Chicago‐Milwaukee

Amtrak Hiawatha Service

Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix F

Wisconsin Natural Resources Review
 

 

 

 

 

 

Amtrak Hiawatha Natural 

Resource Review 

Milwaukee County 

DOT Project I.D. 0385-57-02 

November 2015 

Prepared for 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation 

Southeast Region 

141 Northwest Barstow St. 

Waukesha, WI 53187 

Prepared by 

125 S 84th St., Suite 401 

Milwaukee, WI 53214 

(414) 259-1500 

Project Manager: Geoffrey Parish, P.G., P.H. 

geoffrey.parish@graef-usa.com 

Lead Scientist: Mike Al-wathiqui 

mike.al-wathiqui@graef-usa.com 

Project No.: 2014-0041.39 www.graef-usa.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2
 

2.0 WETLAND AND UPLAND ANALYSIS...................................................................................................2
 

2.1 METHODS...................................................................................................................................... 2
 

2.2 BACKGROUND REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 3
 

2.2.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................... 3
 

2.2.2 Wisconsin Wetland Inventory............................................................................................... 3
 

2.2.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 3
 

2.2.4 Precipitation Data ................................................................................................................. 4
 

2.3 FIELD STUDY.................................................................................................................................. 4
 

2.3.1 Site Description..................................................................................................................... 4
 

2.3.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 4
 

2.3.3 Uplands ................................................................................................................................. 6
 

2.4 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 7
 

2.5 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 7
 

3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ....................................................................................... 7
 

3.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 8
 

3.2 Fisheries/Stream Work ................................................................................................................. 8
 

3.3 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................. 8
 

3.4 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................................ 8
 

3.5 Floodplains....................................................................................................................................8
 

3.6 Emerald Ash Borer ........................................................................................................................ 8
 

3.7 Construction Site Considerations.................................................................................................. 9
 

3.8 Northern Long-Eared Bat .............................................................................................................. 9
 

4.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................10
 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Figures 

Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications 

Appendix C: WETS Analysis 

Appendix D: Wetland Delineation Map 

Appendix E: Wetland Determination Data Forms 

Appendix F: Site Photographs 

Appendix G: Upland and Wetland Summary Tables 

Appendix H: Plants Lists 

Appendix I: WDNR Threatened and Endangered Species Review and IPaC Results 

PN 2014-0041.39 1 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION
 

Per the request of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, GRAEF conducted a Natural Resource 

Review (NRR) to support environmental analyses for the Chicago-Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail 

project which studies the impact of increasing service on Amtrak’s Hiawatha Service from 7 to 10 round 

trips per day in the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor. GRAEF is responsible for producing the NRR for 

infrastructure improvement projects within the Wisconsin portion of the corridor. The project locations 

are as follows: 

1. Milwaukee Airport Rail Station Second Platform Project, milepost 78.54 to milepost 78.69. 

2. Muskego Yard Signalization Project, milepost 83.4 to milepost 87.3. 

3. MKE to Cut-Off CTC Installation Project, milepost 84.34 to milepost 87.3. 

All projects are located in the city of Milwaukee, County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin and are 

generally located within the railroad right of way along the Canadian Pacific Railroad from Amtrak’s 

Milwaukee Airport Rail Station to Canal Street in Milwaukee, WI (Figure 1, Appendix A). 

The purpose of this NRR is to determine the current location and extent of protected natural resources 

located within the identified project areas which included wetlands, remnant uplands and threatened and 

endangered Species. The first section of the NRR discusses the wetland and upland analysis in terms of 

methodology, results, and conclusions. The second portion of the report discusses the Threatened and 

Endangered Species review. 

The NRR field investigation was conducted by GRAEF scientists Mike Al-wathiqui and Geoffrey B. Parish 

on August 13th and 24th, 2015. A Statement of Qualifications on the field investigators is provided in 

Appendix B. 

2.0 WETLAND AND UPLAND ANALYSIS 

2.1 METHODS 

The wetland delineation portion of the NRR was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Corps 

of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Regional Supplement 

to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0, 2010) and in general 

accordance with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources guidelines (WI Department of 

Administration, WI Coastal Management Program, 1995) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

Wetland Mitigation Banking Technical Guidelines (1993). National Wetland Indicator status and 

taxonomic nomenclature is referenced from The National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar 2013). National 

Wetland Indicator status is based on the Midwest Region. 

Prior to conducting fieldwork, GRAEF scientists reviewed several maps including the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Quadrangle maps, Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Map, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Map, and aerial photographs. Note: NRCS no longer releases their 

NRCS Wetland Inventory Maps to other than the landowner or operator without documented permission 

from the landowner or operator; therefore they were not reviewed nor are they included with this report. 

PN 2014-0041.39 2 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Precipitation data from approximately 90 days prior to the field investigation was obtained from a 

weather station near the project areas and compared with 30-year average precipitation data obtained 

from a NRCS WETS Table for the County where the project areas was located to determine if antecedent 

hydrologic conditions at the time of the site visit were normal for the time of the year. 

Sampling points were located in areas exhibiting wetland and upland characteristics to document the 

presence and/or absence of wetlands and to provide support for the delineated wetland boundaries. At 

each sampling point, data were collected to document the vegetation, soils, and indicators of wetland 

hydrology. The wetland boundaries were staked using wire pin flags and flagging tape when needed. 

Wetland boundaries were generally determined by distinct to subtle differences in the abundance of 

hydrophytic vegetation and upland vegetation, apparent topographic breaks, and regular probing of soils. 

In addition to delineating wetlands, scientists investigated for the presence of any remnant upland plant 

communities of ecological significance with in the project areas. A Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) for 

each wetland and upland was conducted using the guidelines described in Development of a Floristic 

Quality Assessment for Wisconsin (Bernthal, 2003) as adopted and amended from the Plants of the 

Chicago Region (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994). A meander survey was performed for each wetland and 

upland area to identify and document all vascular plant species present and identifiable at the time of the 

site visit. Based on the data collected, mean C and Floristic Quality Index (FQI) values were calculated 

using coefficients of conservatism values made available by the University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Herbarium’s “Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Wisconsin”. 

2.2 BACKGROUND REVIEW 

2.2.1 Topography 

Topography of the site generally consisted of elevated areas associated with the embankment of the 

railroad and depressional or flat, low areas at the base of the railroad embankment. 

2.2.2 Wisconsin Wetland Inventory 

The Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) map (Figure 2, Appendix A) depicted four wetlands within the 

project areas. The types of wetland shown on the WWI map are listed in Table 1 below. 

Table 1. Mapped WWI Wetland Types 

Map Unit Symbol Description 

E1K Wet Meadow, Persistent, Wet Soil 

E2K / $E2K Wet Meadow, Narrow Leaved Persistent, Wet Soil 

2.2.3 Soils 

PN 2014-0041.39 3 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the NRCS Soil Survey map (Figure 3, Appendix A) four mapped soil units are located within 

the project areas. The types of mapped soils are listed on Table 2 below. 

Table 2. Mapped Soils 

Map Unit Symbol Soil Name Hydric Classification 

BlA Blount silt loam, 1 to 3 percent 

slopes Hydric 

LDF Land Fill Not Hydric 

MzdB Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 

slopes Not Hydric 

MzdC2 Morley silt loam, 6 to 12 percent 

slopes Not Hydric 

2.2.4 Precipitation Data 

The WETS analysis worksheet is provided in Appendix C. According to the NRCS EFOTG database, the total 

precipitation from a nearby weather station MILWAUKEE MITCHELL AP (14839) for the 14 days prior to 

the site visit was 1.48 inches for August 13th and 2.04 inches for August 24th. The most recent rainfall event 

prior to the site visits were 0.96 inches and 0.02 inches, which occurred on August 10th and 23rd, 

respectively. The total precipitation for the 90 days prior to the month of August was approximately 6.52 

inches, which was 3.68 inches below a 30-year average. The precipitation data for the 90 day period 

preceding the month of August were entered into a WETS analysis worksheet to determine antecedent 

hydrologic conditions at the time of the site visit for field investigation purposes. Based on this analysis, 

the precipitation total for the 90 days prior to the site visits was considered below average, suggesting 

that the surface or near-surface hydrology at the time of the site visit was not normal and that hydrologic 

conditions during the site visit were not typical. 

2.3 FIELD STUDY 

2.3.1 Site Description 

The project areas are located within the Canadian Pacific railroad right-of-way from the Milwaukee Airport 

Rail Station to Canal Street in Milwaukee, WI. Most of the project areas are located in developed urban 

areas with little natural landscape. All wetlands within the corridor were located within the Milwaukee 

Airport Rail Station (MARS) project limits. Topography of the MARS project area typically consists of 

elevated railroad embankment and low areas at the base of the embankments. Delineated wetlands 

tended to occur in the low areas at the base of the railroad embankments, likely receiving water in the 

form of runoff down the slopes of the railroad embankment after rain events. 

2.3.2 Wetlands 

Six wetlands (W-1 through W-6) were delineated within the MARS project area. The delineated wetland 

boundaries and data points are shown on maps (Exhibit A) in Appendix D. Data was collected and 

PN 2014-0041.39 4 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms at 12 data points to document wetland and upland 

locations (Appendix E). Photographs were taken at each data point and other notable locations (Appendix 

F). A wetland summary table is located in Appendix G. 

Wetland W-1 was 0.32 acres and was contained entirely within the MARS project area. The wetland was 

comprised of a fresh (wet) meadow plant community in a depressional area at the base of the railroad 

embankment. Hydrology was likely received in the form of runoff down the slope of the embankment 

after rain events. The wetland sample point was dominated by Prairie Cord Grass, Spikerush and Torrey’s 

Rush. Soils in the wetland were dark with a presence of redoximorphic features meeting hydric soil 

indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). Hydrology indicators in the wetland included a water table, saturation, 

geomorphic position and a passed FAC neutral test. The adjacent upland was dominated by Crown Vetch. 

Soils in the upland were dark, but without redox. The soils were primarily comprised of what appeared to 

be ash fill material possibly used in the construction of the railroad. Compact gravel prevented observation 

of the soil profile past 15 inches. A water table was present at 13 inches at the upland sample point with 

saturation at 12 inches, but this is likely an artifact of recent heavy rains three days prior to the site visit. 

The plant community, geomorphic position and proximity to the railroad indicate that this area is upland. 

Wetland W-2 was 0.54 acres and extended outside of the MARS project area. The wetland was comprised 

of a fresh (wet) meadow in a ditch at the base of the railroad embankment that eventually broadened out 

and continued off site at the south end of the delineated area. Wetland W-2 was subdivided into three 

sections: W-2A, W-2B and W-2C. Wetland W-2A was connected to W-2B via a culvert through a small 

section of upland. W-2B was hydrologically connected to W-2C via a cement lined ditch running under the 

freeway bridge. Hydrology in W-2 was likely received in the form of runoff down the slope of the 

embankment of the railroad after rain events. The wetland sample points in W-2 were dominated by 

Narrow Leaf Cattail and Reed Canary Grass. Soils in the wetland at sample point SP-4 were depleted with 

redox meeting hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix). Soils at sample point SP-10 were dark with a 

presence of redoximorphic features meeting hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface). Hydrology 

indicators in the wetland included a dry season water table, saturation, geomorphic position and a passed 

FAC neutral test. The adjacent uplands were dominated by Canada Goldenrod, Grey Dogwood and Bird’s 

Foot Trefoil. Soils in the upland were lighter in value and higher in chroma than in the wetland and lacked 

any hydric soil indicators. Hydrology indicators were absent in the upland. 

