Chicago‐Milwaukee

Amtrak Hiawatha Service

Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix E

Illinois Natural Resources Review
   

  

       

   

         

           

               

     

             

     

          

Section 1

Sequence 19152

Chicago ‐ Milwaukee Rail Corridor Main Right‐

of‐Way and

Glenview Crossover, Lake Forest Crossover,

Deerfield Holding Track, UPRR Siding Extension

at A‐20, and Speed Increase between A‐20 and

Rondout Project Areas

Contents:

Natural Resources Review Letter – Seq. 19152

Official Species List

NLEB 4d Streamlined Consultation Form






United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Chicago Ecological Service Field Office

1250 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE SUITE 103

BARRINGTON, IL 60010

PHONE: (847)381-2253 FAX: (847)381-2285

URL:

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html

Consultation Code: 03E13000-2016-SLI-0161 April 08, 2016

Event Code: 03E13000-2016-E-00223

Project Name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project

location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

To Whom It May Concern:

The attached species list identifies any federally threatened, endangered, proposed and

candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project or may be

affected by your proposed project. The list also includes designated critical habitat if present

within your proposed project area or affected by your project. This list is provided to you as the

initial step of the consultation process required under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species

Act, also referred to as Section 7 Consultation.

Please note! For all wind energy projects projects that include installing towers that and 

use guy wires or are over 200 feet in height, please contact this field office directly for

assistance, even if no federally listed plants, animals or critical habitat are present within your

proposed project or may be affected by your proposed project.

For all other projects, continue the Section 7 Consultation process by going to our Section 7

Technical Assistance website at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/index.html. If you are familiar

with this website, you may want to go to Step 2 of the Section 7 Consultation process at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/step2.html.

Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) (the regulations that implement Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act) the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be

completed formally or informally. You may verify the list by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website 

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ at regular intervals during project planning and implementation and
completing the same process you used to receive the attached list. As an alternative, you may

contact this Ecological Services Field Office for updates.

Although no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, be aware that bald eagles are

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), as are golden et seq.

eagles. Projects affecting these species may require measures to avoid harming eagles or may

require a permit. If your project is near an eagle nest or winter roost area, see our Eagle Permits

website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html to help you

determine if you can avoid impacting eagles or if a permit may be necessary.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please include the

Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or

correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/08/2016 01:21 PM

1

Official Species List

Provided by:

Chicago Ecological Service Field Office

1250 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE SUITE 103

BARRINGTON, IL 60010

(847) 381-2253

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html

Consultation Code: 03E13000-2016-SLI-0161

Event Code: 03E13000-2016-E-00223

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION

Project Name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152

Project Description: 5 subprojects in IL: Glenview Crossover, Lake Forest Crossover, Deerfield

Holding Track, UPRR Siding Extension, Speed Increase. Replace or new track, signals, sidings,

crossovers. No new ROW, no tree removal, no bridge work, no instream work. No effect NLEB.

Project areas range between urban residential, commercial, parks to rural. Construction timing

unknown.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it

may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code

matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'

section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/08/2016 01:21 PM

2

Project Location Map: 

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-87.96478271484375 42.45386118849115, -

87.95379638671874 42.369705548164845, -87.83843994140625 42.04317376494972, -

87.76702880859374 41.95642641461421, -87.65853881835938 41.89409955811395, -

87.65579223632812 41.902277040963696, -87.65579223632812 41.88592102814744, -

87.72994995117188 41.9094314794687, -87.75054931640625 41.94110578381598, -

87.83706665039061 41.99828401778616, -87.87139892578125 42.07783959017503, -

87.88787841796875 42.147114459220994, -87.93594360351562 42.224449701009725, -

87.98126220703125 42.40622065620649, -87.98126220703125 42.461966608980134, -

87.96478271484375 42.45386118849115)))

Project Counties: Cook, IL | Lake, IL

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/08/2016 01:21 PM

3

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 12 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be

considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For

example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of

these species should be considered only under certain conditions. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical

Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area

section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you

have questions.

Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

 Population: Great Lakes watershed

Endangered

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Threatened

Flowering Plants

Eastern Prairie Fringed orchid

(Platanthera leucophaea)

Threatened Will this project

impact, directly or

indirectly, emergent

wetland, wet meadow,

sedge meadow, fen,

wet to mesic prairie, or

marsh edges?

Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) Endangered

Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii) Threatened

Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) Threatened

Prairie bush-clover (Lespedeza

leptostachya)

 Population: Entire

Threatened

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/08/2016 01:21 PM

4

Insects

Hine's Emerald dragonfly

(Somatochlora hineana)

Endangered Final designated

Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides

melissa samuelis)

 Population: Entire

Endangered

Rattlesnake-Master Borer moth

(Papaipema eryngii)

Candidate

Mammals

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis

septentrionalis)

Threatened

Reptiles

eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus

catenatus)

Proposed

Threatened

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 04/08/2016 01:21 PM

5

Critical habitats that lie within your project area

There are no critical habitats within your project area.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Chicago to Milwaukee Main ROW, Lake & Cook Cos, IL, seq. 19152


   

  

       

         

       

             

   

     

             

             

               

             

                   

   

     

          

     

Section 2

Sequence 19157

Chicago ‐ Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail

Corridor Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake

Second Track Project Area

Contents:

Natural Resources Review Letter – Seq. 19157

EcoCAT Results

Botanical Survey Report

Mammal Survey Report – Bat Habitat Assessment

Avian Survey Report – Breeding Bird Survey

Aquatic Survey Report – Fish and Mussel Survey

Aquatic Survey Report – Blanding’s Turtle Habitat

Aquatic Survey Report – Water Quality/ Benthic Macro Invertebrates Habitat

Wetland Determination Report

Official Species List

NLEB 4d Streamlined Consultation Form

Illinois DNR Concurrence Letter






Applicant: 

Address: 

Contact: Susan Hargrove 

2300 S Dirksen Parkway 

Room 330 

Illinois Department of Transportation IDNR Project Number: 

Alternate Number: 

Date: 

19157 

03/28/2016 

1608980 

Springfield, IL 62764 

Project: 

Address: 

Ro 

n/a, Lake Bluff area 

Description: Replace small RR bridge over NB Chicago R; replace track, new track & signals from CP 

MP 31.16 to Metra MP 33.85, Lake Co. Middlefork Savanna INAI/NP w/ many T&E. INHS found marsh 

speedwell, golden sedge, EPFO, least bittern, IA darter 3 streams, no Blanding's turtles. Commitments. 

Natural Resource Review Results 

Consultation for Endangered Species Protection and Natural Areas Preservation (Part 1075) 

The Illinois Natural Heritage Database shows the following protected resources may be in the vicinity of the 


project location:
 

Middle Fork Savanna INAI Site
 

Jean Farwell Woods Land And Water Reserve 


Middlefork Savanna Nature Preserve 


Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
 

Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea)
 

Golden Sedge (Carex aurea)
 

Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile)
 

King Rail (Rallus elegans)
 

Marsh Speedwell (Veronica scutellata)
 

Northern Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis)
 

Pale Vetchling (Lathyrus ochroleucus)
 

Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor)
 

An IDNR staff member will evaluate this information and contact you to request additional information 

or to terminate consultation if adverse effects are unlikely. 

Location 

The applicant is responsible for the 

accuracy of the location submitted 

for the project. 

County: Lake 

Township, Range, Section: 

43N, 12E, 6 

44N, 11E, 13 

44N, 11E, 14 

44N, 11E, 23 

44N, 11E, 24 

44N, 11E, 25 

44N, 11E, 36 

44N, 12E, 31 

Page 1 of 2 
IDNR Project Number: 1608980 

IL Department of Natural Resources 

Contact 

Sheldon Fairfield 

217-785-5500 

Division of Ecosystems & Environment 

Government Jurisdiction 

IL Department of Transportation 

Susan Hargrove 

2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 330 

Bureau of Design and Environment 

Springfield, Illinois 62764 

Disclaimer 

The Illinois Natural Heritage Database cannot provide a conclusive statement on the presence, absence, or 

condition of natural resources in Illinois. This review reflects the information existing in the Database at the time 

of this inquiry, and should not be regarded as a final statement on the site being considered, nor should it be a 

substitute for detailed site surveys or field surveys required for environmental assessments. If additional 

protected resources are encountered during the project’s implementation, compliance with applicable statutes 

and regulations is required. 

Terms of Use 

By using this website, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to these terms. These terms may be 

revised by IDNR as necessary. If you continue to use the EcoCAT application after we post changes to these 

terms, it will mean that you accept such changes. If at any time you do not accept the Terms of Use, you may not 

continue to use the website. 

1. The IDNR EcoCAT website was developed so that units of local government, state agencies and the public 

could request information or begin natural resource consultations on-line for the Illinois Endangered Species 

Protection Act, Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act, and Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act. EcoCAT uses 

databases, Geographic Information System mapping, and a set of programmed decision rules to determine if 

proposed actions are in the vicinity of protected natural resources. By indicating your agreement to the Terms of 

Use for this application, you warrant that you will not use this web site for any other purpose. 

2. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and 

may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and/or the National Information 

Infrastructure Protection Act. 

3. IDNR reserves the right to enhance, modify, alter, or suspend the website at any time without notice, or to 

terminate or restrict access. 

Security 

EcoCAT operates on a state of Illinois computer system. We may use software to monitor traffic and to identify 

unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information, to cause harm or otherwise to damage this 

site. Unauthorized attempts to upload, download, or change information on this server is strictly prohibited by law. 

Unauthorized use, tampering with or modification of this system, including supporting hardware or software, may 

subject the violator to criminal and civil penalties. In the event of unauthorized intrusion, all relevant information 

regarding possible violation of law may be provided to law enforcement officials. 

Privacy 

EcoCAT generates a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Otherwise, IDNR 

uses the information submitted to EcoCAT solely for internal tracking purposes. 

Page 2 of 2 
Results of Botanical Surveys of Metra Fox Lake rail project 

including Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake Co, IL 

IDOT Sequence Number: 19157 

Prepared by:
 

Greg Spyreas, Botanist
 

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program 

2015 (57) 

December 17, 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Summary 

Botanical surveys were conducted in June, July, and August 2015 within the Roundout/Metra 

Fox Lake railroad corridor in Lake County, Illinois. The emphasis of the surveys were to locate, 

map, and describe any Threatened or Endangered (T & E) species and high-quality natural plant 

communities. One population each of the state Threatened plant species, marsh speedwell 

(Veronica scutellata) and golden sedge (Carex aurea), were found within the project boundary. 

There were several remnant plant communities of considerable natural quality (Grade B or C) 

found within the project corridor, and most of these extended beyond the project corridor 

boundary into the adjacent Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve to the east. Several areas 

qualified as potential habitat for the Federally Threatened Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea), and they were searched in detail. Two EPFO individuals were found 

within a high-quality wetland that was previously known to harbor an EPFO population. While 

this wetland extended into the project area, the EPFO plants themselves were outside of the 

project area. One of the EPFO plants was only ~15 ft. east of the project boundary, growing 

within an area with evidence of herbicide drift damage on its associated vegetation. 

Signed: Date: December 17, 2015 

Eric Ulaszek 

Biological Surveys & Assessment Program 

Botany Coordinator 

Surveys Conducted by: Greg Spyreas, Botanist 

Eric Ulaszek, Botanist 

GIS Layers by: Janet Jarvis, Remote Sensing Specialist 

University of Illinois 

Prairie Research Institute, Illinois Natural History Survey 

Statewide Biological Survey and Assessment Program 

1816 South Oak Street 

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

1 
 

Contents 

Project Summary............................................................................................................................. 1
 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................... 6
 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants................................................................................. 6
 

Botanical Inventory Sites ............................................................................................................ 7
 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 14
 

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 16
 

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Maps.......................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Photographs.............................................................................................................................. 22
 

Site Species Lists ....................................................................................................................... 33
 

EPFO Associates ........................................................................................................................ 68
 

Cover Photo: High-quality savanna and prairie habitat, showing vegetation zonation outward 

from rail line. Image taken facing north. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

A request was received from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to 

conduct vegetation surveys within the Metra Fox Lake rail project area in Lake County, Illinois. 

Much of this area passes through Lake County Forest Preserve District’s Middle Fork Savanna 

and the Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve (Appendix: Map 1). The goal was to search for 

Threatened and Endangered species (T & E) and high quality remnant vegetation communities 

within the railroad (RR) corridor. One Illinois Natural Area Inventory (INAI) area (Middle Fork 

Savanna, a high-quality mesic savanna [INHD 2015]), barely extends into the project corridor 

(see Botanical Inventory Sites 8-10). Current or historic T & E occurrences within, or very near, 

the project area include, pale vetchling (Lathyrus ochroleucus), marsh speedwell (Veronica 

scutellata), golden sedge (Carex aurea), and the Federally Threatened Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea; henceforth EPFO) (INHD 2015). Concurrent wetland surveys in 

the project area were conducted by the INHS–IDOT Wetland Surveys Group (Kenney et al. 

2015), although the two projects were conducted independently of one another. 

Methods 

Searches were conducted for T & E plant species and high-quality native vegetation 

throughout the RR corridor beginning in early June, and ending in mid-August 2015. Beyond an 

initial assessment, detailed ground surveys were not undertaken in highly degraded areas or 

developed land because natural communities in these areas had been destroyed and no 

suitable habitat for Threatened and Endangered species remained in them (i.e., Grade E; see 

explanation of grades below). Therefore, complete plant species inventories, along with 

detailed vegetation descriptions were only made for remnant plant communities with at least a 

moderate level of natural quality (i.e., Grades A, B, or occasionally C), or those that harbored T 

& E species. These are described in detail as Botanical Inventory Sites (henceforth, Site). Note 

that these Sites are numbered differently from the wetland Sites described in the surveys 

carried out by the INHS–IDOT Wetland Surveys Group because the delineation boundaries 

often differed (Kenney et al. 2015). This means that direct comparisons between them are not 

possible. The location of Botanical Inventory Sites and T & E plants were recorded using a handheld GPS unit set to WGS 84/NAD 83. Maps were made by Janet Jarvis, Remote Sensing 

Specialist using ARCMAP. 

For each Site, a species list was generated, relative abundance values (RAV) were 

assigned to each species, and the natural quality of the remnant vegetation was assessed. RAV 

are reported as (1) uncommon, (2) occasional, (3) common, (4) abundant, and (5) dominant. 

Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) was also used to evaluate habitat quality (Taft et al. 1997); 

where the Coefficient of Conservatism (C or CC) values assigned to the native plant species 

documented were used to calculate the native Mean C (Mean Cn) and native FQI (FQIn) scores. 

A summary list of the plant species and FQA values of Sites can be can be found in Site Species 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lists section of the Appendix. Throughout this report, exotic species are indicated by an asterisk 

(*). Botanical nomenclature follows Swink and Wilhelm (1994), with some exceptions for T & E 

plant species, whereupon nomenclature used by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection 

Board is followed (IESPB 2015). 

The natural quality of the vegetation in surveyed habitats was assigned a grade from A 

(highest quality native remnant) to E, generally following the methods described by White 

(1978), and the updated Natural Areas Program (IDNR 2010). Grades of natural quality are as 

follows: 

Grade A: Very high-quality natural remnant community. Exhibits native species composition, 

structure, and function with no, or very minimal, signs of degradation. 

Grade B: High-quality natural remnant community. Community that has experienced some 

degradation, but community structure, composition, and function are still intact; or 

community has recovered from degradation to achieve the natural quality of a complete 

and functional, remnant community. 

Grade C: Medium-quality natural community. Community that has experienced moderate to 

heavy degradation, with evident effects on plant structure, composition or function, but it 

still maintains considerable natural quality, or has the potential to have its structure, 

composition and function to be restored to that of a high-quality community. 

Grade D: Low-quality natural community. Community that has experienced severe degradation 

and not recovered its structure, composition, or function. Original structure, composition, 

and function typically cannot be restored to that of a high-quality community, but 

management efforts can improve conditions. 

Grade E: Very severely disturbed community. Community has been removed from the 

landscape or destroyed beyond recovery. Little, to no native or remnant vegetation 

remains. 

In addition to the A to E grade system, qualifiers of + and - are used to further 

distinguish plant communities. For example, the classification of "C+" indicates a community 

that is intermediate between “C” and a “B-“. Some criteria used to determine the status and 

quality of habitat and communities included: the presence of Endangered, Threatened, and 

watch-list species; the abundance of exotic (non-native) vegetation; levels of human 

disturbance (historic or current), as from grazing, logging, hydrological alteration, etc.; age and 

successional stage of the community; the physical and compositional structure of the 

vegetation; the presence and abundance of conservative plant species; the size and position of 

the community in the landscape. 

While "C" quality communities are typically not considered of high enough quality to 

qualify as Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) habitats because of their disturbances and 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

degradation levels, they are often regionally important for preserving biodiversity. They may be 

especially important if they are large, or if they are the “best-in-kind” for their community type 

in a particular region. For example, the rich, black soil, “silt-loam” savanna detailed in this 

report comprises a rare statewide community type and even grade C communities of this type 

are exceedingly valuable (Taft et al. 2009). Unlike other savanna types which require 20 acres of 

high quality habitat to qualify for INAI status, only 5 acres of high-quality deep soil savanna are 

required (IDNR 2010). Grade C savannas are therefore described in this report. 

EPFO searches were conducted in areas deemed to be potential habitat for this species. 

The criteria for determining potential EPFO habitat followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

guidelines- where an FQIn score of ≥ 20 or a Mean Cn ≥ 3.5, and the presence of 4 or more 

associate species (for detailed explanation of guidelines and protocols see, 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/plants/epfos7guide.html). EPFO 

associate species found are highlighted in the Site Species Lists section in the Appendix. 

Following USFWS protocols, searches were conducted on three non-consecutive days between 

(July 3rd and July 10th), which is when EPFO populations in the area were known to be in bloom 

and were most likely to be discovered by surveys. 

Due to the length of the project corridor and to the abundant natural areas within it, 

Site Species Lists were constrained to only include species within the project boundary (but see 

Sites 2 & 12 for exceptions). However, grading of natural areas and T & E searches extended for 

approximately 25 feet outside of the project boundary. This was done to indicate of how far T & 

E localities extended outside of the project corridor. Habitat assessments and grading extended 

beyond the project area because habitats, and their influences, are contiguous (e.g., 

hydrology), and assessing habitat quality slightly beyond the corridor area helps to put the 

grade of communities in context. 

Initial species lists for all potential EPFO habitats were made in June to determine which 

ones met the USFWS criteria before the search window in July. Site EPFO search results are 

indicated in Table 1 and individual Botanical Inventory Site descriptions below. Note that 

several large sections within the project boundary met the USFWS criteria for EPFO surveys and 

were searched for EPFO’s, but because they were not noteworthy natural areas (e.g., of at least 

Grade C natural quality) they were not described in this report. Due to the time constraints of a 

short July sampling window and amount of area that met EPFO survey criteria, searches were 

restricted to portions of the Site that were within the project boundary along with a small 

buffer outside of the project boundary. It would not have been possible to search entire 

contiguous habitats when they extended beyond the project area, because in most cases the 

potential EPFO habitats extended for hundreds of acres east into the Middle Fork Savanna 

Nature Preserve. In two potential EPFO search areas, the determination of whether the area 

was a potential EPFO habitat by the INHS–IDOT Wetland Surveys Group differed from the 

determination in this report. For example, sites 32 and 36 from Kenney et al. (2015) were 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

indicated as potential EPFO habitat, but were not considered potential habitat in this report. 

This was probably because different Site boundaries between the wetland and botanical 

surveys resulted in different species lists for each Site. For example, their sampling areas are 

confined to jurisdictional wetlands, and do not typically include upland portions. Furthermore, 

their wetland species lists often extend far beyond the project boundary. For example, the 

species list habitat from site 36 (Kenney et al. 2015) are made from areas that extend beyond 

the project area to include a large portion of mature “wet floodplain forest”. Because this 

habitat is a forest, and not a “wet to mesic prairie or wetland communities including, but not 

limited to sedge meadow, fen, or marsh”, as described by the USFWS EFPO guidelines, it was 

not deemed to be suitable EPFO habitat in the current report. 

Results and Discussion 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants 

Platanthera leucophaea (EPFO) 

Two EPFO individuals were found just outside of Site 9 (Appendix: Map 4) in an area that 

was previously known to harbor an EPFO population (INHD 2015). The associates for these two 

EPFO individuals are listed in the Appendix (EPFO Associates). Because the wetland that these 

plants grow in extends into the project corridor (Site 9), there is the potential to disrupt the 

hydrology throughout the habitat. Furthermore, one of the individuals (EPFO #1) was within 

≈15ft of the corridor boundary growing within an area with evidence of herbicide drift damage 

on its associated vegetation; this area should receive special management and attention to 

prevent herbicide drift from impacting the EPFO population. 

Veronica scutellata 

One population of Veronica scutellata was found in a marsh/wet savanna habitat that 

was partially in the project boundary (Site 12, Map 5). This is a new location for this plant. It 

contained approximately 300 individuals. The wetland had a maximum water depth of 

approximately 1ft at that time of sampling and the plants tended to be located around the 

water’s edge. The habitat is described in further detail below (Site 12). 

Carex aurea 

One population of Carex aurea was found in a wet-mesic prairie habitat that was 

partially within the project boundary (Site 13, Map 5). The location had two small subpopulations of approximately 25 and 30 individuals each. This habitat is fairly disturbed and is 

being encroached by invasive shrubs (Appendix: Photos 10 & 11). This population is adjacent to 

a known location for this plant that extends to the east of the project boundary. The habitat is 

described in further detail below (Site 13). 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eryngium yuccifolium 

There were several individuals of rattlesnake-master (Eryngium yuccifolium) found in or 

near the project area. Although it is not a T & E, rattlesnake-master is the only known food 

plant for the Eryngium stem-borer (Papaipema eryngii), an insect listed by the Illinois 

Endangered Species Protection Board (IESPB 2015) as Endangered and proposed for listing as 

Federally Endangered or Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2013). We 

could not determine whether the borer was present on these plants. 

Botanical Inventory Sites 

The Botanical Inventory Sites described below consist of areas that are remnant 

communities of high enough biological quality to at least be noteworthy, or because they 

harbor Threatened or Endangered species. As a rule, all habitats directly abutting the railroad 

were of low natural quality (e.g., Grades D & E). This is due to the frequent disturbances; for 

example, from broadleaf herbicide used to manage the railroad corridor. Because of this 

disturbance the highest quality vegetation occurs farthest from the track. The INAI Grade 

results reported for each Site reflects these higher-quality areas of the project corridor, and 

Grade D & E areas next to the tracks are not discussed or graded, although their species are 

included in Site Species Lists. Also, because many of the weedier plants present in Site Species 

Lists mainly occur along the highly disturbed RR ballast, this lowers the Floristic Quality scores 

of the natural communities described. The stratification of vegetation into community types 

and zones of natural quality due to disturbance near the rail lines is evident in Photo 1 in the 

Appendix. Not only are annual weeds common in the near-track/ballast vegetation zone, but 

with the exception of a few herbicide resistant plants (e.g., common milkweed [Wyrill and 

Burnside 1976]), it is comprised exclusively of monocots that are able to tolerate broadleaf 

herbicide spraying. 

Even with direct herbicide application, herbicide drift, hydrologic alterations, and 

historic cattle grazing (Photos 3 a&b), affecting the plant communities, there were still several 

high-quality remnant plant communities of Grade B occurring within the project area. There 

were also several Grade C Sites present in the project area whose remnant plant communities 

were of noteworthy natural quality. The highest quality habitats were within the Middle Fork 

Savanna Nature Preserve section of the project corridor. This nature preserve receives 

considerable ecological management. This includes prescribed fire, spot spraying of invasive 

species, and control of native and non-native woody species. There are also areas where prairie 

species appear to have been planted, although with the exception of a few species present in 

Site 5, most of the remnant plant communities described below did not appear to be enhanced 

by seeding or planting. Flagging and other evidence of rare plant monitoring was also observed 

(see Appendix: Photo 7). The locations of the higher quality remnant plant communities and 

rare plants are found on the east side of the tracks in the Nature Preserve. The project corridor 

7 
 

 

 

is narrower on the west side, and only a small area of vegetation is lies within the project 

boundary there (see Maps). Furthermore, communities on the west side of the tracks were 

more often seeded habitat restorations as opposed to being high-quality remnant habitats. 

Summary information for noteworthy Botanical Inventory Sites is provided in Table 1 

below. Individual Sites are described in detail below that. Complete Site species lists can be 

found in the Appendix (Site Species Lists). 

8 
 

 

 

Table 1. Summary information Botanical Inventory Sites 

Site 

# Natural Communities Present Grade 

Native 

Species 

Total 

Species FQIn 

Mean 

Cn 

Potential 

EPFO 

Habitat? 

EPFO 

Present? 

Other T&E 

species historic 

Other T&E 

species 

found 

1 Mesic/dry-mesic prairie D+ 31 43 19 3.4 No NA None None 

2 Mesic/wet-mesic prairie C 57 71 30.9 4.2 Yes No None None 

3 Marsh and wet-mesic upland 

forest (woodland) 

C- to 

D+ 

110 135 40.1 3.8 Yes No None None 

4 Dry-mesic 

savanna/woodland/forest 

C+ to 

C58 70 32.4 4.3 No NA None None 

5 Dry-mesic/mesic/wetmesic/wet prairie and sedge 

meadow 

C to 

B71 82 36.1 4.3 Yes No Veronica scutellata 

None 

6 Dry-mesic savanna C+ to 

B110 134 42.3 4.07 No NA None None 

7 Mesic/(wet) mesic savanna B- 63 85 33.5 4.2 Yes No None None 

8 Mesic savanna B- 78 99 35 3.9 Yes No Lathyrus 

ochroleucus, 

Veronica 

scutellata 

None 

9 Sedge meadow, wet 

prairie/wet-mesic prairie 

C to B 32 38 24.2 4 Yes No (but 

nearby) 

Lathyrus 

ochroleucus, 

Veronica 

scutellata 

None 

10 Mesic/(wet) mesic savanna B+ 73 86 37.6 4.4 Yes No Lathyrus 

ochroleucus, 

Veronica 

scutellata 

None 

11 Mesic/wet-mesic prairie, 

sedge meadow 

B to 

C72 81 36.6 4.4 Yes No None None 

12 Marsh, (wet) mesic woodland C to 

B26 28 22.9 4.5 Yes No None Veronica scutellata 

13 Wet-mesic prairie C+ to 

D 

55 73 25.3 3.4 Yes No Carex aurea Carex 

aurea 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site 1 

Grade D+ mesic and dry-mesic prairie. This is a small prairie remnant surrounded by an exotic 

shrub thicket (Appendix: Maps 1 & 2). It is more disturbed and has less native plant quality than 

Site 2. It is however, similar in several ways. It is dominated by similar old-field perennials 

(Appendix: Site Species List 8) suggesting a long history of disturbance, perhaps by pasturing. 

But, it could also be a prairie remnant whose topsoil removed by railroad construction, as there 

is no A horizon in the soil. The Site is quickly being invaded by exotic shrubs. The native Floristic 

Quality of the Site is nonetheless noteworthy, although again, its high exotic species richness 

illustrates severe invasion by exotic species (Mean Cn 3.4, FQIn 19, 31 native species, 43 total 

species). Of particular note is the large population of Comandra umbellata, a remnant prairie 

indicator, which covers more than half of the area of the Site. This Site is not receiving 

ecological management as it is outside of the nature preserve. This habitat did not meet 

potential EPFO habitat criteria and was not surveyed for EPFO’s. 

Site 2 

Grade C mesic and wet-mesic prairie. This is a small prairie remnant surrounded by an exotic 

shrub thicket (Appendix: Map 2). There is no matrix of prairie grasses and sedges. Some species 

here such as tall fescue, common St. John’s-wort, eastern red cedar, alfalfa, and red clover 

(Appendix: Site Species List 7) are typical old-field perennials suggesting a long history of 

disturbance, perhaps by pasturing. But it could also be a prairie remnant whose topsoil was 

removed as there is no A horizon in the soil. The Site is undergoing rapid invasion by European 

buckthorn. Note that the species list encompassed the entire habitat, which was mostly found 

outside of the project boundary. Nonetheless, a small portion of Site 2 enters the project area. 

The floristic quality levels and native diversity are very high for such a small area, but the high 

exotic species richness illustrates its severe invasion (Mean Cn 4.2, FQIn 30.9, 57 native species, 

71 total species). This Site occurs outside of the nature preserve and no ecological management 

activities are currently being undertaken. With proper management, this habitat would likely be 

restored to a habitat of high natural quality. Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

Site 3 

Grade C- to D+ marsh and wet-mesic upland forest (woodland). This large, diverse depression 

likely resulted from the railroad construction (Appendix: Map 3). The core, wet portion is Grade 

C-. There is a prairie restoration directly abutting it to the east. There is evidence of ecological 

management as encroaching trees have recently been cut. Because its western boundary abuts 

an unused rail line spur, it is afforded some buffer from the herbicide spraying that occurs along 

the main rail line. For this reason, and because of the hydrologic gradient across this 

depression, and because of the prairie restoration planting to the east, this Site is quite diverse 

and although it was probably “created” by RR construction, it is of some importance as a 

natural area. High measured Floristic Quality and very high diversity values might suggest a 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

higher Grade, but these values are somehwat artificially inflated by the nearby restoration 

planting (Mean Cn 3.8, FQIn 40.1, 110 native species, 135 total species). Field surveys at this 

Site did not find EPFO’s. 

Site 4 

Grade C+ dry-mesic savanna, Grade C dry-mesic woodland, Grade C- dry-mesic upland forest, 

moving from south to north (Appendix: Map 4). This is a woodland/savanna habitat that is 

dominated by Quercus ellipsoidalis and Q. macrocarpa, like most of the woodlands in the 

project area. Its trees, however, are denser than most others reported here, which may account 

for the lower quality plant communities, especially in the northern section of the Site. Ongoing 

restoration/management activities (fire & woody control), if continued, will improve the quality 

of this Site to the point that it could become a high-quality natural area. The trees at this Site 

seem to occur closer to the rail line than most other wooded areas in the project corridor, and 

it is likely this Site receives less herbicide damage, which helps to account for the Site’s richness 

and natural quality. There are signs posted that may be reducing herbicide use. However, the 

signs here and elsewhere along the corridor are all currently fallen and in disrepair (Appendix: 

Photo 4). The Site Floristic Quality supports its characterization as a noteworthy natural area, 

and one that may approach high-quality in spots (Mean Cn 4.3, FQIn 32.4, 58 native species, 70 

total species). This habitat continues to the east, beyond the project boundary, where it is of 

similar natural quality. This habitat did not meet potential EPFO habitat criteria and was not 

surveyed for EPFO’s. 

Site 5 

Grade C wet prairie, wet-mesic prairie, and sedge meadow (central parcel). Grade C+ mesic 

prairie (northern parcel). Grade B- mesic and dry-mesic prairie (southern parcel) (Appendix: 

Map 4). There was evidence of an abandoned corral just to the north of this Site, indicating past 

livestock grazing. Measured Floristic Quality levels support the high-quality grade for parts of 

this Site (Mean Cn 4.3, FQIn 36.1). They illustrate a flora that is highly conservative, with a high 

amount of species richness and relatively few exotic species (71 native species, 82 total 

species). The wetter portions of this Site partially overlap with historic population locations of 

Veronica scutellata, but they have not been seen in this area since 1998 (INHD 2015). These 

habitats continues to the east, beyond the project boundary, where they are of similar natural 

quality. Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

Site 6 

Grade C+ to B- dry-mesic savanna (Appendix: Map 4). This is a woodland/savanna habitat 

dominated by Quercus ellipsoidalis and Q. macrocarpa. The canopy density may approach that 

of mesic woodland in parts (Appendix: Photo 2). There are patches of pasture grasses here 

(e.g., orchard grass), suggesting a grazing history. But, portions of this Site are high-quality 

savanna, especially farther from the rail line. Ecological restoration/management activities are 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

occurring (e.g., prescribed fire), and with time it is likely that it will become a high-quality 

savanna throughout. Both this Site and Site 7 have Q. macrocarpa trees growing up the side of 

the RR ballast and relatively close to the RR line space (Appendix: Photo 5). There are signs 

posted in these wooded habitats that may be reducing herbicide damage from the railroad. 

However, the signs here and elsewhere along the corridor are all currently fallen and in 

disrepair (Appendix: Photo 4). The Site’s Floristic Quality supports its characterization as an area 

that is high-quality in spots (Mean Cn 4.07, FQIn 42.3, 110 native species, 134 total species). 

This habitat continues to the east, beyond the project boundary, where it is of similar natural 

quality. This habitat did not meet potential EPFO habitat criteria and was not surveyed for 

EPFO’s. 

Site 7 

Grade B- mesic and wet-mesic savanna (Appendix: Map 4). This Site is more open and wetter 

than the savanna/woodland to the north (Site 6). Most of the trees are Q. macrocarpa. There 

are less pasture grasses here, and the topography creates more hydrologic variability and 

diversity. Ecological restoration/management activities are occurring at this Site (e.g., 

prescribed fire). Both this Site and Site 6 have Q. macrocarpa trees growing up the side of the 

RR ballast (Appendix: Photo 5). There are signs posted in these wooded habitats that may be 

reducing herbicide damage from the railroad adjacent to them. However, the signs here and 

elsewhere along the corridor are all currently fallen and in disrepair (Appendix: Photo 4). The 

Site’s Floristic Quality and high diversity within a small area supports its characterization as a 

high-quality natural area (Mean Cn 4.2, FQIn 33.5, 63 native species, 85 total species). Field 

surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

Site 8 

Grade B- mesic savanna (Appendix: Map 4). This area is partially within an INAI habitat 

described as a high-quality mesic savanna (INHD 2015). There are occasional pasture grasses in 

spots, suggesting a history of grazing. The Site is undergoing ecological 

management/restoration (e.g., prescribed fire), and there is a near total absence of exotic 

species cover. The Site had “No Spraying & Mowing” signs posted along the rail road line, and 

these may have previously offered it some protection from herbicide damage, although the 

signs have now fallen (Appendix: Photo 4). This Site partially overlaps with historic population 

locations of Lathyrus ochroleucus and Veronica scutellata, but they have not been seen at the 

Site since 1993 (INHD 2015). This habitat continues to the east, beyond the project boundary, 

where it is of similar natural quality. The Site’s high Floristic Quality levels, and high diversity 

within a small area, supports its characterization as a high-quality natural area (Mean Cn 3.9, 

FQIn 35, 78 native species, 99 total species). Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site 9 

Grade C to B, from west to east, sedge meadow, wet prairie, wet-mesic prairie (Appendix: Map 

4). This wetland appears to be an old glacial feature, perhaps a kettle. Western sections of the 

Site have low diversity, because they are almost totally graminoid dominated with low forb 

diversity due to herbicide drift from railroad maintenance. But this area has a vegetation 

structure that is characteristic of higher quality habitats, including a matrix of conservative 

grasses and sedges. This area occurs partially within the boundaries of the same INAI Site that 

overlaps Sites 8 & 10 (INHD 2015). Although the diversity is relatively low, the FQA scores 

support its designated high-quality status (Mean Cn 4, FQIn 24.2, 32 native species, 38 total 

species). The Site may overlap with historic population locations of Lathyrus ochroleucus and 

Veronica scutellata, although our survey did not locate these plants and they have not been 

seen here since 1993 (INHD 2015). EPFO surveys were carried out at this Site. Two plants 

(Appendix: Photo 7), were found in this this habitat’s sedge meadow/wet-mesic prairie zone 

outside of project boundary. The plant’s associates are listed in the Appendix (EPFO Associates). 

EPFO populations are discussed further in Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants. 

Site 10 

Grade B+ mesic and wet-mesic savanna (Appendix: Map 4). This area occurs partially within the 

boundaries of the same high-quality mesic savanna and INAI habitat that overlaps Sites 9 & 10 

(INHD 2015). The Site is undergoing ecological restoration/management, and there is a near 

total absence of exotic species. The Site had “No Spraying & Mowing” signs posted along the 

rail road line, and these may have previously offered this Site some protection from herbicide 

damage, although the signs have now fallen (Appendix: Photo 4) This Site may also partially 

overlap with historic population locations of Lathyrus ochroleucus and Veronica scutellata, but 

they have not been seen there since 1993 (INHD 2015). The Site’s Floristic Quality and high 

diversity supports its characterization as a high-quality natural area (Mean Cn 4.4, FQIn 37.6, 73 

native species, 86 total species). Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. This habitat 

continues to the east, beyond the project boundary, where it is of similar natural quality. 

Site 11 

Grades B to C-, from north to south and east to west, mesic prairie, wet-mesic prairie, sedge 

meadow (Appendix: Map 4). Community types across this Site reflect a moisture gradient from 

upland to wet. Grade A- wet-mesic prairie abuts this Site just beyond its north-east boundary. 

There are considerable ecological restoration/management activities occurring at this Site, 

including evidence of prescribed fire, flagging, and brush and tree cutting. This Site’s Floristic 

Quality and diversity supports its high-quality status (Mean Cn 4.4, FQIn 36.6, 72 native species, 

81 total species). Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site 12 

Grade C marsh to B- wet-mesic woodland moving from west to east (Appendix: Map 5). Only 

half of this Site lies within the project boundary (mostly the marsh portion) (Appendix: Photo 

9). The Site boundary outlines the Veronica scutellata population extent, of which there were 

approximately 300 individuals. Not only is this Site habitat for a State Threatened plant, but it is 

of considerable natural quality itself. Its Floristic Quality values support this characterization 

(Mean Cn 4.5, FQIn 22.9, 26 native species, 28 total species). But, like most wet habitats, it is 

not highly diverse compared to more mesic habitats (IDNR 2010). It is also notable for the near 

absence in exotic species. The Site had old flagging tape around its perimeter suggesting that it 

is receiving ecological management. Field surveys at this Site did not find EPFO’s. 

