry, 

sandcherry Shrub Perennial Rosace

Ptelea trifoliata 

mollis

Ptelea trifoliata 

var. mollis Jun

Dune complex, 

foredune complex No status

wafer ash, hop 

tree common hoptree Shrub Perennial Rutace

Pteridium 

aquilinum 

latiusculum 

Pteridium 

aquilinum var.

latiusculum 

Foredune 

complex, dune 

complex, savanna

complex

No status bracken fern

bracken, bracken 

fern, northern 

bracken fern, 

western brackenfern

Fern Perennial Polypo

415
Species ITIS Name Flowering Habitat State Status Federal 

Status Common Name ITIS Common Name(s) 

Growth 

Form Life Cycle F

Rhamnus 

cathartica

Rhamnus 

cathartica

Foredune 

complex, dune 

complex, savanna

complex

No status buckthorn

carolina buckthorn, 

common buckthorn, 

European 

buckthorn, 

European waythorn, 

Hart's thorn, 

nerprun cathartique

Tree Perennial Rhamn

Robinia 

pseudoacacia 

Robinia 

pseudoacacia 

Foredune 

complex, dune 

complex, savanna

complex

No status black locust black locust, false 

acacia, yellow locust Tree Perennial Fabeac

Smilax 

lasioneura 

Smilax 

lasioneura 

Apr 

May 

Jun

Foredune No status common 

carrion flower

Blue Ridge carrionflower, Blue Ridge 

carrionflower, 

smilax

Forb Perennial Liliace

Solidago 

nemoralis 

Solidago 

nemoralis 

Aug 

Sep

Prairie dry, dune 

complex, savanna

complex, foredune

complex

No status

old field 

goldenrod

dyersweed 

goldenrod, gray 

goldenrod

Forb Perennial Astera

Sporobolus 

cryptandrus

Sporobolus 

cryptandrus

Foredune 

complex, dist dry, 

savanna complex

No status sand dropseed sand dropseed Graminoid Perennial Poacea

Triplasis 

purpurea 

Triplasis 

purpurea 

Prairie dry, 

foredune complex, 

dune complex

No status sand grass purple sand grass, 

purple sandgrass Graminoid Annual Poacea

SOURCE: IDNR (2011); Wilhelm (1990)

416
APPENDIX D8: WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Amphibians 

Acris crepitans 

crepitans

Northern cricket 

frog SSC marshes/streams/lakes

Ambystoma 

laterale

Blue-spotted 

salamander SSC woodlands with sandy soil

Hemidactylium 

scutatum

Four-toed 

salamander SE bogs/woodland ponds/swamps

Necturus 

maculosus 

maculosus

Common 

mudpuppy SSC large lakes and streams

Lethobates pipiens Northern leopard 

frog SSC bogs/marshes/shallow ponds

Reptiles 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle SE marshes/bogs/lakes/wooded ponds

Clonophis 

kirtlandii Kirtlands's snake SE wet grassy areas along wetlands

Emydoidea 

blandingii Blanding's turtle SE primary aquatic/marsh

Opheodrys vernalis Smooth green 

snake SE sandy oak woods/tall grass prairie

Sistrurus catenatus 

catenatus

Eastern 

massasauga

C SE marshes/fens/lake margins/dry prairie/old 

fields/swamp

Thamnophis 

proximus 

proximus

Western ribbon 

snake SSC wetlands

Mammals 

Condylura cristata 

cristata

Star-nosed mole SSC bog/fen/other wetlands (muck lands)

Lasionycteris 

notivagans

Silver-haired bat SSC roosts in cracks of trees/forages over water

Lasiurus borealis Red bat SSC roosts in foliage of trees/forges in open habitats

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat No 

Status

SSC roosts in foliage of trees/forges in open habitats

Lontra canadensis 

canadensis River otter SSC large lakes and streams

Lynx rufus rufus Bobcat

No 

Status SSC mixed habitats

Mustela nivalis 

rixosa

Least weasel SSC woods/grasslands/hedgerows/pond edges

Myotis lucifugus Little brown 

myotis

SSC roosts in buildings and hollow trees/forages over 

water

Myotis 

septentrionalis Northern myotis SSC

roosts in cracks and under bark in trees/forages in 

woodlots

417
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/Notes 

Myotis sodalis Indiana myotis LE SE roosts in cracks and under bark in trees/forages at 

edge of woodlots

Nycticeius 

humeralis Evening bat SE roosts in buildings and hollow trees/forages in woodlots and open habitats

Pipistrellus 

subflavus Tricolored bat SSC roosts in buildings and tree foliage/forages in woodlots and open habitats

Sorex hoyi hoyi Pygmy shrew SSC bogs/marshes/hardwood forest (must have moist 

soils)

Spermophilus 

franklinii

Franklin's ground 

squirrel SE open areas with cover (Savanna?)