Wetland W-3 was 0.17 acres and was contained entirely within the MARS project area. The wetland was 

comprised of a fresh (wet) meadow and shrub-carr in a depressional area at the base of the railroad 

embankment. Hydrology was likely received in the form of runoff down the slope of the railroad 

embankment and the slope of the adjacent land to the west, after rain events. The wetland sample point 

was dominated by Dark Green Bulrush, Jewel Weed, Crack Willow and Bebb’s Willow. Soils in the wetland 

were dark with a presence of redoximorphic features meeting hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark 

Surface). Hydrology indicators in the wetland included geomorphic position and a passed FAC neutral test. 

The adjacent upland was dominated by Canada Thistle and Black Raspberry. Soils in the upland were dark 

at the surface, absent of redox, with a higher chroma and lighter value layer beneath. No hydric soil 

indicators were met. There were no indicators of hydrology present in the upland as well. The upland 

sample point was in a slope that likely conveyed runoff down towards the wetland after rain events. 

PN 2014-0041.39 5 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetland W-4 was 0.06 acres and continued outside of the MARS project area. The wetland was comprised 

of a fresh (wet) meadow and shrub-carr in a depressional area at the base of the railroad embankment. 

Hydrology was likely received in the form of runoff down the slope of the railroad embankment and the 

slope of the adjacent land to the west, after rain events. The wetland sample point was dominated by 

Elderberry and Willowherb. Soils in the wetland were dark with a presence of redoximorphic features 

meeting hydric soil indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface) with a depleted layer below the surface meeting 

indicator A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface). Hydrology indicators in the wetland included a high water 

table, saturation, geomorphic position and a passed FAC neutral test. The adjacent upland was dominated 

by Canada Thistle and Grey Dogwood. Soils in the upland were dark at the surface, absent of redox, with 

a high chroma and light value layer beneath. No hydric soil indicators were met. There were no indicators 

of hydrology present in the upland as well. The upland sample point was in a slope that likely conveyed 

runoff down towards the wetland after rain events. 

Wetland W-5 was 0.17 acres and was contained within the MARS project area. This wetland is likely a 

constructed stormwater feature that may be exempt. The wetland was comprised of a fresh (wet) 

meadow in what appeared to be a man made depressional area in the side lawn of the Amtrak Station. 

Hydrology was likely received in the form of runoff from the surrounding lawn and parking lot after rain 

events. The wetland sample point was dominated by Pathrush. Soils in the wetland were depleted below 

a dark surface meeting indicator A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface). Hydrology indicators in the wetland 

included saturation visible on aerial imagery and geomorphic position. The adjacent upland was 

dominated by planted Kentucky Blue Grass. Soils in the upland were dark at the surface, absent of redox, 

with a high chroma and light value layer beneath. No hydric soil indicators were met. There were no 

indicators of hydrology present in the upland as well. The upland sample point was in a slope that likely 

conveyed runoff down towards the wetland after rain events. 

Wetland W-6 was 0.07 acres and extended outside of the MARS project area. This wetland is possibly a 

constructed stormwater feature that may be exempt. The wetland was comprised of a fresh (wet) 

meadow in a depressional area in the side lawn of the Amtrak Station. Hydrology was likely received in 

the form of runoff from the surrounding lawn and parking lot after rain events. The wetland sample point 

was dominated by Pathrush and Torrey’s Rush. Soils in the wetland were dark with redoximorphic features 

present meeting hydric soil indicator F6 (Dark Surface Redox). Hydrology indicators in the wetland 

included a high water table, saturation, saturation visible on aerial imagery, geomorphic position and a 

passed FAC neutral test. The adjacent upland was dominated by planted Kentucky Blue Grass and Red 

Fescue. Soils in the upland were dark at the surface, absent of redox, with a high chroma and light value 

layer beneath. No hydric soil indicators were met. There were no indicators of hydrology present in the 

upland as well. 

2.3.3 Uplands 

Upland plant communities in all project areas were investigated in order to document the possible 

presence of any remnant communities. Upland areas were designated as U-1 through U-10 and are 

labeled on maps A-1 through A-14 in Appendix D. Uplands were generally dominated by weedy species 

PN 2014-0041.39 6 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

commonly found along roadsides and in disturbed areas. Representative plant lists for each upland area 

are shown in Appendix H. An upland summary table is located in Appendix G. 

2.4 CONCLUSION 

Based on the natural resource review completed by GRAEF six wetlands (W-1 through W-6) were 

delineated with a total of 1.33 acres. There were no ADID wetlands present in the Study Areas. Two 

waterways, the Kinnickinnic River and the Menomonee River were identified in the Study Areas. Remnant 

upland plant communities were not found in the Study Areas. 

Activity in delineated wetlands or waterways may require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and local governments prior to beginning any work. Impacts 

to wetlands is currently unknown, but will be addressed during permitting when construction of the MARS 

project has been funded. 

2.5 LIMITATIONS 

The results of this field study are based on site conditions at the time of the field study, which was 

conducted in accordance with current regulatory policy and methods. Unknown and future conditions 

that affect observations of field indicators, and change in interpretation of regulatory policy, may modify 

future findings. 

Statements within this report about the connectivity of the delineated wetlands to surface waters are the 

professional opinions of GRAEF’s scientists and are not significant nexus determinations or jurisdictional 

determinations. Opinions on connectivity are based on general field observations and a cursory review 

available map resources. The ultimate authority to determine jurisdiction resides with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have the ultimate 

authority to determine wetland boundaries, and adjustments to wetland boundaries may occur based on 

decisions made by these regulatory agencies. 

3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

A Threatened and Endangered Species review was conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) in December 2014 to determine the presence of threatened or endangered species 

listed by the State of Wisconsin in the project areas. After reviewing the scope of the project, the WDNR 

determined that there were no known threatened or endangered species or associated habitat likely to 

be impacted by the proposed project within the project areas. The letter from the WDNR regarding the 

results of the review are included in Appendix I. WDNR identified several project-specific resource 

concerns including wetlands, fisheries/stream work, migratory birds, invasive species, floodplains, 

Emerald Ash Borer, and construction site considerations. These resources are discussed in Sections 3.1-

3.7 below. 

PN 2014-0041.39 7 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S Fish & Wildlife Service’s IPaC project planning tool was used to investigate for the presence of 

federally listed threatened or endangered species and resources located within all three project areas. 

The results included one threatened and endangered species for which no critical habitat has yet been 

defined by the planning tool, the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (Appendix I). This 

species is discussed in Section 3.8. 

3.1 Wetlands 

Six wetlands (W-1 through W-6) were delineated with a total of 1.33 acres. There were no ADID wetlands 

present in the Study Areas. 

3.2 Fisheries/Stream Work 

Construction activities include replacing railroad ties on the bridge crossing the Menomonee River, a 

navigable waterway. No known activities are to occur in the waterway as part of the project. No known 

threatened and endangered aquatic species are known to be present either. If activities were to occur 

that would temporarily impair the water quality, they should be performed between June 15th and 

February 28th of the calendar year to minimize impacts to developing fish eggs and substrate for aquatic 

organisms. 

3.3 Migratory Birds 

There is evidence of past migratory bird nesting on the bridge over the Menomonee River. To avoid 

potential impacts to nesting migratory birds, construction activities on the bridge should be conducted 

during the non-nesting season between August 30th and May 1st, according to the WDNR. 

3.4 Invasive Species 

During construction, adequate precautions will be taken to prevent transporting or introducing invasive 

species via construction equipment. WDNR will be consulted during the permitting phase when projects 

have been funded for construction. 

3.5 Floodplains 

FEMA flood hazard maps were reviewed for the project areas. In the Menomonee River bridge area, it 

was found that the 1 percent flood event was mainly confined to the river channel, which is likely due to 

the extensive areas of sheet pile banks. Work in the immediate area of the river is confined to railway 

tie replacement, which is not anticipated to significantly affect the hydrologic storage of the lands 

adjacent to the river. In the Muskego Yard area west of the 27th Street bridge the 1 percent flood event 

inundates the railway. Evaluation of the impact of the proposed changes in the floodplain resulting 

from addition of new signaling and track on floodplain storage or water elevation is beyond the scope of 

this NRR evaluation. It is not anticipated that the proposed changes in the railway will have impacts on 

the utilization of the floodplain natural resources. 

3.6 Emerald Ash Borer 

PN 2014-0041.39 8 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During construction, all regulations pertaining to the transport of ash material, the emerald ash 

borer, and hardwood debris from EAB quarantined areas, and within these areas, will be followed. 

3.7 Construction Site Considerations 

During construction, the engineer and contractor will coordinate with WDNR on erosion control and 

asbestos issues. The bridge over the Menomonee River will not be removed as part of any project. 

3.8 Northern Long-Eared Bat 

All three project areas are located in an urban setting in the railroad right of way. According to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2015), Northern Long-eared 

Bats spend summers roosting in wooded areas and winters hibernating in underground caves and cavelike structures, with very high humidity. Potential roosting areas within the Project area are limited. 

Wooded areas in and surrounding the Project area are heavily fragmented with extremely poor 

connectivity. Stands of trees in the Project area are very small and typically surrounded by urban 

development. Additionally, Indiana bats, thought to have similar roosting tendencies as NLEB, typically 

roost over 100 feet from roads and railroads. The Project area does not expand beyond 100 feet in either 

direction from the railroad making it more unlikely for NLEB’s to roost in the Project area. Given the 

geological characteristics of the region it is highly unlikely that there are any caves or cave-like features 

suitable for winter habitat. There are what appear to be a few abandoned buildings adjacent to the Project 

area, near Greenfield Avenue. This was identified as the most likely winter habitat near the Project area, 

potentially serving as hibernacula. However, due to the apparent condition of the buildings it is highly 

unlikely they can sustain a suitable temperature and humidity to serve as winter habitat for the Northern 

Long-eared Bat. 

If bats were to be found in the Project area, it is unlikely that they would affected by the proposed 

activities. 

Review of Programmatic Consultation’s Active Season Habitat Stressors: 

•	 Noise/Vibration – no effect, areas within 100 feet of railroad already receives noise from fairly 

heavy rail travel 

•	 Tree Removal – no effect, no tree removal 

•	 Lighting – Apply Avoidance and Mitigation Measure (AMM), no effect (FHWA & FDA, 2015) 

•	 Water/Foraging Habitat Alteration – wetland fill, 1.33 Acres of wetland are to be filled, will apply 

AMM, insignificant impacts anticipated 

•	 Burning – no effect, no burning 

•	 Collision – constructing pedestrian bridge near Mitchell Airport Amtrak Station, however 

significant impacts unlikely, because the bridge will cross the railroad where heavy locomotion 

traffic already occurs, posing existing collision risks 

PN 2014-0041.39 9 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Programmatic Consultation’s Structures (Artificial Roost) Stressors: 

•	 Structure Maintenance/Removal-Active Season – no effect, replacing railroad ties above existing 

railroad bridge above the Menomonee River 

•	 Structure Maintenance/Alteration/Demolition-Inactive/Winter Season – no effect, replacing 

railroad ties above existing railroad bridge above the Menomonee River 

Review of Programmatic Consultation’s Active Season Habitat Stressors: No effects, no suitable winter 

habitat in Project area. 