Site 13 

Grade C+ to D wet-mesic prairie. This Site is the farthest south botanical Site in the corridor 

(Appendix: Map 5). It is mostly a shrubby prairie remnant. East of this Site, the prairie becomes 

high-quality (Grade B), but in the RR corridor it is only Grade C+. The mapped polygon outlines 

the Carex aurea population (Appendix: Photo 6). The plants themselves are most often growing 

near wet depressions that appear to be old vehicle ruts (Appendix: Photo 11). A soil probe 

indicated that much of the population area is underlain by RR ballast (Appendix: Photo 10). 

There could be some groundwater influence here, which would not be unexpected given that C. 

aurea is often considered a species of calcium-rich habitats (Swink and Wilhelm 1994). A soil 

probe indicated that there was no A horizon in this prairie, which indicates historic soil scraping. 

There is also an old drain tile evident on the aerial photo. Areas along the fence row on the east 

edge of the Site have been degraded by invasive shrub encroachment and trash (or tire) 

dumping. Measured Floristic Quality levels support the grading of this as a moderate natural 

quality Site that is diverse, but heavily influenced by exotic species (Mean Cn 3.4, FQIn 25.3, 55 

native species, 73 total species). The polygons on the map show two sub-populations; a 

northern one in which the plants completely exist within the project area (about 30 plants), and 

a more southerly population has about 25 plants within the project boundary but that also 

continues to the east beyond the project boundary, where there are probably over one 

hundred individuals. This easterly extension of the population is a known location for this plant 

(INHD 2015). Despite past disturbance, the prairie to the east of the project boundary appears 

to have recovered and much of it is a high-quality natural area of Grade B+. Field surveys at Site 

13 did not find EPFO’s. 

Conclusions 

There were several remnant plant communities of considerable natural quality (Grade B or C) 

found within the project corridor, and most of these were large and extended beyond the 

project boundary into Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve to the east. Populations of two 

state Threatened plant species, marsh speedwell (Veronica scutellata) and golden sedge (Carex 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

aurea), were found within the project boundary. The Veronica population was a new location 

for this plant, while the Carex was near a historic population location. Several other historic T & 

E populations were not re-located. Searches of potential EPFO habitats in the project corridor 

did not find populations. However, two EPFO individuals were found outside of the project area 

in a high-quality wetland habitat previously known to harbor an EPFO population. Although the 

EPFO plants themselves where outside of the project area, the wetland they occur in extends 

into the project area. One of the EPFO plants was only ~15 ft. east of the project boundary, 

growing within an area with evidence of herbicide drift damage on its associated vegetation, 

which should be a concern for its persistence. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Cited 

Kenney, I., Beas, B., McIntyre, S., Olnas, A., Zercher, B., and Szafoni, D. 2015. Wetland 

delineation report Rondout Siding Extension Lake County, Illinois IDOT Sequence Number: 

19157. INHS/IDOT Wetlands Vegetation and Soils Program Report. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2010. The standards and guidelines for the 

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield. 148 pp. 

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board [IESPB]. 2015. Checklist of Endangered and 

Threatened Animals and Plants of Illinois. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 

Springfield, Illinois. 18 pp. 

Illinois Natural Heritage Database (INHD). 2015. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, One 

Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois. 

Swink, F., and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. Indiana Academy of Science, 

Indianapolis, IN. 

Taft, J., D. Ladd, G.S. Wilhelm, and L.A. Masters. 1997. Floristic Quality Assessment for 

Vegetation in Illinois, a Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity. Erigenia. 15:3-95. 

Taft, J. B., R. C. Anderson, and L. R. Iverson. 2009. Vegetation ecology and change in terrestrial 

ecosystems.in C. Taylor, J. B. Taft, and C. E. Warwick, editors. Canaries in the Catbird Seat: the 

past, present, and future of biological resources in a changing environment. Illinois Natural 

History Survey Special Publication 30, Champaign, IL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month 

finding on a petition to list the rattlesnake-master borer moth (Papaipema eryngii) as an 

Endangered or Threatened species. Federal Register 78 (157):49422-49440. 

White, J. 1978. Illinois natural areas inventory technical report. Vol. 1. Survey methods and 

results. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Urbana. 426 pp. 

Wyrill, J.B. and Burnside O.C. 1976 Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and 

glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Science 24:557–566. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! ! 

!( 

!( !(

!( !( 

!(!(

!( 

ACADEMY RD

S ST MARYS RD

CONWAY FARMS DR 

W ROCKLAND RD 

N BRADLEY RD 

FOSTER AVE 

CONWAY RD 

LONGWOOD DR 

W OLD SCHOOL RD 

N FIELD CT 

N WAUKEGAN RD 

E PARK AVE 

N FIELD DR

N ST MARYS RD

FOX RUN RD 

IL-60 

ROCKLAND RD 

W KENNEDY RD 

RIVERWOODS RD 

W LITTLE ST MARYS RD 

N ST MARYS RD 

FARWELL RD 

KNOLLWOOD RD 

ATKINSON RD 

SUNRISE RD 

N RIVERWOODS BLVD 

BALLARD DR 

Map 1 Map 2 

Map 3 

Map 4 

Site 1

Map 5 

W OAK SPRING RD 

E OASIS SERVICE RD 

I-94 

! 

!

!( 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois.

Project Boundary !( Platanthera leucophaea Botanical Sites
 

INAI Sites !( Eryngium yuccifolium
 Large Eryngium yuccifolium Population 

Nature Preserves Carex aurea
	 Veronica scutelata Population 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015

 ̄ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site 1

MARGATE LN 

CRESCENT KNOLL DR E 

W OAK SPRING RD 

ASHBURY LN 

E THORNBURY LN 

WOODFIELD LN 

OLD HICKORY LN 

OLD ROCKLAND RD 

RIDGEWAY LN 

E PARK AVE 

E PARK AVE 

N ST MARYS RD 

CRESCENT KNOL W 

CAMELOT LN 

GREENBRIAR DR 

MINARD LN 

SUNRISE RD 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois.

Project Boundary !( Platanthera leucophaea Botanical Sites Map 1 of 5

INAI Sites !( Eryngium yuccifolium Large Eryngium yuccifolium Population 

Nature Preserves 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015 

 ̄ 
 

 

 

 

Site 2

Site 1

SUNRISE RD 

IL-176

CRESCENT KNOLL DR E

MINARD LN 

ROCKLAND RD 

FOX RUN RD 

OLD ROCKLAND RD 

GREENBRIAR DR 

E PARK AVE 

BAKER RD 

I-94 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois.

Project Boundary !( Platanthera leucophaea Botanical Sites Map 2 of 5 

INAI Sites !( Eryngium yuccifolium Large Eryngium yuccifolium Population 

Nature Preserves 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015 

 ̄ 
 

 

Site 3

Middle Fork

Savanna 

Middle Fork

Savanna 

Middle

Fork

Savanna 

Jean Farwell

Woods Land and

Water Reserve 

Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve

Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve 

ASHFORD DR 

ARCADIA RD 

LAURA LN 

ROCKLAND RD 

BALLARD DR 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois.

Project Boundary !( Platanthera leucophaea Botanical Sites Map 3 of 5

INAI Sites !( Eryngium yuccifolium Large Eryngium yuccifolium Population 

Nature Preserves 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015 

 ̄ 
 

 

 

!( 

!( !( 

!( !(

!( 

!( 

!( 

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8 Site 9

Site 10

Site 11

Middle Fork

Savanna 

Jean Farwell Woods 

Land and Water Reserve 

Middlefork

Savanna Nature 

Preserve 

Middlefork

Savanna Nature 

Preserve

FOOTBALL DR 

ACADEMY RD 

Middle

Fork

Savanna 

EPFO #1 EPFO #2 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois. 

Project Boundary !( Platanthera leucophaea Botanical Sites Map 4 of 5 

INAI Sites !( Eryngium yuccifolium Large Eryngium yuccifolium Population 

Nature Preserves 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015 

 ̄ 
 

 

 

!(!( !(

!( 

!( !(

!( 

Site 12 

Site 13 

Middle

Fork

Savanna 

Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve 

INVERLEITH RD 

ACADEMY RD 

OLD BRIDGE RD 

ACADEMY WOODS DR 

LEXINGTON DR 

W BROADLAND LN 

W DEERPATH RD 

W KENNEDY RD 

RUE FORET 

LONGMEADOW LN 

FACULTY CIR 

Botanical survey areas at the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois.

Project Boundary !( Carex aurea !( Veronica scutelata Map 5 of 5 

INAI Sites !( Platanthera leucophaea !( Eryngium yuccifolium

Nature Preserves Botanical Sites 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 

Feet 

Jarvis, 9/23/2015 

 ̄ 
Photographs 

Photo 1. Zones of high-quality vegetation furthest from the railroad tracks, and of progressively 

lower quality nearer the tracks. 

22 
Photo 2. View from Site 6 (Map 4) Grade B savanna facing west towards railroad. 

23 
Photos 3 a&b.Examples of historic disturbances within Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve. 

Cattle grazing and containment area (a- top), and sewage installation and drainage (b- bottom; 

taken from southern extent of Site 11 facing north). 

24 
Photo 4. Two images showing different signs intended to limit damage to higher quality 

woodland/savanna habitats near the railroad line. Several signs were found and they were all 

fallen and in disrepair at the time of surveying. 

25 
 

 

Photo 5. Oak tree very near the rail line with evident herbicide damage. This particular 

vegetation zone had higher quality vegetation particularly close to the track, probably due to 

the signage that has minimized past damage. 

26 
 

 

Photo 6. Carex aurea growing within project area and Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve at 

Site 13 (Map 5). 

27 
Photo 7.Platanthera leucophaea growing within Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve (Site 9, 

Map 4; top EPFO #2, EPFO #1 bottom). Note that EPFO #1 appears to be being monitored and 

has a nearby stake. 

28 
 

 

Photo 8. Veronica scutellata growing within Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve and project 

area at Site 12 (Map 5). 

29 
 

 

Photo 9. Site 12 (Map 5) taken from rail line facing east. Marshy habitat nearer the rail line and 

swampy wet savanna farther east provide habitat for a large Veronica scutellata population. 

30 
Photo 10.Carex aurea habitat Site 13 (Map 5) showing that it is growing on or near muck soil 

overlaying railroad ballast. Depressions are partially a product of old tire tracks and soils appear 

to be continually saturated. 

31 
 

 

Photo 11. A second view of Carex aurea habitat Site 13 (Map 5) showing old tire tracks. The 

habitat is wedged between a fenceline dominated by invasive European shrubs and the rail line 

ballast. 

32 
Site Species Lists 

Plant species observed in project Botanical Inventory Sites. Relative Abundance Values 

represent 1 = uncommon, 2 = occasional, 3 = common, 4 = abundant, 5 = dominant species 

within the community. Highlighted species are recognized EPFO associates. 

Site Species List 1 

Site 1 Mean Cn 3.4, FQIn 19 

31 native species, 43 total species 

Species Name Common Name Conservatism Abundance 

(C) 

Andropogon scoparius LITTLE BLUESTEM 5 3 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 1 

Aster sagittifolius ARROW-LEAVED ASTER 5 3 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Bromus japonicus* JAPANESE CHESS 2 

Carex blanda COMMON WOOD SEDGE 1 3 

Carex cephalophora SHORT-HEADED BRACTED 3 2 

SEDGE 

Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 4 2 

Carex granularis PALE SEDGE 4 4 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK 5 3 

SEDGE 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. OX-EYE DAISY 4 

pinnatifidum* 

Comandra umbellata BASTARD TOAD-FLAX 7 5 

Cornus obliqua PALE DOGWOOD 6 3 

Dactylis glomerata* ORCHARD GRASS 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 3 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Euphorbia corollata FLOWERING SPURGE 2 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 4 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 2 

Hieracium gronovii HAIRY HAWKWEED 6 2 

Lathyrus palustris var. myrtifolius MARSH VETCHLING 6 2 

Medicago sativa* ALFALFA 2 

Melilotus alba* WHITE SWEET CLOVER 1 

Pinus sylvestris* SCOTCH PINE 3 

Poa compressa* CANADIAN BLUE GRASS 4 

Polygonatum canaliculatum GREAT SOLOMON SEAL 3 3 

Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD 2 2 

33 
Prunella vulgaris* LAWN PRUNELLA 1 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 1 

Ratibida pinnata YELLOW CONEFLOWER 4 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 5 

Rhus glabra SMOOTH SUMAC 1 4 

Rosa virginiana* VIRGINIA ROSE 3 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rubus pensilvanicus YANKEE BLACKBERRY 3 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Scirpus pendulus RED BULRUSH 4 3 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION 5 1 

FLOWER 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED 4 2 

GOLDENROD 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 3 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

34 
Site Species List 2 

Site 2 Mean Cn 4.2, FQIn 30.9 

57 native species, 71 total species 

Species Name Common Name Conservatism Abundance 

(C) 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 1 

Andropogon scoparius LITTLE BLUESTEM 5 3 

Anemone virginiana TALL ANEMONE 5 2 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 1 

Asclepias sullivantii PRAIRIE MILKWEED 8 1 

Aster ericoides HEATH ASTER 5 1 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 2 

Carex blanda COMMON WOOD SEDGE 1 2 

Carex granularis PALE SEDGE 4 2 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum OX-EYE DAISY 3 

var. pinnatifidum* 

Comandra umbellata BASTARD TOAD-FLAX 7 2 

Coreopsis palmata PRAIRIE COREOPSIS 6 2 

Coreopsis tripteris TALL COREOPSIS 5 2 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 5 

Crataegus crus-galli COCK-SPUR HAWTHORN 2 2 

Crataegus mollis DOWNY HAWTHORN 2 3 

Danthonia spicata POVERTY OAT GRASS 3 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 3 

Dodecatheon meadia SHOOTING STAR 6 1 

Elaeagnus umbellata* AUTUMN OLIVE 2 

Eleocharis compressa FLAT-STEMMED SPIKE RUSH 8 3 

Equisetum arvense COMMON HORSETAIL 0 1 

Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET 0 2 

Festuca elatior* TALL FESCUE 3 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 4 

Gentiana andrewsii CLOSED GENTIAN 8 1 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 4 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 1 

Hypericum perforatum* COMMON ST. JOHN'S- 2 

WORT 

Juniperus virginiana var. crebra EASTERN RED CEDAR 2 1 

Lespedeza capitata ROUND-HEADED BUSH 4 2 

CLOVER 

Liatris spicata MARSH BLAZING STAR 6 1 

Lilium michiganense MICHIGAN LILY 6 2 

35 
Lobelia spicata PALE SPIKED LOBELIA 6 2 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 1 

HOREHOUND 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Medicago sativa* ALFALFA 2 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 1 

Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 2 

PRIMROSE 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 3 

Panicum virgatum PRAIRIE SWITCH GRASS 5 2 

Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 4 2 

Phlox pilosa ssp. fulgida PRAIRIE PHLOX 7 1 

Poa compressa* CANADIAN BLUE GRASS 3 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 3 

Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD 2 2 

Potentilla norvegica ROUGH CINQUEFOIL 0 3 

Prunella vulgaris* LAWN PRUNELLA 2 

Ratibida pinnata YELLOW CONEFLOWER 4 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 5 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 3 

Rosa blanda EARLY WILD ROSE 5 3 

Rubus pensilvanicus YANKEE BLACKBERRY 3 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Scirpus pendulus RED BULRUSH 4 4 

Silphium integrifolium ROSIN WEED 5 1 

Silphium laciniatum COMPASS PLANT 5 3 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 3 

Sisyrinchium albidum COMMON BLUE-EYED 7 3 

GRASS 

Smilax lasioneura COMMON CARRION 5 1 

FLOWER 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED 4 2 

GOLDENROD 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 2 

Solidago rigida RIGID GOLDENROD 4 5 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Trifolium pratense* RED CLOVER 3 

Viburnum opulus* EUROPEAN HIGH-BUSH 2 

CRANBERRY 

Vicia americana AMERICAN VETCH 7 2 

36 
Viola pedatifida PRAIRIE VIOLET 9 1 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 7 2 

37 
 

Site Species List 3 

Site 3 Mean Cn 3.8, FQIn 40.1 

110 native species, 135 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservati Abundan 

sm (C) ce 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 1 

Acer negundo BOX ELDER 0 2 

Agrimonia gryposepala TALL AGRIMONY 2 1 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 1 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Allium cernuum NODDING WILD ONION 7 1 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 2 

Anemone virginiana TALL ANEMONE 5 1 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 2 

Aquilegia canadensis COLUMBINE 6 1 

Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED 4 2 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Aster pilosus HAIRY ASTER 0 1 

Aster simplex PANICLED ASTER 3 2 

Bidens comosa SWAMP TICKSEED 5 1 

Bidens frondosa COMMON BEGGAR'S TICKS 1 2 

Blephilia hirsuta WOOD MINT 8 1 

Boltonia latisquama var. recognita FALSE ASTER 9 1 

Bromus ciliatus FRINGED BROME 10 1 

Cacalia atriplicifolia PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN 8 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 1 

Carex annectens LARGE YELLOW FOX SEDGE 5 2 

Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 4 3 

Carex lupulina COMMON HOP SEDGE 7 2 

Carex normalis SPREADING OVAL SEDGE 5 1 

Carex pellita WOOLY SEDGE 4 1 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 2 

Carex tenera NARROW-LEAVED OVAL 8 2 

SEDGE 

Carex tribuloides AWL-FRUITED OVAL SEDGE 3 1 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 1 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. OX-EYE DAISY 1 

pinnatifidum* 

Cinna arundinacea COMMON WOOD REED 5 1 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 2 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 2 

38 
Cirsium discolor PASTURE THISTLE 2 1 

Cirsium vulgare* BULL THISTLE 1 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 2 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 2 

Desmodium sp. TICK TREFOIL 2 

Eleocharis erythropoda RED-ROOTED SPIKE RUSH 2 1 

Elymus canadensis CANADA WILD RYE 4 1 

Elymus virginicus VIRGINIA WILD RYE 4 1 

Equisetum hyemale TALL SCOURING RUSH 3 1 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Erigeron canadensis HORSEWEED 0 1 

Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET 0 2 

Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET 4 1 

Eupatorium purpureum PURPLE JOE PYE WEED 7 1 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 2 

subintegerrima 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 3 

Geum laciniatum ROUGH AVENS 5 1 

Gleditsia triacanthos HONEY LOCUST 2 1 

Glyceria septentrionalis FLOATING MANNA GRASS 8 2 

Helenium autumnale SNEEZEWEED 5 1 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 2 

Heliopsis helianthoides FALSE SUNFLOWER 5 1 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 1 

Juncus torreyi TORREY'S RUSH 4 1 

Lactuca canadensis WILD LETTUCE 2 2 

Lactuca saligna* WILLOW-LEAVED LETTUCE 2 

Leersia oryzoides RICE CUT GRASS 4 1 

Lilium michiganense MICHIGAN LILY 6 1 

Linaria vulgaris* BUTTER-AND-EGGS 1 

Lonicera x bella* SHOWY FLY HONEYSUCKLE 3 

Ludwigia alternifolia SEEDBOX 6 2 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 2 

HOREHOUND 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Melilotus alba* WHITE SWEET CLOVER 2 

Mentha arvensis var. villosa WILD MINT 5 2 

Nepeta cataria* CATNIP 1 

39 
Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 1 

PRIMROSE 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 1 

Panicum clandestinum DEER-TONGUE GRASS 6 2 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 1 

Panicum virgatum PRAIRIE SWITCH GRASS 5 2 

Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 4 1 

Penthorum sedoides DITCH STONECROP 5 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Physostegia virginiana OBEDIENT PLANT 6 2 

Plantago rugelii RED-STALKED PLANTAIN 0 1 

Poa compressa* CANADIAN BLUE GRASS 2 

Poa palustris FOWL BLUE GRASS 9 1 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 2 

Polygonum scandens CLIMBING FALSE 1 1 

BUCKWHEAT 

Polygonum virginianum VIRGINIA KNOTWEED 2 2 

Populus deltoides EASTERN COTTONWOOD 2 2 

Potentilla simplex COMMON CINQUEFOIL 4 1 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 2 

Ranunculus sp. BUTTERCUP 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 2 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 2 

Rhus glabra SMOOTH SUMAC 1 2 

Rhus radicans POISON IVY 2 2 

Ribes missouriense MISSOURI GOOSEBERRY 5 1 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 1 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Rudbeckia triloba BROWN-EYED SUSAN 3 2 

Rumex altissimus PALE DOCK 2 1 

Rumex orbiculatus GREAT WATER DOCK 8 1 

Salix amygdaloides PEACH-LEAVED WILLOW 5 1 

Salix interior SANDBAR WILLOW 1 2 

Sambucus canadensis COMMON ELDER 1 1 

Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT 6 2 

Scirpus atrovirens DARK GREEN RUSH 4 2 

Scirpus pendulus RED BULRUSH 4 2 

Scutellaria lateriflora MAD-DOG SKULLCAP 5 1 

Setaria faberi* GIANT FOXTAIL 2 

Silphium perfoliatum CUP PLANT 5 1 

40 
Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7 2
 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON 5 1
 

SEAL
 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION FLOWER 5 1
 

Smilax lasioneura COMMON CARRION FLOWER 5 2
 

Solanum dulcamara* BITTERSWEET NIGHTSHADE 2
 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 3
 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 4 3
 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2
 

Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 2
 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2
 

Triodia flava* COMMON PURPLETOP 1
 

Typha angustifolia NARROW-LEAVED CATTAIL 1 1
 

Typha x glauca HYBRID CATTAIL 1 1
 

Ulmus americana AMERICAN ELM 3 1
 

Ulmus pumila* SIBERIAN ELM 1
 

Verbascum thapsus* WOOLLY MULLEIN 2
 

Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN 5 1
 

Vernonia fasciculata COMMON IRONWEED 5 1
 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 1
 

Viburnum opulus* EUROPEAN HIGH-BUSH 1
 

CRANBERRY 

Vicia americana AMERICAN VETCH 7 1 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 3 

Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 7 1 

41 
 

Site Species List 4 

Site 4 Mean Cn 4.3, FQIn 32.4 

58 native species, 70 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservati Abundan 

sm (C) ce 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 4 4 

Achillea millefolium* COMMON MILFOIL 1 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Allium cernuum NODDING WILD ONION 7 2 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 3 

Anemone virginiana TALL ANEMONE 5 2 

Anemonella thalictroides RUE ANEMONE 7 2 

Apocynum androsaemifolium SPREADING DOGBANE 5 2 

Aquilegia canadensis COLUMBINE 6 2 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 2 

Blephilia hirsuta WOOD MINT 8 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Cacalia atriplicifolia PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN 8 2 

Campanula americana AMERICAN BELLFLOWER 3 2 

Carex cephalophora SHORT-HEADED BRACTED 3 2 

SEDGE 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK SEDGE 5 4 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 2 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. OX-EYE DAISY 1 

pinnatifidum* 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 2 

Crataegus sp. HAWTHORN 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 3 

Desmodium glutinosum POINTED TICK TREFOIL 5 1 

Elymus villosus SILKY WILD RYE 5 3 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET 0 2 

Eupatorium purpureum PURPLE JOE PYE WEED 7 2 

Eupatorium rugosum WHITE SNAKEROOT 4 2 

Euphorbia corollata FLOWERING SPURGE 2 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 4 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 3 

Lathyrus venosus VEINY PEA 9 2 

42 
Melilotus officinalis* YELLOW SWEET CLOVER 2 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 2 

PRIMROSE 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER 2 2 

Pedicularis canadensis WOOD BETONY 9 1 

Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 4 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Poa compressa* CANADIAN BLUE GRASS 2 

Polemonium reptans JACOB'S LADDER 5 2 

Polygonatum canaliculatum GREAT SOLOMON SEAL 3 1 

Prunus serotina WILD BLACK CHERRY 1 2 

Prunus virginiana COMMON CHOKE CHERRY 3 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 4 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 2 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Rudbeckia triloba BROWN-EYED SUSAN 3 2 

Scrophularia marilandica LATE FIGWORT 4 1 

Silene stellata STARRY CAMPION 6 2 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 1 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION FLOWER 5 2 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago flexicaulis BROAD-LEAVED 7 2 

GOLDENROD 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED 4 2 

GOLDENROD 

Solidago ulmifolia ELM-LEAVED GOLDENROD 5 3 

Taraxacum officinale* COMMON DANDELION 2 

Thalictrum revolutum WAXY MEADOW RUE 6 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2 

Triosteum perfoliatum LATE HORSE GENTIAN 5 2 

Viburnum prunifolium BLACK HAW 5 2 

Vicia americana AMERICAN VETCH 7 2 

Viola sororia WOOLLY BLUE VIOLET 3 2 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 7 2 

43 
 

Site Species List 5 

Site 5 Mean Cn 4.3, FQIn 36.1 

71 native species 82 total species 

Species Name Common Name Conservatism Abundance 

(C) 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 2 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 3 

Apocynum androsaemifolium SPREADING DOGBANE 5 2 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 2 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Aster ericoides HEATH ASTER 5 2 

Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER 4 2 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 3 

Carex buxbaumii DARK-SCALED SEDGE 9 2 

Carex lacustris COMMON LAKE SEDGE 6 1 

Carex pellita WOOLY SEDGE 4 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 3 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 2 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 2 

Cirsium discolor PASTURE THISTLE 2 1 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 2 

Cornus obliqua PALE DOGWOOD 6 2 

Corylus americana AMERICAN FILBERT 5 2 

Desmodium sp. TICK TREFOIL 2 

Eleocharis erythropoda RED-ROOTED SPIKE RUSH 2 4 

Elymus villosus SILKY WILD RYE 5 2 

Eryngium yuccifolium RATTLESNAKE MASTER 9 2 

Eupatorium maculatum SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED 4 1 

Euphorbia corollata HAIRY FLOWERING SPURGE 2 2 

Festuca obtusa NODDING FESCUE 5 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 2 

subintegerrima 

Galium obtusum WILD MADDER 5 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 2 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 2 

44 
Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 2 

Iris virginica var. shrevei SOUTHERN BLUE FLAG 5 2 

Lathyrus venosus VEINY PEA 9 2 

Liatris spicata MARSH BLAZING STAR 6 2 

Lonicera tatarica* TARTARIAN HONEYSUCKLE 2 

Lycopus virginicus BUGLE WEED 9 2 

Lysimachia lanceolata LANCE-LEAVED LOOSESTRIFE 7 2 

Melilotus officinalis* YELLOW SWEET CLOVER 2 

Mentha arvensis var. villosa WILD MINT 5 3 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 2 

PRIMROSE 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Panicum clandestinum DEER-TONGUE GRASS 6 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 3 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 2 

Podophyllum peltatum MAY APPLE 4 2 

Polygonum amphibium var. WATER KNOTWEED 4 3 

stipulaceum 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 2 

Rosa blanda EARLY WILD ROSE 5 2 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 2 

Rubus idaeus var. strigosus RED RASPBERRY 3 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rubus pensilvanicus YANKEE BLACKBERRY 3 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Salix discolor PUSSY WILLOW 2 2 

Silene stellata STARRY CAMPION 6 2 

Silphium integrifolium ROSIN WEED 5 2 

Silphium laciniatum COMPASS PLANT 5 2 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 2 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION FLOWER 5 2 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 4 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 3 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 3 

Solidago rigida RIGID GOLDENROD 4 3 

Sparganium eurycarpum COMMON BUR REED 6 3 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 3 

45 
Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 2 

Taenidia integerrima YELLOW PIMPERNEL 9 3 

Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 3 

Verbascum thapsus* WOOLLY MULLEIN 2 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 2 

Vicia americana AMERICAN VETCH 7 2 

Viola sp. VIOLET 2 

46 
 

Site Species List 6 

Site 6 Mean Cn 4.07, FQIn 42.3 

110 native species, 134 species total 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundanc 

m (C) e 

(Luzula bulbosa) COMMON WOOD RUSH 7 1 

(Pteridium aquilinum) BRACKEN FERN 5 2 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 4 4 

Acalypha rhomboidea THREE-SEEDED MERCURY 0 2 

Acer negundo BOX ELDER 0 2 

Agrimonia gryposepala TALL AGRIMONY 2 2 

Agrimonia pubescens SOFT AGRIMONY 5 2 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 2 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Allium tricoccum var. burdickii WILD LEEK 6 2 

Amphicarpaea bracteata HOG PEANUT 4 2 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 3 

Anemone cylindrica CANDLE ANEMONE 6 2 

Anemonella thalictroides RUE ANEMONE 7 2 

Apios americana GROUND NUT 7 2 

Apocynum androsaemifolium SPREADING DOGBANE 5 3 

Arenaria patula SLENDER SANDWORT 10 2 

Arisaema triphyllum JACK-IN-THE-PULPIT 4 2 

Asclepias exaltata POKE MILKWEED 9 1 

Asclepias purpurascens PURPLE MILKWEED 8 2 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Asparagus officinalis* GARDEN ASPARAGUS 2 

Aster lateriflorus SIDE-FLOWERING ASTER 4 2 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 3 

Aster simplex PANICLED ASTER 3 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Carex blanda COMMON WOOD SEDGE 1 2 

Carex cephalophora SHORT-HEADED BRACTED 3 2 

SEDGE 

Carex normalis SPREADING OVAL SEDGE 5 2 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK SEDGE 5 3 

Carex radiata STAR SEDGE 6 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 2 

47 
Carex tenera NARROW-LEAVED OVAL 8 2 

SEDGE 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 3 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 3 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 2 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 2 

Coreopsis tripteris TALL COREOPSIS 5 2 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 3 

Corylus americana AMERICAN FILBERT 5 1 

Cuscuta sp. DODDER 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 2 

Desmodium glutinosum POINTED TICK TREFOIL 5 2 

Dioscorea villosa WILD YAM 7 2 

Elymus villosus SILKY WILD RYE 5 2 

Equisetum arvense COMMON HORSETAIL 0 2 

Erechtites hieracifolia FIREWEED 2 2 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Eupatorium purpureum PURPLE JOE PYE WEED 7 2 

Eupatorium rugosum WHITE SNAKEROOT 4 2 

Euphorbia corollata FLOWERING SPURGE 2 2 

Festuca elatior* TALL FESCUE 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 3 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 2 

subintegerrima 

Galium concinnum SHINING BEDSTRAW 5 2 

Galium mollugo* WHITE BEDSTRAW 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 3 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 2 

Glyceria striata FOWL MANNA GRASS 4 2 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 3 

Heliopsis helianthoides FALSE SUNFLOWER 5 1 

Hydrophyllum virginianum VIRGINIA WATERLEAF 5 2 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 2 

Impatiens capensis SPOTTED TOUCH-ME-NOT 3 2 

Juncus tenuis PATH RUSH 0 2 

Lactuca canadensis WILD LETTUCE 2 2 

Lactuca saligna* WILLOW-LEAVED LETTUCE 2 

Leersia virginica WHITE GRASS 7 2 

Lonicera tatarica* TARTARIAN HONEYSUCKLE 2 

Lysimachia ciliata FRINGED LOOSESTRIFE 4 2 

48 
Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Nepeta cataria* CATNIP 2 

Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 2 

PRIMROSE 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Oxypolis rigidior COWBANE 7 2 

Panicum clandestinum DEER-TONGUE GRASS 6 2 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 2 

Panicum leibergii PRAIRIE PANIC GRASS 10 2 

Parthenium integrifolium WILD QUININE 8 2 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER 2 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Phleum pratense* TIMOTHY 2 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 3 

Podophyllum peltatum MAY APPLE 4 2 

Polygonatum canaliculatum GREAT SOLOMON SEAL 3 2 

Polygonum scandens CLIMBING FALSE BUCKWHEAT 1 2 

Polygonum sp. SMARTWEED 2 

Populus tremuloides QUAKING ASPEN 4 1 

Potentilla simplex COMMON CINQUEFOIL 4 2 

Prenanthes alba LION'S FOOT 5 2 

Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata SELF-HEAL 0 2 

Prunus americana AMERICAN PLUM 5 2 

Prunus serotina WILD BLACK CHERRY 1 2 

Prunus virginiana COMMON CHOKE CHERRY 3 2 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus alba WHITE OAK 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 4 

Quercus rubra NORTHERN RED OAK 7 3 

Ranunculus septentrionalis SWAMP BUTTERCUP 5 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 2 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 2 

Ribes missouriense MISSOURI GOOSEBERRY 5 2 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 2 

Rosa multiflora* JAPANESE ROSE 1 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 3 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 1 

Rudbeckia triloba BROWN-EYED SUSAN 3 2 

Salix interior SANDBAR WILLOW 1 2 

Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT 6 2 

Scrophularia marilandica LATE FIGWORT 4 1 

49 
Setaria faberi* GIANT FOXTAIL 2 

Smilacina racemosa FEATHERY FALSE SOLOMON 3 2 

SEAL 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON 5 2 

SEAL 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION FLOWER 5 2 

Smilax tamnoides var. hispida BRISTLY GREEN BRIER 5 2 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 3 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago ulmifolia ELM-LEAVED GOLDENROD 5 2 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 2 

Taenidia integerrima YELLOW PIMPERNEL 9 2 

Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 1 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 3 

Verbascum thapsus* WOOLLY MULLEIN 2 

Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN 5 2 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 1 

Viola pubescens SMOOTH YELLOW VIOLET 5 2 

Viola sororia WOOLLY BLUE VIOLET 3 2 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 7 2 

50 
 

Site Species List 7 

Site 7 Mean Cn 4.2, FQIn 33.5 

63 native species, 85 species total 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundan 

m (C) ce 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 4 2 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 2 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Allium cernuum NODDING WILD ONION 7 2 

Anemone virginiana TALL ANEMONE 5 2 

Aquilegia canadensis COLUMBINE 6 2 

Aralia nudicaulis WILD SARSAPARILLA 8 2 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Asparagus officinalis* GARDEN ASPARAGUS 2 

Aster puniceus BRISTLY ASTER 8 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Cacalia atriplicifolia PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN 8 2 

Carex pellita WOOLY SEDGE 4 2 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK SEDGE 5 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 3 

Carex tenera NARROW-LEAVED OVAL 8 2 

SEDGE 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 2 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. OX-EYE DAISY 2 

pinnatifidum* 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S 1 2 

NIGHTSHADE 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 2 

Coreopsis tripteris TALL COREOPSIS 5 1 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Dactylis glomerata* ORCHARD GRASS 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 2 

Desmodium sp. TICK TREFOIL 1 

Erechtites hieracifolia FIREWEED 2 1 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Eupatorium maculatum SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED 4 3 

Eupatorium rugosum WHITE SNAKEROOT 4 2 

Festuca elatior* TALL FESCUE 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima GREEN ASH 1 2 

51 
Galium concinnum SHINING BEDSTRAW 5 2 

Galium obtusum WILD MADDER 5 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 2 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 2 

Geum laciniatum ROUGH AVENS 5 2 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 2 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 2 

Impatiens pallida PALE TOUCH-ME-NOT 6 2 

Lactuca sp. LETTUCE 1 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 2 

HOREHOUND 

Lythrum alatum WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 7 2 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Melilotus officinalis* YELLOW SWEET CLOVER 2 

Muhlenbergia sp. SATIN GRASS 2 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Oxypolis rigidior COWBANE 7 2 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 1 

Panicum leibergii PRAIRIE PANIC GRASS 10 2 

Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 4 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 2 

Podophyllum peltatum MAY APPLE 4 2 

Populus tremuloides QUAKING ASPEN 4 2 

Potentilla simplex COMMON CINQUEFOIL 4 2 

Prunus virginiana COMMON CHOKE CHERRY 3 2 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN 5 2 

MINT 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 2 

Ranunculus septentrionalis SWAMP BUTTERCUP 5 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 2 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 2 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 1 

Rosa multiflora* JAPANESE ROSE 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Rudbeckia triloba BROWN-EYED SUSAN 3 2 

Salix discolor PUSSY WILLOW 2 2 

Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT 6 2 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 2 

52 
Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION 5 2 

FLOWER 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 3 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 3 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 3 

Spiraea alba MEADOWSWEET 7 3 

Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 2 

Taraxacum officinale* COMMON DANDELION 2 

Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 2 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

Zizia aurea GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 7 2 

53 
Site Species List 8 

Site 8 Mean Cn 3.9, FQIn 35 

78 native species, 99 species total 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundance 

m (C) 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 4 3 

Acer negundo BOX ELDER 0 2 

Achillea millefolium* COMMON MILFOIL 1 

Agrimonia gryposepala TALL AGRIMONY 2 2 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 1 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Allium cernuum NODDING WILD ONION 7 1 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia var. elatior COMMON RAGWEED 0 2 

Amphicarpaea bracteata HOG PEANUT 4 2 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 2 

Anemone virginiana TALL ANEMONE 5 2 

Apios americana GROUND NUT 7 2 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 2 

Aquilegia canadensis COLUMBINE 6 2 

Asclepias purpurascens PURPLE MILKWEED 8 1 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 1 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 3 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 2 

Bidens frondosa COMMON BEGGAR'S TICKS 1 1 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 2 

Carex blanda COMMON WOOD SEDGE 1 1 

Carex lacustris COMMON LAKE SEDGE 6 2 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK SEDGE 5 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 2 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 2 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 3 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 1 

Cirsium vulgare* BULL THISTLE 1 

Comandra umbellata BASTARD TOAD-FLAX 7 1 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 2 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Corylus americana AMERICAN FILBERT 5 1 

Dactylis glomerata* ORCHARD GRASS 2 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 1 

Desmodium sp. TICK TREFOIL 1 

54 
Dichanthelium implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 1 

Dodecatheon meadia SHOOTING STAR 6 1 

Elymus villosus SILKY WILD RYE 5 2 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET 0 2 

Eupatorium purpureum PURPLE JOE PYE WEED 7 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 1 

subintegerrima 

Galium concinnum SHINING BEDSTRAW 5 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 1 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 2 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 4 

Lactuca saligna* WILLOW-LEAVED LETTUCE 1 

Lolium perenne* PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 1 

Lonicera tatarica* TARTARIAN HONEYSUCKLE 2 

Melilotus alba* WHITE SWEET CLOVER 1 

Melissa officinalis* COMMON BALM 1 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Nepeta cataria* CATNIP 1 

Oenothera biennis COMMON EVENING 0 1 

PRIMROSE 

Onoclea sensibilis SENSITIVE FERN 8 1 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Panicum clandestinum DEER TONGUE PANIC GRASS 6 1 