Taxidea taxus 

jacksoni Badger SSC blowouts/prairie/farmland

SOURCE: IDNR (2011) 

Notes: 

C = candidate species for federal listing

LE = federally listed endangered

SE = state endangered 

SSC = species of special concern

418
APPENDIX D9: BIRD SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

 

Species Name Common Name Federal State INDU Locations/ 

Notes 

Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern SE

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern SE

Ardea alba Great Egret SSC

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crn Night-Heron SE

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crn Night-Heron SE

Pandion haliaetus Osprey SE

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle LT,PDL SE

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier SE

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk SSC

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk No Status SSC

Falco peregrinus anatum Peregrine Falcon No Status SE

Rallus elegans King Rail SE

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail SE

Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen No Status SE

Grus Canadensis Sandhill Crane No Status SSC

Charadrius melodus 

circumcinctus Piping Plover LE SE

Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper SE

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope SSC

Childonias niger Black Tern SE

Tyto alba pratincola Barn Owl SE

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike No Status SE Has many subspecies

Cistothorus platnesis Sedge Wren SE Two subspecies

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren SE Many subspecies

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler SE

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SE

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler SSC

Ammodramus henslowii 

henslowii Henslow's Sparrow SE

Sturnell neglecta Western Meadowlark SSC

Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus

Yellow-headed 

Blackbird SE

SOURCE: Brock (2011)

Notes:

LT = listed threatened species

PD = proposed for delisting

SE = state endangered

SSC = species of special concern

419
APPENDIX D10: SUMMARY OF BENTHIC SPECIES 

IN LAKE MICHIGAN NEARSHORE

Taxa Common Name Native 

Species 

Invasive 

Species Habitat type 

Turbellaria Planarians X On substrate, under rocks,

debris

Nematoda Roundworms X 

On substrate and debris, 

within interstitial spaces of 

granular substrate

Bivalvia Clams See below

Sphaeriidae Fingernail clams X On and in granular 

substrate

Dreissenoidea - X See below

Dreissena polymorpha Zebra Mussels X Attached to solid substrate

Dresissena bugensis Quagga mussels X Attached to solid substrate

Oligochaeta 

Segmented aquatic 

worms/sludge 

worms

Within interstitial spaces of 

granular substrate

Aeolosomatidae - X

Enchytraeidae - X

Lumbriculidae - X

 Stylodrilus heringianus - X 

Tubificidae -

Aulodrilus americanus - X

A. limnobius - X

A. pluriseta - X

Ilyocryptus freyi - X

I. templetoni - X

Limnodrilus cervix X

L. claparadieanus - X

L. hoffmeisteri - X

 L. spiralis - X 

L. udekemianus - X

Opisthonais serpentia - X

Potamothrix moldaviensis - X

P. vejdovskyi moldaviensis - X

 Quistrodrilus multisetosus - X 

Rhyacodrilus coccineus - X

Spirosperma ferox - X

S. nikolskyi - X

Tubifex ignotus - X

420
APPENDIX D: SPECIES LISTS

Taxa Common Name Native 

Species 

Invasive 

Species Habitat type 

T. americanus - X

T. Tubifex - X

T. superiorensis - X

 Variechaetidrilus 

augustipenis - X 

Naididae -

Amphichaeta leydigi - X

Chaetogaster diastrophus - X

Nais variabilis - X

Paranais frici - X

Piguetiella blanci - X

 Piguetiella michiganensis - X 

Uncinais uncinate - X

Vejdovskyella intermedia - X

Hirudinea Leeches X 

Warm, protected shallow

waters; under stones; some 

species are free-living and 

some are parasitic and 

found on fish, turtles, etc.

Tardigrada Water bears

Within interstitial spaces of 

the substrate

Dactylobiotus sp. - X

Acari Aquatic mites X 

Crustacea Crustaceans

Ostracoda Seed shrimp X On and in sandy substrates, 

algal mats, debris and mud

Amphipoda Scuds, sideswimmers On and in granular 

Diporeia sp. - X substrates

Decapoda Crayfish, shrimp Within and on cobble 

Orconectes rusticus Rusty crayfish X substrate

Copepoda Copepods

On and in granular 

substrate

Eurytemora affinis - X

 Acanthocyclops 

brevispinosus - X 

Diacyclops nanus - X

Eucyclops agilis - X

 Canthocampus 

robertcookeri - X 

Heteropsyllus sp. - X

 Heteropsyllus nr. nunni - X 

Nitokra hibernica - X

Paracyclops chiltoni - X

Schizopera borutskyi - X

Cladocera Water fleas On vegetation or organic 

421
Appendix D10: Summary of Benthic Species in Lake Michigan Nearshore

Taxa Common Name Native 

Species 

Invasive 

Species Habitat type 

Alona sp. - X material; some species freeliving in the water column Bythotrephes longimanus Spiny waterflea X

Cercopagis pengoi Fishhook waterflea X

Graptoleberis sp. - X

 Monospilus sp. - X 

Diptera Flies, mosquitoes, 

midges 

Chironomidae Midges X Live in and on the substrate

Axarus spp. - X

Chironomus sp. - X

Cladotanytarsus sp. - X

 Cryptotanytarsus sp. - X 

Monodiamesa sp. - X

Orthocladius/Cricotopus sp. - X

Paracladopelma sp. - X

Psectrocladius sp. - X

 Tanytarsus sp. - X 

Source: Last et al. (1995)

422