4.0 REFERENCES 

Bernthal, Tom. 2003. Development of a Floristic Quality Assessment for Wisconsin. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, 22 pp. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Eggers, Steve D. and Donald M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and 

Wisconsin. 2nd Ed. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 

Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. 2015. Range-Wide Biological 

Assessment for Transportation Projects for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat. Federal 

Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. 

Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 3013-29: 1-241. 

Midwestern Regional Climate Center cli-MATE Database http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/CLIMATE/ 

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Southeastern Wisconsin Regional 

Land Information: Regional Map Server 

http://maps.sewrpc.org/regionallandinfo/regionalmapping/RegionalMaps/viewer.htm 

Swink, Floyd, and Gerould Wilhelm. "Plants of the Chicago region." Indianapolis: Indiana Academy of 

Science, 1994. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR10-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 

Training Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, 

C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 

PN 2014-0041.39 10	 November 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USDA NRCS Climate Analysis by County Web Site (WETS). (Web Address: 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/wetlands.html ) 

Woodward , Donald E., ed. 1997. Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination, Chapter 19. Engineering 

Field Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort 

Worth, TX. 

WI Department of Administration, WI Coastal Management Program. 1995. Basic Guide to Wisconsin’s 

Wetlands and their Boundaries. WI Coastal Management Program, Madison, WI 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Surface Water Data Viewer Web Mapping Application 

http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=SurfaceWaterViewer 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Wetland Mitigation Banking Technical Guideline. 1993, 

revised March 2002. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the Federal Highway Administration. 

PN 2014-0041.39 11 November 2015 

 Appendix A 
 

Appendix B
 

Appendix C
 

Appendix D
 

Appendix E
 

Appendix F
 

Appendix G
 

Appendix H
 

Appendix I
 

APPENDICES 

Figures 

Statement of 

Qualifications 

WETS Analysis 

Wetland Delineation 

Map 

Wetland Determination 

Data Forms 

Site Photographs 

Upland and Wetland 

Summary Tables 

Plant Lists 

WDNR Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Review and IPaC 

Results 

APPENDIX A 

Figures 

 -

- _

 

 

 -

 

 

User: 1771 Date Saved: 9/3/2015 10:14:51 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041 39\GIS\Map\Site Map.mxd

Legend 

Project Boundary 

1 in = 5,000 ft

o

1,500 3,000 6,000 

Feet 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE # 1 

SITE MAP 

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01 

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i cubed 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:44:09 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\1995Aerial_1_11x17_1.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 1995 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 1995 Digital Orthophotography 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:44:41 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\1995Aerial_1_11x17_2.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 1995 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:44:28 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\1995Aerial_1_11x17_3.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 1995 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:45:03 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\1995Aerial_1_11x17_4.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 1995 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:46:28 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2000Aerial_1_11x17_1.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2000 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:46:47 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2000Aerial_1_11x17_2.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2000 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:47:14 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2000Aerial_1_11x17_3.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2000 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:47:01 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2000Aerial_1_11x17_4.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2000 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:48:35 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2005Aerial_1_11x17_1.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2005 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:48:48 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2005Aerial_1_11x17_2.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2005 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:48:17 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2005Aerial_1_11x17_3.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2005 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:49:01 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2005Aerial_1_11x17_4.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2005 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:40:46 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2010Aerial_1_11x17_1.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2010 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:41:19 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2010Aerial_1_11x17_2.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2010 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:41:06 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2010Aerial_1_11x17_3.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2010 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

 

 -

Legend 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:41:44 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\2010Aerial_1_11x17_4.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 2010 AERIAL MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
S3/E2K

$E2K

T3/W0

T3K

$E2K

E2K

S3/E2

 

_ _

 

 -

E1K 

E2K 

T3K 

S3/E2K 

S3/E1H 

E2K 

$E2K 

H 

$E2K 

E2K 

T3K 

$E2K 

$E2H 

T3K 

E2K 

$E1K 

E2K 

T3K 

E2K 

E1K 

T3K 

S3/E2K 

$E1K 

E2H 

K 

$E2K 

Legend 

WWI 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:33:19 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\WWI 1 11x17_1.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 

WWI MAP 

FIGURE #2-1 CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; Wisconsin Digital Wetland Inventory (DWI) Database, 2010 
S3K

 

_ _

 

 -

Legend 

WWI 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:33:02 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\WWI 1 11x17_2.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 

WWI MAP 

FIGURE #2-2 CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; Wisconsin Digital Wetland Inventory (DWI) Database, 2010 
 

_ _

 

 -

Legend 

WWI 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:33:33 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\WWI 1 11x17_3.mxd

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 

WWI MAP 

FIGURE #2-3 CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; Wisconsin Digital Wetland Inventory (DWI) Database, 2010 
 

_ _

 

 -

Legend 

WWI 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:32:47 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\WWI 1 11x17_4.mxd

W0Hx 

E1Kf 

W0Hx 

T3K 

T3K 

W0Hx 

F2R 

E1K 

T3K 

E1K 

E1K 

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet 

WWI MAP 

FIGURE #2-4 CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; Wisconsin Digital Wetland Inventory (DWI) Database, 2010 
MzdB2

BlA

AsA

BlA

Cv

LDF

MzdB2

B2

MzdB

MzdB

MzdB2

W

MzdC2

 

_

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:37:22 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Soil_1_11x17 1.mxd

MzdB 

Cv 

MzdB 

BlA 

Cv 

BlA 

MzdB 

LDF 

BlA 

LDF 

MzdB 

Cv 

Cv 

BlA 

BlA 

AsA 

AsA 

LDF 

LDF 

Cv 

BlA 

BlA 

MmA 

MzdC2 

BlA 

MzdB2 

LDF 

BlA 

MzdB2 

BlA 

LDF 

Cv 

BlA 

Cv 

MzdB2 

MzdC2 

BlA 

BlA 

Mzd 

2 

BlA 

BlA 

MzdC2 

MzdB2 

MzdB2 

MzdC2 

MzdB2 

AsA 

AsA 

MzdC2 

MzdC2 

MzdB2 

MzdB2 

MzdC2 

MzdC2 

MzdC2 

MzdC2 

BlA 

MzdC2 

MzdC2 MzdB2 

AsA 

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet SOIL SURVEY MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:37:38 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Soil_1_11x17 2.mxd

UA 

W 

W 

W 

W 

UA 

W 

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet SOIL SURVEY MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:37:55 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Soil_1_11x17 3.mxd

UA 

UA 

W 

W 

W 

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet SOIL SURVEY MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:37:00 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Soil_1_11x17 4.mxd

UA 

UA 

W 

W 

1 in = 500 ft 

150 300 o Feet SOIL SURVEY MAP IH 94 NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

FIGURE #3-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.32 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography; USDA-NRCS SSURGO Database 

APPENDIX B
 

Statement of
 

Qualifications
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
 

FIELD INVESTIGATORS: 

Geoffrey B. Parish, P.G., P.H. 

Mr. Parish is a hydrologist and geologist with M.S. and B.S. degrees in geosciences from the University of 

Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He has studied wetland hydrology and soils in Wisconsin, and Illinois for almost twenty 

years. His wetland work has included wetland delineations, wetland mitigation projects, including enhancements, 

restorations and creations in Wisconsin and Illinois. Geof has worked on over 300 delineations in Wisconsin in the 

past six years. He was on a team of scientists that provided expert witness services to the US Department of 

Justice regarding impacts to a state of Wisconsin owned wetland. In 2014 and 2015 Geof co-taught Wetland 

Hydrology for the UW-Milwaukee School of Continuing Education Water Technology Program. The class focused 

on hydrology basics, wetland hydrology indicators, determining sources of wetland hydrology, soil indicators of 

wetland hydrology, hydrology of plant community types, wetland water budgets and restoration of wetlands. The 

2014 proposed revisions of the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” were presented in 2014 and the finalized 

definition published in 2015 was presented in 2015 along with connectivity concepts. Geof has worked on habitat 

mapping, including numerous plant species such as Forked Aster, Prairie Milkweed Small White Lady Slipper Hairy 

Wild Petunia and Slender Bog Arrow-grass, inarticulate species Karner Blue Butterfly, Gorgone Checker Spot, Phlox 

Moth and the Persius Dusky Wing, and animals such as Northern Cricket Frog and Red-shouldered Hawk. Geof has 

worked on the assessment of wetland functions using the WDNR Wetland Rapid Assessment Method Version 2.0 

for project corridors. Geof has worked on invasive species mapping projects, such as mapping Phragmites australis 

along IH 94 in Kenosha and Racine Counties, and mapped the location of invasive species along over thirty miles of 

the Fox River from the City of Waukesha to Waterford, Wisconsin. 

Mike Al-wathiqui 

Mr. Al-wathiqui received his M.S. degree in freshwater resources and technology from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee’s School of Freshwater Science. He received a B.S. degree in biology and natural resource management 

at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee as well. He has completed the WDNR’s Basic Wetland Delineators course 

in 2015. Mike has over five years of diverse ecological experience including performing wetland delineations, 

riparian landscape management, environmental education and stream studies. Mike has been performing wetland 

delineations for the past two years and has authored many delineation reports and wetland permit applications. He is 

familiar with state and federal wetland regulation and water policy and regularly coordinates with the WDNR and 

Army Corps of Engineers applying for wetland permits. Mike has years of experience in invasive vegetation 

management and vegetation monitoring. He provided invasive vegetation management and monitoring services for a 

Pike River management plan in Racine County. He has also worked at the WDNR on a trail management plan 

controlling invasive vegetation species along the Hank Aaron State Trail and with non-profits managing invasive 

vegetation species along the Milwaukee River greenway. Mike has also worked for the City of Milwaukee Forestry 

Department treating thousands of Ash trees to protect against infestation by the Emerald Ash Borer. He currently 

holds a valid Wisconsin Pesticide Applicators License. Mike has additional experience in developing metrics for 

assessing biological integrity of stream ecosystems. He recently worked on a project with the US Forest Service on 

assessing stream health and invertebrate community structure of various freshwater Hawaiian streams. 

APPENDIX C 

WETS Analysis 

WETS Analysis 

Project Site: Amtrak Hiawatha 

Project Number: 2014-0041.39 

Period of interest: May-July, 2015 

County: Milwaukee 

Long-term rainfall records (from WETS table) 

3 years in 10 

1st month prior: 

2nd month prior: 

Month 

July 

June 

less than 

2.40 

2.34 

3rd month prior: May 1.8 

Sum = 

Normal 3 years in 10 

greater than 

3.58 4.28 

3.56 4.28 

3.06 3.71 

10.20 Sum = 

*Normal precipitation with 30% to 70% probability of occurrence 

Site Condition Condition** Month 

Rainfall (in) Dry/Normal*/Wet Value Weight Product 

1.60 Dry 1 3 3 

2.49
 

2.43
 

6.52
 

Site determination 

Normal 

Normal 

2
 

2
 

Determination: 

2
 

1
 

Sum*** = 

4
 

2
 

9
 

Wet 

**Condition value: ***If sum is: 

Dry 

Normal 

Dry = 1 

Normal = 2 

Wet = 3 

6 to 9 

10 to 14 

15 to 18 

then period has been drier than normal 

then period has been normal 

then period has been wetter than normal 

Precipitation data source: NRCS EFOTG 

WETS Station: MILWAUKEE MITCHELL AP (14839) 

Reference: Donald E.Woodward, ed. 1997. Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination , Chapter 19. Engineering Field Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, TX. 