Panicum leibergii PRAIRIE PANIC GRASS 10 2 

Parthenium integrifolium WILD QUININE 8 1 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER 2 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Plantago rugelii RED-STALKED PLANTAIN 0 2 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 2 

Polygonatum canaliculatum GREAT SOLOMON SEAL 3 1 

Polygonum scandens CLIMBING FALSE 1 1 

BUCKWHEAT 

Polygonum sp. SMARTWEED 1 

Potentilla simplex COMMON CINQUEFOIL 4 2 

Prenanthes alba LION'S FOOT 5 2 

Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata SELF-HEAL 0 1 

Prunus serotina WILD BLACK CHERRY 1 2 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 3 

55 
Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 1 

Rhus radicans POISON IVY 2 2 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 1 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT 6 3 

Scirpus pendulus RED BULRUSH 4 1 

Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7 2 

Smilacina racemosa FEATHERY FALSE SOLOMON 3 2 

SEAL 

Smilax lasioneura COMMON CARRION FLOWER 5 2 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 3 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 1 

Solidago rigida RIGID GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago ulmifolia ELM-LEAVED GOLDENROD 5 2 

Sonchus arvensis* FIELD SOW THISTLE 1 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Sphenopholis obtusata PRAIRIE WEDGE GRASS 7 2 

Taenidia integerrima YELLOW PIMPERNEL 9 2 

Taraxacum officinale* COMMON DANDELION 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 3 

Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN 5 1 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 1 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

56 
 

Site Species List 9 

Site 9 Mean Cn 4.3, FQIn 24.2 

32 native species, 38 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundanc 

m (C) e 

Amphicarpaea bracteata HOG PEANUT 4 1 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 2 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 3 

Bidens frondosa COMMON BEGGAR'S TICKS 1 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 3 

Carex pellita WOOLY SEDGE 4 3 

Carex sartwellii RUNNING MARSH SEDGE 6 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 4 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 1 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Dactylis glomerata* ORCHARD GRASS 2 

Desmodium sp. TICK TREFOIL 1 

Eupatorium maculatum SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED 4 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 2 

subintegerrima 

Galium obtusum WILD MADDER 5 3 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 1 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 3 

Ludwigia alternifolia SEEDBOX 6 3 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 2 

HOREHOUND 

Lycopus virginicus BUGLE WEED 9 2 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Onoclea sensibilis SENSITIVE FERN 8 2 

Penthorum sedoides DITCH STONECROP 5 3 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 3 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 3 

Ranunculus flabellaris YELLOW WATER BUTTERCUP 7 3 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 2 

Rosa blanda EARLY WILD ROSE 5 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 2 

Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7 2 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON 5 1 

SEAL 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 3 

57 
Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2 

Verbena hastata BLUE VERVAIN 4 3 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 2 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

58 
 

Site Species List 10 

Site 10 Mean Cn 4.4 , FQIn 37.6, 

73 native species, 86 species total 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundanc 

m (C) e 

(Frangula alnus*) GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 1 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) HILL'S OAK 4 4 

Achillea millefolium* COMMON MILFOIL 2 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Allium cernuum NODDING WILD ONION 7 2 

Ambrosia trifida GIANT RAGWEED 0 1 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 3 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 2 

Aquilegia canadensis COLUMBINE 6 3 

Asclepias purpurascens PURPLE MILKWEED 8 2 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 1 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 2 

Carex annectens LARGE YELLOW FOX SEDGE 5 2 

Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 4 2 

Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA OAK SEDGE 5 2 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 3 

Carex tenera NARROW-LEAVED OVAL 8 2 

SEDGE 

Carex tribuloides AWL-FRUITED OVAL SEDGE 3 1 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 3 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis ENCHANTER'S NIGHTSHADE 1 2 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 2 

Comandra umbellata BASTARD TOAD-FLAX 7 2 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 2 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Cuscuta sp. DODDER 1 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 2 

Dodecatheon meadia SHOOTING STAR 6 2 

Elymus villosus SILKY WILD RYE 5 2 

Erechtites hieracifolia FIREWEED 2 1 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Eupatorium purpureum PURPLE JOE PYE WEED 7 2 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 2 

59 
Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 3 

subintegerrima 

Galium concinnum SHINING BEDSTRAW 5 2 

Galium obtusum WILD MADDER 5 2 

Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM 4 2 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 4 

Hystrix patula BOTTLEBRUSH GRASS 5 2 

Impatiens capensis SPOTTED TOUCH-ME-NOT 3 1 

Liatris spicata MARSH BLAZING STAR 6 2 

Lilium michiganense MICHIGAN LILY 6 2 

Lolium perenne* PERENNIAL RYE GRASS 2 

Lonicera tatarica* TARTARIAN HONEYSUCKLE 2 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 2 

HOREHOUND 

Lysimachia nummularia* MONEYWORT 1 

Lythrum alatum WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 7 2 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Oxypolis rigidior COWBANE 7 2 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 2 

Panicum leibergii PRAIRIE PANIC GRASS 10 2 

Parthenium integrifolium WILD QUININE 8 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 3 

Podophyllum peltatum MAY APPLE 4 2 

Potentilla simplex COMMON CINQUEFOIL 4 2 

Prenanthes alba LION'S FOOT 5 2 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus alba WHITE OAK 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 3 

Rosa blanda EARLY WILD ROSE 5 2 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 2 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 2 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 1 

Sanicula marilandica BLACK SNAKEROOT 6 3 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 1 

Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7 2 

Smilacina racemosa FEATHERY FALSE SOLOMON 3 2 

SEAL 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON 5 2 

SEAL 

Smilax lasioneura COMMON CARRION FLOWER 5 2 

60 
Solanum dulcamara* BITTERSWEET NIGHTSHADE 1 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 3 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago juncea EARLY GOLDENROD 5 2 

Solidago rigida RIGID GOLDENROD 4 2 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Sphenopholis obtusata PRAIRIE WEDGE GRASS 7 2 

Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 1 

Taenidia integerrima YELLOW PIMPERNEL 9 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 3 

Verbena stricta HOARY VERVAIN 4 1 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 2 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 3 

61 
 

Site Species List 11 

Site 11 Mean Cn 4.4, FQIn 36.6 

70 native species, 81 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundan 

m (C) ce 

Acer negundo BOX ELDER 0 1 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 2 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 1 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia var. elatior COMMON RAGWEED 0 1 

Ambrosia trifida GIANT RAGWEED 0 2 

Andropogon scoparius LITTLE BLUESTEM 5 1 

Apocynum androsaemifolium SPREADING DOGBANE 5 2 

Apocynum cannabinum DOGBANE 4 2 

Asclepias incarnata SWAMP MILKWEED 4 1 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Aster novae-angliae NEW ENGLAND ASTER 4 1 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Bromus inermis* HUNGARIAN BROME 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 2 

Carex buxbaumii DARK-SCALED SEDGE 9 2 

Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 4 1 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5 3 

Carex tenera NARROW-LEAVED OVAL SEDGE 8 2 

Carex tribuloides AWL-FRUITED OVAL SEDGE 3 2 

Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY 5 1 

Cicuta bulbifera BULBLET-BEARING WATER 8 1 

HEMLOCK 

Cirsium arvense* FIELD THISTLE 2 

Convolvulus sepium AMERICAN BINDWEED 1 1 

Coreopsis tripteris TALL COREOPSIS 5 1 

Cornus racemosa GRAY DOGWOOD 1 2 

Cuscuta sp. DODDER 1 

Eleocharis erythropoda RED-ROOTED SPIKE RUSH 2 2 

Eleocharis obtusa BLUNT SPIKE RUSH 3 1 

Equisetum arvense COMMON HORSETAIL 0 3 

Equisetum hyemale TALL SCOURING RUSH 3 2 

Erigeron philadelphicus MARSH FLEABANE 4 1 

Eupatorium maculatum SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED 4 1 

Eupatorium perfoliatum COMMON BONESET 4 1 

62 
Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 1 

subintegerrima 

Galium obtusum WILD MADDER 5 1 

Gentiana andrewsii CLOSED GENTIAN 8 1 

Glyceria striata FOWL MANNA GRASS 4 2 

Helianthus grosseserratus SAWTOOTH SUNFLOWER 2 3 

Helianthus strumosus PALE-LEAVED SUNFLOWER 5 2 

Impatiens capensis SPOTTED TOUCH-ME-NOT 3 1 

Juncus dudleyi DUDLEY'S RUSH 4 2 

Lilium michiganense MICHIGAN LILY 6 1 

Lotus corniculatus* BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL 2 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER HOREHOUND 5 1 

Lycopus virginicus BUGLE WEED 9 2 

Lysimachia lanceolata LANCE-LEAVED LOOSESTRIFE 7 1 

Lysimachia quadriflora NARROW-LEAVED LOOSESTRIFE 9 1 

Lysimachia thyrsiflora TUFTED LOOSESTRIFE 9 1 

Lythrum alatum WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 7 1 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 2 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 2 

Oxypolis rigidior COWBANE 7 1 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 4 

Poa palustris FOWL BLUE GRASS 9 2 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 3 

Polygonum amphibium var. WATER KNOTWEED 4 2 

stipulaceum 

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium SLENDER MOUNTAIN MINT 7 2 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5 2 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 1 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 3 

Rhamnus frangula* GLOSSY BUCKTHORN 1 

Silphium terebinthinaceum PRAIRIE DOCK 5 1 

Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7 2 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON SEAL 5 2 

Smilax lasioneura COMMON CARRION FLOWER 5 1 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 2 

Solidago graminifolia GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 4 2 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 3 

Spiraea alba MEADOWSWEET 7 1 

Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 1 

63 
Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 1 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 3 

Typha x glauca HYBRID CATTAIL 1 4 

Verbena hastata BLUE VERVAIN 4 1 

Verbena urticifolia WHITE VERVAIN 5 1 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 1 

Viola sororia WOOLLY BLUE VIOLET 3 3 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 1 

64 
 

 

Site Species List 12 

Site 12 Mean Cn 4.5, FQIn 22.9 

26 native species, 28 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conservatis Abundanc 

m (C) e 

Alisma subcordatum COMMON WATER PLANTAIN 4 1 

Aster simplex PANICLED ASTER 3 3 

Bidens frondosa COMMON BEGGAR'S TICKS 1 2 

Boehmeria cylindrica FALSE NETTLE 2 2 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 2 

Carex lacustris COMMON LAKE SEDGE 6 2 

Carex lupulina COMMON HOP SEDGE 7 1 

Carex muskingumensis SWAMP OVAL SEDGE 8 3 

Cinna arundinacea COMMON WOOD REED 5 3 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. GREEN ASH 1 3 

subintegerrima 

Glyceria septentrionalis FLOATING MANNA GRASS 8 2 

Glyceria striata FOWL MANNA GRASS 4 4 

Leersia oryzoides RICE CUT GRASS 4 2 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER 5 2 

HOREHOUND 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 1 

Mentha arvensis var. villosa WILD MINT 5 2 

Penthorum sedoides DITCH STONECROP 5 3 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Polygonum amphibium var. WATER KNOTWEED 4 2 

stipulaceum 

Quercus macrocarpa BURR OAK 5 3 

Ranunculus flabellaris YELLOW WATER BUTTERCUP 7 1 

Rorippa palustris var. fernaldiana MARSH YELLOW CRESS 4 2 

Scirpus fluviatilis RIVER BULRUSH 4 2 

Stachys tenuifolia var. hispida MARSH HEDGE NETTLE 5 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2 

Ulmus americana AMERICAN ELM 3 2 

Veronica scutellata MARSH SPEEDWELL 10 3 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 3 

65 
 

Site Species List 13 

Site Species List 13 Mean Cn 3.4, FQIn 25.3, 

55 native species, 73 total species 

Species Name Common Name	 Conserv Abunda 

atism (C) nce 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP 2 

Alliaria petiolata* GARLIC MUSTARD 1 

Allium canadense WILD GARLIC 2 2 

Andropogon gerardii BIG BLUESTEM 5 2 

Andropogon scoparius LITTLE BLUESTEM 5 3 

Asclepias syriaca COMMON MILKWEED 0 2 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9 2 

Aster puniceus BRISTLY ASTER 8 3 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii DRUMMOND'S ASTER 2 3 

Barbarea vulgaris* WINTER CRESS 1 

Bidens frondosa COMMON BEGGAR'S TICKS 1 1 

Brassica rapa* BIRD'S RAPE 1 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3 2 

Carex aurea GOLDEN SEDGE 9 2 

Carex cristatella CRESTED OVAL SEDGE 4 3 

Carex granularis PALE SEDGE 4 4 

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. OX-EYE DAISY 2 

pinnatifidum* 

Crataegus mollis DOWNY HAWTHORN 2 4 

Crataegus monogyna* ENGLISH HAWTHORN 4 

Crataegus sp. HAWTHORN 4 

Daucus carota* QUEEN ANNE'S LACE 2 

Eleocharis erythropoda RED-ROOTED SPIKE RUSH 2 2 

Erigeron annuus ANNUAL FLEABANE 0 2 

Erigeron divaricatus DWARF FLEABANE 1 2 

Eupatorium altissimum TALL BONESET 0 1 

Fragaria virginiana WILD STRAWBERRY 1 3 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima GREEN ASH 1 1 

Galium aparine ANNUAL BEDSTRAW 1 2 

Geum canadense WHITE AVENS 1 1 

Glechoma hederacea* GROUND IVY 1 

Glyceria striata FOWL MANNA GRASS 4 2 

Hesperis matronalis* DAME'S ROCKET 3 

Hypericum perforatum* COMMON ST. JOHN'S-WORT 3 

Impatiens capensis SPOTTED TOUCH-ME-NOT 3 2 

Juncus interior INLAND RUSH 6 3 

66 
Lactuca canadensis WILD LETTUCE 2 1 

Leersia virginica WHITE GRASS 7 2 

Lepidium virginicum COMMON PEPPERGRASS 0 1 

Linaria vulgaris* BUTTER-AND-EGGS 1 

Lobelia spicata PALE SPIKED LOBELIA 6 1 

Lycopus virginicus BUGLE WEED 9 1 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 2 

Monarda fistulosa WILD BERGAMOT 4 1 

Oxalis stricta COMMON WOOD SORREL 0 1 

Panicum implicatum PANIC GRASS 2 2 

Panicum virgatum PRAIRIE SWITCH GRASS 5 1 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia VIRGINIA CREEPER 2 3 

Penstemon digitalis FOXGLOVE BEARD TONGUE 4 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS 2 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS 3 

Polygonatum canaliculatum GREAT SOLOMON SEAL 3 1 

Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata SELF-HEAL 0 1 

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium SLENDER MOUNTAIN MINT 7 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* COMMON BUCKTHORN 4 

Rosa carolina PASTURE ROSE 5 1 

Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY 2 1 

Rudbeckia hirta BLACK-EYED SUSAN 1 1 

Scirpus pendulus RED BULRUSH 4 2 

Sisyrinchium albidum COMMON BLUE-EYED GRASS 7 4 

Smilax ecirrhata UPRIGHT CARRION FLOWER 5 1 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1 2 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4 2 

Spartina pectinata PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 4 2 

Sphenopholis obtusata PRAIRIE WEDGE GRASS 7 1 

Thalictrum dasycarpum PURPLE MEADOW RUE 5 1 

Thlaspi arvense* FIELD PENNY CRESS 1 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2 2 

Ulmus americana AMERICAN ELM 3 3 

Verbena stricta HOARY VERVAIN 4 1 

Veronica peregrina PURSLANE SPEEDWELL 0 1 

Veronicastrum virginicum CULVER'S ROOT 7 1 

Viburnum opulus* EUROPEAN HIGH-BUSH 2 

CRANBERRY 

Vitis riparia RIVERBANK GRAPE 2 2 

67 
 

 

EPFO Associates
 

Plant species observed in close proximity to Platanthera leucophaea individuals.
 

EPFO #1 associates 

Species Name 

Apocynum cannabinum 

Aster praealtus 

Calamagrostis canadensis 

Carex pellita 

Carex stricta 

Cirsium arvense* 

Cornus racemosa 

Galium obtusum 

Lathyrus palustris 

Lythrum alatum 

Lythrum salicaria* 

Pycnanthemum virginianum 

Solidago canadensis 

Solidago graminifolia 

Tradescantia ohiensis 

Verbena hastata 

Common Name 

DOGBANE 

WILLOW ASTER 

BLUE JOINT GRASS 

WOOLY SEDGE 

COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 

FIELD THISTLE 

GRAY DOGWOOD 

WILD MADDER 

MARSH VETCHLING 

WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 

PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE 

COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 

CANADA GOLDENROD 

GRASS-LEAVED GOLDENROD 

COMMON SPIDERWORT 

BLUE VERVAIN 

Coefficient of Conservatism (C) 

4 

9 

3 

4 

5 

1 

5 

8 

7 

5 

1 

4 

2 

4 

68 
EPFO #2 associates 

Species Name Common Name Coefficient of Conservatism (C) 

Agrostis alba* RED TOP
 

Aster praealtus WILLOW ASTER 9
 

Lythrum salicaria* PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
 

Phalaris arundinacea* REED CANARY GRASS
 

Poa pratensis* KENTUCKY BLUE GRASS
 

stipulaceum
 

Calamagrostis canadensis BLUE JOINT GRASS 3
 

Carex lacustris COMMON LAKE SEDGE 6
 

Carex pellita WOOLY SEDGE 4
 

Carex stricta COMMON TUSSOCK SEDGE 5
 

Erigeron philadelphicus MARSH FLEABANE 4
 

Eupatorium maculatum SPOTTED JOE PYE WEED 4
 

Glyceria striata FOWL MANNA GRASS 4
 

Lathyrus palustris MARSH VETCHLING 8
 

Lycopus americanus COMMON WATER HOREHOUND 5
 

Lythrum alatum WINGED LOOSESTRIFE 7
 

Onoclea sensibilis SENSITIVE FERN 8
 

Oxypolis rigidior COWBANE 7
 

Pedicularis lanceolata FEN BETONY 9
 

Polygonum amphibium var. WATER KNOTWEED 4
 

Pycnanthemum virginianum COMMON MOUNTAIN MINT 5
 

Salix discolor PUSSY WILLOW 2
 

Scirpus atrovirens DARK GREEN RUSH 4
 

Senecio pauperculus BALSAM RAGWORT 6
 

Sium suave WATER PARSNIP 7
 

Smilacina stellata STARRY FALSE SOLOMON SEAL 5
 

Solidago canadensis CANADA GOLDENROD 1
 

Solidago gigantea LATE GOLDENROD 4
 

Tradescantia ohiensis COMMON SPIDERWORT 2
 

Verbena hastata BLUE VERVAIN 4
 

69 
Bat Habitat Assessment at Rondout Extension/Metra Lake 2nd 

Track, Lake County, Illinois 

IDOT Sequence Number: 19157 

Prepared by:
 

Jean M. Mengelkoch, Joseph F. Merritt, and Synan Nicholson
 

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program 

Report 2015: 34 

14 August 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

Project Summary 

IDOT requested the INHS assess the presence or absence of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the 

northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and their habitat at the Rondout Extension/Metra Lake 

2nd Track project corridor in Lake County, Illinois. The assessment of the site for potential mist netting 

sites and habitat was conducted on 3 and 4 August 2015. No suitable mist netting sites were found. 

Some potential roost trees were found in the project corridor. The habitat suitability of the site for 

Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat was low. 

Report Prepared By: Jean M. Mengelkoch, Field Biologist 

Joseph F. Merritt, Mammalogist 

Synan Nicholson, Student 

GIS Figure Prepared by: Janet L. Jarvis, GIS Specialist 

University of Illinois 

Prairie Research Institute 

Illinois Natural History Survey 

Statewide Biological Survey and Assessment Program 

1816 South Oak Street 

Champaign, Illinois 61820 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

Table of Contents
 

Project Summary........................................................................................................................................... 2
 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
 

Records and Previous Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 4
 

Natural History of Indiana Bats and Northern Long-Eared Bats................................................................... 4
 

Methods for Assessing Potential Mist Netting Sites..................................................................................... 6
 

Waterways Assessed as Potential Mist Netting Sites ................................................................................... 6
 

Mist Net Site Selection Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 6
 

Methods for Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................................. 6
 

Habitat Assessment Results.......................................................................................................................... 7
 

Table 1........................................................................................................................................................... 8
 

Habitat Assessment Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 8
 

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 8
 

Figures ...................................................................................................................................................12-19
 

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Cover Photo: Metra train crossing the N. St. Mary’s Road intersection. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

Introduction 

On 4 March 2015 the Bureau of Design & Environment at the Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT) submitted a request of the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) to assess the 

presence or absence of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the federally 

threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and their habitat in the Rondout 

Extension/Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track project corridor (Sequence Number: 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. 

Records and Previous Surveys 

The Illinois Natural Heritage Database (INHD), which is maintained by the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources (IDNR), has no record of Indiana bat and 2 records of northern long-eared bats in 

Lake County. The two records were from nearby Lake County forest preserves (MacArthur Woods and 

Ryerson); the bats were caught by INHS in 2006 (Hofmann et al. 2008). 

Natural History of Indiana Bats and Northern-Long Eared Bats 

Indiana bats congregate in caves or abandoned mines for hibernation, but are more widely 

dispersed during the summer (Barbour and Davis 1969). Maternity colonies primarily roost beneath 

slabs of exfoliating bark on dead trees, but also have been found beneath the "shaggy" bark of certain 

live hickories (Carya) and oaks (Quercus), and in tree crevices (Cope et al. 1973; Humphrey et al. 1977; 

Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1993a, b, 1996, 2002; Callahan et al. 1997; Carter 2003). Maternity 

colonies, however, recently have been found roosting in buildings (a church, house, and barn), artificial 

roosting structures (e.g., bat houses), and utility poles (Carter et al. 2001; Butchkoski and Hassinger 

2002; Chenger 2003; Hendricks et al. 2005; Kurta 2005; Ritzi et al. 2005). Males and non-reproductive 

females use caves, mines, bridges, and artificial roosting structures as well as trees for diurnal roosts 

during summer (Mumford and Cope 1958; Gardner et al. 1991; Salyers et al. 1996; Ford et al. 2002; 

INHD). 

Northern-long eared bats also congregate in caves or abandoned mines for hibernation and are 

more widely dispersed during the summer (Caceres and Barclay 2000). Their maternity colonies roost 

under exfoliating bark like the Indiana bat, however they are more likely than Indiana bats to roost in 

cracks, crevices, and cavities in trees (Foster and Kurta 1999; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Lacki et al. 

2009). They are also known to use artificial structures, such as barns and sheds, for roosts and are more 

likely to use them than Indiana bats (Krochmal and Sparks 2007; Henderson and Broders 2008; Timpone 

et al. 2010). 

Roost trees housing maternity colonies of Indiana bats are relatively large, with a dbh (diameter 

at breast height) of at least 12 in (e.g., Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1993a, 1996; Callahan et al. 1997; 

Whitaker and Brack 2002). Female and juvenile Indiana bats have been documented roosting in more 

than 30 species of trees (Kurta 2005). Tree species known to have been used by Indiana bat maternity 

colonies in Illinois are northern red oak (Q. rubra), white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), pin oak (Q. 

palustris), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), American elm (U. americana), shagbark hickory (C. ovata), 

bitternut hickory (C. cordiformis), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), 

sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweetgum (Liquidambar 

styraciflua) (Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1993a; Carter 2003). A maternity colony uses more than 

one tree during the summer (e.g., Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1996; Callahan et al. 1997), but the 

number of roost trees a colony requires is variable (Menzel et al. 2001). A colony in Michigan roosted in 

23 trees (Kurta et al. 1996) and four Missouri colonies used 10-20 roost trees each (Callahan et al. 1997). 

In Michigan, members of a maternity colony occupied trees that were up to 5.1 mi apart during a 

summer and traveled as much as 3.6 mi between roost trees overnight (Kurta et al. 2002). Individual 

roost trees have a limited "lifespan," making them an ephemeral resource (Gardner et al. 1991). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

Tree species used by northern long-eared bats are similar to those used by Indiana bats (U.S. 

FWS 2014). Northern long-eared bats use trees with a larger range of diameters than Indiana bats (Lacki 

et al 2009). In addition, as with Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats are known to switch roosts 

during the maternity season (Patriquin et al. 2010; Johnson et al. 2012). 

Trees used by Indiana bats in Illinois have been located in upland and floodplain forests, a 

swamp, and pastures (Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1993a; Carter 2003). There is a consensus that 

Indiana bat maternity colonies occupy primary roosts that are exposed to high levels of solar radiation 

(Menzel et al. 2001). The death of an overstory tree creates a light-gap in the forest canopy that 

exposes remaining trees to solar radiation. Dead trees along forest edges or in areas impacted by 

flooding also have high levels of exposure to sunlight. Some alternate maternity roosts, as well as roosts 

used by male Indiana bats, are in shaded locations (Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan et al. 1997). Most 

Indiana bat roost trees have been close to (or surrounded by) water (e.g., Humphrey et al. 1977; 

Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan et al. 1997; Kurta et al. 1996, 2002; Carter 2003), but some have been 

found more than 1.2 mi from a perennial stream (Gardner et al. 1991; Kurta et al. 1993a). Trees 

occupied by reproductively active female and juvenile Indiana bats in Illinois (n = 56) were rarely within 

1637 ft of a paved highway (Gardner et al. 1991). In contrast, a maternity colony in Indiana was found 

roosting in trees near a major highway (J.M. Mengelkoch, personal observation). Some adult male 

Indiana bats roosted less than 786 ft from a paved highway in Illinois (Gardner et al. 1991) and an adult 

male in West Virginia occupied a tree only 43 ft from a road (Ford et al. 2002). 

Northern long-eared bat summer habitat includes a large assortment of wooded areas. They 

appear to tolerate more canopy cover than Indiana bats (U.S. FWS 2014). 

Most Indiana bat maternity colonies in the Midwest have been found in landscapes that were a 

mosaic of forest and agricultural areas (Cope et al. 1973; Humphrey et al. 1977; Gardner et al. 1991; 

Kurta et al. 1993a, b, 2002; Callahan et al. 1997; Carter 2003). Despite the fact that they roost in trees, 

the presence of Indiana bats does not seem to be correlated with forest cover. In Missouri, for example, 

the amount of forest cover did not differ significantly between sites where Indiana bats were captured 

and not captured (Miller et al. 2002). In Illinois, Carter et al. (2002) found significantly fewer and smaller 

patches of urban development in the vicinity of Indiana bat roosts than at random sites. There also was 

less residential land around Indiana bat capture sites than unsuccessful netting sites in Missouri (Miller 

et al. 2002). Belwood (2002), however, documented a maternity colony occupying trees in a wooded 

subdivision in Ohio and a colony near the Indianapolis Airport occupies a rural area surrounded by 

urban/suburban development (Whitaker et al. 2004; Sparks et al. 2005). 

Although more needs to be learned about habitat requirements of Indiana bat maternity 

colonies at the landscape level (Menzel et al. 2001; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007), it seems 

reasonable that sustainable habitat for Indiana bat would include a variety of snags, hickories, and 

numerous large, senescent trees that would provide future roost sites. Given the similarities between 

northern long-eared bats and Indiana bats, suitable summer habitat is likely very similar with the 

northern long-eared bat being slightly more flexible in its requirements (U.S. FWS 2014). 

Requirements for foraging habitat are less restrictive; habitats used by foraging Indiana bats 

include riparian corridors, wetlands, upland forests, ponds, and fields (Menzel et al. 2001). Northern 

long-eared bats will forage in upland forests and forested hillsides (LaVal et al. 1977; Caceres and Pybus 

1998; Brack and Whitaker 2001) and occasionally over water, roads, and clearings in the forest (van Zyll 

de Jong 1985). 

The Indiana bat was listed as a federal endangered species in 1967 and the northern long-eared 

bat was proposed to be federally listed as endangered in October 2013. Recently, a rapidly spreading 

bat disease (white-nose syndrome, WNS) spread by the cold-adapted ascomycete fungus, 

Pseudogymnoascus destructans has become a leading cause of mortality of several species of North 

American hibernating bats (Blehert et al. 2009; Frick et al. 2010). WNS was confirmed in Illinois bats by 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) on 28 February 2013 

(http://whitenosesyndrome.org/partner/illinois-department-natural-resources). Currently, 25 states, 

mostly in the eastern U.S. , and five Canadian Provinces have been confirmed to exhibit WNS- infected 

bats; seven species are affected, namely, little brown bat (M. lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus 

fuscus), northern long-eared bat, tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), eastern small-footed bat (M. 

leibii), the endangered Indiana bat, and the endangered gray bat (M. grisescens). In Illinois, two species 

of bats, the little brown bat and northern long-eared bat have been confirmed to exhibit WNS; as of 3 

May 2013, WNS was confirmed in four Illinois counties: LaSalle, Monroe, Hardin and Pope Counties (C. 

Butchkoski, PA Game Commission, pers. comm.). However, as of 28 February 2013, WNS has not been 

confirmed in Illinois for M. sodalis. 

Methods for Assessing Potential Mist Netting Sites 

All waterways that crossed the railroad were assessed as potential mist netting locations. Ideal 

locations are wide enough to permit mist netting, shallow enough to walk across, and possess a 

complete tree canopy over the waterway. 

Waterways Assessed as Potential Mist Netting Sites 

Four waterways were assessed as potential mist netting sites within the project corridor. A map 

of the sites can be found in the Appendix. 

Site 1 was the Des Plaines River (Figure 1). The river was much too wide and deep for mist 

netting. 

Site 2 was the North Branch of the Chicago River (Figure 2). It was narrow and lacked a canopy. 

In addition, the river had tall vegetation growing out of it, which would prevent bats from drinking from 

it. 

Site 3 was a tributary to the North Branch of the Chicago River (Figure 3). It was narrow and too 

cluttered by trees and shrubs for mist netting. 

Site 4 was a narrow unnamed waterway (Figure 4). It was much too narrow for mist netting. 

Mist Netting Site Selection Conclusions 

None of the four waterways in the project corridor were suitable for mist netting bats. The 

Des Plaines River was much too large and the other three sites were too small. Mist netting was not 

conducted for this project. 

Methods for Habitat Assessment 

All dead trees in the project corridor were noted. For the purpose of this survey, a potential 

roost tree was defined as any tree (live or dead) with exfoliating bark, or any tree (live or dead) with one 

or more cavities. For each potential roost tree, the status (live, dead, partial [part dead and part alive]), 

dbh (estimated), the relative amount of exfoliating bark (bark potential = low, medium, or high) on the 

trunk and limbs, and the presence of cavities was recorded. Exposure to solar radiation was also 

noted. Wooded areas were characterized by dominant tree species. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

Habitat Assessment Results 

The entire project corridor was walked by Joseph Merritt, Jean Mengelkoch, and Synan 

Nicholson on 4 August 2015. The corridor was split into sections using obvious breaks, such as roads 

(Appendix). Thus, the corridor was split into 8 sites. Since the majority of the corridor only included a 

narrow line of trees that lined the railroad opening, all trees were considered to have high solar 

exposure. All dead trees and potential roost trees are listed in the text, but only potential roost trees 

are listed in Table 1. 

Site A extended from the western edge of the corridor to the Des Plaines River (Figure 5). Tree 

species in the area included ash and silver maples. There were two dead trees with no peeling bark 

within the corridor; these trees are not considered potential roost trees. No potential roost trees were 

seen in this site. 

Site B went from the Des Plaines River to N. St. Mary’s Road (Figure 6). Tree species in this 

segment included boxelder (Acer negundo), silver maple, black walnut (Juglans nigra), oak, and 

cottonwood. The majority of the trees had a dbh <12 in. There were two trees that had no bark but 

they possessed cavities that could be used by bats. In addition, there were four dead trees with no 

peeling bark and one dead tree with no bark; these are not considered potential roost trees. 

Site C was from N. St. Mary’s Road to I-94 (Figure 7). Tree species seen in this area included 

boxelder, silver maple, black cherry (Prunus serotina), black walnut, ash, cottonwood, willow (Salix), and 

elm. There were many shrubs in this section of the corridor. The dbh of the trees was mostly <12 in, 

but there were a few larger trees. There was a dead 8 in dbh tree with a low amount of peeling bark. 

There was a 14 in dbh live cottonwood with low-medium peeling bark. There was a partially dead 

cottonwood (dbh >24 in) that had a low amount of peeling bark. And there was a live cottonwood with 

a dbh of about 24 in with a large cavity near the base. 

Site D extended from I-94 to IL 176 (Figure 8). This section of the corridor was dominated by 

shrubs. No potential roost trees were seen. 

Site E was the spur of the corridor by Site D (Figure 9). Trees in this area included cottonwood, 

willow, and boxelder. The area was successional with small trees and shrubs. One dead tree without 

peeling bark was seen; this is not considered a potential roost tree. No potential roost trees were seen. 

Site F was from IL 176 south to IL 60 and bordered the Middlefork Savannah Nature Preserve 

and Middlefork Savannah Forest Preserve of Lake County (Figure 10). Trees in this area included oak, 

cottonwood, boxelder, willow, and hickory. This site was extremely large and variable. There were 

some very large oaks (>24 in dbh) and some small trees (<5 in dbh). This site had two partially dead 

trees; one had a low amount of peeling bark and the other had cavities. There were three trees with a 

low amount of peeling bark and at least one cavity. There were two dead trees with a low amount of 

peeling bark. All of these trees are potential roosts. In addition, there were 16 dead trees with no 

peeling bark and one dead tree without bark; these trees are not potential roosts. 

Site G extended from IL 60 to the southern end of the project corridor (Figure 11). Some of the 

trees in the area included boxelder, pine (Pinus), and cottonwood. There was one dead tree that did not 

possess peeling bark; this tree is not a potential roost tree. No potential roost trees were seen. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 

Table 1. Potential bat roost trees in the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track project corridor 

(Sequence Number: 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. No potential roost trees were seen in Sites A, D, E, 

or G. 

Site Species Dead/Alive1 Peeling Bark2 Cavities Solar Exp3 DBH (in)4

B unknown dead none multiple high ­

B unknown dead none multiple high ­

C unknown dead low none high 8 

C cottonwood dead low/med none high 14 

C cottonwood partial low none high >24 

C cottonwood live none one high 24 

F cottonwood partial low none high ­

F oak partial none multiple high 24 

F cottonwood dead low multiple high ­

F oak dead low none high 15 

F unknown dead low none high 10 

F oak dead low multiple high ­

F unknown dead low one high 14 

1 Trees were characterized as dead, alive or partial. Partial means that part of the tree, such as a limb,
 

was dead while part of it was still alive.
 

2 Peeling bark was rated as being a low, medium, or high amount.
 

3 Solar exposure was rated as low, medium, or high.
 

4 DBH (diameter at breast height) was recorded in inches and numbers are estimates. 

Habitat Assessment Conclusions 

Thirteen potential roost trees were located within the project corridor. Of these trees, six 

possessed one or more cavities and had high solar exposure. Eight trees has a low amount of peeling 

bark and high exposure. One tree had a low-medium amount of peeling bark and high solar exposure. 

Two of the aforementioned trees possessed a low amount of peeling bark and multiple cavities. 

Site F possessed the largest number of potential roost trees, but it was also the longest section 

in the corridor. Also, the majority of Site F was within the Middlefork Savannah Nature Preserve and 

Middlefork Savannah Forest Preserve, which had many trees. 

Given the large number of large trees in the nature preserve and forest preserve, it is possible 

that Indiana bats or northern long-eared bats use the area. Indiana bats are less likely, especially since 

they have not been documented in the county. However, there are few trees within the project corridor 

that are suitable for use by either species of bat. There is better quality habitat available outside of the 

project corridor. Thus, it is our professional opinion that the habitat suitability of the Rondout 

Extension/Metra Lake 2nd Track project corridor for Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats is low. 

Literature Cited 

Anthony, E.L.P. 1988. Age determination in bats. Pages 47-58, In: Ecological and behavioral methods for 

the study of bats. T.H. Kunz, ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp. 

Belwood, J.J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and concerns for the future. Pages 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 

193-198, In: The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. A. Kurta and J. 

Kennedy, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 

Blehert, D.S. et al. 2009. Bat white-nose syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science 323:227. 

Brack, V., Jr., and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from 

Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiroptera 3:203-210. 

Butchkoski, C.M., and J.D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity colony roosting in a building. Pages 

130-142, In: The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. A. Kurta and J. 

Kennedy, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 

Caceres, M.C., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species 634. American 

Society of Mammalogists. 4 pp. 

Caceres, M.C., and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in 

Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status 

Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB. 

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats 

(Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78:818-825. 

Carter, T.C. 2003. Summer habitat use of roost trees by the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in 

the Shawnee National Forest of southern Illinois. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 

Carbondale.82 pp. 

Carter, T.C., G. Feldhamer, and J. Kath. 2001. Notes on summer roosting of Indiana bats. Bat Research 

News 42:197-198. 

Carter, T.C., S.K. Carroll, J.E. Hofmann, J.E. Gardner, and G.A. Feldhamer. 2002. Landscape analysis of 

roosting habitat in Illinois. Pages 160-164, In: The Indiana bat: biology and management of an 

endangered species. A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 

Chenger, J. 2003. Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 2003 Indiana bat investigations. Unpublished report, 

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Middletown. 

Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and R.S. Mills. 1973. A summer concentration of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, 

in Wayne County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 83:482-484. 

Ford, W.M., J.M. Menzel, M.A. Menzel, and J.W. Edwards. 2002. Summer roost-tree selection by a male 

Indiana bat on the Fernow Experimental Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.7 pp. 

Foster, R.W.,and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and 

comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy80: 659­

672. 

Frick, W.F. et al. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North 

American bat species. Science 329:679-682. 

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991. Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of 

Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final report, submitted to Endangered Species 

Coordinator, Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Indiana/Gray Bat Recovery Team, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. 56 pp. 

Henderson, L.E.,and H.G. Broders. 2008. Movement and resourse selection of the Northern long-eared 

Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a forest-agriculture landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 89: 

952-963. 