APPENDIX D 

Wetland Delineation Map 

 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:06:42 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_1.mxd

U-1 

U-1 SP-8 

SP-7 

SP-6 

SP-5 

SP-4 SP-3 

SP-12 SP-11 

W-2C

0.3168 Ac. 

W-3

0.1742 Ac. 

W-5

0.1661 Ac. W-4

0.0602 Ac. 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-1 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 9:03:58 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_2.mxd

SP-2 

SP-1 

SP-9 

SP-12 

SP-14 

SP-13 

SP-11 

SP-10 

W-1

0.3222 Ac.

W-2B

0.2238 Ac. 

W-5

0.1661 Ac.

W-2C

0.3168 Ac. 

W-6

0.0703 Ac. 

W-2A

0.0006 Ac. 

U-3 

U-2 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-2 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:11:55 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_3.mxd

U-4 

U-4 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-3 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:13:24 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_4.mxd

U-4 

U-4 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-4 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:13:51 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_5.mxd

U-5 

U-5 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-5 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:15:23 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_6.mxd

U-6

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-6 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:15:38 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_7.mxd

U-7 

U-8 

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-7 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:18:22 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_8.mxd

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-8 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 

U-8 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:17:54 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_9.mxd

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-9 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:18:08 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_10.mxd

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-10 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:20:27 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_11.mxd

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-11 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:20:06 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_12.mxd

U-9

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-12 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:20:44 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_13.mxd

U-10

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-13 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
 

_

 

 -

Legend 

Sample Flag 

Ditch 

Delineated Wetlands 

Project Boundary 

User: 1871 Date Saved: 10/8/2015 10:19:51 AM Path: L:\Jobs2014\20140041-39\GIS\Map\Wetland 11x17_14.mxd

1 in = 150 ft 

75 o 150 

Feet 

WETLAND MAP

CHICAGO - MILWAUKEE INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR 

WisDOTPROJECT ID# 0385-57-01

NATURAL RESOURCE REVIEW 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN 

EXHIBIT A-14 

0 

Proj. Number: 2014 0041.39 Source: SEWRPC 2010 Digital Orthophotography 
APPENDIX E 

Wetland Determination 

Data Forms 

         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                               

                              

                       

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 13­Aug­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­1 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Footslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

5.0% 2.9

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal, but 1" of precipitation which occurred three days prior to the site visit may account for 

abnormally wet hydrological conditions. This area is on the edge of the embankment of the railroad.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

60

15

10

5

5

5

3

3

0

100.0% FACU

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

56.6% UPL 

14.2% FAC 

9.4% FACU

4.7% FACW

4.7% FACU

4.7% FACW

2.8% FACU

2.8% FAC 

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Elaeagnus angustifolia

Coronilla varia

Panicum virgatum

Solidago canadensis

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Spartina pectinata

Solidago canadensis

Sonchus arvensis

Acer negundo

Species?

0

2

0.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

10 20

18 54

23 92

60 300

111 466

4.198

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

106

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is dominated by upland weeds. The vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                                               

                                                   

             

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­1 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks

Fill material

1

0­15 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Gravel Fill

15 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The soil is mostly comprised of gravel and fill material likely used in the construction of the railroad. The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

13

12

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

A water table is present at 13" which may be accounted for by heavy rains three days prior to the site visit. Despite this vegetation, soils and best

professional judgement indicate that this area is upland.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                               

                                     

                     

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 13­Aug­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­2 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

0.0% 0.0

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal, but 1" of precipitation which occurred three days prior to the site visit may account for 

abnormally wet hydrological conditions. All three criteria are met in this area indicating that it is wetland. Wetland ID: W­1.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

40

40

30

10

5

5

5

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

29.6% FACW

29.6% OBL 

22.2% FACW

7.4% OBL 

3.7% FAC 

3.7% OBL 

3.7% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Spartina pectinata

Eleocharis obtusa

Juncus torreyi

Scirpus atrovirens

Juncus canadensis

Juncus tenuis

Euthamia graminifolia

Species?

3

3

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

55 55

75 150

5 15

0 0

0 0

135 220

1.630

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

135

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadow. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                                                   

     

                                                 

               

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­2 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks

gravel/fill

1

0­15 10YR 2/1 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Sandy Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The soil is mostly comprised of gravel and fill material used in the construction of the railroad. However, the hydric soil criterion is met by indicator

F6 (Redox Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

2

0

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

This is a ditch at the bottom of the railroad embankment. A water table is present at 2" with saturation at the surface. Multiple secondary hydrology

indciators are present as well. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                           

                       

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­3 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: WWI classification:

5.0% 2.9

Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. None of the three criteria are met indicating that this area is upland.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

10

5

2

2

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

34.5% FACU

34.5% FAC 

17.2% FACU

6.9% FACU

6.9% UPL 

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Solidago canadensis

Cornus racemosa

Rosa acicularis

Cirsium arvense

Rubus occidentalis

Species?

1

2

50.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

0 0

10 30

17 68

2 10

29 108

3.724

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

29

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is dominated by upland weeds. The vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

   

           

                         

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­3 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­7

7­17

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

4/3

3/2

4/2

4/3

4/6

4/2

3/2

50

40

100

50

30

10

10

Silty Clay Loam

Silty Clay Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                     

                                          

                           

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­4 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

0.0% 0.0

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. All three of the criteria are met indicating that this area is a wetland. Wetland ID: W­2.

W­2 extends south of the boundary of the WWI mapped wetland that is located to the north of this sample point location.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

5

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

91.7% OBL 

4.6% FACU

1.8% UPL 

1.8% FACU

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Typha angustifolia

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Rubus occidentalis

Cirsium arvense

Species?

1

1

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

100 100

0 0

0 0

7 28

2 10

109 138

1.266

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

109

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a shallow marsh dominated by Narrow Leaf Cattail. The vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                 

                                           

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­4 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­16 10YR 5/1 90 10YR 6/8 10 C M Silty Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

15

2

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

A water table is present at 15" with saturation at 2". Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present as well. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                       

                                   

                                             

       

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­5 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: E1K

20.0% 11.3

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. None of the three criteria are met indicating that this area is upland. This area is on the

border of the mapped WWI which may be an artifact of map scale and the line thickness of the border.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

5

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

55.6% FACU

27.8% FAC 

16.7% UPL 

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Cirsium arvense

Cornus racemosa

Rubus occidentalis

Species?

1

2

50.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

0 0

5 15

10 40

3 15

18 70

3.889

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

18

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

Vegetation is sparse do to construction activities related to a new fence, but the present plant community is dominated by upland weeds. The

vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

   

           

                         

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­5 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­6

6­10

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

4/3

3/2

100

70

20 10YR 6/8 10 C M Silty Clay Loam

Silty Clay Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                       

               

                                         

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­6 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: E1K

2.0% 1.1

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. This is a ditch at the base of the railroad embankment. All three of the criteria are met

indicating that this area is a wetland. Wetland ID: W­4.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

70

10

5

5

3

1

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

100.0% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5

0.0%

74.5% FACW

10.6% FAC 

5.3% OBL 

5.3% FACW

3.2% FACW

1.1% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Sambucus nigra

Epilobium ciliatum

Rumex crispus

Asclepias incarnata

Impatiens capensis

Bidens frondosa

Euthamia graminifolia

Species?

2

2

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

5 5

84 168

10 30

0 0

0 0

99 203

2.051

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

94

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadow in a ditch along the base of the railroad embankment. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

                                 

                                           

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­6 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­3

3­8

8­18

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

5/1

2/1

100

80

90

10YR

10YR 6/6

6/8 20

10 C

C M

M Silty Clay Loam

Silty Clay

Silt Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicators A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface) and F6 (Redox Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

8

6

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

A water table is present at 8" with saturation at 6". Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present as well. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                           

                       

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­7 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Shoulder slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

24.0% 13.5

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. None of the three criteria are met indicating that this area is upland.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

10

5

5

3

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

46.5% UPL 

23.3% FACU

11.6% FACU

11.6% FAC 

7.0% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Rubus occidentalis

Cirsium arvense

Sonchus arvensis

Rhamnus cathartica

Phalaris arundinacea

Species?

0

2

0.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

3 6

5 15

15 60

20 100

43 181

4.209

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

43

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is dominated by upland weeds. The vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

           

                         

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­7 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­9

9­17

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

4/3

3/2

100

80

10

10YR 4/6 10 C M Silty Clay Loam

Silt Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                   

                         

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­8 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

0.0% 0.0

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. All three of the criteria are met indicating that this area is a wetland. Wetland ID: W­3.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

10

5

3

0

0

20

10

5

5

5

5

2

1

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

55.6% FAC 

27.8% FACW

16.7% FACW

0.0% FAC 

18

0.0%

37.7% OBL 

18.9% FACW

9.4% OBL 

9.4% FACU

9.4% FACW

9.4% FACW

3.8% FACW

1.9% FACW

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Salix fragilis

Salix bebbiana

Salix interior

Cornus racemosa

Scirpus cyperinus

Impatiens capensis

Typha angustifolia

Solidago canadensis

Salix discolor

Euthamia graminifolia

Ribes americanum

Bidens frondosa

Species?

4

4

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

25 25

31 62

10 30

5 20

0 0

71 137

1.930

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

53

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadowand shrub carr. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                   

                 

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­8 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­4

4­16

10YR

10YR

3/2

3/2

100

90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Sandy Loam

Sandy Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                           

                       

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­9 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Footslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

5.0% 2.9

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. None of the three criteria are met indicating that this area is upland.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

5

5

3

3

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

86.2% FACU

4.3% UPL 

4.3% FACU

2.6% FACU

2.6% FACU

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Lotus corniculatus

Daucus carota

Elymus repens

Lactuca serriola

Sonchus arvensis

Species?

0

1

0.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

0 0

0 0

111 444

5 25

116 469

4.043

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

116

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is dominated by upland weeds. The vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                                         

                         

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­9 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­10

10­18

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

5/3

4/3

3/2

70

30

60

20

10YR

10YR 6/8

5/1 10

10 C

D M

M

Silty Clay

Silt Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

Redoximorphic features and depletions are present at depth, but not enough to meet an indicator. The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                   

                                           

                                     

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­10 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

0.0% 0.0

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. This section of W­2 (W­2B) is a ditch at the base of the roalroad embankment that

extends east of the study area. All three of the criteria are met indicating that this area is a wetland. Wetland ID: W­2.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

20

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

80.0% FACW

16.0% FACW

4.0% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Phalaris arundinacea

Juncus torreyi

Solidago sempervirens

Species?