Hendricks, W.D., R. Ijames, L. Alverson, J. Timpone, M. Muller, N. Nelson, and J. Smelser. 2005. Notable 

roosts for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Pages 133-138, In: Indiana bat and coal mining: a 

technical interactive forum. K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, eds. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Office of Surface Mining, Alton, IL and Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University, 

Carbondale. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

Hofmann, J.E. 2008. Field manual of Illinois mammals. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 12.xii + 

358 pp. 

Hofmann, J.E., J.F. Merritt, J.M. Mengelkoch, and S.K. Carpenter. 2008. A two-year mist netting 

survey for bats in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kankakee, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties in 

northeastern Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 2008 (5). 41pp. 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 348 pp. 

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered 

Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:334-346. 

Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, and J.W. Edwards. 2012. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis 

septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Confirmed presence of white-nose syndrome (WNS) in 

four Illinois counties. http://whitenosesyndrome.org/partner/illinois-department-naturalresources. Date accessed 23 May 2013. 

Krochmal, A.R.,and D.W. Sparks 2007. Timing of birth and estimation of age of juvenile Myotis 

septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in west-central Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy 88(3): 649­

656. 

Kurta, A.	 2005. Roosting ecology and behavior of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in summer. Pages 29-42, 

In: Indiana bat and coal mining: a technical interactive forum. K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, eds. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Alton, IL and Coal Research Center, 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Kurta, A., J. Kath, E.L. Smith, R. Foster, M.W. Orick, and R. Ross. 1993a. A maternity roost of the 

endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in an unshaded, hollow sycamore tree (Platanus 

occidentalis). American Midland Naturalist 130:405-407. 

Kurta, A., D. King, J.A. Teramino, J.M. Stribley, and K.J. Williams. 1993b. Summer roosts of the 

endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) on the northern edge of its range. American Midland 

Naturalist 129:132-138. 

Kurta, A., K.J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioural, and thermal observations of a 

peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Pages 102-117, In: Bats and Forests 

Symposium. R.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham, eds. Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry 

of Forests, Victoria Working Paper 23. 

Kurta, A., S.W. Murray, and D.H. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and movements across the summer 

landscape. Pages 118-129, In: The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered 

species. A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 

Lacki, M.J., D.R. Cox, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Meta-analysis of summer roosting characteristics of two 

species of Myotis bats. American Midland Naturalist 162:318-326. 

LaVal, R.K., and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis 

on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Department of Conservation, Terrestrial Series 8:1-52. 

Menzel, M.A., J.M. Menzel, T.C. Carter, W.M. Ford, and J.W. Edwards. 2001. Review of the forest habitat 

relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 21 pp. 

Miller, N.E., R.D. Drobney, R.L. Clawson, and E.V. Callahan. 2002. Summer habitat in northern Missouri. 

Pages 165-171, In: The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. A. Kurta 

and J. Kennedy, eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 

Mumford, R.E. and J.B. Cope. 1958. Summer record of Myotis sodalis in Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy 

39:586-587. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 

Patriquin, K.J., M.L. Leonard, H.G. Broders, and C.J. Garroway. 2010. Do social networks of female 

northern long-eared bats vary with reproductive period and age? Behavioral Ecology and 

Sociobiology 64:899-913. 

Racey, P.A. 1988. Reproductive assessment in bats. Pages 31-45, In: Ecological and behavioral methods 

for the study of bats. T.H. Kunz, ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Ritzi, C.M., B.L. Everson, and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 2005. Use of bat boxes by a maternity colony of Indiana 

myotis (Myotis sodalis). Northeastern Naturalist 12:217-220. 

Salyers, J., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1996. Artificial roost structure use by Indiana bats in wooded areas in 

central Indiana. Bat Research News 37:148. 

Sparks, D.W., C.M. Ritzi, J.E. Duchamp, and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 2005.Foraging habitat of the Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) at an urban-rural interface. Journal of Mammalogy 86:713-718. 

Timpone, J.C., J.G. Boyles, K.L. Murray, D.P. Aubrey, and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting habits 

of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland 

Naturalist 163:115-123. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) draft recovery plan: First revision. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region--Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, 258 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. 2014 Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. 

http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/pdfs/2014%20IBat%20Summer%20Survey%20Guidelines%20­

%20Final_1.13.14.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.	 2014. Northern-long eared bat interim conference and planning guide. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2013. 

pdf 

van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian mammals. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, 

Canada. Pp. 116-120. 

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., D.W. Sparks, and V. Brack, Jr. 2004. Bats on the Indianapolis International Airport 

area, 1991-2001. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 113:151-161. 

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer ecology in Indiana. Pages 48-54, In: 

The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, 

eds. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 
 

 

12 

Figure 1. Des Plaines River is Site 1. The first picture is a view of the railroad bridge crossing 

looking north. The second picture is a view of the railroad bridge crossing looking south from 

the pedestrian bridge. Photos were taken on 3 August 2015. 
 

 

13 

Figure 2. The North Branch of the Chicago River is Site 2. The first photo is looking east from 

the railroad tracks. The second photo is looking west from the railroad tracks. Photos were 

taken on 3 August 2015. 
 

14 

Figure 3. An unnamed tributary to the North Branch of the Chicago River is Site 3. This first 

photo is looking east from the railroad tracks and the second is looking west. The photos were 

taken on 3 August 2015. 
 

15 

Figure 4. An unnamed waterway is Site 4. The first photo is looking east from the railroad 

tracks. The second photo is looking west. The photos were taken 4 August 2015. 
 

 

16 

Figure 5. Looking west at Site A. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2014. 

Figure 6. Looking west at Site B. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 
 

 

17 

Figure 7. Looking east at Site C. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 

Figure 8. Looking west at Site D. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 
 

 

18 

Figure 9. Looking north at Site E. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 

Figure 10. Looking south at Site F. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 
 

19 

Figure 11. Looking south at Site G. Assessed for bat habitat on 4 August 2015. 
 

 

 

20 

Appendix: Map of the potential mist netting sites and habitat assessment sites for the Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) and the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in the Rondout 

Extension/Metra Lake 2nd Track project corridor (Sequence Number: 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. 

Field work occurred on 3-4 August 2015. The yellow dots labeled 1-4 are the potential mist netting sites 

that were evaluated. The letters (A-G) refer to the habitat assessment sites. 
21 
 

 

 

 

Breeding bird survey for the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 

2nd track rail project in Lake County, Illinois 

IDOT Sequence Numbers: 

19157
 

Prepared by:
 

Kirk Stodola
 

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program 

2015(35) 

August 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Summary 

The Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation (DPIT) requested a survey for breeding 

threatened and endangered species in and around a proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 

2nd Track Rail project near Lake Forest and Libertyville in Lake County, IL. The proposed project (IDOT 

seq. 19157) will replace a bridge over the North Branch Chicago River, replacing track, and installing 

new track and signals between Canadian Pacific Milepost 31.16 to Metra Milepost 33.85. The project 

will occur along existing railroad track and ROW that currently runs through the Middlefork Savanna 

Preserve. Nearly 200 species of birds have been recorded at Middlefork Savanna, with Wilson’s 

Phalarope (Illinois Endangered) and King Rail (Illinois Endangered) being reported in the Illinois 

Natural Heritage database as recently as 2008. Consequently, the Illinois Natural History Survey 

(INHS) was tasked with surveying for breeding birds along the length of the proposed project. Steve 

Bailey, ornithologist INHS, conducted bird surveys on 7 June, 16 June, and 15 July. He identified sixtyone species adjacent, but within 100 yards of the proposed project. Least Bittern, an Illinois 

Threatened species, was the only threatened and endangered species detected during surveys. It is 

highly likely the Least Bittern is breeding at the Middlefork Savanna, given the date of the season and 

the habitat in which it was observed. Breeding Least Bitterns have home ranges averaging 25 acres, 

but may be as large as 90 acres. Furthermore, newly fledged chicks will stay near their nest, moving 

on average 95 feet within the first month. Consequently, it is likely Least Bittern would enter the 

proposed project area during the breeding season. However, the majority of the proposed rail 

expansion project will take place on the edge of the Middlefork Savanna Preserve and would 

therefore be unlikely to have long-term detrimental effects. Finally, in addition to the Least Bittern, 

nine species listed as Species in Greatest Need of Conservation in the state of Illinois were observed, 

Great Egret, Sandhill Crane, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Chimney Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern 

Flicker, Willow Flycatcher, Marsh Wren, and Blue-winged Warbler. Red-headed Woodpecker, Willow 

Flycatcher, and Blue-winged Warbler are also on the Partners in Flight watch list. 

Surveys Conducted By: Steve Bailey, Associate Ornithologist, INHS 

GIS Layers: Janet Jarvis, Remote Sensing Specialist 

Cover Photo: Least Bittern: Andy Reago and Chrissy McClarren, Wikimedia.org 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Project Summary............................................................................................................................... ii
 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Project Area....................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Records and Potential Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species.......................................... 1
 

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

Table 1. Description of census points along the proposed project ............................................... 2
 

Figure 1. Location of census points, natural areas, and location of Least Bittern sighting at the
 

proposed project ........................................................................................................................... 4
 

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 5
 

Table 2. Species detected during site visits to the proposed project. ........................................... 6
 

Table 3. Species and number of individuals detected during point counts................................. 12
 

Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 15
 

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................... 17
 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

Introduction 

The Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation (DPIT) requested a survey for 

breeding King Rail (Rallus elegans) and Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) in and 

around a proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track Rail project between Lake 

Forest and Libertyville in Lake County, IL. The proposed project (IDOT seq. 19157) will 

replace a bridge over the North Branch Chicago River, replacing track, and installing new 

track and signals between Canadian Pacific Milepost 31.16 to Metra Milepost 33.85. The 

biological survey was requested because of the proposed project will occur along existing 

railroad track and ROW that currently runs through the Middlefork Savanna County Forest 

Preserve, a local birding hotspot where King Rail and Wilson’s Phalarope had previously 

been detected. 

Project Area 

The proposed project (IDOT seq. 19157) will take place along a 4.4 mile section of 

railroad right-of-way from Canadian Pacific Milepost 31.16 near Kennedy Road, Lake Forest, 

IL to Metra Milepost 33.85 near St. Mary’s Road, Libertyville, IL. The project is expected to 

remain within the current right-of-way and runs through the center of the Middlefork 

Savanna County Forest Preserve. The Middle Fork Savanna Nature Preserve is an Illinois 

Natural Areas Inventory site, habitat identified by the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources that likely supports threatened or endangered species. Encompassing 592 acres, 

the Middlefork Savanna preserve is made up of some of the best remaining mesic soil 

savanna in Illinois. In addition, the preserve offers diverse habitats for birds, such as other 

mesic and wet prairie, sedge meadow, marshes, and oak savannas. The area represents 

high quality habitat for numerous plant and animal species, with over 1,000 species being 

identified in a 24 hour period in 2008 (Lake Forest Open Lands Association 2015). 

Records and Potential Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species 

Nearly 200 bird species have been reported at Middlefork Savanna preserve, 

including many state listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. The area contains 

high quality habitat for numerous migratory and breeding bird species and is considered a 

birding hotspot in northern Illinois (ebird.org database, Sullivan et al. 2009). King Rail and 

Wilson’s Phalarope have been reported during the breeding season at the preserve as 

recently as 2008 in the Natural Heritage Database. The two species have also been reported 

in the ebird database, during the breeding season and during migration. Specifically, King 

Rail was observed in 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 and Wilson’s Phalarope in 2002, 2003, 

2005, 2008, and 2010. There have been numerous sightings of other species of conservation 

concern over the past 20 years at Middlefork Savanna preserve. Least Bittern, Little Blue 

Heron, Black-crowned Night-heron, Osprey, Northern Harrier, Bald Eagle, Common Gallinule, 

Black-billed Cuckoo, Short-eared Owl, and even Whooping Crane have been observed on 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

site, most of these species with observations during the breeding season. 

Methods 

I assessed suitable habitat along the proposed project corridor (IDOT seq. 19157)
 

using aerial photography. Considering the linear nature of the proposed project and the
 

objective to survey the habitat for breeding T&E species, I decided that surveying the
 

existing railway within Middlefork Savanna Preserve (Figure 1) would be most appropriate, 

as the remaining areas within the proposed project consist of poor habitat for breeding
 

birds. In addition, I included six census points spaced along 1.7 miles of the transect (Table
 

1). Census points were added to facilitate future comparisons of the bird community at the 

proposed project with other locations or with other times, if deemed necessary. Each of the
 

six census points were separated by >1000 feet (Figure 1). 

Steve Bailey, Ornithologist, Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), visited the 

proposed project area during the mid-to-late breeding season 2015 to conduct the bird
 

surveys. He made three visits to the site, 7 June, 16 June, and 15 July, sampling the bird
 

community and conducting point counts between the hours of 05:35 and 11:00. Each point
 

count lasted 10 minutes and all birds seen or heard within a 100 yard radius were recorded.
 

In addition, one 16 minute wetland survey was conducted at each of the census points.
 

Wetland surveys consisted of songs and calls from eight wetland obligate nesting species
 

broadcast for one minute, followed by a one minute passive listening period. The order of
 

the eight wetland species were Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), Sora (Porzana carolina),
 

Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), King Rail (Rallus elegans), Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis),
 

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), and
 

Common Gallinule (Gallinula galeata).
 

Table 1. Description of the six census points at or near the proposed Metra Fox Lake 2nd track rail project 

(IDOT seq. 19157). MSP = Middlefork Savanna Preserve 

Census 

Point 

Habitat Physiographic Features Latitude Longitude 

1 Wetland Main Marsh of MSP 42.257363° -87.888460° 

2 Wetland Along RR tracks 42.254667° -87.889242° 

3 Wetland 380 feet east of RR tracks – 

Marsh and forest 

42.251979° -87.886594° 

4 Wetland Along RR tracks – dried up marsh 42.246067° -87.885173° 

5 Grassland Along RR tracks – old field 42.263047° -87.892286° 

6 Forest Along RR tracks – middle of 42.269714° -87.893840° 

2
 
3 

young forest 

3
 
 

 

 

4 

Figure 1. Proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track Rail project in Lake County, IL, IDOT 

sequence 19157 (red solid line), Illinois Nature Preserves (green broken line), Illinois Natural Inventory 

Sites (yellow broken line), avian census points (blue dots), and Least Bittern sighting (yellow dot). 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

Results 

A total of 61 species were detected along the proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd 

track rail project (IDOT seq. 19157) during survey times (Table 2). The lone Sandhill Crane 

sighted was deceased and found next to the railroad tracks, indicating that the species was 

probably breeding in the area. Least Bittern was the only state listed species (threatened), with 

nine other species listed as Species in Greatest Need of Conservation in the state of Illinois, 

Great Egret (Ardea alba), Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus), Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), 

Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris), and Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera). Redheaded Woodpecker, Willow Flycatcher, and Blue-winged Warbler are also on the Partners in 

Flight watch list. Fifty-five species, from 19 different families, were detected during point counts 

(Table 3). Red-winged Blackbird was the most common species detected, followed by American 

Goldfinch. Nineteen species were only detected one time (Table 3). Finally, Sora (Porzana 

carolina) and Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) were the only wetland species detected during 

wetland surveys. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

Table 2. List of species detected in and around the proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd track rail project (IDOT seq. 19157); 

including migratory status [Neo=Neotropical (National Migratory Bird Center, Washington, D.C.), NM=North American, and R=resident (Birds 

of North America, Cornell, Ithaca, N.Y.)]; and designations as Species in Greatest need of Conservation by IDNR, PIF Watch List, and IUCN 

Redlist status. 

Table 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Migratory 

Status 

Illinois 

Threatened / 

Endangered 

Illinois Species in 

Greatest need of 

Conservation 

Partners in 

Flight Watch 

List 

IUCN 

REDLIST 

Status 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa W, F Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Mallard 

Anas 

platyrhynchos W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Double-crested Cormorant 

Phalacrocorax 

auritus W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis W Neo Threatened Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Great Egret Ardea alba W Neo Yes 

Least 

Concern 

6
 
 

 

7
 

Table 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Migratory 

Status 

Illinois 

Threatened / 

Endangered 

Illinois Species in 

Greatest need of 

Conservation 

Partners in 

Flight Watch 

List 

IUCN 

REDLIST 

Status 

Green Heron 

Butorides 

virescens W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura F, R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii F, R, U Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis G, R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Sora Porzana carolina W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Sandhill Crane1 Grus canadensis W Neo Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia w Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Ring-billed Gull 

Larus 

delawarensis W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Caspian Tern 

Hydroprogne 

caspia W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura F, U, R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

7
 
 

 

8
 

Table 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Migratory 

Status 

Illinois 

Threatened / 

Endangered 

Illinois Species in 

Greatest need of 

Conservation 

Partners in 

Flight Watch 

List 

IUCN 

REDLIST 

Status 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus F, S Neo Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica F, O Neo Yes 

Near 

Threatened 

Belted Kingfisher 

Megaceryle 

alcyon W, F Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Red-headed Woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus F, S, O R Yes Yes 

Near 

Threatened 

Red-bellied Woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

carolinus F R 

Least 

Concern 

Downy Woodpecker 

Picoides 

pubescens F R 

Least 

Concern 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus F R 

Least 

Concern 

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus F, O Neo Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii S Neo Yes Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe F, S, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus W, F, U, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus G, S, R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

8
 
 

 

9
 

Table 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Migratory 

Status 

Illinois 

Threatened / 

Endangered 

Illinois Species in 

Greatest need of 

Conservation 

Partners in 

Flight Watch 

List 

IUCN 

REDLIST 

Status 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus W, F, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Blue Jay 

Cyanocitta 

cristata F, R, U, O R 

Least 

Concern 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow 

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus F R 

Least 

Concern 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis F R 

Least 

Concern 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon F, S, R, U Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Marsh Wren 

Cistothorus 

palustris W Neo Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea F Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis All Neo 

Least 

Concern 

American Robin 

Turdus 

migratorius 

F, S, R, U, 

O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Gray Catbird 

Dumetella 

carolinensis F, S, R, U Neo 

Least 

Concern 

9
 
 

 

10
 

Table 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Migratory 

Status 

Illinois 

Threatened / 

Endangered 

Illinois Species in 

Greatest need of 

Conservation 

Partners in 

Flight Watch 

List 

IUCN 

REDLIST 

Status 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris R, U, O 

R/Introduc 

ed 

Least 

Concern 

Cedar Waxwing 

Bombycilla 

cedrorum 

F, G, S, R, 

U Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Neo Yes Yes 

Least 

Concern 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas F, S, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Eastern Towhee 

Pipilo 

erythrophthalmus G, S, F, R NM 

Least 

Concern 

Song Sparrow 

Melospiza 

melodia G, S, R, U Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Swamp Sparrow 

Melospiza 

georgiana W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Northern Cardinal 

Cardinalis 

cardinalis F, S, R, U R 

Least 

Concern 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus 

F, S, R, U, 

W Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea F, S, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Red-winged Blackbird 

Agelaius 

phoeniceus W, S, R Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula All R/NM 

Least 

Concern 

10
 
 

 

 

11
 

Table 2 

Illinois Illinois Species in Partners in IUCN 

Migratory Threatened / Greatest need of Flight Watch REDLIST 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status Endangered Conservation List Status 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater All Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius F, S, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S, F Neo 

Least 

Concern 

House Finch 

Carpodacus 

mexicanus R, U R/NM 

Least 

Concern 

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis G, S, R, O Neo 

Least 

Concern 1

One Individual found deceased next to railroad tracks 

11
 
 

 

 

 

12
 

Table 3. Species, number of individuals, and average number of individuals detected within 100 yards of the census point during each 10 minute 

point count. Census locations are described in Table 1 and viewed in Figure 1. Each census point was surveyed twice. Census points 1 and 2 were 

first surveyed on 7 June 2015 while points 3 through 6 where first surveyed on 16 June 2015. All census points were re-surveyed on 15 July 2015. 

Species list is sorted from most to least abundant. 

Table 3 

Census Points 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Replicate 

Common Name 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Average 

Red-winged Blackbird 11 9 4 4 15 5 3 2 5 6 0 0 5.3 

American Goldfinch 3 3 2 4 7 7 3 6 3 10 0 2 4.2 

Common Yellowthroat 3 5 2 4 3 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 2.3 

Song Sparrow 0 3 1 4 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1.8 

Indigo Bunting 1 0 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 1.8 

Marsh Wren 3 10 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 

White-breasted Nuthatch 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 6 1.3 

Cedar Waxwing 0 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1.3 

Blue Jay 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 1 1.3 

American Robin 1 1 5 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.3 

Barn Swallow 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1.0 

Black-capped Chickadee 0 0 1 3 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1.0 

Common Grackle 3 0 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 

Great Egret 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.8 

Downy Woodpecker 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.7 

Mallard 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 

Great Blue Heron 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 

Brown-headed Cowbird 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0.6 

Eastern Kingbird 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 

Double-crested Cormorant 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.4 

Northern Flicker§ 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.4 

European Starling 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 

12
 
13 

Table 3 

Census Points 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Replicate 

Common Name 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Average 

Chimney Swift 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 

Warbling Vireo 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.3 

House Wren 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0.3 

Northern Cardinal 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 

Red-tailed Hawk 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0.3 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.3 

Gray Catbird 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0.3 

Orchard Oriole 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.3 

Baltimore Oriole 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.3 

Spotted Sandpiper 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 

Ring-billed Gull 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 

Red-bellied Woodpecker 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.2 

Willow Flycatcher 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.2 

Eastern Phoebe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2 

Swamp Sparrow 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 

Wood Duck 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Blue-winged Teal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Least Bittern 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Cooper's Hawk 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Sora 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Caspian Tern 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Mourning Dove 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Belted Kingfisher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Red-headed Woodpecker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Hairy Woodpecker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

13
 
14 

Table 3 

Census Points 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Replicate 

Common Name 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Average 

Great Crested Flycatcher 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 

Eastern Bluebird 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.1 

Blue-winged Warbler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.1 

Eastern Towhee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.1 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 

House Finch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 

Discussion 

The proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd track rail project (IDOT seq. 

19157) runs through high quality wetland breeding habitat for numerous bird species. While 

approximately half of the proposed project runs through developed residential and 

commercial areas offering little breeding habitat for Illinois T&E species, the section running 

north of Illinois Highway 60 to the Rondout Rail crossing cuts through Middlefork Savanna 

Preserve. Middlefork Savanna Preserve is an often visited birding hotspot in northern 

Illinois. Nearly 200 bird species have been observed during the breeding season at the 

preserve, including many threatened and endangered species. The Illinois Natural Heritage 

Database listed both the King Rail and Wilson’s Phalarope as breeding in the preserve. 

Numerous other species, including a Whooping Crane, have been spotted at various times 

during the year according the ebird.org database. Consequently, the Illinois Natural History 

Survey (INHS) was tasked with a breeding bird survey at the site focusing specifically on the 

presence of any T&E species. 

Steve Bailey, ornithologist with INHS, conducted a walking survey of the proposed 

project area and detected 61 bird species in total and 56 bird species during 10-minute 100 

yard fixed radius point counts. All counts were in habitat adjacent to or within the project 

limits. One Illinois Threatened species, the Least Bittern, was detected breeding at the 

Middlefork Savanna Preserve in habitat adjacent to the project area (Figure 1). Given the 

location and the time during the season, it is highly likely the Least Bittern was breeding at 

the site. Least Bittern have been frequently found at the site in previous breeding seasons 

and it is likely 1-3 breeding pairs can be found there annually. Nine other species listed as 

Species in Greatest Need of Conservation in the state of Illinois were also observed, Great 

Egret, Sandhill Crane, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Chimney Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, 

Northern Flicker, Willow Flycatcher, Marsh Wren, and Blue-winged Warbler. Red-headed 

Woodpecker, Willow Flycatcher, and Blue-winged Warbler are also on the Partner’s in Flight 

watch list. 

Middlefork Savanna Preserve is composed of high quality wetland and forest habitat 

that could be home to other Illinois T&E species in future years. King Rail (Illinois 

Endangered) and Wilson’s phalarope (Illinois Endangered) are both associated with the site 

in the Illinois Natural Heritage database. King Rail breeds in marshy habitat, preferring 

sedges and grasses in wet seasons and cattail marshes in dry seasons (Bradely and Meanley 

2015). As a result, King Rail is likely to be a frequent breeder at the site and was most 

recently observed on 17 May 2014 by Steve Bailey. Wilson’s Phalarope breeds in marshygrassy habitats (Colwell and Jehl 1994) and was last observed on site in 2005 with young. 

American Bittern (Illinois Endangered) is found regularly during migration and the habitat 

would facilitate 1-2 pairs breeding on site. Common Gallinule (Illinois Endangered) are also 

frequently observed during migration and 1-2 pairs could be supported by the excellent 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 

habitat available. However, the gallinule’s breeding population has declined substantially in 

northeastern Illinois, which lowers the probability of the species breeding on site. Finally, 

Black Rail (Illinois Endangered), Northern Harrier (Illinois Endangered), Yellow-headed 

Blackbirds (Illinois Endangered), and Black-billed Cuckoos (Illinois Threatened) could be 

expected to breed at Middlefork Savanna Preserve, given the quality of the wetland and 

forest habitat. 

Least Bitterns were the only Illinois T&E species observed in the high quality wetland 

habitat at the Middlefork Savanna Preserve. The Least Bittern is the smallest member of 

the Heron family. It is a very secretive species inhabiting marshes with dense vegetation. It 

was once very common in Illinois, but numbers declined precipitously throughout the 

1900s, as wetland habitat was lost or degraded (Kleen et al. 2004). Consequently, the 

species was listed as endangered in the state of Illinois in 1989, but was later downgraded 

to threatened in 1999. Range-wide and within the central United States, populations of 

Least Bittern appear to be relatively stable over the past 45 years (Sauer et al. 2014). 

Habitat loss continues to be the primary threat to the species, along with habitat 

degradation due to the encroachment of invasive species such as purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria) and phragmites (Phragmites australis) (Poole et al. 2009). 

The breeding season for the Least Bittern starts in May and runs through late July in 

Illinois (Poole et. al. 2009). Pair formation and nest building occurs in early May, with first 

broods laid from late May to late June, peaking in early June in Illinois (Graber et al. 1978). 

Incubation lasts 19-20 days after which semi-altricial young begin to hatch. Young leave the 

nest after four to five days, remaining in the vicinity for the next few weeks. Mean age at 

first flight is 29 days post-hatching. Breeding Least Bitterns have home ranges averaging 25 

acres, but may be as large as 90 acres. Furthermore, newly fledged chicks will stay near 

their nest, moving on average 95 feet within the first month. 

Aside from the Least Bittern, other species may have been present but were not 

detected. Wetland species are notoriously difficult to detect and effective means of 

monitoring at large spatial scales have been lacking (Conway and Gibbs 2005). This may be 

especially true later in the breeding season as reproductive activities wind down and the 

birds get more secretive. Yellow-headed Blackbird, Least Bittern, Common Gallinule, and 

King Rail all complete their nesting activities in early to mid-July here in Illinois. 

Consequently, it is possible that a species was present but went undetected given the high 

quality habitat present at Middlefork Savanna Preserve. However, call-playbacks can be an 

effective means of identify the presence of a species in a given area (Conway and Gibbs 

2005, Soehren et al. 2009) and we failed to detect any wetland T&E species using this 

method. Given that most of the proposed Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd track rail 

project is located along the edge of the Middlefork Savanna Preserve, it is unlikely work 

conducted within the existing right-of-way will have much impact on T&E species, even if the 

species were present. 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 

Literature Cited 

Colwell, M.!. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1994. Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Conway, C.J. and J.P. Gibbs. 2005. Effectiveness of call-broadcast surveys for monitoring marsh 

birds. Auk 122:26-35. 

Graber, J. W., R. R. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1978. Illinois birds: Cioconiiformes. Illinois Natural 

History Survey Biological Notes 109. 

Kleen, V.M., Cordle, L. & Montgomery, R.A. (2004) The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas. Illinois 

Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 26. xviii + 459. 

Lake Forest Open Lands Association. 2015. Website: 

http://lfola.org/ourlands/middleforkfarm.aspx accessed on 10 August 2015. 

Pickens, B.A., and B. Meanley. 2015. King Rail (Rallus elegans), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

Poole, A.F., Lowther, P., Gibbs, J.P., Reid, F.A. & Melvin, S.M. (2009) Least Bittern (Ixobrychus 

exilis). In: The Birds of North America Online (ed. A. Poole). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology 

Sauer, J.R., Hines, J.E., Fallon, J.E., Pardieck, K.L., Ziolkowski Jr., D.J. & link, W.A. (2014) The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2013. Version 

01.30.2015. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 

Soehren, E.C., J.W. Tucker, D.G. Crow. 2009. Effectiveness of call-broadcast surveys from 

breeding marsh birds along coastal Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist 8:277-292. 

Sullivan, B.L., Wood, C.L., Iliff, M.J., Bonney, R.E., Fink, D. & Kelling, S. (2009) eBird: a citizenbased bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation, 142, 

2282-2292. 

17
 
Surveys	for	Fishes and Freshwater Mussels for the Rondout	

Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project in Lake

County, Illinois

IDOT Seq. No.:	19157

Prepared by:

Jeremy S. Tiemann

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological	Survey & Assessment Program

Program Report 2015 (18)

9 November 2015
PROJECT SUMMARY

This report is submitted in response to a request from IDOT for INHS	personnel to conduct fish

and freshwater mussels surveys	 for the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track

project (IDOT Sequence No.	 19157) in Lake County, Illinois.	 We conducted surveys	for fishes	

and freshwater mussels at four sites in this project area on 17-18	June	2015.	

Fishes were collected from 100 foot2 plots at each site by kicking the substrate 10 feet

upstream from a stationary 10 foot wide, 1⁄4”-mesh seine.	 The fish surveys	 yielded 382

individuals representing 11 species,	including	the state-threatened	Iowa Darter.	 The darter was

collected at the unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah

County Forest Preserve (N = 2 individuals;	density	= 0.11 individuals per 100 feet2), the North	

Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (N = 42 individuals;

density = 2.10 individuals per 100 feet2

), and the North	Branch Chicago River in Rondout (N = 11

individuals;	density	= 1.57 individuals per 100 feet2). No	other fishes collected are listed at the

state or federal level.

Freshwater mussels were sampled by either visually scanning the streambed and/or tactile

searches. The freshwater mussel surveys did not yield any evidence of shell material.

Approved By: Kevin	Cummings, Further Studies Aquatics

Group Coordinator-Malacologist

Surveys Conducted By: Jeremy S. Tiemann, Aquatic Zoologist

Andrew R. Kuhns, Herpetologists

Edited by: Mark J. Wetzel

GIS Layers: Janet L. Jarvis, GIS and Remote Sensing Specialist

University of Illinois

Prairie Research Institute

Illinois Natural	History Survey

Statewide Biological Survey and Assessment Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820

2
TABLE	OF CONTENTS

Project summary............................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Location / Habitat characterization.................................................................................. 5

Background	– Fishes ...................................................................................................................... 6

Methods – Fishes........................................................................................................................... 7

Results and Discussion – Fishes..................................................................................................... 7

Background	– Freshwater	mussels................................................................................................ 8

Methods – Freshwater	mussels..................................................................................................... 9

Results and Discussion – Freshwater	mussels.............................................................................. 9

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 9

Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................. 9

Tables

Table	1 – List of fishes known from the North	Branch Chicago River basin (Des Plaines

River drainage) based upon historical records (INHS	 Fish Collection database,

Champaign) and those collected during the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake

Second Track project, Lake County, Illinois, by INHS	personnel on 17-18	June 2015 ..... 12

Table	2 – List of freshwater mussels known from the North	Branch Chicago River basin

(Des Plaines River drainage) based upon historical records (INHS	Mollusk Collection

database, Champaign ..................................................................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1 – Map of the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area

near Lake Forest and Green Oaks, Lake County, Illinois, where surveys for fishes

and freshwater mussels were conducted by INHS	personnel on 17-18	June	2015 15 .........

Figure 2 – Unnamed tributary to wetland, Middlefork Savannah County Forest

Preserve, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.25445°N, Longitude

87.88933°W).................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3 – Unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River, Middlefork Savannah

County Forest Preserve, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.26163°N,

Longitude 87.89172°W) .................................................................................................. 17

Figure 4 – North	 Branch Chicago River, Rondout, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude

42.28225°N, Longitude 87.89827°W .............................................................................. 18

Figure 5 – Iowa Darter Etheostoma	exile .............................................................................. 19

3
TABLE	OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Appendices

Appendix 1. A cover	 page referencing < 19157_Lake_Co_Fish_Mussel_Survey.zip >,

an ArcGIS shapefile which includes sampling point information on Map of the

Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area near Lake Forest

and Green Oaks, Lake County, Illinois, where surveys for fishes and freshwater

mussels were conducted by INHS	personnel on 17-18 June	2015 .................................. 20

Cover	photo: North	Branch Chicago River, Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve at the

railroad crossing, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.26815°N, Longitude

87.89355°W).	 Photo is facing upstream in a westerly direction on 17 June 2015 (Jeremy S.

Tiemann photo).

4
INTRODUCTION

This report is submitted in response to a request made by Susan Hargrove (Illinois Department

of Transportation, Springfield – IDOT) to Wendy Schelsky (Illinois Natural	 History Survey,

Champaign – INHS)	dated 4 Mach 2015 for fish and freshwater mussel surveys	along a 2.7 mile

rail project from Canadian Pacific Milepost 31.16 to Metra Milepost 33.85 (IDOT Sequence No.	

19157;	INHS	 Project No.	FS-751)	 near Lake Forest and Green Oaks,	Lake County, Illinois.	 The

Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake Second Track project will be constructed to mitigate

significant delays to passenger and freight rail in the corridor. IDOT proposes to replace a

bridge over the North	Branch Chicago River, replace track, and install new track and signals.

In this report, we summarize the results of fish and freshwater mussel surveys	 in this area

conducted by INHS	personnel on 17-18 June 2015.	 Nomenclature	used for fishes discussed in

this report follows Page and Burr (2011), and for freshwater mussels follows Graf and

Cummings (2007) with slight modifications. The current status of threatened and endangered

species	 of fishes	 and freshwater mussels discussed in this report are taken from U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI, FWS) (1996, 1997) and the Illinois

Endangered Species	Protection Board (IESPB) (2015).

PROJECT LOCATION / HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION

The Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area lies entirely within the

North	Branch Chicago River basin, and consisted of four stream crossings (Figure 1):

1)	 Unnamed tributary to wetland, Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve at railroad

crossing, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois; Latitude 42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W	

(Figure 2). The stream was sampled from	30 yards downstream of the railroad crossing

to the edge of the culvert (no sampling occurred in the culvert under the railroad

crossing).	 The stream was approximately 3 feet wide and <1 foot deep, and had a flow

rate of <1 foot/second. Stream substrates were gravel/pebble with pockets of woody

debris, and the riparian area was prairie.	 The unnamed tributary flows in a

northeasterly direction at this location.

2)	 Unnamed tributary to North	Branch Chicago River, Middlefork Savannah County Forest

Preserve at railroad crossing, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois; Latitude 42.26163°N,

Longitude 87.89172°W (Figure 3). The stream was sampled from	50 yards downstream

of the railroad crossing to 10 yards upstream of the crossing	 (no	sampling occurred in

the culvert under the railroad crossing).	 The stream was 10 feet wide and <2 feet deep,

and had a flow rate of <0.5 feet/second.	 Stream substrates were silt and aquatic

vegetation with pockets of woody debris, and the riparian area was prairie. The stream

flows in an	easterly direction at this location.

3)	 North	 Branch Chicago River,	 Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve at railroad

crossing, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois; Latitude 42.26815°N, Longitude 87.89355°W

(cover	 photo). The stream was sampled from	 30 yards downstream of the railroad

crossing	 to 5 yards upstream of the crossing,	 including the area under the railroad

5
bridge. The stream was 20 feet wide and <2.5 feet deep, and had a flow rate of <1

foot/second.	 Stream substrates were silt and aquatic vegetation with pockets of woody

debris, and the riparian area was tree-lined.	 The stream flows in an east-northeasterly

direction at this location.

4)	 North	Branch Chicago River, Rondout at railroad crossing,	Lake County, Illinois; Latitude

42.28225°N, Longitude 87.89827°W	(Figure 4). The stream was sampled from	5 yards

downstream of the railroad crossing to 30 yards upstream of the crossing,	including the

area under the railroad bridge. The stream was 10 feet wide and <3 feet deep, and had

a flow rate of <2 feet/second. Stream substrates were silt and aquatic vegetation with

pockets of woody debris upstream of the crossing, and rip-rap under and downstream

of the crossing,	 and the riparian area was lined with trees, grasses, and the railroad

switchyard.	 The stream flows in a southerly direction at this location.

Because the Chicago River was modified to flow westward rather than eastward into Lake

Michigan, the stream is now essentially a Des Plaines River tributary (Price et al. 2012). The

Chicago River and tributaries are 95%	urban (Price et al., 2012). However, within the project

area, three sites are within the Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve, which is a mix	of	

oak savanna and woodlands, wet and	mesic prairies, sedge meadows, marshes and wetlands,

and is bisected by the North	Brach Chicago River.

Appendix 1 references a shapefile with sampling point information for the Rondout Extension /

Metra Fox Lake Second Track project, as discussed in this report.

BACKGROUND – FISHES

Nearly	30 species of fishes have been reported from the North	Branch Chicago River basin in

Illinois, including the state-threated	 Iowa Darter Etheostoma	 exile (Pescitelli and Rung, 2012;

INHS	 Fish Collection database, Champaign; Table	 1). All other species are either common

inhabitants of northern Illinois streams that are not listed as endangered or threatened at the

state or federal level (Smith, 1979; IESPB, 2015)	or are nonnative species that have sustaining

populations in northeastern	Illinois (Smith, 1979; Laird and Page, 1996).

A literature review and a search of the INHS	 Fish Collection’s	 database were conducted for

historical and recent records of fishes in the North	Branch Chicago River basin. No known fish

surveys had previously been conducted in the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second

Track project area.	

On 15 October 1987, Wetzel and Ceas (1987) conducted a survey for fishes in the North	Branch

of the Chicago River, at the Illinois Route 176 (IDOT FAU 1238) bridge (~850 feet downstream /

south	 of site 4, above). No	 fishes, however, were collected after repeated seine hauls. The

habitat in the stream during this 1987 survey was quite degraded; substrate was composed of

sand and gravel, with some deposition of silt and detritus. In their habitat characterization,

Wetzel and Ceas noted that the reach of the stream near this bridge had been degraded by

periodic dumping of trash, and a strong odor of anaerobic decomposition and partially treated

domestic and industrial sewage was noted; large areas	with sheens from petroleum products

6
were observed floating on the stream’s	 surface, and a milky discharge was observed flowing

into the stream just downstream/south of the bridge.

The Iowa Darter (Figure 5) is commonly found in glacial lakes and quiet pools of clear lowgradient streams of northeastern Illinois over a mud or clay bottom with detritus and woody	

debris (Smith, 1979). The range of the darter has diminished in Illinois as a result of the

drainage of marshes, sloughs, and natural lakes, increased turbidity in streams, habitat

degradation, introduced non-native species, and continued urbanization of northeastern Illinois

(Smith, 1971; Smith, 1979). One record exists for the Iowa Darter in the North	Branch Chicago

River basin. Pescitelli and Rung (2012) reported collecting one individual in the Middle Fork

North	 Branch Chicago River, Deerfield at the Deerfield	 High	 School	 (Latitude 42.1879°N,	

Longitude	87.8512°W)	in 2011.

METHODS – FISHES

Fish surveys	 were conducted at the four Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track

project area stream crossings on 17-18	 June	 2015 by INHS	 personnel J.S. Tiemann and A.R.

Kuhns.	 Fishes were collected from 100 foot2 plots at each site by kicking the substrate 10 feet

upstream from a stationary 10 foot wide,	1⁄4”-mesh seine and proceeding downstream to the

seine in a back and forth path covering the width of the seine. To minimize disturbance, plots

were sampled near shore to far shore and were sampled from downstream to upstream. This

kick-seining	method has been shown to be an appropriate quantitative method for sampling

benthic fishes, including darters (Tiemann,	2008). The effort by site is as follows:

1)	 Unnamed tributary to wetland in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude

42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W) – kick-seined eight 10-foot x 10-foot plots.

2)	 Unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County

Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.26163°N, Longitude 87.89172°W)	 – kick-seined	 eighteen

10-foot x 10-foot plots.

3)	 North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude

42.26815°N, Longitude 87.89355°W) – kick-seined	twenty 10-foot x 10-foot plots.

4)	 North	Branch Chicago River in Rondout (Latitude 42.28225°N, Longitude 87.89827°W) –

kick-seined	seven	10-foot	x 10-foot plots.	

Most fishes were identified and released on site.	 A small subsample of fishes were preserved in

the field in 10% formalin and returned to INHS	for deposition in the INHS	Fish Collection.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION – FISHES

The fish surveys	at these four sites yielded 382 individuals representing 11 species	 (Table	 1).

Included in this total were 55 individuals of the state-threatened	 Iowa Darter,	 which was

collected at Site 2, the unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork

Savannah County Forest Preserve (N = 2 individuals); Site 3, the North	Branch Chicago River in

7
Middlefork Savannah County Forest	Preserve (N = 42 individuals); and Site 4, the North	Branch

Chicago River in Rondout (N = 11 individuals).

At Site 2, the unnamed tributary	to North	Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County

Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.26163°N, Longitude 87.89172°W), one individual was collected

upstream of the railroad crossing, and the other was collected downstream. Based upon my

kick-seining methods, density estimates were calculated as 0.11 Iowa Darters per 100 feet2 at

this site. Suitable habitat (e.g., pools of clear low-gradient streams with mud/sand	 substrate

with detritus and brush) was present throughout the entire stream reach sampled.

At Site 3,	 the North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve

(Latitude 42.26815°N, Longitude 87.89355°W), the 42 individuals were collected both upstream

and downstream of the railroad crossing, as well as under the bridge. Based upon my kickseining methods, density estimates were calculated as 2.10 Iowa Darters per 100 feet2 at this

site. Suitable habitat was present both upstream and downstream of the crossing.

At Site 4,	 the North	 Branch Chicago River in Rondout (Latitude 42.28225°N, Longitude

87.89827°W), all 11 individuals were collected upstream of the railroad crossing. Based upon

my kick-seining	methods, density estimates were calculated as 1.57 Iowa Darters per 100 feet2

at this site. Suitable habitat was present upstream of the crossing, but not under the bridge or

downstream,	which consisted almost exclusively of rip-rap.	

Site 1, the unnamed tributary to wetland in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve

(Latitude 42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W) did not appear to contain suitable habitat for the

Iowa Darter. The unnamed tributary appeared to be an intermittent stream and was flowing

only because of recent rains.	

The remaining ten species collected are widespread and locally abundant in central Illinois

streams (Smith, 1979). Five of these species, Golden Shiner	 (Notemigonus	 crysoleucas),

Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales	 notatus), Fathead Minnow (Pimephales	 promelas), Yellow	

Bullhead (Ameiurus	natalis), and Green Sunfish (Lepomis	cyanellus), are listed as “tolerant” by

Smogor (2000). These tolerant species adapt well to changing	environmental conditions.

BACKGROUND – FRESHWATER MUSSELS

Nine species	of freshwater mussels have been reported from the North	Branch Chicago River

basin in Illinois (Price et al., 2012; INHS	Mollusk Collection database, Champaign; Table	1).	 All	

species are common inhabitants of northern Illinois streams (Cummings and Mayer, 1997;

Tiemann et al. 2007), and none are listed	as endangered or threatened	at the state or federal	

level (IESPB, 2015).

A literature review and a search of the INHS	Mollusk Collection’s	database were conducted for

historical and recent records of freshwater mussels in the North	 Branch Chicago River basin.	

Baker (1898) noted the presence of six species that had been collected from the North	Branch

of the Chicago River.	 However, no	 known	 freshwater mussel surveys had previously been

conducted in the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area. No	live, dead,

or subfossil mussels	were observed by Wetzel and Ceas during their 15 October 1987 survey of

8
the North	Branch of the Chicago River at the Illinois Route 176 (IDOT FAU 1238) bridge (~850

feet downstream / south of site 4, above).

METHODS – FRESHWATER MUSSELS

Freshwater mussel surveys	 were conducted at the four Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake

Second Track project area stream crossings	on 17-18	June 2015 by INHS	personnel J.S. Tiemann

and A.R. Kuhns.	 Freshwater mussels were sampled either by visually scanning the streambed	

and/or tactile searches (e.g., hand picking or feeling the surface with one’s	feet). The effort by

site is as follows:

1)	 Unnamed tributary to wetland in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude

42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W) – visual for 5 minutes.

2)	 Unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County

Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.26163°N, Longitude 87.89172°W) – visual for 15 minutes.

3)	 North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude

42.26815°N, Longitude 87.89355°W) – tactile for 30 minutes.

4)	 North	Branch Chicago River in Rondout (Latitude 42.28225°N, Longitude 87.89827°W) –

visual for 5 minutes and tactile for 15 min.	

Additionally, both banks and dried areas associated with these four stream crossings were

visually searched for the presence of shells.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION – FRESHWATER MUSSELS

The freshwater mussel surveys at these four sites did not yield any evidence of shell material.

None	of the streams appeared to be suitable for freshwater mussels. As referenced above, the

unnamed tributary to wetland	in	Middlefork	Savannah County Forest Preserve appears to be an

intermittent stream, whereas the others were somewhat silted. Price et al. (2012) reported

only three species, White Heelsplitter (Lasmigona complanata), Giant Floater (Pyganodon

grandis), and Lilliput (Toxolasma parvum), during their surveys of the North	 Branch Chicago

River basin (three sites total sampled), and had a mean of 2.25 individuals per hour sampling at

those sites.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A.R. Kuhns	 (INHS)	assisted in the field, J.L. Jarvis (INHS)	prepared the map in Figure 1 and the

associated shape file referenced in Appendix 1, and M.J. Wetzel edited early drafts of the

report.	

9
LITERATURE CITED

Baker, F.C. 1898. The Mollusca of the Chicago area, Part I: The Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the

Chicago Academy of Science 3(1):1-130 + 27 plates.

Cummings, K.C.	and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater

mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pp. 129-145, in K.S.	Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,

and T.J. Naimo, eds. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for

the Future.	Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, MO. Upper

Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL. 293 pp.

Graf, D.L, and K.S.	 Cummings. 2007. Review of the systematics and global diversity of

freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionoida). Journal of Molluscan Studies 73:291-314.

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. 2015. Checklist of Endangered and Threatened

Animals and Plants of Illinois. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield,

Illinois. 18 pp. Published online at http://www.dnr.state.il.us/espb/index.htm.

Laird, C.A. and L.M. Page. 1996. Non-native	 fishes inhabiting the streams and lakes of Illinois.

Illinois Natural	History Survey Bulletin 35:1-51.

Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North	America

North	of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. xix + 663 pp.

Pescitelli, S.M. and R.C. Rung 2012. Status of fish communities and stream quality in the Lake

Michigan basin: 2001-2011. Illinois Department of Natural	Resources, Plano.	30 pp.

Price, A.L., D.K.	Shasteen, and S.A. Bales. 2012. Freshwater mussels of the Des Plaines River and

Lake Michigan tributaries in Illinois. Illinois Natural	 History Survey Technical Report

2012(10). Champaign, Illinois. 16 pp.

Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: a classification based on their fishes and an analysis of

factors responsible for disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural	 History Survey	

Biological Note	76:1-14.

Smith, P.W. 1979. Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 314 pp.

Smogor, R. 2000. Draft manual for calculating index of biotic integrity scores for streams in

Illinois. Illinois EPA, Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution Control, Springfield. 23 pp.

Tiemann, J.S. 2008. Distribution and life history characteristics of the state-endangered

bluebreast darter Etheostoma	camurum (Cope) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State

Academy of Science	101(3&4):235-246.

Tiemann, J.S., K.S.	Cummings, and C.A. Mayer. 2007. Updates to the distributional checklist and

status of Illinois freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae). Transactions of the Illinois State

Academy of Science 100: 107-123.

U.S. Department	of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI, FWS). 1996. Endangered and

threatened species, plant and animal taxa; proposed rule. Part III. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal

Register 61(40):7596-7613. February 28.

10
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI, FWS). 1997. Endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants. Federal Register, 50 CFR Part 17.11 and 17.12. October 31,

1996. 46 pp. [This document is a compilation and special reprint, current as of October 31,

1996, that was printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1997].

Wetzel, M.J., and P.A. Ceas. 1987. Survey for fishes and freshwater mussels at the Illinois Route

176 (IDOT FAU 1238) bridge in Rondout, Lake County, Illinois. Project Memorandum (IDOT

Project No.	P-91-234-86), prepared for the Illinois Department of Transportation, Room 114,

Springfield, IL 62764. 5 pp.

11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	1. List of fishes known from the North	Branch Chicago River basin (Des Plaines	River drainage) in Illinois based upon historical

records (INHS	 Fish Collection database, Champaign), literature (e.g., Pescitelli and Rung, 2012), and those collected from an

unnamed tributary to wetland in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W), an

unnamed tributary	 to North	 Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.26163°N,

Longitude 87.89172°W), the North	Branch Chicago River in Middlefork Savannah County Forest Preserve (Latitude 42.26815°N,

Longitude 87.89355°W), and the North	Branch Chicago River in Rondout (Latitude 42.28225°N, Longitude 87.89827°W). All sites

are in Lake County, Illinois, and were sampled by INHS	personnel on 17-18	June	2015.	 Data from these	2015 surveys	include the

number of individuals collected (far right column). Special	status includes	ST – state-threatened and I

– introduced (non-native /

exotic).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Family Scientific	name Common name Unnamed

tributary to

wetland

Unnamed

tributary to

Br Chi Riv

Br Chi Riv

Mid Fk Sav CFP

Br Chi Riv

Rondout

Total

Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad

Cyprinidae Carassius auratus I Goldfish

Cyprinella	spiloptera Spotfin Shiner

Cyprinus carpio I Common	Carp

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner 5 5

Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner

Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow 2 2 1 5

Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow 4 1 5

Catostomidae Catostomus commersoni White Sucker

Cobitidae Misgurnus anguillicaudatus I Oriental Weatherfish

Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead

Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead 1 4 1 6

Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish

Umbridae Umbra limi Central Mudminnow 4 83 17 21 125

12
Osmeridae Osmerus mordax I Rainbow Smelt

Fundulidae Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow 3 3

Poecillidae Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish

Gasterosteidae Culaea	inconstans Brook Stickleback 104 2 106

Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass

Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish 9 20 11 40

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed

Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 12 4 7 23

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass 3 1 5 9

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie

Percidae Etheostoma	exile ST Iowa Darter 2 42 11 55

Perca flavescens Yellow Perch

Gobiidae Neogobius melanostomus I Roun Goby

Total number of species by site 4 10 8 6

13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	 2. List of freshwater mussels known from the North	 Branch Chicago River basin (Des

Plaines River drainage) in Illinois based upon historical records (INHS	 Mollusk Collection

database, Champaign) and literature (e.g., Baker, 1898).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientific name Common name

Anodontinae Anodontoides	ferussacianus	 Cylindrical Papershell

Lasmigona complanata White Heelsplitter

Pyganodon grandis Giant Floater

Strophitus undulatus Creeper

Utterbackia	imbecillis	 Paper Pondshell

Ambleminae Fusconaia flava Wabash Pigtoe

Lampsilinae Actinonaias ligamentina	 Mucket

Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket

Toxolasma parvum Lilliput

14
 

 

 

 

 

!(

!(

!(

ASHFORD DR 

N BRADLEY RD 

W NORTH AVE 

LAURA LN 

E OASIS SERVICE RD 

N WAUKEGAN RD 

W WASHINGTON AVE 

ROCKLAND RD 

KNOLLWOOD RD 

I-94 

LUCKY LAKE DR 

BOULTON BLVD 

BALLARD DR 

Site 1 

Site 2 

Site 3 

Site 4 

Fish and mussel l ti the Roundout Ext ion (Seq no. 19157), Lake Count Illi i survey oca on near ens y, no s. 

Project Boundary Fish and Mussel Survey Sites Feet 

Streams !( Iowa Darter Collected 0 500 1,000 2,000 Jarvis, 11  ̄/6/2015 

Figure 1. Map of the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area near Lake

Forest and Green Oaks, Lake County, Illinois, where surveys for fishes and freshwater

mussels were conducted by INHS	personnel on 17-18	 June	 2015 (map	created by Janet L.

Jarvis).

15
Figure 2. Unnamed tributary	to wetland, Middlefork	Savannah County Forest Preserve, Lake

Forest, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.25445°N, Longitude 87.88933°W). Photo is facing

downstream in an easterly direction on 17 June 2015 (Jeremy S. Tiemann photo).

16
Figure 3. Unnamed tributary to North	 Branch Chicago River, Middlefork Savannah County

Forest Preserve, Lake Forest, Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.26163°N, Longitude

87.89172°W). Photo is facing downstream in an easterly direction on 17 June 2015 (Jeremy	

S. Tiemann photo).

17
Figure 4. North	 Branch Chicago River, Rondout,	 Lake County, Illinois (Latitude 42.28225°N,	

Longitude 87.89827°W).	 Photo	is facing upstream in a northerly direction on 17 June 2015

(Jeremy S. Tiemann photo).

18
Figure 5. Iowa Darter Etheostoma	exile (Josh L. Sherwood photo).

19
Appendix 1

This Appendix 1 cover page references < 19157_Lake_Co_Fish_Mussel_Survey.zip>, an ArcGIS

shapefile which includes sampling point information on the tributary to the Rondout Extension

/ Metra Fox Lake Second Track project area near Lake Forest and Green Oaks, Lake County,

Illinois, where	surveys	for fishes	and freshwater mussels were conducted by INHS	personnel on

17-18	June	2015.	

The ArcGIS shapefile and this report were both submitted to IDOT via the IDOT Site Assessment

Tracking System extranet website (Frostycap) on 6 July	2015.	

20
 

 

 

 

 

Survey and Habitat Assessment for Blanding's Turtle, 

Emydoidea blandingii for the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox 

Lake 2nd Track Rail Project in Lake County, Illinois 

IDOT Sequence No. 19157 

Prepared by:
 

Andrew R. Kuhns
 

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program 

2015: 21 

03 August 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROJECT SUMMARY 

This report details results of herpetological surveys for the Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea 

blandingii along 2.7 miles of the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT 

Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County Illinois. The project entails replacing a bridge over the 

North Branch Chicago River, replacing track, and installing new track and signals along the right 

of way from Canadian Pacific Mile Post 31.16 to Metra Milepost 33.85. Information on the 

natural history and ecology of the Blanding’s Turtle, the only know threatened or endangered 

herptile known from project area, can be found in Appendix A. Surveys were conducted by 

INHS Further Studies personnel A.R. Kuhns and J.S. Tiemann on 16, 17, and 18 June 2015 under 

IDNR State Threatened and Endangered Species Permit 05-11S, a 2015 Illinois Nature Preserves 

Permit for Middlefork Savanna Nature Preserve, and Lake County Forest Preserve District 

Permit 2015-37. Survey methods are detailed in Appendix B and are approved under University 

of Illinois IACUC protocol 11-224. The project corridor and locations of surveys can be seen in 

Appendix C and images from some sampled locations are included in Appendix D. The spatial 

data shown in Appendix C were digitally uploaded to the Further Studies Illinois Site 

Assessment Tracking System (http://frostycap.isgs.uiuc.edu/idot_extranet/further_studies) on 

03 August 2015, and are herein referenced as Appendix E. Preferred habitat for the species 

does occur along the right of way but no Threatened or endangered herpetofauna were 

encountered. 

Approved By: Kevin Cummings, Further Studies Aquatics 

Group Coordinator-Malacologist 

Surveys Conducted By: Andrew R. Kuhns, Ecologist- Herpetologist 

Jeremy S. Tiemann, Aquatic Field Biologist 

Edited by: Mark J. Wetzel 

GIS Layers: Janet L. Jarvis, GIS and Remote Sensing Specialist 

University of Illinois 

Prairie Research Institute 

Illinois Natural History Survey 

Statewide Biological Survey and Assessment Program 

1816 South Oak Street 

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

Project Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2
 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 3
 

Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Project Area .................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Results............................................................................................................................................. 5
 

Table 1. Trap locations, effort (Trap Nights), and turtle captures for the Rondout Extension / 

Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois..... 5
 

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 6
 

Literature Cited............................................................................................................................... 6
 

Appendix A. Natural history of the Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii................................ 7
 

Appendix B. Sampling methods appropriate for the detection of amphibians and reptiles
 

listed as endangered or threatened in the state of Illinois .......................................................... 12
 

Table B.1. Species listed as threatened or endangered in Illinois and potential sampling
 

Appendix C. Figures relevant to the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail 

Figure C.1. Element Occurrence Record (EO) locations for Blanding’s Turtles and
 

locations of turtle traps set from 16 through 18 June 2015 to sample for Blanding’s
 

Turtles for the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT
 

Appendix D. Photographs taken of the suitable habitat found the Rondout Extension /
 

methods for their detection. .................................................................................................. 13
 

project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois ........................................................ 17
 

Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. ...................................................................... 18
 

Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois......... 19
 

Appendix E. ArcGIS shapefile <19157_Herp_GIS> ....................................................................... 21
 

Cover Photo: Painted Turtle, Chrysemys picta capture from the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox 

Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. Photo by A.R. 

Kuhns, INHS. 

. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION
 

In a transmittal dated 04 March 2015, Susan Dees Hargrove of the Illinois Department of 

Transportation (IDOT) Bureau of Design and Environment tasked the Illinois Natural History 

Survey (INHS) to conduct herpetological surveys for the presence of the Blanding’s Turtle at 

along the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) 

in Lake County, Illinois. Work scheduled to occur within the right of way (ROW) is to consist of 

replacing a bridge over the North Branch Chicago River, replacement of track, and installation 

of new track and signals. Information on the natural history and ecology of the Blanding’s Turtle 

can be found in Appendix A. 

PROJECT AREA 

The project will occur along 4.4 miles of railroad ROW from Canadian Pacific Mile Post 31.16 

near Kennedy Road, Lake Forest, IL (42.240410, -87.882598) to Metra Milepost 33.85 near St 

Mary’s Road, Libertyville, IL (42.285681, -87.924866). The project is anticipated to remain 

within the current right of way. The Middlefork Savanna County Forest Preserve borders one or 

both sides of the project area for approximately 2.7 miles (Appendix C: Figure C.1). Middlefork 

Savanna is one of the best remaining mesic savanna habitats in Illinois and the site also contains 

wet prairie, sedge meadows, and marshes. The east-west spur travels through light industrial 

and residential areas. The waterbodies found near the spur are man-made or man-altered 

retention ponds. 

METHODS 

Database Review 

The Illinois Natural Heritage Database maintained by the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR) was queried for Element Occurrence Records (EOR) of threatened and 

endangered amphibians and reptiles within a mile of the project boundary. Each EOR may be 

subdivided into multiple Element of Occurrence Identification numbers (EOID) to record 

separate identification events or sub-locations. Additionally, searches of both vouchered and 

un-vouchered specimens in the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) Amphibian and Reptile 

collection, the University Of Illinois Museum of Natural History (UIMNH), and non-INHS Illinois 

Amphibian and Reptile databases maintained by the Illinois Natural History Survey were 

conducted. Together these databases are merged and accessed through the All_IL_Herps 

database at INHS and are updated semi-annually. The locations of any results were plotted onto 

aerial photographs of the ESR corridor and examined to search for suitable habitat for the 

species. 

Field Methods 

On 16 June 2015, INHS Further Studies Ecologists A.R. Kuhns and J.S. Tiemann set double 

throated turtle traps along the ROW in Middlefork Savanna County Forest Preserve (Appendix 

C. Figure C.1). Traps were baited with canned sardines in oil and traps were checked daily. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coordinates for all traps were recorded and plotted (Appendix C. Figure C.1). Two additional 

traps were set on 17 June 2015. We recorded the species of all turtles captured and released 

them at their capture location. Traps were removed the morning of 18 June 2015. 

RESULTS 

Database Review 

There are two records for the Blanding’s Turtle in the vicinity of the Rondout Extension / Metra 

Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project area in Lake County, Illinois. In 1994, K. Mierzwa observed an 

adult Blanding’s Turtle basking on a log in a ditch in successional woodlands to the east of the 

ROW just north of the I94/I294 Illinois Toll Highway Oasis (EO 4738). In 2007, an observation of 

an adult Blanding’s Turtle was made on a path within Middlefork Savanna County Nature 

Preserve (G. Glowacki, LCFPD, pers. comm.). 

Field Surveys 

Thirteen traps were placed in all water that was deep enough to trap that occurred within the 

project boundary within Middlefork Savana County Nature Preserve. Aerial photographs and 

ground truthing indicated that waterbodies outside of the preserve where the spur heads 

towards Libertyville, IL were man-made impoundments and were not appropriate habitat for 

Blanding’s Turtle. In 24 trap nights we captured 4 Snapping Turtles and 7 Painted Turtles which 

results in Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) values of 0.17 for Snapping Turtles and 0.26 for Painted 

Turtles. No Blanding’s Turtles were captured in 24 trap nights of sampling (Table 1). 

Table 1. Trap locations, effort (Trap Nights), and turtle captures for the Rondout Extension / 

Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. 

Trap Latitude Longitude Date Set Date 

Pulled 

Trap 

Nights 

Chelydra 

serpentina 

Chrysemys 

picta 

1 42.24562 -87.88491 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 2 5 

2 42.24580 -87.88505 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 2 0 

3 42.24600 -87.88510 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

4 42.24621 -87.88523 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 1 

5 42.26807 -87.89369 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

6 42.26815 -87.89343 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

7 42.26149 -87.89229 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

8 42.26156 -87.89200 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

9 42.26160 -87.89156 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

10 42.26167 -87.89156 06/16/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

11 42.25798 -87.89053 06/17/15 06/18/15 1 0 1 

12 42.25790 -87.89051 06/17/15 06/18/15 1 0 0 

13 42.25782 -87.89048 06/17/15 06/18/15 2 0 0 

Totals 24 4 7 

Captures per trap night 0.17 0.26 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION
 

No Blanding’s Turtles were encountered during this survey. Despite an abundance of suitable 

habitat and observations of the species in 1994 and 2007, Blanding’s Turtles are unlikely to 

inhabit Middlefork Savanna Nature Preserve. The site has only recently undergone restoration, 

and prior to the 1980’s it was farmland that was tiled and tilled (Ueltzen 2012) and the North 

Branch Chicago River that flows under the tracks has been channelized. 

Repeated sampling of the area around the project boundary over the past decade has failed to 

document Blanding’s Turtles. From 2004 to 2007, 441 total trap nights in and around 

Middlefork Savanna Nature Preserve failed to document the species (Kuhns et al. 2004, Kuhns 

et al. 2006, Kuhns et al. 2007). Additionally a 24 hour ‘Bioblitz’ of Middlefork Savanna Nature 

Preserve on 27-28 June 2008 documented 14 species of reptiles but no Blanding’s Turtle were 

encountered. Lake County Forest Preserve District (LCFPD) personnel have also repeatedly 

sampled the site as part of their long term wildlife monitoring program. On 06 & 07 May 2015 

they captured 49 Painted Turtles, 8 Snapping Turtles, and 4 Red-eared Sliders but no Blanding’s 

Turtles (Gary Glowacki, pers. com.; unpubl. data). The disparity in captures in this report and 

the one conducted by LCFPD is likely due to seasonal and sampling differences. LCFPDs 

sampling occurs throughout their preserve and focuses on larger wetlands and wetlands more 

suitable to turtles whereas trapping for this study was relegated to near the boundary of the 

project area. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Kuhns, A.R., C.A. Phillips, and C.A. Benda. 2004. Freshwater Turtle Abundance in Lake County 

Forest Perserves, with an emphasis on the state listed Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea 

blandingii). Quarterly Report to Lake County Forest Perserve District, Illinois Natural 

History Survey, Champaign, IL. 

Kuhns, A.R., C.A. Phillips, and J.S. Tiemann. 2006. Survey and Assessment of Threatened and 

Endangered Mussels, Fihses, Amphibians and Reptiles of the Illinois Interstate I-294/94 

Tollway Improvement Corridor in Cook and Lake Counties, Results of the 2005 Field 

Season. Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 2006:1-14. 

Kuhns, A.R., J.S. Tiemann, and C.A. Phillips. 2007. Survey and Assessment of Threatened and 

Endangered Freshwater Mussels, Fishes, Amphibians and Reptiles of the Illinois 

Interstate I-294/94 Tollway Improvement Corridor in Cook and Lake Counties. INHS 

Technical Report 2007:1-29. 

Ueltzen, Matt. 2012. Middlefork Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake County Forest Preserves. 

Powerpoint Presentation accessed online on 07/07/2015 at 

http://www.lakecountyil.gov/Stormwater/Documents/Planning/North%20Branch%20of 

%20the%20Chicago%20River/Ueltzen_NBPC%20081314.pdf 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A. 

Natural History of the Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii,
 

Listed as Endangered in the State of Illinois.
 

SYNOPSIS 

This appendix contains information on the Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, listed as an 

endangered species in the State of Illinois and a species that may occur within the IDOT 

Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project area in Lake County, Illinois. The 

species account includes: diagnostic characters, range in Illinois, habitat requirements, spatial 

ecology and activity, reproduction, and the suitable sampling season in Illinois. Standard and 

scientific names follow Crother (2012). 

Species range maps were created by Ethan J. Kessler. Maps were based upon data in the Illinois 

Natural History Survey’s All_IL_Herps Database which contains records of vouchered and unvouchered specimens in the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), University of Illinois Museum 

of Natural History (UIMNH), and amphibian and reptile specimens from ~30 other scientific 

museums. The database is maintained by INHS/UIMNH Amphibian and Reptile Curator, 

Christopher A. Philliips, with records from other institutions updated annually. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North 

America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 7th 

Edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular. 39: 1–101. 

7
 
 

 

BLANDING’S TURTLE, EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII
 

General Description for Identification: The 

Blanding’s Turtle is distinguishable from other 

North American turtle species by the presence 

of a hinged plastron coupled with a bright 

yellow chin and throat (Ernst et al. 1994). 

Range: 

Within Illinois, E. blandingii was historically 

present in the extensive marsh systems of the 

northern half of the state (Kennicott 1855). 

Suitable Habitat: Throughout their range, E. 

blandingii occupy eutrophic habitats with clear 

water and abundant aquatic vegetation with 

adjacent uplands available for nesting (Ernst et 

al. 1994). Typical Blanding’s Turtle sites in 

northeastern Illinois are a mosaic of multiple 

wetland types interspersed in a prairie or 

savanna landscape (Kuhns et al 2007). 

Blanding’s Turtles are not great swimmers and 

typically prefer shallow wetlands with little to 

no discernable water flow. 

Reproduction: Blanding’s Turtles are long lived, with wild-caught individuals over 77 years of 

age having been documented in the field (Congdon et al. 2001). Females typically mature 

8
 
 

 

 

 

between 14 and 20 years of age (Congdon et al. 1983; Ross 1989). Mature females lay only one 

clutch of eggs per year but may not nest annually. Nests of up to 19 eggs are laid in sand or 

sandy loam soils with good drainage and low canopy cover (Ross and Anderson 1990; Kuhns et 

al. 2007). 

Spatial ecology and activity: Blanding’s turtles in northern Illinois are active from late March 

through October (Rowe and Moll 1991; Kuhns et al. 2007). Females can travel considerable 

distances (up to 1 mi.) from their activity areas to nest (Congdon et al. 1983; Ross and Anderson 

1990; Joyal et al. 2001; Kuhns et al. 2007). Radio-telemetry data from northeastern Illinois 

indicate that Blanding’s Turtles moved an average straight line distance of 60 to 75 feet/day 

(Kuhns et al 2007). Annual home range size is highly variable depending on individuals but in 

northern Illinois averaged 123,000 sq. ft. to 150000 sq. ft. (Kuhns et al 2007) 

Suitable Sampling Seasons: The greatest trapping success in northern Illinois occurs from May 

through mid-July (Benda et al. 2007, Kuhns et al. 2007). 

Illinois Status: The Blanding’s Turtle is considered endangered in Illinois (Illinois Endangered 

Species Protection Board 2015; Mankowski 2012). 

Literature Cited 

Benda, C.D., A.R. Kuhns, and C.A. Phillips. 2007. Population and spatial ecology of Blanding’s 

Turtles in northeastern Lake County with feasibility of initiating a head-starting program. 

INHS Technical Report 2007(4): vii+1-104. 

Congdon, J.D., D.W. Tinkle, G.L. Breitenbach, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1983. Nesting ecology 

and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingi. Herpetologica 39:417-429. 

Congdon, J.D., R.D. Nagle, O.M. Kinney and, R.C. van Loben Sels. 2001. Hypotheses of aging in a 

long-lived vertebrate, Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Experimental Gerontology 

36: 813-827. 

Ernst, C.H., R.W. Barbour, and J.E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 

Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington DC. p. 578. 

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. 2015. Checklist of Endangered and Threatened 

Animals and Plants of Illinois. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, 

Illinois. pp. 18. Published online at http://dnr.state.il.us/iespb/index.htm 

Joyal, L.A., M. McCollough, and M.L. Hunter. 2001. Landscape ecology approaches to wetland 

species conservation: a case study of two turtle species in southern Maine. Conservation 

Biology 15: 1755-1762. 

Kennicott, R. 1855. Catalogue of animals observed in Cook County, Illinois. Illinois State 

Agricultural Society Transactions for 1853-1854. 1:577-595. 

Kuhns, A.R., W.J. Banning, M.J. Dreslik, and C.A. Phillips. 2007. Ecology of the state threatened 

Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, in the Chicago wilderness area. INHS Technical 

Bulletin 2007(23):1-115+iii. 

Mankowski, A. 2012. The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act at Forty: a review of the 

Act’s provisions and the Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Illinois 

9
 
 

 

 

 

Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, IL. 152 pp. Published online at: 

http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/ESPB/Pages/default.aspx. 

Phillips, C.A., R.A. Brandon, and E.O. Moll. 1999. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of 

Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8: 1-282. 

Ross, D.A. 1989. Population ecology of painted and Blanding's turtles (Chrysemys picta and 

Emydoidea blandingi) in central Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of 

Sciences Arts and Letters 77: 77-84. 

Ross, D.A. and R.K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting of Emydoidea 

blandingi in central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology 24: 6-12. 

Rowe, J.W. and E.O. Moll. 1991. A radiotelemetric study of activity and movements of the 

Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in northeastern Illinois. Journal of Herpetology 25: 

178-185. 

10
 
 

 

 

APPENDIX B 

Sampling methods appropriate for the detection of amphibians and 

reptiles listed as endangered or threatened in the state of Illinois. 

11
 
Table B.1. Species of amphibians and reptiles listed as threatened or endangered in Illinois and 

potential sampling methods for their detection. 

State Listed Herptiles 

ThreatenedEndangeredDip-NetMinnow TrapCall SurveyVisual EncounterHoop TrapFyke NetSeineDrift Fence Coverboard 

AMPHIBIANS

SALIENTIA 

Ambystoma 

jeffersonianum X 

Ambystoma platineum X 

Cryptobranchus 

alleganiensis X 

Desmognathus conanti X 

Hemidactylium scutatum X 

Necturus maculosus X 

ANURAHyla avivoca X 

Pseudacris streckerii X 

Gastrophryne 

carolinensis X 

REPTILES 

TESTUDINES 

Apalone mutica X 

Clemmys guttata X 

Emydoidea blandingii X 

Kinosternon flavescens X 

Macrochelys temminckii X 

Pseudemys concinna X 

Terrapene ornata X 

SERPENTES 

Clonophis kirtlandii X 

Crotalus horridus X 

Pantherophis emoryi X 

Heterodon nasicus X 

Masticophis flagellum X 

Nerodia fasciata X 

Nerodia cyclopion X 

Sistrurus catenatus X 

Tantilla gracilis X 

Thamnophis sauritus X 

Tropidoclonion lineatum X 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling Methods for the Detection of State Listed
 

Amphibians and Reptiles
 

ACTIVE SAMPLING METHODS 

Call Survey. This method is only effective for anurans during the breeding season. The 

researcher either visits wetlands in the evening hours to listen to the frog chorus, or places an 

audio recording device at the wetland during the day and returns the following morning to 

retrieve the recording. In either case, the researcher must be familiar with the calls of frogs and 

toads in the area in order to identify the species based only upon the calls in the chorus. To be 

effective, the researcher must also be familiar with the ecology of the target species and 

sample during its breeding season in habitats where it is likely to reside. 

Dip Netting. A dip net is useful for sampling aquatic animals and can be used to capture 

individuals observed or as a means of blindly sampling for aquatic organisms in vegetation 

choked or turbid water. Typically, a researcher will pull the net along the substrate and through 

the water column for approximately 3 feet, and then finish the net sweep by pulling the net up 

and out of the water with the net opening facing upward. The researcher can then remove any 

substrate or detritus from the net and search for captured animals. 

Seine. A seine is a fishing net that hangs vertically in the water column suspended by floats with 

the bottom edge held down by weights. The net is dragged along the bottom of aquatic 

habitats and captures aquatic amphibians and reptiles when it is drawn onto shore or scooped 

out of the water. In many ways, it functions much like a large dip net when used for amphibian 

and reptile sampling. 

Visual Encounter Survey (VES). Visual encounter surveys involve searching appropriate habitat 

(mainly turning cover items such as logs, rocks and miscellaneous debris and also visually 

scanning open habitats) and recording all species encountered. Surveys can be regimented such 

as by walking pre-defined grid patterns and time limits, or in a more haphazard wandering 

pattern. This method is most effective if the researcher is familiar with the target species 

ecology and can focus on habitat areas where the species is most likely to be encountered, as 

well as time of day and seasons when the species is most active. A thorough explanation of this 

technique can be found in Heyer et al. (1994). 

PASSIVE SAMPLING METHODS 

Drift Fence. A drift fence is any object that is placed perpendicular to the ground surface as a 

way to intercept animals that may be passing through. It is often constructed of hardware cloth 

or silt fencing buries a few inches into the ground to prevent burrowing; but natural cover items 

such as large logs or rock formations may also function as a drift fence. Animals are captured by 

travelling parallel to the fence until they fall into a receptacle, such as a bucket or coffee can, 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which has been buried flush with the substrate. Similarly, funnel traps can be placed along the 

drift fence to capture animals that are walking along the fence. This technique is covered in 

Heyer et al. (1994) and McDairmid et al. (2012). 

Coverboards. Coverboards are essentially any item sitting flush with the substrate under which 

an amphibian or reptile may seek refuge. Artificial coverboards are often made of plywood or 

corrugated tin and are placed in areas likely to harbor the species of interest. Coverboards 

often attract small mammals and invertebrates as well which may enhance their ability to 

attract amphibians and reptiles. Well-seasoned artificial cover objects with little vegetation 

underneath them seem to work better in attracting herptiles, therefore their use most effective 

for long term projects when they can be set out many months in advance of surveys. 

Minnow Trap. Traps may be constructed of rope, monofilament, or steel and may have funnels 

or throats, at one or both ends which allow the animal to enter into the trap body but prevent 

them from easily exiting the trap. Minnow traps may be cylindrical or rectangular and can be 

baited or not depending on the target species. If baited, the bait is refreshed every 2 to 4 days. 

Traps are usually placed so that a portion of the trap placed in water is emergent so that 

captured animals have access to air and will not drown. However, in riverine environments, 

where there is little to no probability of capturing non-gilled species, the traps may be fully 

submerged. Effort is recorded in trap hours (i.e., number of traps multiplied by the number of 

hours the traps were deployed). Results are reported as the numbers of each species captured. 

Hoop Trap. These traps work on the same principal as minnow traps but are larger in diameter 

and have larger throats to allow for the capture of larger animals such as turtles (Legler 1960). 