1

1

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

125 250

0 0

0 0

0 0

125 250

2.000

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

125

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadow dominated by a monotypic stand of reed Canary Grass. The vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                   

                                           

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­10 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­6

6­14

10YR

10YR

3/2

4/3

80

60

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR 5/6

4/1

4/1

6/8 10

10

20

20 C

D

D

C M

M

M

M

Silty Clay

Silty Clay

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

11

10

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

A water table is present at 11" with saturation at 10". Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present as well. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                   

                                   

                                                     

                   

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­11 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

20.0% 11.3

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. This is part of the manicured lawn of the Amtrak station. The vegetation criterion is met

due to planted Kentucky Blue Grass, but the soils and lack of hydrology indicate that this area is upland.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

98.0% FAC 

2.0% FACU

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Poa pratensis

Cirsium arvense

Species?

1

1

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

0 0

100 300

2 8

0 0

102 308

3.020

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

102

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is part of the manicured lawn of the Amtrak station and is dominated by planted Kentucky Blue Grass. The vegetation criterion is met, but the

soils and lack of hydrology indicate that this area is upland.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

                                       

           

                                         

       

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­11 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­12 10YR 5/3 100 Silt Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches):

compact gravel

12 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

There is a restrictive layer preventing observation of the soil profile deeper than 12". However, the profile is deep enough to discount any hydric

soil indicators. The criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. Water gets conveyed towards what appears to be a constructed stormwater feature to the east.

The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                         

                   

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­12 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

20.0% 11.3

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

This appears to to be a constructed stormwater feature. However, all three criteria are met indicating that this area is wetland. Wetland ID: W­5.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

50

10

10

5

5

5

2

0

0

0

0

0

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Juncus tenuis

Erigeron annuus

Euthamia graminifolia

Carex vulpinoidea

Scirpus atrovirens

Plantago major

Verbena hastata

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

57.5% FAC 

11.5% FACU

11.5% FACW

5.7% FACW

5.7% FAC 

5.7% OBL 

2.3% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

Species?

1

1

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

5 5

17 34

55 165

10 40

0 0

87 244

2.805

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

87

0

Woody Vine Stratum

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

0.0%

0.0%

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadow. The vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

                     

                 

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­12 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­3

3­5

5­12

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

4/2

4/3

4/3

4/2

100

60

30

60

30

10YR

10YR 6/8

6/8 10

10 C

C M

M Silty Clay

Silty Clay Loam

Silt Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicator A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present. The criterion is met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                                     

   

                                         

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­13 upl

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Footslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

10.0% 5.7

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. This is part of a manicured lawn. None of the three criteria are met indicating that this

area is upland.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

30

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0

0.0%

74.1% FAC 

22.2% FACU

1.5% FAC 

1.5% FACU

0.7% UPL 

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0 0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Poa pratensis

Festuca rubra

Plantago major

Sonchus arvensis

Daucus carota

Species?

1

2

50.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

0 0

102 306

32 128

1 5

135 439

3.252

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

135

0.0%

0.0%

0

Woody Vine Stratum

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This area is part of a manicured lawn. Despite a dominance of planted Kentucky Blue Grass, the vegetation criterion is not met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

                                 

                         

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­13 upl

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks

fill material

gravel present

1

0­5

5­8

8­14

10YR

10YR

10YR

3/2

2/1

5/6

100

100

100 Sand

Sand

Silty Clay Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The soil profile is dominated by sand, gravel and fill material. The hydric soil criterion is not met.

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

There are no indicators of hydrology in this area. The criterion is not met.
         

       

   

   

   

       

 

   

   

     

   

         

   

   

   

     

     

       

               

       

     

       

                     

   

     

           

   

                    

        

   

   

       

     

                           

 

   

                   

                                     

                           

                   

   

   

     

   

   

1           

       

       

 1 

    1   

           

         

         

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ­ Midwest Region

Project/Site: Amtrak Hiawatha City/County: Milwaukee/Milwaukee Sampling Date: 24­Sep­15

Applicant/Owner: WisDOT State: WI Sampling Point: SP­14 wtd

Investigator(s): Mike Al­wathiqui, Geof Parish Section, Township, Range: S 32 T 6N R 22E

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave

Slope: / ° Lat.: Long.: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (MzdB), not hydric WWI classification: None

0.0% 0.0

Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ­ Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Yes No

Yes No

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Hydric Soil Present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes No

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Remarks:

WETS analysis found conditions to be slightly dryer than normal. Aerials and topography suggest that this may be a constructed stormwater feature.

However, all three criteria are met indicating that this area is wetland. Wetland ID: W­6.

VEGETATION ­ Use scientific names of plants. Dominant

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

50

30

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Herb Stratum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Tree Stratum

Sapling/Shrub Stratum

Absolute

% Cover

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

(Plot size: 5' r ) 

(Plot size: 15' r ) 

Juncus tenuis

Juncus torreyi

Phragmites australis

Euthamia graminifolia

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

59.5% FAC 

35.7% FACW

2.4% FACW

2.4% FACW

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

= Total Cover

Indicator

Status

= Total Cover

Rel.Strat.

Cover

Species?

2

2

100.0%

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant

Species Across All Strata:

(A/B)

Number of Dominant Species

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Percent of dominant Species

That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(B)

0 0

34 68

50 150

0 0

0 0

84 218

2.595

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

FACU species

UPL species

Column Totals:

x 1 =

x 2 =

x 3 =

x 4 =

x 5 =

(A) (B)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

3 ­ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

4 ­ Morphological Adaptations  (Provide supporting

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

2 ­ Dominance Test is > 50%

1 

1 

1 

1 ­ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

0

0

84

0

Woody Vine Stratum

1.

2.

(Plot size: 30' r ) 

0.0%

0.0%

= Total Cover

= Total Cover

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1 

Yes No

Hydrophytic

Vegetation

Present?

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)

This is a fresh (wet) meadow. The vegetation criterion is met.

*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region ­ Version 2.0
                             

                               

             

     

   

   

           

   

   

   

   

   

     

     

   

     

     

     

   

     

     

   

       

         

     

   

       

   

             

                       

     

       

   

   

   

       

     

     

       

     

     

   

   

               

   

                   

                                           

SOIL Sampling Point: SP­14 wtd

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

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

Depth

(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)

Matrix Redox Features

% % Type Loc2 Texture Remarks 1

0­6

6­14

10YR

10YR

2/1

5/6

95

100

7.5YR 5/6 5 C M

Sand

Sandy Clay Loam

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils  :

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and

wetland hydrology must be present,

unless disturbed or problematic.

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)

Stratified Layers (A5)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Redox Depressions (F8)

3

3

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Iron Manganese Masses (F12)

Dark Surface (S7)

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion is met by indicator F6 (Redox Dark Surface).

HYDROLOGY

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift Deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Water­Stained Leaves (B9)

True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

FAC­Neutral Test (D5)

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Gauge or Well Data (D9)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

6

4

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

A water table is present at 6" with saturation at 4". Multiple secondary hydrology indicators are present as well. The criterion is met.
APPENDIX F 

Site Photographs 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 1 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-1 in upland U 

-3. 

Photo #: 2 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-2 in wetland 

W-1. 
 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 3 

Direction of View: 

North 

Comment: 

Wetland W-1, a fresh (wet) meadow 

at the base of the railroad 

embankment. 

Photo #: 4 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-3 in upland U 

-1. 
 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 5 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-4 in wetland 

W-2C. 

Photo #: 6 

Direction of View: 

north 

Comment: 

Wetland W-2C Cattail marsh. 
 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 7 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-5 in upland U 

-1. 

Photo #: 8 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-6 in wetland 

W-4. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 9 

Direction of View: 

North 

Comment: 

Wetland W-4. 

Photo #: 10 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-7 in upland U 

-1. 
 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 11 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-8 in wetland 

W-3. 

Photo #: 12 

Direction of View: 

East 

Comment: 

Wetland W-4, a fresh (wet) meadow 

and shrub carr at the base of the 

railroad embankment. 
 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 13 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-9 in upland U 

-2. 

Photo #: 14 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-10 in 

wetland W-2B. 
 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 15 

Direction of View: 

northeast 

Comment: 

Wetland W-2B, a fresh (wet) meadow 

dominated by reed Canary Grass and 

Phragmites. 

Photo #: 16 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-11 in upland 

U-3. 
 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 17 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-12 in 

wetland W-5. 

Photo #: 18 

Direction of View: 

northwest 

Comment: 

Overview of wetland W-5. This is 

likely an excavated stormwater 

feature, based on grading and historic 

aerials. 
 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 19 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Upland sample point SP-13 in upland 

U-3. 

Photo #: 20 

Direction of View: 

-

Comment: 

Wetland sample point SP-14 in 

wetland W-6. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 21 

Direction of View: 

south 

Comment: 

Overview of wetland W-6. This is 

possibly a graded stormwater feature. 

Photo #: 22 

Direction of View: 

north 

Comment: 

Upland U-4 south of Greenfield 

Avenue. 
 

 

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 23 

Direction of View: 

south 

Comment: 

Upland U-4 south fo Greenfield 

Avenue on the east side of the 

railroad. 

Photo #: 24 

Direction of View: 

south 

Comment: 

Upland U-5, north of National Avenue. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 25 

Direction of View: 

north 

Comment: 

Upland U-5, north of National Avenue. 

Photo #: 26 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-6, east of 6th Street. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 27 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-6, east of 6th Street. 

Photo #: 28 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-6. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 29 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-7. 

Photo #: 30 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-7. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 31 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-8. 

Photo #: 32 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-8. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 33 

Direction of View: 

north 

Comment: 

Upland U-8 at the railroad river 

crossing. 

Photo #: 34 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-8, east of the 16th street 

bridge. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 35 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-8, east of the 16th Street 

Bridge. 

Photo #: 36 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-9, south of Canal Street. 
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
	

Amtrak Hiawatha
	

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
	

Photos Taken by GRAEF on 8/13/2015 and 8/24/2015
	

Photo #: 37 

Direction of View: 

west 

Comment: 

Upland U-10,. 

Photo #: 38 

Direction of View: 

east 

Comment: 

Upland U-10. 