All hoop traps are placed such that at least 5cm of the trap is above the surface of the water to 

ensure captured turtles have access to air. Traps are tied via string or rope to surrounding 

vegetation to ensure that captured turtles do not roll traps into deeper water and drown. Traps 

are placed parallel to either the shoreline or potential basking sites. Traps are baited (usually 

with sardines canned in spring water or oil). Traps are checked daily and bait is changed every 2 

to 4 days. Effort is recorded in trap hours (ie. number of traps multiplied by the number of 

hours the traps were deployed). Results are reported as the numbers of each species captured. 

Fyke Net. This trapping method is essentially a combination of a Drift Fence and a Hoop Trap. It 

consists of a hoop trap body with a single throat, and long wings and a lead that extend out 

from the throat in a double V formation (Figure B.1). Wings and leads have a lead-line that 

makes them hang vertically in the water column. This essentially extends the reach of the 

throat and works well for turtle species that are not attracted to readily available baits. It can 

be used to intercept turtles entering a cove or attempting to access a popular basking site, by 

funneling them into the trap body where the throat prevents them from escaping. A description 

of Fyke Nets can be found in Vogt (1980). 

14
 
 

 

 

 

LITERATURE CITED
 

Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster, eds. 1994. Measuring 

and Monitoring Biodiversity: Standard methods for amphibians. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 364 pp. 

Legler, J.M. 1960. A simple and inexpensive device for trapping aquatic turtles. Proceedings of 

the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 37: 63-66. 

McDairmid, R.W., M.S. Foster, C. Guyer, J.W. Gibbons, and N. Chernoff. Eds. 2012. Reptile 

Biodiversity: Standard Methods for Inventory and Monitoring. University of California Press. 

Berkeley. 412 pp. 

Vogt, R.C. 1980. New methods for trapping aquatic turtles. Copeia 1980:368-371. 

Figure B.1. Fyke Net set to capture turtles attempting to enter a cove (as viewed from above). 

15
 
 

 

APPENDIX C 

Figures relevant to Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail 

project (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois 

16
 
 

 

Figure C.1. Element Occurrence Record (EO) locations for Blanding’s Turtles and 

locations of turtle traps set from 16 through 18 June 2015 to sample for Blanding’s 

Turtles in the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track rail project (IDOT Sequence 

No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois. 

17
 
 

 

APPENDIX D 

Photographs taken of the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track 

rail project area (IDOT Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, Illinois 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

Plate 1 Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track (Sequence No. 19157) in Lake County, 

Illinois. 

Plate 2. Creek flowing from the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox Lake 2nd Track Right of Way 

(IDOT Sequence No. 19157) into a wetland in Middlefork Savanna County Nature Preserve in 

Lake County, Illinois. The wetland is typical of the wetlands in the Nature Preserve. 

19
 
 

 

APPENDIX E 

Arc-GIS Shapefiles 

An ArcGIS folder <19157_Herp_GIS> containing an Arc-GIS shapefile of the sampled area 

constitutes this appendix. The ArcGIS shapefile and this report were both submitted to IDOT via 

the IDOT Site Assessment Tracking System extranet website [Frostycap] on 03 August 2015. 

20
 
Habitat Assessment, Benthic Macro invertebrates and Water Quality

in the Middle Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River, in

Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve	(Lake	County, IL)

IDOT Sequence Number 19157

Prepared by:

Jason L. Robinson

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program

2015:55	

3 Dec 2015

1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Summary

This report is	 submitted in response to a request	 from	 IDOT for INHS personnel to assess	

stream	 habitat, water quality and benthic	 macroinvertebrate condition in the region of	

potentially sensitive streams	and wetlands	along the Middle Branch of	 the North Fork of	 the

Chicago River (MFNBCR), within Middle Fork Savanna	Forest	 Preserve, in Lake County, Illinois	

(IDOT Sequence Number 19157).	 Preliminary site investigations	 and reconnaissance in the

wetlands, streams	and seeps	throughout	the forest	preserve and along the rail corridor was

conducted 23-24	 April 2015. Habitat	 surveys	 and chemical/biological water quality sampling

were conducted on 13m 14 August 2015. Stream habitat metrics ranked on the low end of the

“Good” range, with some metrics scoring very poor and others ranking excellent. Metrics

ranking benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage conditions scored “Fair”, relative to

other streams in IL. 342 individual specimens comprising twentym two	 macroinvertebrate

taxa, in fourteen taxonomic orders, were	 recorded from	 the benthic assemblage at this

site. The benthic assemblage was dominated by the amphipod Hyalella sp. None of the taxa

collected during this survey are listed as endangered or threated at either the state or federal

level, nor was suitable habitat for any such species observed

Approved By: Kevin	Cummings, Further Studies Aquatics

Group Coordinator-Malacologist

Surveys Conducted By: Jason L. Robinson, Aquatic Entomologist

Dan Swanson, Graduate Assistant

GIS Layers: Janet Jarvis, Remote Sensing Specialist

University of Illinois

Prairie Research Institute

Illinois Natural	History Survey

Statewide Biological Survey and Assessment Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820

2
TABLE	OF CONTENTS

Project Summary ...........................................................................................................................2

Table	of	Contents...........................................................................................................................3

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................5

Project Area ...................................................................................................................................5

Figure 1. Map delineating the Middle Fork of the North	Branch of the Chicago River, railway

and Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve boundaries (MFSFP), Lake County Illinois, along

with study sites ........................................................................................................................6

Figure 2. Upstream reach of MFNBCR	just downstream of rail crossing, demonstrating fine

sediments and channelization(latitude 42.26851° N, longitude 87.89076° W).........................7	

Figure 3.	 MFNBCR	at Site	FS751, Kennedy	Road bridge, facing upstream. Middle Fork

Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake County, Illinois... .....................................................................8

Figure 4. MFNBCR	(Site FS751) under and downstream of the Kennedy	Road (IL-60)	bridge,	

after exiting the Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve in Lake County, Illinois. ....................9

Figure 5. Representative stream cross sections of MFNBCR	at Site FS751, just upstream of

Kennedy	Road (IL-60)	at the southern boundary of Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, in

Lake County, Illinois. .............................................................................................................10

Table	 1. Habitat metrics and habitat quality categories for the qualitative Stream Habitat

Assessment Procedure (SHAP).........................................................................................................11

Methods.......................................................................................................................................12

Table	 2. Habitat metrics and habitat quality categories for the qualitative Stream Habitat

Assessment Procedure (SHAP).... ...........................................................................................13

Table	3. Stream habitat percent similarity categories for site comparability assessments....

................................................................................................................................................14

Table	 4. Seven metrics calculated for aquatic macroinvertebrates with response of metric

to perturbation and best value .............................................................................................15

Table	5. Macroinvertebrate IBI quality categorie ................................................................15

Results and Discussion .......................................................................................................................16

Figure 6. Fifteen summary metrics used to calculate the habitat assessment score, adjusted

to standardized metric values, as scored for Site FS751 (MFNBCR	at Kennedy	Road (IL-60))	

by INHS	personnel on 14 Aug 2015. ......................................................................................16

Figure 7. Aquatic macroinvertebrate summary metrics resulting from specimens identified

from a sample collected from at Site FS751 MFNBCR	at Kennedy	Road Lake County, Illinois

on 14 August 2015 .................................................................................................................17

3
 

 

 

Table	6. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates identified from the sample collected from Site

FS751 MFNBCR	at Kennedy	Road,	Lake County, IL on 13 August 2015.....................................18

Figure 8. Functional feeding groups (FFG) of aquatic macroinvertebrates identified from a

sample collected from Site FS751 MFNBCR	 at Kennedy	 Road Lake County, Illinois on 14

August 2015 ...........................................................................................................................19

Table	 7. Values for field water quality parameters measured by INHS	 personnel on 14

August 2015 at Site FS751, MFNBCR, downstream of Kennedy	 Road, and Site FS751

upstream, MFNBCR, at rail crossing, Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake County,

Illinois. ....................................................................................................................................20

Additional Sampling ....................................................................................................................20

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................20

Literature Cited............................................................................................................................21

Appendix 1. An appendix cover page referencing an ArcGIS shapefile entitled

<19157_MFNBCR_MFSFP_WQ_shapefile.zip> with sampling points referenced in Figure 1 of

this report for the Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve rail corridor, (Lake County,

Illinois)............. .............................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix 2. Values for water quality parameters resulting from analyses of raw water samples

collected by INHS	 personnel on 13 August 2015 from	 the MFNBCR	 at Kennedy	 Road, (Lake

County, Illinois) ............................................................................................................................ 24

Cover	Photo: Wetland complex in Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, alongside rail and 200

meters west of MFNBCR, Specimen	Collection	Site 4 (Figure 1), Lake County, Illinois. Photo by

J.L. Robinson, INHS	(24	April 2015).

4
INTRODUCTION

This report is submitted as a part of a response to a Further Studies Transmittal from Sue

Hargrove, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield (IDOT) to Illinois Natural	 History

Survey (INHS)	 dated 4 March 2015, requesting that surveys for three parameter (biological,

chemical and physical) water quality surveys be conducted in the Middle Fork Savanna Forest

Preserve, in the vicinity of the proposed IDOT project along the proposed improvements to the

rail in Lake County, Illinois (IDOT Sequence Number 19157).	

The Middle Fork of the North	Branch of the Chicago River (MFNBCR)	drains a mostly residential

area, but also includes industrial sites, interstate and other transportation corridors and limited

agriculture. There are several forest preserves along the length of the stream, but our task was

to perform field water quality monitoring, the collection of water samples for laboratory

analyses and characterization of the benthic community of the stream in the affected reaches

within the MFSFP.

INHS	personnel Jason L. Robinson performed	site	reconnaissance from aerial photography, GIS

layers and a field visit during April 2015. Robinson and INHS	 graduate student research

assistant Dan R. Swanson visited the project area 13-14	August	2015 to characterize the stream,

complete field water quality monitoring and collect water samples for laboratory analyses

(Figure 1). Information collected during site visits, from stream characterization within the

segment of interest, results from field and laboratory water quality estimation, and additional

specimen data from the MFSFP is included in this report.

Processing and identification of aquatic macro invertebrates collected from MFNBCR	 and

laboratory analysis of water samples collected at that site has been completed. Those results

are presented below.

PROJECT AREA

The entire footprint of the rail corridor extends beyond the boundaries of this sequence,	which

corresponds to the specific tasking received by INHS.	 Initial site visits and macroinvertebrate

collections were performed during 23-24 April 2015. Structured sampling for benthic macro

invertebrate IBIs, water quality parameters and stream habitat characterization was conducted

13-14	August 2015 in the Middle Branch of the North	Fork of the Chicago River just immediately

upstream of the crossing at Kennedy	Road, 3.7 km ENE	of Mettawa, 3.8 km SSE of Rondout in

Lake County, Illinois (Figure 1).

The information in Appendix 1 references a GIS shapefile with sampling point information for

the Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve project site, as discussed in this report.

5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

!( 

Middle

Fork

Savanna 

Middle Fork

Savanna 

Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve

Middlefork

Savanna Nature

Preserve

ACADEMY RD 

W ROCKLAND RD 

N BRADLEY RD 

W OLD SCHOOL RD 

N FIELD CT 

N WAUKEGAN RD 

N FIELD DR 

IL-60 

N ST MARYS RD 

FARWELL RD 

N RIVERWOODS BLVD 

Jean Farwell

Woods Land and

Water Reserve 

I-94 

1

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

Figure 1. Macroinvertebrate survey locations near the Roundout Extension (Seq no. 19157), Lake County, Illinois. 

Project Boundary !( 3 Parameter Water Quality Nature Preserves Feet 

! Specimen Collection INAI Sites 0 1,000 2,000 Jarvis, 9  ̄/23/2015 

6
Site selection. Reconnaissance of potential sites was performed on 23-	24	April 2015 and

evaluated access and habitats available throughout the preserve.	 When revisiting these sites

during summer sampling, poor habitat (extremely fine benthic substrates, negligible current

velocities) and straightened channel segments (Figure 2) prompted us to select the most

downstream reach in the preserve to assure that these seasonal influences on habitat quality

did not bias our assessment. This site and others were sampled for fishes and mussels in

Tiemann (2015).

Figure 2.	 An upstream	reach of MFNBCR	(Specimen Collection Site	2,	Figure 1) facing

downstream, just downstream of rail crossing	in the MFSFP (Site 3 Tiemann (2015)),	

demonstrating fine sediments and channelization (latitude 42.26851°N, longitude

87.89076°W).

Field visits and drainage basin statistics identified one site, the Middle Fork of the North	Branch

of the Chicago River at Kennedy	Road (at the exit of the protected forest preserve) as suitable

for habitat and water quality characterization	and biological sampling. The most downstream

point, on the mainstem of the Middle Fork of the North	Branch of the Chicago River, had a

watershed area of approximately 11.1 mi2 (as measured by the USGS Stream Stats tool).

7
Additionally, more detailed invertebrate inventory collection methods were applied in other

aquatic habitats throughout	the project area (see Figure 1).

Site FS751 (Middle	Fork of the North Branch	of the Chicago River at Kennedy Road, at exit of

Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve)	Figures 3 and 4

MFNBC, just upstream of the Kennedy	Road bridge, 3.8 km ENE	of Mettawa and 4.6 km SSE of

Rondout in Lake County, Illinois; 42.24013 N, 87.88064 W; 204 meters asl

Figure	3. MFNBCR	at Site FS751, Kennedy	Road bridge, facing upstream. Middle Fork Savanna

Forest Preserve, Lake County, Illinois. Photo by Jason L. Robinson, 14 August 2015.

8
Figure 4.	 MFNBCR (Site FS751) under and downstream of the Kennedy	Road Bridge, after

exiting the Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve in Lake County, Illinois. Photo by Jason L.

Robinson, 14 August 2015.

PHYSICAL	CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS STREAM

Stream basin-	 The headwaters of the Middle Fork of the North	Branch of the Chicago River

forms approximately a kilometer north of the stream crossing on IL 176 (at Rondout), heading

up from stormwater retention ponds along I-94.	 From that stream crossing, the MFNBCR	

drains southerly through the Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, then to join the Skokie

River (East Branch Chicago River), ultimately flowing into the Des Plaines River via the Cal-Sag

Channel. The upland sections of this watershed are in residential and industrial land uses, with

many altered straightened channels and perched wetlands. In the Middle Fork Savanna Forest

Preserve, the MFNBCR	is straightened and runs adjacent to the CN railway. At Kennedy	Road,

The Middle Fork of the North	Branch of the Chicago River, at Kennedy	Road (IL-60), drains a

watershed area of about 11.1 square miles.

Site description- The stream at Site 751 (Figures 2 & 3) was characterized as follows during the

14 August 2015 visit by INHS	personnel.

Stream measurements- Width, depth and flow were measured along three transects across the

9
stream on 14 August 2015. Width ranged between 5 and 6 meters, among the three transects,

while	depth	ranged from 8-38 centimeters. Current velocities in the thalweg averaged 0.2

meters per second.

Three cross-sections	of the stream, indicating widths and depths measured during stream

characterizations completed on 14 August 2015 – representative of stream morphology within

the stream segment at this site—are presented in Figure 5.	

0.6 meters 

Figure 5. Representative stream cross sections of MFNBCR	at Site FS751, just upstream of

Kennedy	Road at the southern boundary of Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, in Lake

County, Illinois. (0.6 meters ~ 2 feet)

Substrates.	 Substrates observed in this segment of MFNBCR	during our visit to Site FS751

consisted primarily (75%) of silt and fine particle organics (25%). Large masses of submerged

vegetation, composed primarily of exotic invasive plants (water milfoil, hydrilla), dominate the

water column in the thalweg.

Riparian vegetation. The riparian zone at Site FS751 was heavily wooded, both upstream and

downstream of the Kennedy	Road bridge. Much of the riparian vegetation was exotic invasive

bush honeysuckle, but hawthorn, elms and willows were also observed along the stream.

A summary of the physical and biological parameters at Site FS751 is presented in Table	1.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10
Table	1.	 List of aquatic macroinvertebrates identified from samples collected by INHS	personnel on 23-24	August 2015 from

the Middle Fork	of the North Branch of the Chicago River at Kennedy Road,	in	Middle Fork	Savanna	Forest	Preserve in	Lake

County, Illinois.	Taxa denoted with * are	taxa which are	not assigned tolerance values by the ILEPA.

Water Resource Site Surrounding

Land Use

Riparian

Vegetation

Stream

Substrates

Stream

width (m)

Stream

depth	(cm)

Aquatic

Habitat

Quality

Flow Characteristics

Middle Fork of the North	Branch	of

the Chicago River	at	Kennedy Road

(MFNBCR)

shrubs	and

forest	

woodland,

road crossing

Japanese

honeysuckle,

hawthorn,

hackberry,

elms

Silt and fine	

organics

(75%), Sand

(25%)

5.5	m 8- 3 cm Fair

37.0/59 lotic, perennial

Middle Fork of the North Branch of

the Chicago River	at	rail line crossing

in interior of Middle Fork Savanna

Forest Preserve

(MFNBCR upstream)

riparian

vegetation,

mesic prairie,

rail crossing

Japanese

honeysuckle,

hawthorn,

hackberry,

elms

Silt and fine	

organics (no	

habitat

assessment at

this site) 4.0	m

not

measured

not

measured

lotic, perennial,

limited by seasonal

low flows

11
HABITAT ASSESSMENTS, STREAM CHARACTERIZATIONS,	AND

SURVEYS	FOR AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

METHODS

On 13-14 August 2014, INHS	personnel J.L. Robinson and D.R. Swanson visited the project area

to complete habitat assessments, stream characterizations, take photographs, and conduct

surveys for aquatic macroinvertebrates and adult aquatic insects in the IDOT high speed rail

project corridor in Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve (Lake County, Illinois).	 See Table	1 for

work conducted at each site and specific site locality information. Habitat assessments, water	

quality collections and macroinvertebrate	 sampling were conducted at a single site (FS751,

MFNBCR	at Kennedy	Road).

SITE	ASSESSMENT

Site assessment is used to select, based upon habitation conditions, sites suitable for sampling

fishes, freshwater mussels, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and conducting water quality

monitoring. These assessments are primarily useful for larger projects where	 numerous

possible sampling locations are possible, allowing for site selection, as well as assessment of the

relationship between habitat quality and biotic integrity. For small projects with one to few

sites, site assessments serve to characterize the habitat quality, and sites may be sampled in

spite of scoring poorly in site assessment.

Site assessment utilizes the Qualitative Stream	 Habitat Assessment	 Procedure (SHAP) in

Appendix E-9	 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA) DWPC Field QA Manual

(DWPC-ILEPA	1994). This approach is described in detail in the section 5.0 Qualitative Stream	

Habitat Assessment	 Procedures	 (SHAP) of the DWPC Field QA Manual (DWPC-ILEPA	 1994,

Appendix E-5.1).	 Based on the assessment of 15 parameters, this assessment results in a total

score, providing an overall habitat quality rating for the stream reach. The total score could,

theoretically, range from 15 to 208 (Table	2), but because different metrics may be better or

worse, extreme values for the total score are unlikely. Overall score cutoff points for "poor",

"fair", "good" and "excellent" are not provided by ILEPA, but guidance based on relative

percent similarity among sites is provided (Table	3). The scores and metrics differ from the U.S.

EPA Habitat Assessment approach (Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour et al. 1999), though the general

approach is similar. To allow evaluation of habitat assessments in cases where there is only a

single site (with no comparisons among sites possible), and to allow more detailed

understanding of individual sites, we first report the overall habitat assessment score then plot

the individual metrics after adjusting them to a standardized scale	to allow comparisons. The

standardized scale ranges from 0 to 100 for each metric, and the value is calculated as

Xs = ( (X-1)	/ (Xmax-1)	) x 100

where	 Xs is the standardized metric value, X is the metric value, and Xmax is the maximum

possible value for the metric.

12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	 2. Habitat metrics and habitat quality categories for the qualitative Stream Habitat

Assessment Procedure (SHAP). Minimum and maximum values for metrics from DWPCILEPA (1994: Table 5.1). The maximum value for "Excellent" is used as Xmax in calculation of

the standardized metric value (see methods).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Habitat Quality Categories

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Metric Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Substrate and In-stream Cover

1 Bottom Substrate 1 5 6 10 11 15 16 20

2 Deposition 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

3 Substrate Stability 1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16

4 In-stream Cover 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

5 Pool Substrate 1 5 6 10 11 15 16 20

Channel Morphology and Hydrology

6 Pool Quality 1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16

7 Pool Variability 1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16

8 Channel Alteration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 Channel Sinuosity 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

10 Width/Depth 1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16

11 Hydrologic Diversity 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

Riparian and Bank	Features

12 Canopy Cover 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

13 Bank	Vegetation 1 4 5 8 9 12 13 16

14 Immediate Land 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Use

15 Flow Related 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12

Refugia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	 3. Stream habitat percent similarity categories for site comparability assessments from

Michigan Department of Natural	Resources (1991), as given in the DWPC Field QA Manual

[DWPC-ILEPA	1994: Table 5.2]).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Habitat Quality Category Percent Similarity

Excellent Very Similar to Reference >= 90

Good Slightly Different 75-89%

Fair Moderately Different 60-74%

Poor Substantially Different <=59

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF PERTINENT MACROINVERTEBRATE HABITATS

Aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling using the ILEPA 20-Jab Allocation method (ILEPA 2011a),

which we use in the present study, requires that the types and amounts of pertinent habitats

be determined in advance. We follow the methods given in ILEPA (2011b) to allocate the 20

jabs to appropriate bank and bottom habitats across a 300-foot long stream reach, which

constitutes a sampling site. When suitably qualified, trained, and experienced personnel are

conducting the sampling, we use the Non-Transect	 habitat characterization	 method (ILEPA

2011b); otherwise, the 11-transect	 habitat characterization	 method (ILEPA 2011b), is used.

Regardless, at each site we create three stream profiles and measure average flow (ft/sec).

SAMPLING AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Site sampling of aquatic macroinvertebrates utilizes the 20-jab	allocation method (ILEPA 2011a)

with jabs allocated based on methods described above. Sample collection and preservation

follows the standard operating procedures given by ILEPA (2011a). The 20 jabs are combined in

the field to produce a single sample, preserved	 with 95% ethanol, and then taken to the

laboratory for processing.

LABORATORY PROCESSING, IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSES, AND CALCULATION OF mIBI

In the laboratory, samples are sorted, subsampled, counted and identified following ILEPA

methodology (ILEPA 2011c). Laboratory subsampling results in a random subsample comprised

of ~300 (+/-	60) aquatic macroinvertebrate specimens. For each taxon, a tolerance value and

functional feeding group is assigned based on values from ILEPA (2010). Using the

identifications, counts, tolerance values, and functional feeding groups for the taxa present in

the sample, we calculate site-level scores for seven metrics (Table	 6). Note	 that Coleoptera

Taxa, Intolerant Taxa, and Total Taxa metrics do not include taxa which are	 not considered

aquatic by IL EPA – that is, these metrics do not include taxa for which there is no taxon

tolerance value (ILEPA 2010).

14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	 4. Seven metrics calculated for aquatic macroinvertebrates with response of metric to

perturbation and best values (ILEPA 2011c: Table 1).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Best	

Metric Perturbation Value

Coleoptera Taxa Decrease 5

Ephemeroptera Taxa Decrease 10.2

Total Taxa Decrease 46

Intolerant Taxa Decrease 9

MBI Increase 4.9

Percent Scraper Decrease 29.6

Percent EPT Decrease 74

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After calculation of metrics in Table	4, metrics are standardized and then averaged to produce

the final macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI), as described in ILEPA (2011c). The

mIBI provides a basis for categorizing sites into mIBI quality categories based upon analyses of

the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna (Table	5).

Calculation of the seven metrics and the mIBI is carried out in the R statistical analysis software

(R Core Team 2012), reading in a reference file of tolerance values and functional feeding

groups for all Illinois aquatic macroinvertebrates based on ILEPA (2010). Project aquatic

macroinvertebrate identifications and counts are read in as a second file, with a code for each

taxon allowing matching of the two files and assignment of functional feeding groups and

tolerance values. Within R, packages plyr (Wickham 2011) and reshape (Wickham 2007) are

called to facilitate completion of analyses.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	5. Macroinvertebrate IBI quality categories (ILEPA 2011c: Table 2).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mIBI Index	Score

Lower Upper Narrative

Boundary Boundary Comparison to Reference Description

73.0 100.0 >75th percentile Exceptional

41.8 72.9 >10th percentile Good

20.9 41.8 bisect 10th percentile (upper) Fair

0.0 20.8 bisect 10th percentile (lower) Poor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

HABITAT	ASSESSMENT

Physical habitat assessment of MFNBCR	in Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve (Lake County,

Illinois), scored 59 on the IEPA SHAP scale, a raw score associated with the lower range of Fair

values (Table	 2). When individual site metrics are plotted against the standardized range of

values it is apparent that benthic habitats in this stream	section are limited by the availability of

pools, sediment deposition, extensive historic channel alteration and small particle substrates.

However, the individual immediate land use, bank vegetation and stream canopy cover metrics

ranked in the Good-Excellent range (Figure 6).

 Poor Fair Good Excellent 

Bottom Substrate

Deposition 

Substrate Stability 

In−stream Cover 

Pool Substrate 

Pool Quality 

Pool Variability 

Channel Alteration 

Channel Sinuosity 

Width/Depth 

Hydrologic Diversity 

Canopy Cover 

Bank Vegetation 

Immediate Land Use 

Flow Related Refugia 

| 

| 

| 

|

|

|

| 

|

| 

|

| 

|

| 

|

| 

Figure 6. The fifteen metrics used to calculate the habitat assessment score, adjusted to

standardized metric	values, as scored for Site FS751 on MFNBCR	INHS	personnel on

14 Aug	2015.

AQUATIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES	

A total of 342 macroinvertebrates were identified	 from the sample on the Middle	Fork	of the

North	 Branch of the Chicago River (MFNBCR)	 at Kennedy	 Road, where the stream exits the

Middlefork Savanna Forest Preserve. 17 aquatic (22 total) macroinvertebrate taxa were

16
recorded from this sample, representing 3 phyla, 5 classes, 14 orders and 20 families.	 Some

taxa have not been assigned tolerance values by ILEPA (Table	 6), so for the purpose of this

report we have eliminated these records from the assemblage before calculating mIBI scores.

The macroinvertebrate assemblage at our sampling site was dominated by amphipods (Hyalella	

sp.), which were approximately 3 times as abundant as the next most abundant taxon.

This site (FS751; MFBNCR)	scored a 5.54 on the MBI	metric, indicating that the assemblage is

not overly dominated by individuals of tolerant taxa, relative to the range of values observed in

other IL streams (Figure 7). However, intolerant taxa are less frequent in this stream than in

comparable streams in IL. Several beetle taxa were observed in the assemblage, but very few

EPT were sampled. The mIBI composite metric for this site scored a 37.0, which is “Fair” in the

narrative description (Figure 5).

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

Minimum Illinois Best 

Coleoptera 

Ephemeroptera 

Intolerant 

MBI 

Percent EPT 

Percent Scrapers 

Total Taxa 

Figure 7. Aquatic macroinvertebrate summary metrics resulting from specimens identified from

a sample collected	from Site	FS751 MFNBCR	at Kennedy Road Lake County, Illinois	on 13 August	

2015.

The analysis of functional feeding groups here is influenced by the elimination of the most

numerically dominant taxon (amphipod Hyalella	 sp.), with a great deal of variation in the

trophic ecology of populations which is not well described by the categories given by ILEPA and

therefore excluded by our algorithm. After noting these limitations to the assessment, the

remaining assemblage was dominated by primarily by scrapers (mostly snails), then by a variety

of predator taxa.

17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	 6. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates identified from the sample collected from FS751

MFNBCR	at Kennedy	 Road, Lake County, IL on 13 August 2015. Taxa denoted by * have not

been assigned tolerance values by ILEPA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phylum Order: Family Taxon -MFNBCRAnnelida NA Annelida*

Count

2

Arthropoda:Crustacea

Amphipoda: Hyalellidae

Decapoda: Cambaridae

Hyalellidae

Orconectes sp.

114

1

Isopoda: Asellidae Caecidotea sp. 9

Arthropoda:Insecta

Coleoptera: Elmidae

Coleoptera: Haliplidae

Dubiraphia sp.

Peltodytes sp.*

1

10

Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae Hydrochus sp.* 1

Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae Tropisternus sp.* 1

Diptera: Chironomidae Chironomidae 1

Ephemeroptera: Caenidae Caenis sp. 17

Hemiptera: Belostomatidae Belostomatidae* 1

Hemiptera: Mesoveliidae Mesoveliidae* 1

Odonata: Aeshnidae Anax junius 2

Odonata: Libellulidae Libellulidae 1

Odonata: Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae 38

Odonata: Coenagrionidae Enallagma sp. 15

Trichoptera: Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 1

Mollusca: Gastropoda

Basommatophora: Lymnaeidae

Basommatophora: Lymnaediae

Fossaria	sp.

Stagnicola	sp.

20

2

Basommatophora: Planorbidae

Mesogastropoda: Physidae

Planorbella sp.

Physa sp.

12

33

Mollusca: Pelecypoda

Mesogastropoda: Viviparidae Viviparidae 36

Veneroida: Sphaeriidae Sphaeriidae 23

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18
	



ƐĐƌĂƉĞƌρϬй

ƉƌĞĚĂƚŽƌϮεй

ŐĂƚŚĞƌĞƌϭρй

ƐŚƌĞĚĚĞƌρй

ΎĞdžĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚŵĞŵďĞƌ

ŽĨƚŚĞĂƐƐĞŵďůĂŐĞ,LJĂůĞůůĂƐƉ͘ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂƐ

ŝŶƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚůLJƐƚƵĚŝĞĚǀĂƌŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŝŶ

ƚƌŽƉŚŝĐĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ

	

Figure 8. Functional feeding groups (FFG) of aquatic macro invertebrates collected by INHS	

personnel	 on 14 Aug 2015 from Site FS751 (MFNBCR), upstream of Kennedy	 Road at

downstream exit of MFNBCR	from Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve.

19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table	7. Values for field water quality parameters measured by INHS	personnel on 14 August

2015 at site FS751, MFNBCR, downstream of Kennedy	 Road, and site FS751 upstream,	

MFNBCR, at rail crossing, Middle Fork Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake County, Illinois.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter

Site Site

FS751 FS751 upstream

Barometric Pressure

Air Temperature

Water Temperature

Dissolved	Oxygen

Saturation, Dissolved Oxygen

Hydrogen Ion Concentration, as pH:

Salinity

Specific Conductivity @ 77 F/ 25 C

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

774.2 mmHg

67.1°	F/	19.5°C	

75°F/	23.9°C

11.15	mg/L

131.20%

NA

0.59	ppt

1.195	mSiemens

0.777	mg/L

779.6 mmHg

68.1°	F/	20°C

72.3°F/	22.4°C

7.9	mg/L

91.50%

NA

0.47	ppt

0.961	mSiemens

0.623	mg/L

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Sampling-- Adult and benthic invertebrate sampling, incident to site selection and

inventory, yielded specimen occurrence records of many taxa not observed in the benthic

assemblage at the assessment site. A fully detailed list of these taxa will be provided in a

supplement to this report, but some confirmed records are included here. There were obvious	

differences in the hydrology of wetlands within the preserve: during spring conditions several

EPT taxa (Leptophlebiid mayflies, Limnephilid caddisfly Limnephilus	indivisus) were collected

from the extremely shallow sheet-like flow across the savanna areas adjacent to the stream

near Specimen	Collection	Site 3 (Figure 1),	but these habitats were dry during summer

sampling.	 Larvae and pupae of the regionally restricted Phryganeid caddisfly Agrypnia vestita	

were collected from temporary wetlands immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks at

Specimen	Collection	Site 4 (Figure 1), including a puddle that was dry during the summer visit.	

Adults of A. vestita	were collected with blacklight traps during August at	both the assessment

site on the MFNBCR	but also a wetland site in the preserve (Specimen	Collection	Site 5, Figure

1), along with other Phryganeids Phryganea	sayi, Phryganea	cinerea, and Ptilostomis

semifasciata.	 Records of many more species of aquatic insects will be obtained from further

identifications of these additional collections and will be included in a supplement to the report

and specimens deposited at INHS, but are not relevant to IBI considerations and have been

omitted here.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank K.	Potter (Prairie Analytical Systems, Inc., Springfield, Illinois) for providing laboratory

analyses of water samples collected in the field. We also thank INHS	personnel D.R. Swanson

for field assistance and J.L. Jarvis for assistance in preparing the map in Figure	1 and the

associated shapefile referenced in Appendix 1. Finally, Gary Glowacki and other MFSFP

personnel assisted with access and advice for locating potential sampling sites.

20
LITERATURE CITED

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use

in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Second

Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental	Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

D.C.

Division of Water Pollution Control, Bureau of Water, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (DWPCILEPA). 1994. Quality Assurance and Field Methods Manual. Section E: Stream Habitat and

discharge monitoring. 42 p.

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board (IESPB). 2011. Checklist of Endangered and Threatened

Animals and Plants of Illinois. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, Illinois.

18 p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 2010. Macroinvertebrate-Index	of Biotic

Integrity (m-IBI) tolerance list and functional feeding group classification, January, 2010.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 2011a. Standard operating procedure for method to

collect aquatic macroinvertebrates from wadeable streams for biotic integrity assessments.

Document Control Number	168. 8 p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 2011b. Methods utilized to determine the types and

amounts of pertinent macroinvertebrate habitats in perennial wadeable streams for 20-jab

allocation. Document Control Number	177. 6 p.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (ILEPA). 2011c. Standard Operating Procedure for calculation

of the macroinvertebrate index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI). Document Control Number	170. 8 p.

Mankowski, A., editor. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Species of Illinois: Status and Distribution,

Volume 4 – 2009 and 2010 Changes to the Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened	Species.	

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Springfield, Illinois. Iii + 38 p.

Mankowski, A., editor. 2012. The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act at Forty: a review of the

Act’s	provisions and the Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Illinois Endangered

Species Protection Board, Springfield, Illinois. 152 pp. Published online at:

http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/ESPB/Pages/default.aspx.

Michigan Department of Natural	Resources (Michigan DNR).	1991. Qualitative biological and habitat

survey protocols for wadable streams and rivers. Mich. DNR	Great Lakes and Environmental

Assessment Section Procedure No.	51. Lansing, Michigan.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D.	Porter, S.K.	Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment

protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.	

21
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (WH-553), Assessment and Watershed

Protection Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA/440/4-89-001.	xv + eight

separately numbered chapters + four appendices.

R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.Rproject.org/.

Tiemann, J. 2015. Survey for Fishes and Freshwater Mussels for the Rondout Extension / Metra Fox

Lake Second Track Project in Lake County, Illinois; IDOT Seq No.	19157.	 IDOT Report 2015 18

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS).	1996. Endangered and

threatened species, plant and animal taxa; proposed rule. Part iii. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal	

Register 61(40): 7596-7613.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS).	1997. Endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants. Federal Register, 50 CFR Part 17.11 and 17.12. October 31, 1996.

46 p. [This document is a compilation and special reprint, current as of 31 October 1996, then

printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1997].

U.S. Fish	and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS). 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review

of plant and animal taxa that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or

threatened; annual notice of findings on recycled petitions; and annual description of progress

on listing actions. Federal Register 64, 57534-57547.

Wickham, H. 2007. Reshaping data with the reshape package. Journal of Statistical Software,

21(12): 1-	20.

Wickham, H. 2011. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software,

40(1): 1-	29.

22
Appendix 1

This appendix cover page references <19157_MFNBCR_MFSFP_WQ_shapefile> m an

ArcGIS shapefile with sampling point information for site FS751 on	the Middle Fork of the

North Branch of the Chicago River downstream of Kennedy Road (ILm 60) in Middle Fork

Savanna Forest Preserve, Lake County, Illinois, where surveys for aquatic

macroinvertebrates, a habitat assessment, stream characterization and water quality

sampling were conducted by INHS personnel on 13m 14 August 2015. The ArcGIS

shapefile and this report were both submitted to IDOT (via the IDOT Site Assessment

Tracking System extranet website]

23
Appendix 2

Values for water quality parameters resulting from analyses of raw water samples collected

by INHS personnel on 13 August 2015 from Site FS751, MFNBCR at Kennedy Road, (Lake

County, Illinois).

24
 

 

0123134567289 3 285 9 4 �5 7 2 4 0 8

1

8

 

3

3

 

4

4

88 

7

7

4 

4 

 

5 3 27 5 8

24 54 

 

 

 

 

  t 

 

 

 

 

  

 6 

 6 �5 � 2 

5

 2 12 51 43 

1

r 

H 

 6

 472 8928 45 95 0t 4 8 3 3 285 73 2 45014 214 2 4567289 4 4 67289 * 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

    

 * 4 2 8 5

85 2 95 1 074 5 2 5 2 1 2

2

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 8  

3

3

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 *

*

 1 7 74 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

 2 7

 274 4  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 3 1 8S

74 5 4 28 5 95 0 67

 

  

3 8 7 8 

 5

1

 

3

 9

4

5 75 1 2 12 9

  

 

 

  

 

          

 

     

 

*

  8 a 2 4  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 7 S 

 4

2

7

85 

 

3

3

 7

1 2 854 7

 4 3 1950212 4 41 

 

 

 

  

   * 

 

  

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

   

 

   

 

  

 

 

 H 

 2 85 

d 4 8 2 85 3 1 47 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 *

 0 

 1  

 

 

 

  

  

 

 

 285 47 4 5 83 7 12 1 5 41 195 74

 4 51 4 S4

1

8

95 4 28 567289 3  

25 
0123134567289 3 285�9 4� �5�7 � 2 4 � P8347 6� �6� � �5���� �� 01 4 2 5 1 41 4 527 5 4 373 3 7 5

 i o 

26 
Rondout Siding Extension
 

Lake County, Illinois
 

IDOT Sequence Number: 19157 

Prepared by:
 

Ian Kenney, Ben Beas, Susan McIntyre, Andy Olnas,
 

Brad Zercher, and Diane Szafoni
 

INHS/IDOT Wetland Science Program 

August 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

Project Summary 

A wetland survey was conducted for proposed work on the Rondout Siding Extension in 

Lake County, Illinois. All potential wetlands within the specified project area were 

examined. Eighteen sites met the three criteria of a wetland established in the Corps of 

Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 

Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest 

Region (Version 2.0) [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2010] and were, therefore, 

determined to be wetlands. Summary information regarding the wetland determination 

sites is presented in the wetland project report. Wetland determination forms are found 

in Appendix A and wetland plant species lists are included in Appendix B. Wetland 

boundaries were recorded using a Trimble Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). The 

spatial data have been digitally uploaded to the Illinois Site Assessment Tracking System 

(http://frostycap.isgs.uiuc.edu/idot_extranet). Locations of determination sites were 

overlaid on a digital aerial orthophoto using ArcGIS; the resulting figure is included in 

Appendix C. Additional maps and figures are also included in Appendix C. Appendix D 

contains photographs of each wetland and Water of the United States. Preliminary bat 

and cliff swallow habitat and assessment and survey information is presented in 

Appendix E. 