APPENDIX G 

Upland and Wetland 

Summary Tables 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Wetland Summary Table
 

Wetland ID Size (Acres) C-value FQI vaue 

Wetland Sample 

Point(s) 

Adjacent Upland 

Sample Point(s) 

WWI 

Mapped 

Wetland(s) 

Wetland Plant Community 

Description(s) 

Dominant Wetland Vegetation 

(Based on FQA or Determination 

Data Form) Adjacent Upland Vegetation 

Mapped Wetland 

Soil Type Mapped Soils Hydric Classification † 

Hydric Soil Field 

Indicator(s) 

Hydrology Field 

Indicators 

Comments on Apparent Connectivity to 

Surface Waters ‡ Comments on Boundary Determination ADID Status 

W-1 0.32 2.8 13.3 SP-2 SP-1 None Shallow Marsh, Wet Meadow Typha angustifolia, Typha X glauca Elaegnus angustifolia, Coronilla varia Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non hydric F6 A2, A3, D2, D5 None Differences in vegetation soils and topography No 

W-2A, W-2B 0.22 2.6 11.6 SP-10 SP-9 None Shallow Marsh, Wet Meadow Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia Lotus corniculatus Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric F6 A2, A3, D2, D5 Intermittent stream, ditch, and additional wetlands Differences in vegetation , soils and hydrology No 

W-2C 0.32 2.6 9.4 SP-4 SP-3 None Shallow Marsh, Shrub Carr Sambucus nigra, Typha angustifolia Solidago canadensis, Cornus racemosa Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric F3 A3, C2, D2, D5 Intermittent stream, ditch, and additional wetlands Differences in vegetation, soils and hydrology No 

W-3 0.17 3 12.7 SP-8 SP-7 None Wet Meadow, Shrub Carr Phalaris arundinacea, Typha angustifolia, 

Cornus racemosa Rubus occidentalis, Cirsium arvense Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric F6 D2, D5 None Differences in vegetation, soils and hydrology No 

W-4 0.06 2.9 10.5 SP-6 SP-5 E1K Wet Meadow, Shrub Carr Sambucus nigra Cirsium arvense, Cornus racemosa Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric A11, F6 A2, A3, D2, D5 None Differences in vegetation, soils and hydrology No 

W-5 0.17 3 9.9 SP-12 SP-11 None Atypical (stormwater feature) Phragmites australis Poa pratensis Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric A11 C9, D2 Likely a constructed stormwater feature Differences in soils and hydrology No 

W-6 0.07 1.9 6 SP-14 SP-13 None Atypical (stormwater feature) Juncus tenuis, Juncus torreyi Poa pratensis, Festuca rubra Morley silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes (MzdB) Non Hydric F6 A2, A3, C9, D2, D5 Likely a constructed stormwater feature Differences in vegetation, soils and hydrology No 

† "Hydric" means that all components listed for a given map unit are rated as being hydric. "Predominantly hydric" means components that comprise 66 to 99 percent of the map unit are rated as hydric. "Partially hydric" means components that comprise 33 to 66 percent of the map unit are rated as hydric. "Predominantly nonhydric" means components that comprise up to 33 percent of the map unit are rated as hydric. "Nonhydric" means that none of the components are rated as hydric. 

The assumption here is that all components of the map unit are rated as hydric or nonhydric in the underlying database. A "Not rated or not available" map unit rating is displayed when none of the components within a map unit have been rated. 

‡ Comments on connectivity are the professional oppinion of the investigator based on general field observations at the time of the field visit and occasionally map resources. The ability to evaluate connectivity in the field may often be limited by public ROW access and private land access limitations. These oppinions are subject to change based on furhter investigation and data availibility. These oppinoins are not a juriscitional determination nor a significant nexus determination. 

1
 

Table 4. Upland Summary Table
 

Upland ID C-value FQI vaue 

Upland Community 

Description(s) 

Characteristic Vegetation (Based on 

FQA) General Comments 

U-1 2.4 7.3 upland (weedy) Cornus racemosa, Rhamnus cathartica Weedy area, recently disturbed 

U-2 2.8 10.3 upland (weedy) Rhamnus cathartica Weedy area, historically disturbed 

U3 1.9 8 upland (weedy) Frangula alnus, Solidago canadensis Weedy area, likely historically disturbed, some areas of 

managed lawn 

U-4 1.7 5.7 upland (weedy) Daucus carota Weedy area, historically disturbed 

U-5 2.6 5.8 upland (weedy) Rhamnus cathartica Weedy area, historically disturbed 

U-6 0.3 0.5 upland (weedy) Centaurea biebersteinii, Daucus carota, 

Solidago canadensis Weedy area, historically disturbed 

U-7 2.6 7.4 upland (weedy) Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Daucus carota Weedy area, mostly concrete 

U-8 1.4 4.3 upland (weedy) Conyza canadensis, Daucus carota, Solidago 

canadensis Weedy area, mostly gravel 

1
 
Table 4. Upland Summary Table
 

Upland ID C-value FQI vaue 

Upland Community 

Description(s) 

Characteristic Vegetation (Based on 

FQA) General Comments 

U-9 2.3 4.5 upland (weedy) Centaurea biebersteinii, Solidago canadensis Weedy area, mostly gravel 

U-10 1 2.2 upland (weedy) Daucus carota, Solidago canadensis Weedy area, mostly gravel 

2
 
APPENDIX H
 

Plants Lists
 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-1 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Shallow Marsh and Wet Meadow 

Eggers and Reed Shallow Marsh and Fresh Meadow 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed FAC 0 

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood FAC 2 

Dipsacus laciniatus cut-leaved teasel 

Eleocharis obtusa blunt spike-rush OBL 3 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash FACW 2 

Juncus canadensis Canadian rush OBL 7 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush FACW 4 

Lycopus americanus American water-horehound OBL 4 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife OBL 

Oenothera biennis bastard evening-primrose FACU 1 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper FACU 5 

Populus deltoides plains cottonwood FAC 2 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Rubus occidentalis black-cap 2 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Scirpus atrovirens dark-green bulrush OBL 3 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod FACW 3 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod FACW 

Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass FACW 5 

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Farewell-Summer FACW 

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England aster FACW 3 

Toxicodendron radicans common eastern poison-ivy FAC 4 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cat-tail OBL 

Typha X glauca hybrid cat-tail OBL 

Verbena hastata blue vervain FACW 3 

W-1 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-1 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Shallow Marsh and Wet Meadow 

Eggers and Reed Shallow Marsh and Fresh Meadow 

Vitis riparia river-bank grape FACW 2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 64 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 23 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.8 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 13.3 

W-1 
 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-2A and W-2B Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Shallow Marsh and Wet Meadow 

Eggers and Reed Shallow Marsh and Fresh Meadow 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Acer negundo box elder FAC 0 

Agrostis gigantea redtop FACW 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Bidens frondosa Devil's-Pitchfork FACW 1 

Carex vulpinoidea brown fox sedge FACW 2 

Centaurium pulchellum branching centaury FACU 

Conium maculatum poison-hemlock FACW 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Dipsacus laciniatus cut-leaved teasel 

Eleocharis obtusa blunt spike-rush OBL 3 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail FAC 1 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Geum aleppicum yellow avens FACW 3 

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley FAC 

Juncus canadensis Canadian rush OBL 7 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush FACW 4 

Lycopus americanus American water-horehound OBL 4 

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife OBL 

Panicum virgatum switch grass FAC 4 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass FACW 

Phragmites australis common reed FACW 1 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani soft-stem bulrush OBL 4 

Scirpus atrovirens dark-green bulrush OBL 3 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod FACW 3 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod FACW 

W-2A and W-2B 
 

 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-2A and W-2B 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Shallow Marsh and Wet Meadow 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Eggers and Reed Shallow Marsh and Fresh Meadow 

Sonchus arvensis field sow-thistle FACU 

Typha angustifolia 

Typha X glauca 

Verbena hastata 

narrow-leaved cat-tail 

hybrid cat-tail 

blue vervain 

OBL 

OBL 

FACW 3 

FQI = C N 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index 

C = Mean C Value 

N = Number of native taxa 

TOTAL = 

N = 

C = 

FQI = 

52 

20 

2.6 

11.6 

W-2A and W-2B 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-2C Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Shallow Marsh and Shrub Scrub 

Eggers and Reed Shallow Marsh and Shrub Carr 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Agrostis gigantea redtop FACW 

Alisma subcordatum common water-plantain OBL 3 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Bidens frondosa Devil's-Pitchfork FACW 1 

Eleocharis obtusa blunt spike-rush OBL 3 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail FAC 1 

Impatiens capensis orange jewelweed FACW 2 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush FACW 4 

Lycopus americanus American water-horehound OBL 4 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper FACU 5 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass FACW 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani soft-stem bulrush OBL 4 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cat-tail OBL 

Verbena hastata blue vervain FACW 3 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 34 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 13 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.6 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 9.4 

W-2C 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-3 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Wet Meadow and Shrub Scrob 

Eggers and Reed Fresh (Wet) Meadow and Shrub Carr 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Bidens frondosa Devil's-Pitchfork FACW 1 

Carex stricta common tussock sedge OBL 7 

Conium maculatum poison-hemlock FACW 

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood FAC 2 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Impatiens capensis orange jewelweed FACW 2 

Juncus effusus common rush OBL 4 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Lycopus americanus American water-horehound OBL 4 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass FACW 

Populus deltoides plains cottonwood FAC 2 

Populus deltoides plains cottonwood FAC 2 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Ribes americanum American black currant FACW 4 

Rubus occidentalis black-cap 2 

Salix bebbiana beaked willow FACW 7 

Salix discolor pussy willow FACW 2 

Salix fragilis brittle willow FAC 

Salix interior Sandbar Willow FACW 2 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Scirpus cyperinus wool-grass OBL 4 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Sonchus arvensis field sow-thistle FACU 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cat-tail OBL 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 54 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 18 

C = Mean C Value C = 3.0 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 12.7 

W-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-4 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Wet Meadow and Shrub Scrob 

Eggers and Reed Fresh (Wet) Meadow and Shrub Carr 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed OBL 5 

Bidens frondosa Devil's-Pitchfork FACW 1 

Carex stricta common tussock sedge OBL 7 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU 

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood FAC 2 

Eupatorium maculatum spotted Joe-Pye-weed 4 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Impatiens capensis orange jewelweed FACW 2 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Rubus occidentalis black-cap 2 

Rumex crispus curly dock FAC 

Salix interior Sandbar Willow FACW 2 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Solidago gigantea giant goldenrod FACW 3 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cat-tail OBL 

Vitis riparia river-bank grape FACW 2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 38 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 13 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.9 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 10.5 

W-4 
 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-5 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Atypical (stormwater feature) 

Eggers and Reed 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Carex vulpinoidea brown fox sedge FACW 2 

Coronilla varia crown-vetch 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Erigeron strigosus daisy fleabane FACU 2 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Helenium autumnale common sneezeweed FACW 4 

Hordeum jubatum foxtail barley FAC 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush FACW 4 

Phragmites australis common reed FACW 1 

Plantago major broad-leaved plantain FAC 

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan FACU 4 

Rumex crispus curly dock FAC 

Scirpus atrovirens dark-green bulrush OBL 3 

Silphium perfoliatum cup-plant FACW 4 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod FACW 

Typha X glauca hybrid cat-tail OBL 

Verbena hastata blue vervain FACW 3 

Vitis riparia river-bank grape FACW 2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 33 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 11 

C = Mean C Value C = 3.0 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 9.9 

W-5 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-2015 

Plant Community ID: W-6 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Atypical (stormwater feature) 

Eggers and Reed 

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Coronilla varia crown-vetch 

Cyperus strigosus false nut sedge FACW 1 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Elaeagnus angustifolia oleaster FACU 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush FACW 4 

Phragmites australis common reed FACW 1 

Prunella vulgaris heal-all FAC 1 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Rhus hirta staghorn sumac 2 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani soft-stem bulrush OBL 4 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod FACW 

Sonchus arvensis field sow-thistle FACU 

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Farewell-Summer FACW 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cat-tail OBL 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 19 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 10 

C = Mean C Value C = 1.9 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 6.0 

W-6 

 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-15 

Plant Community ID: U-1 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Upland 

Eggers and Reed Upland

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU 

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood FAC 2 

Eupatorium rugosum white snakeroot 1 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Lonicera X bella showy bush honeysuckle FACU 

Monarda fistulosa bee balm FACU 3 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Ribes americanum American black currant FACW 4 

Rubus occidentalis black-cap 2 

Sambucus nigra black elder FACW 3 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Vitis riparia river-bank grape FACW 2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 22 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 9 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.4 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 7.3 

U-1 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-15 

Plant Community ID: U-2 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Upland 

Eggers and Reed Upland

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Acer negundo box elder FAC 0 

Asparagus officinalis asparagus FACU 

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle FACU 

Coronilla varia crown-vetch 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Elymus canadensis Canada wild-rye FACU 4 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Hypericum prolificum shrubby St. John's-wort FACU 5 

Juniperus virginiana eastern red-cedar FACU 3 

Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot deer-vetch FACU 

Oenothera biennis bastard evening-primrose FACU 1 

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass FACW 

Phragmites australis common reed FACW 1 

Prunella vulgaris heal-all FAC 1 

Quercus alba white oak FACU 7 

Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn FAC 

Rhus hirta staghorn sumac 2 

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan FACU 4 

Rumex crispus curly dock FAC 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Sonchus arvensis field sow-thistle FACU 

Toxicodendron radicans common eastern poison-ivy FAC 4 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 37 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 13 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.8 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 10.3 

U-2 
 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-15 

Plant Community ID: U-3 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Upland 

Eggers and Reed Upland

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Acer negundo box elder FAC 0 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Asclepias syriaca common milkweed FACU 1 

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed FACU 0 

Coronilla varia crown-vetch 

Cyperus strigosus false nut sedge FACW 1 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Dipsacus laciniatus cut-leaved teasel 

Elaeagnus angustifolia oleaster FACU 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail FAC 1 

Erigeron strigosus daisy fleabane FACU 2 

Euthamia graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 4 

Fragaria virginiana thick-leaved wild strawberry FACU 1 

Geum aleppicum yellow avens FACW 3 

Hypericum perforatum common St. John's-wort FACU 

Juncus tenuis path rush FAC 1 

Juniperus virginiana eastern red-cedar FACU 3 

Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot deer-vetch FACU 

Melilotus albus white sweet-clover 

Panicum virgatum switch grass FAC 4 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper FACU 5 

Phleum pratense common timothy FACU 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

Rhamnus frangula European alder buckthorn 

Rumex crispus curly dock FAC 

Setaria faberi Chinese foxtail FACU 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Solidago sempervirens seaside goldenrod FACW 

Sonchus arvensis field sow-thistle FACU 

U-3 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-24-15 

Plant Community ID: U-3 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae 

Verbascum thapsus 

Verbena hastata 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

New England aster FACW 

common mullein 

blue vervain FACW 

3 

3 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 33 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 17 

C = Mean C Value C = 1.9 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 8.0 

U-3 
 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-4 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Upland 

Eggers and Reed Upland

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Acer negundo box elder FAC 0 

Acer platanoides Norway maple 

Acer saccharinum silver maple FACW 2 

Achillea millefolium common yarrow FACU 1 

Bromus inermis smooth brome FACU 

Centaurea biebersteinii spotted knapweed 

Cichorium intybus blue chicory FACU 

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed FACU 0 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Eupatorium rugosum white snakeroot 1 

Fraxinus americana white ash FACU 5 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash FACW 2 

Hypericum perforatum common St. John's-wort FACU 

Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot deer-vetch FACU 

Melilotus albus white sweet-clover 

Mentha arvensis field mint FACW 3 

Plantago lanceolata English plantain FACU 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

Populus deltoides plains cottonwood FAC 2 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Verbascum thapsus common mullein 

Vitis riparia river-bank grape FACW 2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 19 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 11 

C = Mean C Value C = 1.7 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 5.7 

U-4 
 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-5 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Dominant Scientific Name 

Centaurea biebersteinii 

Daucus carota 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Hypericum perforatum 

Juniperus virginiana 

Linaria vulgaris 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Poa pratensis 

Rhamnus cathartica 

Solidago canadensis 

Vitis riparia 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Common Name Ind. Status 

spotted knapweed 

Queen Anne's-lace 

green ash FACW 

common St. John's-wort FACU 

eastern red-cedar FACU 

butter-and-eggs 

Virginia creeper FACU 

Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

common buckthorn FAC 

Canadian goldenrod FACU 

river-bank grape FACW 

WI C Value 

2 

3 

5 

1 

2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 13 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 5 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.6 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 5.8 

U-5 
 

 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-6 Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Community Classification: 

WisDOT Upland 

Eggers and Reed Upland

Dominant Scientific Name Common Name Ind. Status WI C Value 

Achillea millefolium common yarrow FACU 1 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual bur-sage FACU 0 

Arctium minus common burdock FACU 

Centaurea biebersteinii spotted knapweed 

Chenopodium album common lamb's-quarters FACU 0 

Cichorium intybus blue chicory FACU 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle FACU 

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed FACU 0 

Daucus carota Queen Anne's-lace 

Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot deer-vetch FACU 

Medicago lupulina black medick FACU 

Melilotus albus white sweet-clover 

Phleum pratense common timothy FACU 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel FACU 

Solidago canadensis Canadian goldenrod FACU 1 

Trifolium arvense rabbit-foot clover 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 2 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 5 

C = Mean C Value C = 0.4 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 0.9 

U-6 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-7 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Dominant Scientific Name 

Acer negundo 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Bromus inermis 

Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Convolvulus arvensis 

Conyza canadensis 

Daucus carota 

Elymus repens 

Euthamia graminifolia 

Linaria vulgaris 

Melilotus albus 

Nepeta cataria 

Phleum pratense 

Poa pratensis 

Rhus hirta 

Setaria faberi 

Solanum dulcamara 

Solidago canadensis 

Solidago gigantea 

Symphyotrichum pilosum 

Thuja occidentalis 

Vitis riparia 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Common Name Ind. Status 

box elder FAC 

annual bur-sage FACU 

smooth brome FACU 

shepherd's-purse FACU 

field bindweed 

Canadian horseweed FACU 

Queen Anne's-lace 

quackgrass FACU 

grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 

butter-and-eggs 

white sweet-clover 

catnip FACU 

common timothy FACU 

Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

staghorn sumac 

Chinese foxtail FACU 

bittersweet nightshade FAC 

Canadian goldenrod FACU 

giant goldenrod FACW 

White Oldfield American-Aster FACU 

eastern arborvitae FACW 

river-bank grape FACW 

WI C Value 

0 

0 

0 

4 

2 

1 

3 

9 

2 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 21 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 9 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.3 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 7.0 

U-7 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-0041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-8 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Dominant Scientific Name 

Acer negundo 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Asclepias syriaca 

Centaurea biebersteinii 

Cirsium arvense 

Convolvulus arvensis 

Conyza canadensis 

Daucus carota 

Melilotus albus 

Mentha arvensis 

Oenothera biennis 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Populus deltoides 

Setaria faberi 

Solidago canadensis 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Common Name Ind. Status 

box elder FAC 

annual bur-sage FACU 

common milkweed FACU 

spotted knapweed 

Canada thistle FACU 

field bindweed 

Canadian horseweed FACU 

Queen Anne's-lace 

white sweet-clover 

field mint FACW 

bastard evening-primrose FACU 

Virginia creeper FACU 

plains cottonwood FAC 

Chinese foxtail FACU 

Canadian goldenrod FACU 

WI C Value 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

5 

2 

1 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 13 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 9 

C = Mean C Value C = 1.4 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 4.3 

U-8 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-00041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-9 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Dominant Scientific Name 

Achillea millefolium 

Artemisia absinthium 

Centaurea biebersteinii 

Cirsium vulgare 

Euthamia graminifolia 

Linaria vulgaris 

Mentha arvensis 

Poa pratensis 

Solidago canadensis 

Symphyotrichum pilosum 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Common Name Ind. Status 

common yarrow FACU 

absinth sage-wort 

spotted knapweed 

bull thistle FACU 

grass-leaved goldenrod FACW 

butter-and-eggs 

field mint FACW 

Kentucky bluegrass FAC 

Canadian goldenrod FACU 

White Oldfield American-Aster FACU 

WI C Value 

1 

4 

3 

1 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 9 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 4 

C = Mean C Value C = 2.3 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 4.5 

U-9 
 

 

 

 

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Natural Resource Review 

2014-00041.39 

8-13-2015 

Plant Community ID: U-10 

Community Classification: 

Eggers and Reed Upland

WisDOT Upland 

Dominant Scientific Name 

Acer negundo 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Cichorium intybus 

Cirsium arvense 

Daucus carota 

Lolium perenne 

Lotus corniculatus 

Mentha arvensis 

Oenothera biennis 

Solidago canadensis 

Symphyotrichum pilosum 

Verbascum thapsus 

Observer(s): Geof Parish and Mike Al-wathiqui 

Common Name Ind. Status 

box elder FAC 

annual bur-sage FACU 

blue chicory FACU 

Canada thistle FACU 

Queen Anne's-lace 

English rye grass FACU 

bird's-foot deer-vetch FACU 

field mint FACW 

bastard evening-primrose FACU 

Canadian goldenrod FACU 

White Oldfield American-Aster FACU 

common mullein 

WI C Value 

0 

0 

3 

1 

1 

FQI = C N TOTAL = 5 

Where: FQI = Floristic Quality Index N = 5 

C = Mean C Value C = 1.0 

N = Number of native taxa FQI = 2.2 

U-10 

APPENDIX I 

WDNR Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Review and IPaC Results 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State of Wisconsin 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Scott Walker, Governor Southeast Region Headquarters Cathy Stepp, Secretary 2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. Eric Nitschke, Regional Director Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone 414-263-8570 

December 23, 2014 

Melanie K. Johnson, P.E. 

Quandel Consultants 

2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 291 

Beachwood, OH 44122 

Subject: DNR Initial Project Review: 

Hiawatha Passenger Rail 

Chicago-Milwaukee Environmental Assessment & Service Development Plan 

Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee Counties 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

The Department has received the information you provided for the proposed above-referenced project on 

November 5th, 2014. According to your proposal, the purpose of this project is to increase passenger rail service 

from 7 trips per day to 10 trips per day. Proposed improvements include: 

1. A new platform, with elevator towers and overhead walkway, across from the existing General 

Mitchell International Airport Rail Station 

2. New signalization equipment at the Muskego Rail Yard (Menomonee Valley, I-43 to 43rd St.). 

Rehabilitation or replacement of deteriorated Muskego Rail Yard bridges over the Menomonee River 

may be added to the signalization project 

3. Upgraded signals near the Milwaukee Intermodal Station cut-off point 

Preliminary information has been reviewed by DNR staff for the project under the DOT/DNR Cooperative 

Agreement. Initial comments on the project as proposed are included below and assume that additional 

information will be provided that addresses all resource concerns identified. 

A. Project-Specific Resource Concerns 

Wetlands & Waterways 

There is potential for wetland impacts to occur as a result of this project and therefore wetland impacts must be 

avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent possible. Unavoidable wetland impacts must be mitigated for in 

accordance with the DOT/DNR Cooperative Agreement and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

Wetland Mitigation Banking Technical Guideline. The Department requests information regarding the amount 

and type of unavoidable wetland impacts. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2 

Endangered Resources (ER) 

Based upon a review of the Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) and other Department records on December 23, 

2014 no Endangered Resources or suitable habitat that could be impacted by this project are known or likely to 

occur in the project area or its vicinity. 

Fisheries/Stream work 

The Menomonee River is a navigable waterway. In order to protect developing fish eggs and substrate for aquatic 

organisms, all in-stream work that could adversely impact water quality should be undertaken between June 15th 

and February 28th of the calendar year. 