Signed: Date: August 14, 2015 

Scott M. Wiesbrook 

Wetland Science Program 

Assistant Project Leader for Soils 

Conducted By: Ian Kenney (Soils, Hydrology, GNSS) 

Ben Beas, Susan McIntyre, and Andy Olnas (Vegetation, Hydrology, 

GNSS) 

Brad Zercher (GNSS) 

Diane Szafoni (GIS) 

University of Illinois 

Prairie Research Institute 

Illinois Natural History Survey 

Wetland Science Program 

1816 South Oak Street 

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

ikenney@illinois.edu 

(217) 300-6786 (Kenney) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

Table of Contents 

Project Summary............................................................................................................................. 2
 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Wetland Determination Site Summaries........................................................................................ 6
 

Wetland Site Summary Table ....................................................................................................... 18
 

Waters of the United States ......................................................................................................... 19
 

Threatened/Endangered Species and Natural Communities of Special Interest......................... 23
 

Preliminary Bat and Swallow Habitat Assessment and Survey .................................................... 23
 

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 25
 

APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................... 27
 

Wetland Determination Forms............................................................................................ 28
 

APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................. 136
 

Wetland Plant Species Lists ............................................................................................... 137
 

APPENDIX C................................................................................................................................. 152
 

Figure 1 – Project Location Map........................................................................................ 153
 

Figure 2 – National Wetlands Inventory Map.................................................................... 154
 

Figure 3 – ADID and County Wetland Inventory Map ....................................................... 155
 

Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map................................................................................................. 156
 

Figure 5 – Wetland Determination Overview Map ........................................................... 157
 

Figure 6 – Wetland Determination Maps .......................................................................... 158
 

APPENDIX D................................................................................................................................. 163
 

Photographs of Wetlands and Waters of the United States ............................................. 164
 

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................. 169
 

Preliminary Bat and Swallow Habitat Assessment and Survey ......................................... 170
 

Cover Photo: Facing east overlooking wetland site 10. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

Rondout Siding Extension
 

Lake County, Illinois
 

Introduction 

A wetland survey was conducted on June 15-16, July 6-7 and 15-16, and August 1, 2015 for 

proposed work on the Rondout Siding Extension in Lake County, Illinois. Construction work is to 

include removal and replacement of a small bridge over the Middle Fork of the North Branch of 

the Chicago River, replacing track, and installing new track and signals. 

Methods 

All potential wetlands within the specified study area were examined. Characteristics of 

vegetation, soils, hydrology, and topography were evaluated during field investigation and onsite wetland determination. Locations of observation points for wetland determinations were 

selected based on plant community borders and topographic changes. The following sources 

were examined while surveying the project corridor to determine wetland locations and 

boundaries: aerial photographs; U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Wheeling and 

Libertyville 7.5 minute quadrangles); National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (Wheeling and 

Libertyville 7.5 minute quadrangles) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Lake County Wetland 

Inventory (LCWI) maps (Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 2000), Lake County 

Advanced Identification (ADID) wetland maps (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 1992), 

Illinois Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources, Illinois Natural History Survey 1996); the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987); the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010); the USDA-NRCS 

Official Series Descriptions; and the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey. Positional inaccuracies are 

known to occur with downloaded sources of digital data listed above. As presented on maps 

and figures in this report, data can be shifted from their actual position when compared to 

modern aerial photography. 

Wetland determinations were conducted using definitions and guidelines established in the 

Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 

Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region 

(Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). Data from these determinations were recorded on U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers’ Wetland Determination Data Forms – Midwest Region (Appendix A); a data form 

was completed for each wetland sampling point. All potential wetlands, including all areas 

mapped as wetlands by the NWI, were described using at least one sampling point. Results of 

these determinations are summarized in the following text. Adjacent upland areas were also 

investigated; forms were also completed for these areas. Comprehensive plant species lists 

were compiled for each wetland site and are presented in Appendix B. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

Wetland and water boundaries were recorded using a Trimble Global Navigation Satellite 

System (model GeoExplorer 6000 Series GeoXT), with a presumed accuracy of +/- 0.5 m under 

optimal field conditions. Occasionally, conditions prohibit field-delineation of boundaries using 

GNSS equipment, and these boundaries are digitized in the office using aerial photography. 

Typically this is done when one of three issues prevents field personnel from conducting a 

normal field delineation: 

•	 Site cannot be accessed due to fence, lack of permission, hostile landowner, or other 

reason. 

•	 Current conditions make delineation impossible (for example, delineating a stream or 

other water during a major flood when boundaries cannot be seen in the field). 

•	 Current conditions make field delineation dangerous to our personnel. This often 

occurs with very steep-sided banks on creeks that have a great deal of vegetation 

obscuring the drop-off. 

When a site is delineated using aerial photography, the site boundary must be readily visible 

from the aerial photo, and not obscured by overhanging vegetation or other features on the 

photo. 

Spatial data were digitally uploaded to the Illinois Site Assessment Tracking System 

(http://frostycap.isgs.uiuc.edu/idot_extranet). Locations of determination sites were overlaid 

on a digital aerial orthophoto and approximate area was determined for each wetland site 

using ArcGIS 10.3 software (ESRI 2014). Resulting areas are calculated in acres, reported to two 

decimal places. Area of streams and ditches is given for the open channel and omits any 

portion enclosed in a pipe or culvert. Length of streams and ditches is given for the entire 

length within the project corridor; this includes pipes and culverts where visual observation can 

locate both ends. Site location, with respect to the nearest road (or railroad), was measured 

from the edge of the pavement (or track) and is reported to the nearest foot. 

Each native plant species was assigned a “coefficient of conservatism” (C) (Swink and Wilhelm 

1994), a subjective rating of species fidelity to undegraded natural communities, ranging from 

zero to ten. Conservative species - those more likely to be found in “pristine” natural areas -

were assigned high numbers, whereas non-conservative species - those that occur in 

anthropogenically disturbed areas - were given lower numbers. Non-native species and those 

not identifiable to species level were not assigned a rating. The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is 

computed as FQI = (mean C) X (√N), where mean C is the mean coefficient of conservatism for 

all native plant species at a site and N is the total number of native plant species at the site. In 

very general terms, higher FQI values for plant communities indicate more similarity to 

“pristine” natural areas, as compared to those communities with lower FQI values. Botanical 

nomenclature follows Plants of the Chicago Region (ibid.), while wetland indicator status for 

each species follows National Wetland Plant List, version 3.2 (USACE 2014). 

A photograph of each wetland and Water of the United States (WOUS) was taken from each 

sampling point; these photographs are presented in Appendix D. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Wetland Determination Site Summaries 

Site Number: 1 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,254 ft. east of W Broadland Ln. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.15 ac 

Total site area: 0.16 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? No 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.3 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 7.3 

Site Number: 2 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,034 ft. east of W Broadland Ln. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.10 ac 

Total site area: 0.10 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.2 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 4.9 

Site Number: 3 

Community type: Wet shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 140 ft. sout of IL 60. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.09 ac 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

Total site area: 0.10 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.2 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 8.5 

Site Number: 4 

Community type: Upland forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PFO1C (seasonally flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, 

forested, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 325 ft. east of Faculty Cir. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 5 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 360 ft. east of Academy Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.24 ac 

Total site area: 0.24 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.4 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 9.5 

Site Number: 6 

Community type: Wetland pond 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PFO1C/PSS1C (seasonally flooded, broad-leaved 

deciduous, forested, palustrine wetland/seasonally flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, scrubshrub, palustrine wetland) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

Site location: Approximately 320 ft. east of Academy Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.23 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.3 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 11.3 

Site Number: 7 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 180 ft. east of Academy Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.10 ac 

Total site area: 0.19 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater (Swink and Wilhelm 1994). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 4.0 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 5.7 

Site Number: 8 

Community type: Marsh 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 190 ft. east of Academy Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.21 ac 

Total site area: 0.33 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.1 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 15.1 

Site Number: 9 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PEMC (seasonally flooded, emergent, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 250 ft. east of Marquette Ct. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.16 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 146) 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site is an Advanced Identification (ADID) Site (Site 146). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.9 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 14.1 

Site Number: 10 

Community type: Sedge meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PEMC (seasonally flooded, emergent, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 800 ft. NE or Marquette Ct. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.05 ac 

Total site area: 0.11 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? No 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater (Swink and Wilhelm 1994) and is 

a Sedge Meadow. 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? Yes 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 4.1 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 12.3 

Additional Remarks: Platanthera leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) was found near 

this site by INHS Biotic Surveys; for more information see Spyreas, forthcoming. 

Site Number: 11 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 840 ft. east of Football Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 145) 

Site Number: 12 

Community type: Marsh 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PEMC (seasonally flooded, emergent, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,450 ft. east of Academy Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.07 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 132) 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site is an Advanced Identification (ADID) Site (Site 132). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.9 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 11.9 

Site Number: 13 

Community type: Mesic floodplain forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 730 ft. east of Football Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 128) 

Site Number: 14 

Community type: Marsh 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,150 ft. east of Football Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.07 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 130) 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site is an Advanced Identification (ADID) Site (Site 130). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.4 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 10.3 

Site Number: 15 

Community type: Native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1.278 ft east of Football Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 128) 

Site Number: 16 

Community type: Sedge meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PEMC (seasonally flooded, emergent, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,355 ft east of Football Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.27 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 129) 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater and an FQI over 20 (Swink and 

Wilhelm 1994), is a Sedge Meadow, and is an ADID site (Site 129). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? Yes 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 4.8 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 27.7 

Site Number: 17 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,397 ft east of W Boulton Blvd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 128) 

Site Number: 18 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,154 ft east of W Boulton Blvd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? Yes (Site 128) 

Site Number: 19 

Community type: Shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,699 ft east of W Polo Trail Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 20 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PSS1A (temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, 

scrub-shrub, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,603 ft east of W Polo Trail Dr 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? No 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 21 

Community type: Wet forbland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,699 ft east of W Polo Trail Dr. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.24 ac 

Total site area: 0.24 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater (Swink and Wilhelm 1994) and a 

FQI over 20. 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? Yes 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to Traditional Navigable Waters 

(TNWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 4.2 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 35.0 

Additonal Remarks: This site has a particularly high FQI and therefore can be considered a 

botanical asset. 

Site Number: 22 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 782 ft south of Arcadia Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 23 

Community type: Mesic floodplain forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 368 ft west of Arcadia Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 24 

Community type: Developed land 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 800 ft east of Baker Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

Site Number: 25 

Community type: Forbland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 800 ft east of Baker Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 26 

Community type: Shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: POWGx (excavated, intermittently exposed, open water, 

palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 464 ft. east of Baker Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 27 

Community type: Mesic floodplain forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 120 ft. north of Baker Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 28 

Community type: Forested wetland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 530 ft. east of I94. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.02 ac 

Total site area: 0.21 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.7 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 8.0 

Site Number: 29 

Community type: Shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 583 ft. east of I-94. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

15

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 30 

Community type: Upland forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 187 ft. east of I-94. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 31 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 65 ft. west of I94. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.03 ac 

Total site area: 0.03 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 2.5 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 10.2 

Site Number: 32 

Community type: Marsh/wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 215 ft. north of Greenfield Ct. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.08 ac 

Total site area: 0.08 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? No 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater (Swink and Wilhelm 1994) and a 

FQI over 20. 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? Yes 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.5 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 20.2 

Site Number: 33 

Community type: Shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 380 ft. NW of Old Rockland Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 34 

Community type: Wet meadow 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 444 ft. east of N Saint Marys Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.04 ac 

Total site area: 0.04 ac 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? No 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? No 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or 

indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (NRPWW) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.3 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 10.9 

Site Number: 35 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Site location: Approximately 244 ft. east of N Saint Marys Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 36 

Community type: Wet floodplain forest 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PFO1A (temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, 

forested, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 1,030 ft. NE or Camelot Ln. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? Yes Wetland Hydrology? Yes 

Is this site a wetland? Yes 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: <0.01 ac 

Total site area: Undetermined 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? Yes 

Rationale: This site has a mean C-value of 3.5 or greater (Swink and Wilhelm 1994). 

Does this site meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) criteria for potential Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern prairie fringed orchid) habitat (USFWS 2014)? Yes 

Waters type (USACE and USEPA 2007): Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs 

that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waters (RPWWN) 

HGM type: Depressional 

Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mean C): 3.7 Floristic Quality Index (FQI): 18.6 

Site Number: 37 

Community type: Shrubland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: PFO1A (temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, 

forested, palustrine wetland) 

Site location: Approximately 830 ft. south of W Oak Spring Rd. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 

Site Number: 38 

Community type: Non-native grassland 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Site location: Approximately 1 ft. south of railroad. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation? No Hydric Soils? No Wetland Hydrology? No 

Is this site a wetland? No 

Is this a county wetlands inventory site? Yes 

Is this site an Advanced Identification (ADID) High Functional Value wetland? No 
 

 

18

Wetland Site Summary Table 

Site 

no. 

NWI 

code 

Community 

type 

Area 

(ac.)1 >50%2 FQI Mean C 

ADID/ 

CWI3 

HQAR 4 Waters 

type 

1 U Wet meadow 0.15 Yes 7.3 2.3 None No NRPWW 

2 U Wet meadow 0.10 Yes 4.9 2.2 CWI No NRPWW 

3 U Wet shrubland 0.09 Yes 8.5 2.2 CWI No NRPWW 

5 U Wet meadow 0.24 Yes 9.5 2.4 CWI No TNWW 

6 PFO1C

/PSS1C 

Wetland pond 0.23 No 11.3 3.3 CWI No TNWW 

7 U Wet meadow 0.10 Yes 5.7 4.0 CWI Yes NRPWW 

8 U Marsh 0.21 Yes 15.1 3.1 CWI No TNWW 

9 PEMC Wet meadow 0.16 No 14.1 2.9 HFV,CWI Yes TNWW 

10 PEMC Sedge 

meadow 

0.05 No 12.3 4.1 None Yes NRPWW 

12 PEMC Marsh 0.07 No 11.9 2.9 HFV,CWI Yes TNWW 

14 U Marsh 0.07 No 10.3 3.4 HFV,CWI Yes TNWW 

16 PEMC Sedge 

meadow 

0.27 No 27.7 4.8 HFV,CWI Yes TNWW 

21 U Wet forbland 0.24 Yes 35.0 4.2 CWI Yes NRPWW 

28 U Forested 

wetland 

0.02 No 8.0 2.7 CWI No NRPWW 

31 U Wet meadow 0.03 Yes 10.2 2.5 CWI No NRPWW 

32 U Marsh/wet

meadow 

0.08 Yes 20.2 3.5 None Yes NRPWW 

34 U Wet meadow 0.04 Yes 10.9 3.3 None No NRPWW 

36 PFO1A Wet floodplain

forest 

<0.01 No 18.6 3.7 CWI Yes RPWWN 

1 Area within the ESR project limits. 2 In our best professional judgment is more than 50% of the total 

site area within the ESR project limits? 3 Is this site an Advanced Identification High Habitat Value 

wetland (HHV), a High Functional Value wetland (HFV) or a Lake County Wetland Inventory (CWI) 

site? 4 Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource? 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

Waters of the United States 

Site Number: W1 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 10 ft. east of railroad 

Latitude: 42.23730 Longitude: -87.88123 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.01 ac 

Linear feet: 22 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W2 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 6 ft. west of railroad 

Latitude: 42.23838 Longitude: -87.88171 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.01 ac 

Linear feet: 20 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W3 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft. west of railroad 

Latitude: 42.25443 Longitude: -87.88940 

Community type: Ditch 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.01 ac 

Linear feet: 21 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W4 

Site Name: Lake Forest Oasis Tributary 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft east of railroad 

Latitude: 42.26164 Longitude: - 87.89171 

Community type: Stream 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.01 ac 

Linear feet: 100 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): RPW (Relatively Permanent Waters that flow directly or indirectly 

into Traditional Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? Yes 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W5 

Site Name: Middle Fork North Branch of Chicago River 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft and 35 ft west of railroad 

Latitude: 42.26814 Longitude: - 87.89352 

Community type: River 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.22 ac 

Linear feet: 1,063 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): TNW (Traditional Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: 7.4 mi2 (USGS 2015) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? Yes 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: D Stream Diversity Rating: D 

Site Number: W6 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft south of railroad 

Latitude: 42.28305 Longitude: - 87.89936 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.47 ac 

Linear feet: 5,456 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W7 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft north of railroad 

Latitude: 42.28473 Longitude: - 87.90787 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.28 ac 

Linear feet: 3,529 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120003 (Chicago River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

Site Number: W8 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft south of railroad 

Latitude: 42.28595 Longitude: - 87.92972 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.15 ac 

Linear feet: 2,240 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120004 (Des Plaines River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W9 

Site Name: Ditch 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft north of railroad 

Latitude: 42.28601 Longitude: - 87.92859 

Community type: Ditch 

National Wetlands Inventory code: U (upland) 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.13 ac 

Linear feet: 1,382 ft 

Waters type (USACE 2007): NRPW (Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional 

Navigable Waters) 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120004 (Des Plaines River) 

Watershed area: <1 mi2 

Riffles observed? No Pools observed? No 

Mussel shell material observed? No 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? No 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: Not Rated Stream Diversity Rating: Not Rated 

Site Number: W10 

Site Name: Des Plaines River 

Site Location: Approximately 1 ft east of railroad 

Latitude: 42.28637 Longitude: - 87.93671 

Community type: River 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

National Wetlands Inventory code: R2OWH (permanently flooded, open water, lower
 

perennial, riverine wetland)
 

Area of site occurring within the project corridor: 0.14 ac
 

Linear feet: 81 ft
 

Waters type (USACE 2007): RPW (Relatively Permanent Waters)
 

USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07120004 (Des Plaines River)
 

Watershed area: 259.6 mi2 (USGS 2015)
 

Riffles observed? Yes Pools observed? Yes 

Mussel shell material observed? Yes 

Is the stream or body of water permanent? Yes 

Is this site a High Quality Aquatic Resource (HQAR) (USACE-CD 2012)? No 

Is the stream identified by the IDNR (2008) as a biologically significant stream? No 

Stream Integrity Rating: D Stream Diversity Rating: D 

Threatened/Endangered Species and Natural Communities of Special Interest 

All wetland determination sites were assessed for potential habitat suitability of Platanthera 

leucophaea (Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid or EPFO). EPFO is a federal threatened and Illinois 

endangered plant species. Our assessment of suitable habitat follows the guidelines 

established in S7 Technical Assistance: Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 

(USFWS 2014). INHS Biotic Surveys are conducting an in-depth study of the project corridor 

(Spyreas, forthcoming), and have found EPFO near the wetland that is labeled site 10 in this 

report. 

INHS Biotic Surveys are also conducting surveys for Blanding’s turtles (Survey and Habitat 

Assessment for Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox 

Lake Second Track Rail Project in Lake County, Illinois (Kuhns, forthcoming)) and threeparameter water quality [biological (i.e. fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates); chemical (i.e., water 

quality); and physical (i.e., description of the stream) (Robinson, forthcoming)]. A survey for 

fishes and mussels was conducted and information can be found in Surveys for Fishes and 

Freshwater Mussels for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake Second Track project in Lake 

County, Illinois (Tiemann 2015). 

Additionally, wetland sites 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 32, and 36 have been designated as High 

Quality Aquatic Resources (HQAR). 

Preliminary Bat and Swallow Habitat Assessment and Survey 

A preliminary tree assessment for presence of suitable summer roosting sites for the Indiana 

bat and the northern long-eared bat was conducted using the definitions and guidelines 

established in User’s Guide for the Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana 

Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (Version 1.1) (USFWS 2015) and Range-wide Biological 

Assessment for Transportation Projects for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat (Federal 

Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration 2015). For the purpose of this 

survey, a potential roost tree was defined as any tree (alive or dead) with exfoliating bark 
 

 

 

 

 

 

24

and/or possessing one or more cavities. When possible the species identity, GNSS location, and 

status (alive or dead) were recorded. 

There were numerous trees (>3 in DBH) found within the construction limits inside the project 

corridor with cavities or loose or peeling bark. In addition, no bats were observed during a 

visual search of the underside of the bridge decks at the time of the site visit. INHS Biotic 

Surveys and Assessment Program conducted a survey of the bats occurring in this area, and 

results can be viewed in Bat Habitat Assessment at Rondout Extension/Metra Second Track, 

Lake County, Illinois (Mengelkoch et al., 2015). 

Federal 

Structure ID 

Bat Indicators: Indicate Yes/No. Presence of one or more indicators is 

evidence that bats may be using the structure. 

(or location): Visual Sound Droppings Staining Notes: (e.g., number & species of bats, if known) 

Bridge over 

Lake Forest 

Oasis Trib 

No No No No 

Bridge over 

Middle Fk N Br 

Chicago River 

No No No No 

Bridge over I94 

overpass 

No No No No 

Bridge over 

Des Plaines 

River 

No No No No 

A preliminary assessment for presence of cliff or barn swallows was also conducted. A few 

swallow nests and swallows were observed on the underside of the I-94 overpass at the time of 

the site visit (see photo in Appendix E). Additionally, a report on the bird habitat of this area is 

being completed by the INHS Biotic Surveys and Assessment Program. More information will 

be presented in Breeding Bird Survey for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake Second Track 

Rail Project in Lake County, Illinois (Stodola, forthcoming). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

Literature Cited 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Technical Report Y-87-1. 207 p. 

ESRI. 2014. ArcGIS, version 10.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA. 

Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. 2015. Range-wide 

Biological Assessment for Transportation Projects for Indiana Bat and Northern Longeared Bat. Online: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/fhwa/pdf/ 

FHWA_IBatNLEB_BA.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2015]. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Integrating Multiple Taxa in a Biological Stream 

Rating System. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield. iv+34 p. 

Kuhns, A. Forthcoming. Survey and Habitat Assessment for Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea 

blandingii, for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake Second Track Rail Project in Lake 

County, Illinois. Technical report to be submitted to the Illinois Department of 

Transportation. 

Lake County Stormwater Management Commission. 2000. Lake County Wetland Inventory. 

Distributed by Lake County GIS/Mapping Division, Waukegan, Illinois. 

Mengelkoch, J.M., J.F. Merritt, and S. Nicholson. 2015. Bat Habitat Assessment at Rondout 

Extension/Metra Lake Second Track, Lake County, Illinois. INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological 

Survey & Assessment Program Report 2015. 34p. 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Lake 

County Stormwater Management Commission. 1992. Advanced Identification (ADID) 

Study Lake County, Illinois. Distributed by Lake County GIS/Mapping Division, Waukegan, 

Illinois. 

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online 

at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp [Accessed July 24, 2015]. 

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online 

at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ [Accessed July 24, 2015]. 

Stodola, Kirk. Forthcoming. Breeding Bird Survey for the Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake 

Second Track Rail Project in Lake County, Illinois. INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & 

Assessment Program Report. 
 

 

 

 

 

26

Swink F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. 4th ed. Indiana Academy of 

Science, Indianapolis, IN. 921 p. 

Tiemann, J. 2015. Aquatic Surveys Report: Surveys for Fishes and Freshwater Mussels for the 

Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lake Second Track project in Lake County, Illinois. 

INHS/IDOT Statewide Biological Survey & Assessment Program Report 2015. 20p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.2 

(http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research 

and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. 

Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District. 2012. Chicago District Regional Permit Program. 

Available at: http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Portals/36/docs/regulatory/pdf/RPP2012.pdf 

[Accessed May 20, 2015]. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. Available online 

at http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/ 

jd_guidebook_051207final.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. S7 Technical Assistance: Eastern prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea), online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/ 

section7/s7process/plants/epfos7guide.html [Accessed June 30, 2014]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. User’s Guide for the Range-wide Programmatic Informal 

Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat, Version 1.1, June 4, 2015, 

online at http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Endangered/section7/fhwa/pdf/ 

UserGuideV11_060415.pdf [Accessed July 17, 2015]. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and Illinois Natural 

History Survey. 1996. Illinois Wetlands Inventory, Vector digital data, Illinois Natural 

History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. The StreamStats program for Illinois, online 

at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/illinois.html. [Accessed July 30, 2015]. 
27

APPENDIX A
 

Wetland Determination Forms
 
1A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 1A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 42.23495 Long: -87.87985 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Zurich SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

77 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Carex lacustris 75 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

SOIL Sampling Point: 1A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <6 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-3 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

3-11 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 C M SICL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
1B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 1B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 15 Lat: 42.23592 Long: -87.88026 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Wauconda and Frankfort SiL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is forbland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 100 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Tradescantia ohiensis 80 Yes FACU 

Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW 

Carex lacustris 5 No OBL 

Allium vineale 3 No FACU 

Galium aparine 1 No FACU 

Oxalis stricta 1 No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

0 

1 

0% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

Sampling Point: 1B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-11 10YR 4/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
2A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 2A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 42.23686 Long: -87.88076 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Wauconda and Frankfort SiL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U
 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 55 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Carex lacustris 40 

Phragmites australis 10 

Phalaris arundinacea 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No FACW 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

SOIL Sampling Point: 2A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <6 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-4 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

4-10 2.5Y 5/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
2B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 2B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 15 Lat: 42.23688 Long: -87.88104 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Houghton muck, ponded, 0-2% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U
 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

10 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

20 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

74 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Phalaris arundinacea 40 

Alliaria petiolata 20 

Allium vineale 5 

Vitis riparia 5 

Geum canadense 2 

Convolvulus sepium 1 

Rubus sp. 1 

Ailanthus altissima 5 

Salix amygdaloides 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No -

Yes FACU 

Yes FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

4 

5 

80% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 2B 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-5 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

5-10 2.5Y 6/3 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
3A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 3A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 42.23851 Long: -87.88152 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

35 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 91 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 25 

Acer negundo 10 

Carex lacustris 80 

Tradescantia ohiensis 5 

Phalaris arundinacea 3 

Typha angustifolia 3 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

Yes OBL 

No FACU 

No FACW 

No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

SOIL Sampling Point: 3A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <6 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-6 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

6-12 10YR 6/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M SICL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
3B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 3B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 6, T43N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 15 Lat: 42.23982 Long: -87.88223 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

20 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 53 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Carex lacustris 50 

Asclepias syriaca 2 

Rhamnus cathartica 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes OBL 

No FACU 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

2 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

Sampling Point: 3B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
4A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 4A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.24152 Long: -87.88288 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Pella SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: PFO1C 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is upland forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

8 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

7 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 106 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 Yes FAC 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 2 Yes FACW 

Solidago canadensis 95 Yes FACU 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 No FACU 

Ambrosia trifida 1 No FAC 

Aster simplex 1 No FAC 

Rhamnus cathartica 1 No FAC 

Teucrium canadense 1 No FACW 

Urtica procera 1 No FACW 

Vitis riparia 1 No FACW 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 8 Yes FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

4 

75% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

Sampling Point: 4A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
5A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 5A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 42.24211 Long: -87.88327 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Orthents, loamy, undulating; revised to Aquoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 

Hydric Soil Present? 

Wetland Hydrology Present? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is marsh. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 78 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Scirpus pendulus 55 

Carex sp. 5 

Eleocharis erythropoda 5 

Juncus tenuis 5 

Poa pratensis 3 

(Allium ampeloprasum var. atroviolaceum) 1 

Allium vineale 1 

Carex granularis 1 

Iris pseudacorus 1 

Lycopus americanus 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No -

No OBL 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No UPL 

No FACU 

No FACW 

No OBL 

No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43

Sampling Point: 5A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Drift Deposits (B3) Imagery (C9) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
5B/6B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 5B/6B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 15 Lat: 42.24487 Long: -87.88458 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Zurich and Nappanee SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U
 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 98 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Phalaris arundinacea 95 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Alliaria petiolata 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 5B/6B 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-3 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

3-10 10YR 5/3 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
6A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 6A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-3 Lat: 42.24594 Long: -87.88511 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Pella SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: PFO1C 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wetland pond. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 70 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Impatiens capensis 20 

Iris virginica var. shrevei 10 

Phalaris arundinacea 10 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum 10 

Sparganium eurycarpum 10 

Potamogeton nodosus 5 

Carex lacustris 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Alliaria petiolata 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

Yes OBL 

Yes FACW 

Yes OBL 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No OBL 

No FACU 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

Sampling Point: 6A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 2/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) 

Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (inches): <72 

Water Table Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks:
 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
7A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 7A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.24689 Long: -87.88581 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Pella SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 110 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Lemna minor 90 Yes OBL 

Phalaris arundinacea 20 No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

Sampling Point: 7A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) 

Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (inches): <12 

Water Table Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks:
 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
7B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 7B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 20 Lat: 42.24687 Long: -87.88578 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Pella SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 52 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Phalaris arundinacea 30 

Alliaria petiolata 20 

Erechtites hieracifolia 1 

Oxalis stricta 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FAC 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

2 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

Sampling Point: 7B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
8A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 8A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 31, T44N, R12E 

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

Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: 42.24761 Long: -87.88590 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Pella SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 

Hydric Soil Present? 

Wetland Hydrology Present? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is marsh. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

4 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 81 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Scirpus fluviatilis 80 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum 1 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 4 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

SOIL Sampling Point: 8A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <12 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-6 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

6-12 2.5Y 4/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M SICL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
8B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/22/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 8B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 36, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 5 Lat: 42.24885 Long: -87.88652 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Zurich SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 97 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Phalaris arundinacea 95 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

Sampling Point: 8B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-11 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
9A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 9A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 36, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25149 Long: -87.88767 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Peotone SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: PEMC 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

5 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 102 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Quercus palustris 4 Yes FACW 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 1 Yes FACW 

Carex lacustris 70 Yes OBL 

Solidago canadensis 25 Yes FACU 

Tradescantia ohiensis 3 No FACU 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum 2 No OBL 

Eupatorium maculatum 1 No OBL 

Oxalis stricta 1 No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

4 

75% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

SOIL Sampling Point: 9A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 

Depth (inches): 

Surface Water Present? No 

Water Table Present? No 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-12 10YR 5/2 50 10YR 5/6 12 C M SICL 

0-12 10YR 3/1 38 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
9B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 9B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 36, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25199 Long: -87.88797 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Peotone SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 100 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Calamagrostis canadensis 100 Yes OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Sampling Point: 9B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
10A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 10A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 36, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25368 Long: -87.88882 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Wauconda and Frankfort SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Aquoll NWI classification: PEMC
 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is sedge meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 95 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Carex haydenii 80 

Carex lacustris 15 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

SOIL Sampling Point: 10A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 

Depth (inches): 

Surface Water Present? No 

Water Table Present? No 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-5 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

5-11 10YR 3/1 65 10YR 5/2 15 D M SICL 

5-11 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
10B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 10B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney Section, Township, Range: Sec. 36, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0 Lat: 42.25406 Long: -87.88901 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Wauconda and Frankfort SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 96 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Panicum clandestinum 95 

Tradescantia ohiensis 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 10B 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-4 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

4-11 10YR 5/3 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
11A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 11A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 10 Lat: 42.25447 Long: -87.88945 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 56 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Bromus inermis 20 

Poa pratensis 20 

Panicum virgatum 15 

Alliaria petiolata 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACU 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

3 

67% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 11A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-3 10YR 3/1 100 L 

3-10 10YR 4/3 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
12A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 12A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25455 Long: -87.88922 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Frankfort SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Aquoll NWI classification: PEMC 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 

Hydric Soil Present? 

Wetland Hydrology Present? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is marsh. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 61 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Polygonum longistylum 15 

Bidens cernua 10 

Phalaris arundinacea 10 

Typha angustifolia 10 

Lythrum salicaria 7 

Aster simplex 5 

Rorippa palustris var. fernaldiana 3 

Eupatorium serotinum 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACW 

Yes OBL 

Yes FACW 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No FAC 

No OBL 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

SOIL Sampling Point: 12A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <72 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-7 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

7-13 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 5/4 10 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
12B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 12B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25488 Long: -87.88943 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 65 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Sorghastrum nutans 40 

Agropyron repens 20 

Tradescantia ohiensis 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACU 

Yes FACU 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

0 

2 

0% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 12B 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-3 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

3-12 10YR 2/2 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
13A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 13A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25588 Long: -87.89014 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Nappanee SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is mesic floodplain forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

40 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

40 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 81 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 40 

Rhamnus cathartica 50 

Carex pensylvanica 30 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 1 

Quercus palustris 30 

Juglans nigra 5 

Prunus serotina 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

No FACW 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

4 

75% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 13A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-6 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

6-12 10YR 6/3 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
14A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 14A 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25644 Long: -87.89003 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 

Hydric Soil Present? 

Wetland Hydrology Present? 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is marsh. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 76 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Sparganium eurycarpum 60 

Carex stricta 15 

Phalaris arundinacea 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

SOIL Sampling Point: 14A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): <48 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-4 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

4-11 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
14B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 6/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 14B 

Investigator(s): Beas, Kenney, Zercher Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 5 Lat: 42.25656 Long: -87.89014 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 65 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Sorghastrum nutans 35 

Phalaris arundinacea 15 

Tradescantia ohiensis 10 

Poa pratensis 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FACU 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

1 

2 

50% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 14B 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-6 10YR 2/1 100 L 

6-12 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
15A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 15A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 25 Lat: 42.25701 Long: -87.89051 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Wauconda and Frankfort SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U
 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: 

Community is restricted to narrow band along base of railroad bed. 