Migratory birds 

Based on the information provided/based on site review, there is evidence of past migratory bird nesting on the 

existing structure. Under the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, destruction of swallows and other migratory birds 

or their nests is unlawful unless a permit has been obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Therefore, the 

project should either utilize measures to prevent nesting (e.g., remove unoccupied nests during the non-nesting 

season and install barrier netting prior to May 1), or should occur only between August 30 and May 1 (nonnesting season). (If netting is used, ensure it is properly maintained, then removed as soon as the nesting period is 

over.) If neither of these options is practicable then the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service must be contacted to apply 

for a depredation permit. 

Invasive species & VHS 

Adequate precautions should be taken to prevent transporting or introducing invasive species via construction 

equipment, as provided under NR 40, Wis. Administrative Code. This website provides further information and 

lists those species classified as Restricted or Prohibited under NR 40: 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Invasives/classification.html 

The Department will work with project managers to help identify specific locations of problem areas across the 

project site and to recommend preventive measures. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 

rights-of-way provide a series of measures that will ensure reasonable precautions are taken throughout the stages 

of construction: http://council.wisconsinforestry.org/invasives/transportation/pdf/ROW-Manual.pdf 

In particular, the following measures will be important for this project: 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/vhs/disinfection_protocols.pdf 

For work involving waterbodies: 

All equipment must be properly cleaned and disinfected to address the spread of invasive species and viruses. 

Special provisions should require contractors to implement the following measures before and after mobilizing inwater equipment to prevent the spread of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS), Zebra Mussel, and other invasive 

species. Follow STSP 107-055 Environmental Protection – Aquatic Exotic Species Control, which includes the 

protocol found here: 

For up to date information on invasive species and infested waters go to 

http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/invasives/AISByWaterbody.aspx 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3 

Floodplains 

A determination must be made as to whether the project lies within a mapped/zoned floodplain. In order to meet 

the standards of NR 116, Floodplain Management, a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis must be conducted for the 

100-year flood event for any new structures. Plans for the structure must comply with the provisions of the local 

community's floodplain zoning ordinance. DNR requires submittal of the results of a 100-year flood analysis for 

the structure(s). 

If the new structure(s) will create an increase of 0.01 feet or more in the 100-year backwater condition, DNR 

requires that all affected upstream landowners be notified, appropriate legal arrangements made, and the local 

floodplain ordinance must be amended. For areas lying outside mapped/zoned floodplain, DNR may request the 

results of DOT flow and backwater calculations. 

Other Issues/Unique Features 

Emerald Ash Borer 

This project has the potential for spreading the Emerald Ask Borer (EAB) beetle. It is illegal to move or 

transport ash material, the emerald ash borer, and hardwood debris (i.e. firewood) from EAB quarantined 

areas to a non-quarantined area without a compliance agreement issued by WI Department of Agriculture, 

Trade and Consumer Protection. Regulated items include cut hardwood (non-coniferous) firewood, ash logs, 

ash mulch or bark fragments larger than on inch in diameter, or ash nursery stock (DATCP statute 21). 

For more information regarding the EAB and quarantine areas please follow the links below. 

http://datcpservices.wisconsin.gov/eab/article.jsp?topicid=20 

B. Construction Site Considerations 

The following issues may be addressed in the Special Provisions and the contractor will be required to outline 

their construction methods in the Erosion Control Implementation Plan (ECIP). 

Erosion control/Stormwater 

Erosion control devices should be specified on the construction plans. All disturbed bank areas should be 

adequately protected and restored as soon as feasible. 

An adequate erosion control implementation plan (ECIP) for the project must be developed by the contractor and 

submitted to this office for review at least 14 days prior to the preconstruction conference. 

If erosion mat is used along stream banks, the department recommends that biodegradable and non-netted mat be 

used (e.g., Class I Type A Urban, Class I Type B Urban, or Class II Type C). Long-term netted mats may cause 

animals to become entrapped while moving in and out of the stream. Avoid the use of fine mesh matting that is 

tied or bonded at the mesh intersection such that the openings in the mesh are fixed in size. 

Structure removal/Bridge demolition 
 

 

 

Page 4 

Due to the characteristics of this section of the Menomonee River, STSP 203-020, Removing Old Structure Over 

Waterway With Minimal Debris, will be adequate for this project. Please coordinate with DNR early in the design 

phase of the project if the bridge must be dropped into the waterway before removal. 

Asbestos 

A Notification of Demolition and/or Renovation and Application for Permit Exemption, DNR form 4500-113 

(NR 406, 410, and 447 Wis. Adm. Code) may be required. Please refer to DOT FDM 21-35-45 and the DNR’s 

notification requirements web page: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Demo/Asbestos.html for further guidance on asbestos 

inspections and notifications. Contact Mark Davis, Air Management Specialist 608-266-3658, with questions on 

the form. The DNR’s online notification system is available at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Demo/Asbestos.html . The 

notification must be submitted 10 working days in advance of demolition projects. 

The above comments represent the Department’s initial concerns for the proposed project and do not constitute 

final concurrence. Final concurrence will be granted after review of plans and further consultation if necessary. 

If any of the concerns or information provided in this letter requires further clarification, please contact this office 

414.881.5633. 

Sincerely, 

Kristina Betzold 

Environmental Analysis & Review Specialist 

Southeast Region 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Amtrak Hiawatha NRPP
 

IPaC Trust Resource Report 

Generated October 26, 2015 09:59 AM MDT 

This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or 

analyzing project-level impacts. For projects that require FWS review, please return to 

this project on the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory 

Documents page. 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

IPaC Trust Resource Report 

Project Description
 

NAME 

Amtrak Hiawatha NRPP 

PROJECT CODE 

OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

LOCATION 

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

DESCRIPTION 

No description provided 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information 

Species in this report are managed by: 

Green Bay Ecological Services Field Office 

2661 Scott Tower Drive 

New Franken, WI 54229-9565 

(920) 866-1717 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 2 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

Endangered Species 

Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the 

Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis 

for this project. 

This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the 

requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which states that Federal 

agencies are required to "request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any 

species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a 

proposed action." This requirement applies to projects which are conducted, permitted 

or licensed by any Federal agency. 

A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be 

obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an official 

species list on the Regulatory Documents page. 

Mammals 

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE 

Critical Habitats 

Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along with 

the endangered species themselves. 

There is no critical habitat within this project area 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 3 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

Migratory Birds 

Birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. 

Any activity which results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless 

authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( 1 ). There are no provisions for

allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured. 

You are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations for the protection of 

birds as part of this project. This involves analyzing potential impacts and implementing 

appropriate conservation measures for all project activities. 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Year-round 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008 

Bird of conservation concern 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09F 

Bird of conservation concern 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI 

Bird of conservation concern 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Season: Breeding 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Season: Breeding 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Season: Breeding 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Season: Breeding 

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09I 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09G 

Bird of conservation concern 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Season: Breeding 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 4 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Bird of conservation concern 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09D 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Season: Breeding 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Season: Breeding 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Season: Breeding 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Season: Breeding 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Season: Wintering 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

Season: Wintering 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HC 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

Season: Breeding 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 5 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

Refuges 

Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility 

Determination' conducted by the Refuge. If your project overlaps or otherwise impacts a 

Refuge, please contact that Refuge to discuss the authorization process. 

There are no refuges within this project area 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 6 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report OCUXG-JXI6N-EGNFX-LYOPE-XZHS3U 

Wetlands
 

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject to 

regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes. 

Project proponents should discuss the relationship of these requirements to their project 

with the Regulatory Program of the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. 

DATA LIMITATIONS 

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information 

on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. 

Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use 

of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland 

boundaries or classification established through image analysis. 

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, 

the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata 

should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. 

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be 

occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the 

actual conditions on site. 

DATA EXCLUSIONS 

Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial 

imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged 

aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. 

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. 

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. 

DATA PRECAUTIONS 

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a 

different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this 

inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the 

geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities 

involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or 

local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such 

activities. 

Riverine 

R2UBH 1490.0 acres

R2UBFd 17.5 acres 

10/26/2015 09:59 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 7 

Version 2.2.7 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Amtrak Hiawatha (Mitchell) 

NRPP 

IPaC Trust Resource Report 

Generated October 26, 2015 10:00 AM MDT 

This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or 

analyzing project-level impacts. For projects that require FWS review, please return to 

this project on the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory 

Documents page. 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

US Fish & Wildlife Service 

IPaC Trust Resource Report 

Project Description
 

NAME 

Amtrak Hiawatha (Mitchell) NRPP 

PROJECT CODE 

MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

LOCATION 

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

DESCRIPTION 

No description provided 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information 

Species in this report are managed by: 

Green Bay Ecological Services Field Office 

2661 Scott Tower Drive 

New Franken, WI 54229-9565 

(920) 866-1717 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 2 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

Endangered Species 

Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the 

Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis 

for this project. 

This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the 

requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which states that Federal 

agencies are required to "request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any 

species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a 

proposed action." This requirement applies to projects which are conducted, permitted 

or licensed by any Federal agency. 

A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be 

obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an official 

species list on the Regulatory Documents page. 

Mammals 

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE 

Critical Habitats 

Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along with 

the endangered species themselves. 

There is no critical habitat within this project area 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 3 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

Migratory Birds 

Birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. 

Any activity which results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless 

authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( 1 ). There are no provisions for

allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured. 

You are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations for the protection of 

birds as part of this project. This involves analyzing potential impacts and implementing 

appropriate conservation measures for all project activities. 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F3 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Year-round 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008 

Bird of conservation concern 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09F 

Bird of conservation concern 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HI 

Bird of conservation concern 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 

Season: Breeding 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Season: Breeding 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Season: Breeding 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 

Season: Breeding 

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09I 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09G 

Bird of conservation concern 

Dickcissel Spiza americana 

Season: Breeding 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0G4 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 4 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Bird of conservation concern 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B09D 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Season: Breeding 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

Season: Breeding 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

Season: Breeding 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Season: Breeding 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Season: Wintering 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 

Season: Wintering 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HD 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0HC 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

Season: Breeding 

https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0F6 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

Season: Breeding 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

Bird of conservation concern 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 5 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

Refuges 

Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility 

Determination' conducted by the Refuge. If your project overlaps or otherwise impacts a 

Refuge, please contact that Refuge to discuss the authorization process. 

There are no refuges within this project area 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 6 

Version 2.2.7 
IPaC Trust Resource Report MILQC-6RCFF-F77F6-ZBTTS-BX7AIM 

Wetlands
 

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject to 

regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes. 

Project proponents should discuss the relationship of these requirements to their project 

with the Regulatory Program of the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. 

DATA LIMITATIONS 

The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information 

on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. 

Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use 

of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland 

boundaries or classification established through image analysis. 

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, 

the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata 

should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. 

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be 

occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the 

actual conditions on site. 

DATA EXCLUSIONS 

Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial 

imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged 

aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. 

Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. 

These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. 

DATA PRECAUTIONS 

Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a 

different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this 

inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the 

geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities 

involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or 

local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such 

activities. 

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 

PEMC 5.49 acres 

PEM1C 3.21 acres 

10/26/2015 10:00 IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation Page 7 

Version 2.2.7