Community type is native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

0 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

44 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Calamagrostis canadensis 20 

Alliaria petiolata 5 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 

Bromus inermis 3 

Elymus virginicus 3 

Poa compressa 3 

Erechtites hieracifolia 2 

Equisetum arvense 1 

Oxalis stricta 1 

Vitis riparia 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

No FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

Sampling Point: 15A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
16A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 16A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.25792 Long: -87.89048 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: PEMC 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is sedge meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

5 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 54 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Carex stricta 40 

Carex pellita 7 

Spartina pectinata 5 

Calamagrostis canadensis 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No FACW 

No OBL 

Yes FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 16A 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-4 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

4-12 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Drift Deposits (B3) Imagery (C9) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (inches): <72 

Water Table Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
16B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 16B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 1-3 Lat: 42.25849 Long: -87.89068 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

0 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 86 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Calamagrostis canadensis 60 

Agrostis alba 5 

Phalaris arundinacea 5 

Erechtites hieracifolia 3 

Impatiens capensis 3 

Rhamnus cathartica 3 

Asclepias syriaca 2 

Daucus carota 1 

Hystrix patula 1 

Lysimachia quadriflora 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

No FACW 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No UPL 

No FACU 

No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

Sampling Point: 16B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
17A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 17A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 2-5 Lat: 42.26148 Long: -87.89157 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Zurich SiL, 2-4% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

25 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

0 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 136 = Total Cover 

1 = Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 1 No FACW 

Lolium perenne 60 Yes FACU 

Spartina pectinata 40 Yes FACW 

Poa pratensis 30 Yes FAC 

Alliaria petiolata 2 No FAC 

Rhamnus cathartica 2 No FAC 

Rudbeckia laciniata 2 No FACW 

Populus deltoides 25 Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

4 

75% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

Community Type is non-native grassland. 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 17A 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-4 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 3/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

4-12 10YR 4/3 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
18A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 18A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 20 Lat: 42.26313 Long: -87.89227 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

35 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 102 = Total Cover 

0 = Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Lonicera tatarica 20 Yes FACU 

Rhamnus cathartica 15 Yes FAC 

Lolium perenne 50 Yes FACU 

Andropogon gerardii 40 Yes FAC 

Phalaris arundinacea 5 No FACW 

Rhamnus cathartica 4 No FAC 

Asclepias syriaca 2 No FACU 

Melilotus alba 1 No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

4 

50% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

Sampling Point: 18A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
19A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 19A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 5 Lat: 42.26800 Long: -87.89328 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

10 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

45 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 94 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 40 

Rosa multiflora 3 

Rubus occidentalis 2 

Solidago canadensis 50 

Pilea pumila 15 

Arctium minus 10 

Sanicula gregaria 5 

Polygonum virginianum 3 

Aster sagittifolius var. drummondii 2 

Ambrosia trifida 1 

Bidens frondosa 1 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis 1 

Cirsium arvense 1 

Acer negundo 10 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

No UPL 

Yes FACU 

No FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No UPL 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FACU 

No FACU 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

3 

67% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 19A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-5 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

5-13 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
20A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 20A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 25, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 20 Lat: 42.26869 Long: -87.89383 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Frankfort SiL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: PSS1A 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

5 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 84 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 

Festuca rubra 70 

Panicum capillare 7 

Equisetum arvense 5 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

1 

2 

50% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

Sampling Point: 20A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/2 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
21A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 21A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.26964 Long: -87.89373 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Frankfort SiL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet forbland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

1 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 91 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus frangula 1 No FACW 

Carex lupuliformis 45 Yes OBL 

Lycopus americanus 7 Yes OBL 

Rhamnus frangula 4 No FACW 

Juncus dudleyi 3 No FACW 

Lythrum salicaria 3 No OBL 

Asclepias incarnata 2 No OBL 

Carex annectens var. xanthocarpa 2 No FACW 

Carex cristatella 2 No FACW 

Carex pellita 2 No OBL 

Eupatorium perfoliatum 2 No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

An additional 12 species were present, each with 1-2% cover; all were FAC, FACW, or OBL. 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

SOIL Sampling Point: 21A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 

Depth (inches): 

Surface Water Present? No 

Water Table Present? No 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-4 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

4-12 10YR 5/1 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
21B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 21B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 40 Lat: 42.26994 Long: -87.89385 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Frankfort SiL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

18 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

70 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 36 

1 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 50 

Lonicera maackii 20 

Poa pratensis 8 

Cirsium arvense 6 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 

Tradescantia virginiana 5 

Oenothera biennis 4 

Aster pilosus 2 

Erigeron annuus 2 

Oxalis stricta 2 

Acer negundo 1 

Eupatorium rugosum 1 

Quercus macrocarpa 10 

(Quercus ellipsoidalis) 8 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACU 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FACU 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

4 

8 

50% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 21B 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-8 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 3/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

8-12 10YR 3/3 92 10YR 4/6 8 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
22A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/16/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 22A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 1-3 Lat: 42.27171 Long: -87.89434 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

11 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

3 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 115 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rubus occidentalis 3 No UPL 

Poa pratensis 95 Yes FAC 

Festuca elatior 15 No FACU 

Convolvulus arvensis 5 No UPL 

Acer negundo 8 Yes FAC 

Pinus strobus 3 Yes FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

3 

67% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95

Sampling Point: 22A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
23A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 23A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0 Lat: 42.27748 Long: -87.89685 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is mesic floodplain forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

75 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

10 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 54 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 10 

Impatiens capensis 15 

Sanicula gregaria 15 

Circaea lutetiana var. canadensis 10 

Alliaria petiolata 5 

Pilea pumila 5 

Rhamnus cathartica 2 

Vitis riparia 2 

Acer negundo 60 

Rhamnus cathartica 15 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

5 

5 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 23A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-6 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

6-12 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
24A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 24A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 1 Lat: 42.27796 Long: -87.89682 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to 'Developed' NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: 

This site abuts the railway and has been developed into a hardpacked gravel lot with neither soil nor vegetation present 

Community type is developed land. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

Sampling Point: 24A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0+	 Disturbed Site; gravel 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
25A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 25A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 13, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 10 Lat: 42.28359 Long: -87.89808 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is forbland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

15 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 34 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 15 

Arctium minus 7 

Cornus racemosa 5 

Daucus carota 5 

Centaurea maculosa 3 

Cirsium arvense 3 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 3 

Barbarea vulgaris 2 

Convolvulus sepium 2 

Erigeron canadensis 2 

Vitis riparia 2 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACU 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

Yes UPL 

Yes FACU 

Yes FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

7 

29% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101

Sampling Point: 25A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
26A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/15/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 26A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 25 Lat: 42.28292 Long: -87.89921 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: POWGx 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

5 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

20 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

77 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Poa pratensis 50 

Agrostis alba 15 

Daucus carota 3 

Cornus racemosa 2 

Phalaris arundinacea 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Acer negundo 1 

Equisetum arvense 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

No FACW 

No UPL 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No FAC 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 26A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-4 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

4-12 10YR 3/1 100 SICL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
27A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 27A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 13, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 8 Lat: 42.28383 Long: -87.90048 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is mesic floodplain forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

43 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

32 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 33 

4 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 4 

Rhamnus cathartica 25 

Rhamnus frangula 5 

Acer saccharinum 2 

Rhamnus cathartica 10 

Setaria faberi 6 

Carex molesta 5 

Typha angustifolia 3 

Lythrum salicaria 2 

Oxalis stricta 2 

Taraxacum officinale 2 

Vitis riparia 2 

Acer saccharinum 1 

Acer saccharinum 20 

Populus deltoides 15 

Rhamnus cathartica 8 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACW 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACU 

Yes FAC 

No OBL 

No OBL 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FACW 

No FACW 

Yes FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

5 

6 

83% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

Sampling Point: 27A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
28A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 28A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, Olnas, and McIntyre Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.28463 Long: -87.90580 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is forested wetland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

55 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

0 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

1 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Phalaris arundinacea 1 

Populus deltoides 50 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

1 

1 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 28A 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-7 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

7-13 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M SICL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Drift Deposits (B3) Imagery (C9) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (inches): <12 

Water Table Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
28B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 28B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 13, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 20 Lat: 42.28458 Long: -87.90533 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

45 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

65 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 86 

1 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 65 

Carex pellita 80 

Rhamnus cathartica 2 

Tradescantia ohiensis 2 

Alliaria petiolata 1 

Setaria glauca 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 30 

Populus deltoides 15 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes OBL 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

4 

4 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

109

Sampling Point: 28B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
29A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 29A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 1-3 Lat: 42.28448 Long: -87.90648 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

85 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

70 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 28 

1 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 65 

Lonicera tatarica 5 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Lonicera maackii 3 

Ulmus americana 2 

Geum canadense 1 

Rhamnus frangula 1 

Solanum dulcamara 1 

Rhamnus cathartica 85 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

Yes FAC 

No UPL 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FAC 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

Sampling Point: 29A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: Layer of 'ashen' material above original soil surface 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
30A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 30A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 15 Lat: 42.28477 Long: -87.90783 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is upland forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

80 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

62 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 19 

3 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 3 

Rhamnus cathartica 60 

Lonicera tatarica 2 

Rhamnus cathartica 10 

Prunus serotina 5 

Alliaria petiolata 1 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1 

Solanum dulcamara 1 

Vitis riparia 1 

Quercus macrocarpa 60 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACU 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACU 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

4 

5 

80% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 30A 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-4 10YR 2/2 100 SIL 

4-12 10YR 3/2 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
31A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

114

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 31A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.28484 Long: -87.90940 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

7 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

11 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 123 = Total Cover 

0 = Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 5 Yes FAC 

Salix interior 5 Yes FACW 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 1 No FACW 

Lemna minor 80 Yes OBL 

Echinochloa crusgalli 20 No OBL 

Phalaris arundinacea 7 No FACW 

Ranunculus sceleratus 5 No OBL 

Erechtites hieracifolia 4 No FAC 

Carex lacustris 2 No OBL 

Dipsacus laciniatus 2 No UPL 

Lythrum salicaria 2 No OBL 

Solidago sempervirens 1 No FACW 

Acer negundo 4 Yes FAC 

Rhamnus cathartica 3 Yes FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

5 

5 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

Sampling Point: 31A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/1 94 10YR 5/6 6 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) 

Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 

2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (inches): <12 

Water Table Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks:
 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
31B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/7/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 31B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 20 Lat: 42.28484 Long: -87.90928 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is forbland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 110 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Lotus corniculatus 45 Yes FACU 

Lactuca canadensis 12 Yes FACU 

Cirsium arvense 8 No FACU 

Coronilla varia 8 No UPL 

Daucus carota 6 No UPL 

Asclepias syriaca 5 No FACU 

Aster pilosus 5 No FACU 

Solidago canadensis 5 No FACU 

Rumex crispus 3 No FAC 

Sonchus arvensis 3 No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

0 

2 

0% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

Sampling Point: 31B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/3 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
32A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 32A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.28484 Long: -87.91143 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 83 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Leersia oryzoides 40 

Erechtites hieracifolia 10 

Phalaris arundinacea 10 

Equisetum arvense 8 

Lemna minor 5 

Alisma subcordatum 4 

Lythrum salicaria 3 

Typha angustifolia 3 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

No FAC 

No OBL 

No OBL 

No OBL 

No OBL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

SOIL Sampling Point: 32A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 

Depth (inches): 

Surface Water Present? No 

Water Table Present? No 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-3 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

3-10 10YR 5/1 85 10YR 5/6 15 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
32B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 32B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 5 Lat: 42.28483 Long: -87.91143 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is forbland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 119 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Equisetum arvense 60 Yes FAC 

Erechtites hieracifolia 40 Yes FAC 

Phragmites australis 8 No FACW 

Lythrum salicaria 3 No OBL 

Solidago canadensis 3 No FACU 

Juncus dudleyi 2 No FACW 

Lonicera tatarica 2 No FACU 

Cirsium arvense 1 No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

2 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

Sampling Point: 32B SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 2/2 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
33A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

122

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 33A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 30 Lat: 42.28520 Long: -87.91524 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

18 = Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

36 = Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 134 = Total Cover 

0 = Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Cornus racemosa 15 Yes FAC 

Rubus allegheniensis 10 Yes FACU 

Rhus glabra 8 Yes UPL 

Rhamnus cathartica 3 No FAC 

Poa pratensis 80 Yes FAC 

Bromus inermis 40 Yes FACU 

Cornus racemosa 8 No FAC 

Rubus allegheniensis 2 No FACU 

Erigeron annuus 1 No FACU 

Polygonatum canaliculatum 1 No FACU 

Smilax tamnoides var. hispida 1 No FAC 

Solidago canadensis 1 No FACU 

Prunus serotina 12 Yes FACU 

Rhamnus cathartica 4 Yes FAC 

Fraxinus sp. 2 No -

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

7 

43% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

Sampling Point: 33A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 2/2 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
34A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 34A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0-2 Lat: 42.28571 Long: -87.92387 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet meadow. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 31 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Typha angustifolia 15 

Leersia oryzoides 8 

Ranunculus flabellaris 5 

Echinochloa crusgalli 2 

Acer saccharinum 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes OBL 

Yes OBL 

No OBL 

No OBL 

No FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

SOIL Sampling Point: 34A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 

Depth (inches): 

Surface Water Present? No 

Water Table Present? No 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-3 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 

3-10 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
35A/34B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 35A/34B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 3 Lat: 42.28564 Long: -87.92317 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Nappanee SiL, 2-4% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

20 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 94 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Phalaris arundinacea 60 

Cirsium arvense 8 

Erechtites hieracifolia 8 

Thlaspi arvense 6 

Hesperis matronalis 3 

Setaria faberi 3 

Barbarea vulgaris 2 

Rudbeckia hirta 2 

Eupatorium altissimum 1 

Lepidium campestre 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FACU 

No UPL 

No UPL 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

2 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 35A/34B 

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

Depth 

(inches) 

0-3 

Matrix 

Color (moist) 

10YR 2/1 

% 

100 

% 

Redox Features 

Color (moist) Type 1 Loc2 Texture 

SIL 

Remarks 

3-10 10YR 4/3 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
36A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 36A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 15, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 0 Lat: 42.28625 Long: -87.93631 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Sawmill SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Aquent NWI classification: PFO1A 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? Yes 

Remarks: Community type is wet floodplain forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

80 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

24 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 92 

2 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Vitis riparia 2 

Rhamnus cathartica 20 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 4 

Aster simplex 60 

Rhus radicans 8 

Laportea canadensis 5 

Lycopus uniflorus 5 

Phalaris arundinacea 5 

Ulmus americana 3 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 2 

Lysimachia nummularia 2 

Vitis riparia 2 

Acer saccharinum 80 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No OBL 

No FACW 

No FACW 

No FACW 

No FACW 

No FACW 

Yes FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

3 

3 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

SOIL Sampling Point: 36A 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Histosol (A1) 

Histic Epipedon (A2) 

Black Histic (A3) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 

Stratified Layers (A5) 

2 cm Muck (A10) 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 

Thick Dark Surface (A12) 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

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) 

Redox Depressions (F8) 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16) 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Dark Surface (S7) 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Remarks: 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : 

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Hydric Soil Present? Yes 

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) 

Aquatic Fauna (B13) 

True Aquatic Plants (B14) 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 

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

Secondary Indicators 

(minimum of two is required) 

Field Observations: 

Depth (inches): 2 

Depth (inches): 0 

Surface Water Present? Yes 

Water Table Present? Yes 

Saturation Present? Yes Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 

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

(includes capillary fringe) 

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

% Type Texture 

Matrix Redox Features 

Color (moist) % Color (moist) Loc Remarks 

Depth 

(inches) 1 2

1 2

3

3

0-6 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

6-12 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M SIL 

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
36B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 36B 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 15, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 25 Lat: 42.28627 Long: -87.93617 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Sawmill SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Orthent NWI classification: PFO1A 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is upland forest. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

15 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

50 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 

27 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 50 

Alliaria petiolata 10 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 10 

Hystrix patula 4 

Sonchus arvensis 2 

Vitis riparia 1 

Celtis occidentalis 8 

Acer saccharinum 7 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

No FACU 

No FACU 

No FACW 

Yes FAC 

Yes FACW 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

5 

5 

100% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

SOIL	 Sampling Point: 36B 

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

Depth Matrix	 Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-4 10YR 3/1 100 SIL 

4-12 10YR 4/2 100 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators: 

Histosol (A1)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
 

Stratified Layers (A5)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 

Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
 

5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

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)
 

Redox Depressions (F8)
 

Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Dark Surface (S7)
 

Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
 

Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

3

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless 

disturbed or problematic. 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) 

High Water Table (A2) 

Saturation (A3) 

Water Marks (B1) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
 

Aquatic Fauna (B13)
 

True Aquatic Plants (B14)
 

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
 

Thin Muck Surface (C7)
 

Gauge or Well Data (D9)
 

Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
 

Drainage Patterns (B10)
 

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
 

Crayfish Burrows (C8)
 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9)
 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
 

Geomorphic Position (D2)
 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
37A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 7/6/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 37A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, McIntyre, and Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 15, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 35 Lat: 42.28648 Long: -87.93629 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: NRCS mapped Sawmill SiCL, 0-2% slopes; revised to Udoll NWI classification: PFO1A 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is shrubland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

0 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

30 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 48 

0 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Rhamnus cathartica 30 

Poa pratensis 20 

Brassica nigra 10 

Oxalis stricta 6 

Alliaria petiolata 5 

Setaria glauca 3 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerrima 2 

Erechtites hieracifolia 1 

Sonchus arvensis 1 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

Yes FAC 

Yes FAC 

Yes UPL 

No FACU 

No FAC 

No FAC 

No FACW 

No FAC 

No FACU 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

2 

3 

67% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? Yes 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

Sampling Point: 37A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-11 10YR 3/1 100	 L 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
38A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

134

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region 

Project/Site: Rondout Siding Extension City/County: Lake Sampling Date 8/1/2015 

Applicant/Owner: IDOT District 1 State: IL Sampling Point 38A 

Investigator(s): Kenney, Olnas Section, Township, Range: Sec. 14, T44N, R11E 

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

Slope (%): 30 Lat: 42.28529 Long: -87.91915 Datum: NAD 83 

Soil Map Unit Name: Montgomery SiCL, 0-2% slopes NWI classification: U 

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

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

Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 

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

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No 

Hydric Soil Present? No 

Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

Is the Sampled Area 

within a Wetland? No 

Remarks: Community type is non-native grassland. 

VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. 

Indicator 

Status 

Dominant 

Species? 

Absolute 

% Cover Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft radius ) 

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:15 ft radius) 

= Total Cover 

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft radius ) 

= Total Cover 

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:30 ft radius) 104 = Total Cover 

= Total Cover 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

5. 

9. 

10. 

Bromus inermis 50 Yes FACU 

Poa compressa 40 Yes FACU 

Festuca elatior 10 No FACU 

Dactylis glomerata 3 No FACU 

Rhamnus cathartica 1 No FAC 

(A/B) 

(B) 

(A) 

Dominance Test worksheet: 

Number of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

Total Number of Dominant 

Species Across All Strata: 

Percent of Dominant Species 

That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 

0 

2 

0% 

Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 

Prevalence Index worksheet: 

(A) 

Prevalence Index =B/A = 

Column Totals 

UPL species x 5 = 

FACU species x 4 = 

FAC species x 3 = 

FACW species x 2 = 

OBL species x 1 = 

(B) 

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology 

must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 

4-Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 

data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 

1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 

2-Dominance Test is >50% 

3-Prevalence Index is < or =3.0 1

1

1

1

Hydrophytic 

Vegetation 

Present? No 

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

US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

Sampling Point: 38A SOIL 

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features 

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type 1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 

0-12 10YR 3/2 100	 SIL 

1

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.	 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix 

Hydric Soil Indicators:	 Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: 

Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
 

Histic Epipedon (A2)
 Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7)
 

Black Histic (A3)
 Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) 

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
 

2 cm Muck (A10)
 Depleted Matrix (F3)
 

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
 Redox Dark Surface (F6)
 

Thick Dark Surface (A12)
 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 

wetland hydrology must be present, unless Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic. 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 

Restrictive Layer (if observed): 

Type: Hydric Soil Present? No 

Depth (inches): 

Remarks: 

HYDROLOGY 

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:	 Secondary Indicators 

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

Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) 

High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) 

Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) 

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) 

Sediment Deposits (B2) 

Drift Deposits (B3) 

Algal Mat or Crust (B4) 

Iron Deposits (B5) 

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) 

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) 

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) 

Thin Muck Surface (C7) 

Gauge or Well Data (D9) 

Other (Explain in Remarks) 

Saturation Visible on Aerial 

Imagery (C9) 

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) 

Geomorphic Position (D2) 

FAC-Neutral Test (D5) 

Field Observations: 

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): 

Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): 

Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No 

(includes capillary fringe)
 

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

Remarks: 

US Army Corps of Engineers	 Midwest Region - Version 2.0 
136

APPENDIX B
 

Wetland Plant Species Lists
 
 

 

 

 

137

Project Title: Rondout Siding Extension Sequence No: 19157 

Site 1 - Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Allium sp. wild onion H - -

Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed H FAC 0 

Aster simplex panicled aster H FAC 3 

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Cicuta maculata water hemlock H OBL 6 

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Daucus carota* Queen Anne's lace H UPL -

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Geum canadense white avens H FAC 1 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

Rubus allegheniensis common blackberry H FACU 3 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.3 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 7.3 

Site 2 - Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Phragmites australis common reed H FACW 1 

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Poa pratensis* Kentucky blue grass H FAC -

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.2 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 4.9 
 

 

 

 

 

138

Site 3 - Wet shrubland 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

Acer negundo box elder S FAC 0 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Convolvulus sepium American bindweed H FAC 1 

Dipsacus laciniatus* cut-leaved teasel H UPL -

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash S FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Geum canadense white avens H FAC 1 

Laportea canadensis Canada wood nettle H FACW 3 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Ribes americanum wild black currant H FACW 7 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Veronica peregrina purslane speedwell H FACW 0 

Vitis riparia riverbank grape W FACW 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.2 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 8.5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

Site 5 - Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Scirpus pendulus red bulrush H OBL 4 

Allium vineale wild onion H UPL -

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Allium vineale* field garlic H FACU -

Aster pilosus hairy aster H FACU 0 

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Carex granularis pale sedge H FACW 4 

Carex molesta field oval sedge H FAC 2 

Carex sp. sedge H - -

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash H FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Iris pseudacorus iris H - -

Juncus tenuis path rush H FAC 0 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Poa pratensis* Kentucky blue grass H FAC -

Smilax tamnoides var. hispida bristly green brier H FAC 5 

Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass H FACW 4 

Teucrium canadense germander H FACW 3 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.4 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 9.5 
140

Site 6 - Wetland pond 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Iris virginica var. shrevei southern blue flag H OBL 5 

Sparganium eurycarpum common bur reed H OBL 6 

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Ambrosia artemisiifolia var. elatior common ragweed H FACU 0 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash HS FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Iris pseudacorus tall yellow iris H UPL -

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum water knotweed H OBL 4 

Potamogeton nodosus American pondweed H OBL 7 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Ulmus americana American elm S FACW 3 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.3 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 11.3 

Site 7 – Wet Meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Lemna minor small duckweed H OBL 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 4.0 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 5.7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141

Site 8 - Marsh 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Scirpus fluviatilis river bulrush H OBL 4 

Acer negundo box elder S FAC 0 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Allium vineale* field garlic H FACU -

Aster simplex panicled aster H FAC 3 

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Carex cristatella crested oval sedge H FACW 4 

Carex grayi common bur sedge H FACW 7 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash ST FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Galium aparine annual bedstraw H FACU 1 

Gleditsia triacanthos honey locust H FACU 2 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Panicum virgatum prairie switch grass H FAC 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum water knotweed H OBL 4 

Quercus macrocarpa burr oak H FAC 5 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn H FAC -

Rhus radicans poison ivy H FAC 2 

Rumex crispus* curly dock H FAC -

Solidago altissima tall goldenrod H FACU 1 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod H FACU 1 

Teucrium canadense germander H FACW 3 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Trillium recurvatum red trillium H FACU 5 

Ulmus americana American elm HST FACW 3 

Verbena hastata Perry's vervain H UPL -

Vitis riparia riverbank grape W FACW 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.1 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 15.1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

Site 9 - Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Acer negundo box elder S FAC 0 

Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed H FAC 0 

Apocynum cannabinum dogbane H FAC 4 

Aster praealtus willow aster H FACW 9 

Aster simplex panicled aster H FAC 3 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle H FACU -

Convolvulus sepium American bindweed H FAC 1 

Cuscuta sp. dodder H UPL -

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Eupatorium altissimum tall boneset H UPL 0 

Eupatorium maculatum spotted Joe Pye weed H OBL 4 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash ST FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Helianthus annuus* common sunflower H FACU -

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum water knotweed H OBL 4 

Pycnanthemum virginianum common mountain mint H FACW 5 

Quercus palustris pin oak S FACW 8 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

Scirpus fluviatilis river bulrush H OBL 4 

Sium suave water parsnip H OBL 7 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod H FACU 1 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Urtica procera stinging nettle H FACW 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.9 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 14.1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

143

Site 10 - Sedge meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex haydenii long-scaled tussock sedge H OBL 6 

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Carex sartwellii running marsh sedge H FACW 6 

Eupatorium maculatum spotted Joe Pye weed H OBL 4 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash H FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern H FACW 8 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 4.1 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 12.3 

Site 12 - Marsh 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Polygonum longistylum* long-styled knotweed H FACW -

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Acer negundo box elder H FAC 0 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia var. elatior common ragweed H FACU 0 

Aster praealtus willow aster H FACW 9 

Aster simplex panicled aster H FAC 3 

Bidens cernua nodding bur marigold H OBL 5 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Eupatorium serotinum late boneset H FAC 0 

Geum canadense white avens H FAC 1 

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Melilotus alba* white sweet clover H FACU -

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed crowfoot H OBL 6 

Rorippa palustris var. fernaldiana marsh yellow cress H OBL 4 

Scirpus atrovirens dark green rush H OBL 4 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod H FACU 1 

Solidago gigantea late goldenrod H FACW 4 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Verbena hastata Perry's vervain H UPL -

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.9 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 11.9 
 

144

Site 14 - Marsh 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex stricta common tussock sedge H OBL 5 

Sparganium eurycarpum common bur reed H OBL 6 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead H OBL 4 

Solidago altissima tall goldenrod H FACU 1 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.4 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 10.3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

Site 16 - Sedge meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Carex stricta common tussock sedge H OBL 5 

Scirpus validus var. creber soft-stem bulrush H OBL 5 

Sparganium eurycarpum common bur reed H OBL 6 

Acorus calamus sweet flag H OBL 7 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Apios americana ground nut H FACW 7 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed H OBL 4 

Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass H OBL 3 

Carex pellita wooly sedge H OBL 4 

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Eupatorium maculatum spotted Joe Pye weed H OBL 4 

Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset H OBL 4 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash ST FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Helianthus grosseserratus sawtooth sunflower H FACW 2 

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not H FACW 3 

Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush H FACW 4 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush H FACW 4 

Lemna minor small duckweed H OBL 5 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lycopus virginicus bugle weed H OBL 9 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Mimulus ringens monkey flower H OBL 6 

Oxypolis rigidior cowbane H OBL 7 

Polygonum amphibium var. stipulaceum water knotweed H OBL 4 

Pontederia cordata pickerel weed H OBL 10 

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen S FAC 4 

Rumex orbiculatus great water dock H OBL 8 

Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead H OBL 4 

Scirpus atrovirens dark green rush H OBL 4 

Sium suave water parsnip H OBL 7 

Solidago gigantea late goldenrod H FACW 4 

Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass H FACW 4 

Spiraea alba meadowsweet H FACW 7 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 4.8 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 27.7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

Site 21 - Wet forbland (Species continued on next page) 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Boltonia latisquama var. recognita false aster H OBL 9 

Agrostis alba* red top H FACW -

Allium sp. wild onion H - -

Apocynum cannabinum dogbane H FAC 4 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed H OBL 4 

Aster lateriflorus side-flowering aster H FACW 4 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Bromus tectorum* cheat grass H UPL -

Carex annectens var. xanthocarpa small yellow fox sedge H FACW 7 

Carex cristatella crested oval sedge H FACW 4 

Carex lupuliformis knobbed hop sedge H OBL 10 

Carex molesta field oval sedge H FAC 2 

Carex normalis spreading oval sedge H FACW 5 

Carex pellita wooly sedge H OBL 4 

Carex projecta loose-headed oval sedge H FACW 4 

Carya ovata shagbark hickory S FACU 5 

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Commelina communis* common day flower H FACU -

Convolvulus sepium American bindweed H FAC 1 

Cornus racemosa gray dogwood H FAC 1 

Daucus carota* Queen Anne's lace H UPL -

Desmodium sp. tick trefoil H D -

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye H FACW 4 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Erigeron annuus annual fleabane H FACU 0 

Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset H OBL 4 

Fragaria virginiana wild strawberry H FACU 1 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash HS FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Glyceria striata fowl manna grass H OBL 4 

Helenium autumnale sneezeweed H FACW 5 

Helianthus grosseserratus sawtooth sunflower H FACW 2 

Hystrix patula bottlebrush grass H FACU 5 

Juncus acuminatus sharp-fruited rush H OBL 6 

Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush H FACW 4 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush H FACW 4 

Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass H OBL 4 

Lilium michiganense Michigan lily H FACW 6 

Ludwigia polycarpa false loosestrife H OBL 6 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Mentha arvensis var. villosa wild mint H FACW 5 

Mimulus ringens monkey flower H OBL 6 

Monarda fistulosa wild bergamot H FACU 4 

Panicum implicatum panic grass H FAC 2 

Penstemon digitalis foxglove beard tongue H FAC 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

147

Site 21 - Wet forbland (continued) 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Penthorum sedoides ditch stonecrop H OBL 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Phragmites australis common reed H FACW 1 

Physostegia virginiana obedient plant H FACW 6 

Poa compressa* Canadian blue grass H FACU -

Poa palustris fowl blue grass H FACW 9 

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood HS FAC 2 

Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata self-heal H FAC 0 

Pycnanthemum virginianum common mountain mint H FACW 5 

Quercus macrocarpa burr oak S FAC 5 

Ranunculus flabellaris yellow water buttercup H OBL 7 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn HS FAC -

Rhamnus frangula* glossy buckthorn HS FACW -

Rhus radicans poison ivy H FAC 2 

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan H FACU 1 

Rudbeckia subtomentosa sweet black-eyed Susan H FACU 9 

Rumex altissimus pale dock H FACW 2 

Rumex crispus* curly dock H FAC -

Rumex orbiculatus great water dock H OBL 8 

Salix amygdaloides peach-leaved willow HST FACW 5 

Salix nigra black willow T OBL 4 

Scirpus atrovirens dark green rush H OBL 4 

Scirpus pendulus red bulrush H OBL 4 

Scutellaria lateriflora mad-dog skullcap H OBL 5 

Silphium perfoliatum cup plant H FACW 5 

Sium suave water parsnip H OBL 7 

Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon seal H FAC 5 

Solanum dulcamara* bittersweet nightshade H FAC -

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod H FACU 1 

Solidago graminifolia grass-leaved goldenrod H FACW 4 

Spartina pectinata prairie cord grass H FACW 4 

Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedge grass H FAC 7 

Thalictrum dasycarpum purple meadow rue H FACW 5 

Tradescantia ohiensis common spiderwort H FACU 2 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Vernonia fasciculata common ironweed H FACW 5 

Veronicastrum virginicum culver's root H FAC 7 

Vitis riparia riverbank grape HW FACW 2 

Zizia aurea golden Alexanders H FAC 7 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 4.2 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 35.0 

When possible, the wetland indicator status has been determined for taxa identified only to the genus level (D = non-hydrophytic; 

H =hydrophytic). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

148

Site 28 - Forested wetland 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood T FAC 2 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Apocynum cannabinum dogbane H FAC 4 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed H OBL 4 

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Lemna minor small duckweed H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn HST FAC -

Vitis riparia riverbank grape H FACW 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.7 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 8.0 

Site 31 – Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Lemna minor small duckweed H OBL 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Acer negundo box elder T FAC 0 

Alliaria petiolata* garlic mustard H FAC -

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Carex lacustris common lake sedge H OBL 6 

Cirsium arvense* field thistle H FACU -

Daucus carota* Queen Anne's lace H UPL -

Dipsacus laciniatus* cut-leaved teasel H UPL -

Echinochloa crusgalli spiny barnyard grass H OBL 0 

Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye H FACW 4 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Erigeron canadensis horseweed H FACU 0 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash S FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Lactuca canadensis wild lettuce H FACU 2 

Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce H FACU -

Lycopus virginicus bugle weed H OBL 9 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed crowfoot H OBL 6 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn ST FAC -

Salix interior sandbar willow HS FACW 1 

Solidago sempervirens* seaside goldenrod H FACW -

Sonchus arvensis* field sow thistle H FACU -

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Verbena hastata blue vervain H FACW 4 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 2.5 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 10.2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

Site 32 - Marsh/wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Eleocharis erythropoda red-rooted spike rush H OBL 2 

Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass H OBL 4 

Lemna minor small duckweed H OBL 5 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Agrostis alba* red top H FACW -

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed H OBL 4 

Carex blanda common wood sedge H FAC 1 

Carex cristatella crested oval sedge H FACW 4 

Carex pellita wooly sedge H OBL 4 

Echinochloa crusgalli spiny barnyard grass H OBL 0 

Eleocharis obtusa blunt spike rush H OBL 3 

Equisetum arvense common horsetail H FAC 0 

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset H OBL 4 

Glyceria striata fowl manna grass H OBL 4 

Helianthus grosseserratus sawtooth sunflower H FACW 2 

Juncus acuminatus sharp-fruited rush H OBL 6 

Juncus balticus var. littoralis lake shore rush H OBL 6 

Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush H FACW 4 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush H FACW 4 

Lobelia spicata pale spiked lobelia H FAC 6 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum alatum winged loosestrife H OBL 7 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Oxalis stricta common wood sorrel H FACU 0 

Panicum implicatum panic grass H FAC 2 

Phragmites australis common reed H FACW 1 

Poa compressa* Canadian blue grass H FACU -

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn HS FAC -

Rhamnus frangula* glossy buckthorn HS FACW -

Rosa blanda early wild rose H FACU 5 

Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan H FACU 1 

Salix bebbiana beaked willow S FACW 8 

Salix nigra black willow T OBL 4 

Scirpus atrovirens dark green rush H OBL 4 

Scirpus pendulus red bulrush H OBL 4 

Senecio pauperculus balsam ragwort H FAC 6 

Solanum dulcamara* bittersweet nightshade H FAC -

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod H FACU 1 

Solidago sempervirens* seaside goldenrod H FACW -

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.5 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 20.2 
 

 

 

 

150

Site 34 - Wet meadow 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Echinochloa crusgalli spiny barnyard grass H OBL 0 

Acer saccharinum silver maple H FACW 0 

Barbarea vulgaris* winter cress H FAC -

Carex stipata common fox sedge H OBL 3 

Cyperus sp. nut sedge H - -

Daucus carota* Queen Anne's lace H UPL -

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Juncus torreyi Torrey's rush H FACW 4 

Leersia oryzoides rice cut grass H OBL 4 

Lycopus americanus common water horehound H OBL 5 

Lythrum salicaria* purple loosestrife H OBL -

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Polygonum persicaria* lady's thumb H FACW -

Ranunculus flabellaris yellow water buttercup H OBL 7 

Ranunculus sceleratus cursed crowfoot H OBL 6 

Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail H OBL 1 

Verbena hastata blue vervain H FACW 4 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.3 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 10.9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Site 36 - Wet floodplain forest 

Wetland Coefficient of 

Scientific Name Common Name Strata Indicator Status Conservatism 

Acer saccharinum silver maple HT FACW 0 

Phalaris arundinacea* reed canary grass H FACW -

Acer negundo box elder T FAC 0 

Alisma subcordatum common water plantain H OBL 4 

Arisaema dracontium green dragon H FACW 7 

Aster simplex panicled aster H FAC 3 

Bidens frondosa common beggar's ticks H FACW 1 

Boehmeria cylindrica var. drummondiana rough false nettle H OBL 

Carex normalis spreading oval sedge H FACW 5 

Erechtites hieracifolia fireweed H FAC 2 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. green ash HS FACW 1 

subintegerrima 

Helenium autumnale sneezeweed H FACW 5 

Iris virginica var. shrevei southern blue flag H OBL 5 

Laportea canadensis Canada wood nettle H FACW 3 

Lycopus uniflorus nothern bugle weed H OBL 7 

Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife H FACW 4 

Lysimachia nummularia* moneywort H FACW -

Mentha arvensis var. villosa wild mint H FACW 5 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper H FACU 2 

Physostegia virginiana obedient plant H FACW 6 

Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed H FAC 2 

Rhamnus cathartica* common buckthorn S FAC -

Rhus radicans poison ivy H FAC 2 

Ribes americanum wild black currant H FACW 7 

Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead H OBL 4 

Sium suave water parsnip H OBL 7 

Ulmus americana American elm H FACW 3 

Viola sororia common blue violet H FACW 3 

Vitis riparia riverbank grape HW FACW 2 

*Non-native species Bolded species is dominant in the denoted stratum Mean C = 3.7 

H = Herb, T = Tree, S = Sapling/Shrub, W = Woody Vine FQI = 18.6 
 

152

APPENDIX C 

Figures 

Figure 1 – Project Location Map 

Figure 2 – National Wetlands Inventory Map 

Figure 3 – ADID and County Wetland Inventory Map 

Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map 

Figure 5 – Wetland Determination Overview Map 

Figure 6 – Wetland Determination Maps 
 

 

 

 

 

Metra RR 

Project Location 

Canadian Pacific RR 

153

Wetland Science Program 

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 1

Project Location Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 500 0 2,000 August 2015 
EMC

S Waukegan Rd

N Saint

Marys Rd

 

 

 

P

PEMC

 

 

 

 

154

41 

W24 

Cty

W Everett Rd 

Atkinson Rd 

Waukegan Rd 

N Waukegan 

Rd 

S Saint Marys Rd 

E 

A

P

v

a

e

rk 

Rockland Rd 

Canadian Pacific RR 

R2OWH PSS1/EMC PEMF

PEMC 

PEMFPEMAF ! 

PPEEMMFF POWGX

PSS1C PFO1C POWF

POWF PSS/FO1C POW/EMF

POWGX PEMC PPOOWHHX X

PEMF

PEMC PEMC PEMF

PEMF

PEMF PSS1C 

POWGX POWFX POWGX 

PAB4F 

L1OWH PAB4F 

PFO1C 

POWGX 

PFO1C 

POWGX

R2OWH 

POWGX 

PEMF 

POWGX 

£¤

PEMA 

PFO1A 

PFO1A 

POWH POWGX PAB4F PPOOWGGXX POWHX 

POWFX 

POWGX PEMC

PEMF 

!

PFO1A PFO1A POWGX

PEMCD
 

L1OWH PFO1A POWGX PEMF

POWHX

POWHX PEMA 

ST43

POWGX

R2OWH ! PEMA 

PAB4F 

! PEMC 

PEMC 

PFO1C 

POWHX 

ST176

PEMC 

PEMF POW/EMFX POWGX

POWGX 

PFO1C 

POWGX 

PEMC 

PEMC POWHX 

POWHX

PEMF 

PFO1C 

PFO1C POWHX PPOOWWGGXX

PEMF 

POWGX

PAB4F G41 

 ̈¦§94 G

PEM/OWF POWGX PSS1A ! POWGH

POWGX POWGX

PEM/FO1C
 

PEMC

POWGX POWHX PFO1C POWGX PEMF POWGX 

PEMC PEMC POWGX

PEMC

PEMC POWGX

POWG 

POWGX
 

POWGX POWG PPOOWWGGXX PAB4F PEMC
 

PEMA

POWGX PEM/SS1C POWGX ! POWGX PEMC 

! PEMC! POWGX POWHX !

PEMC PEMC PFO1A ! PAB4F PEMA 

PFO1C PPOOWGGX X PFO1/EMC PEMA

PPEEMMCC

PPOOWWGGXX
 PEMCD

PEMC POWGX
 

PFO1C 

POWGX

PFO1A G58 

PFO/SS1C 

S21 T POWF PFO1C PAB4F

PEMC

POWGX PFO1C PFO1C

POWGX PEMC PEMA PPOOWGGXX

PEMC POWGX

S

PFO1A PEMA PFO1C

PEMA PFO1C

PFO1C 

PFO1C 60 W IL Route 60 T POWGX

R2OWH POWGX PAB4F PEMC PAB4F POWHX 

PPOOWWGGXX 

POWG PEMA 

PPEEMMC C

PAB4F PAB4/EMF

PFO1C

PFO1C PEMC 

PEM/FO1C POWGX PAB4/EMF 

POWGX PEMC PFO1C

POWGX PEM/OWF 

PSS1/EMC

PEMAF 

POW/EMF PFO1C PEMA 

POWGXX PFO1C PEMF PFO1C POWGX 

POWG PEMC
 

PEMC
 PFO1C PFO1C R2OWH POWGX

PAB4F POWGX

PFO1C

PEMC PFO1C

PEMC PFO1A PFO1C PFO1C 

R2OWH PFO1C 

POWGX 

PFO1A Ct PEMC PEMC

40

y 

PFO1C 

PEMC 

Metra RR 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Wetland Science Program 

Champaign, Illinois 61820

1816 South Oak Street


 

4

Figure 2

National Wetlands Inventory Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 500 0 2,000 August 2015 
S Waukegan Rd

Riv

e

N

M

 

 

 

W Everett Rd

 

FW* FW* W

FW*

FW* FW FW* W W

W

FW*

W W W W FW* FW*

 

 

 

ST21 

ST43 

ST60 

ST176 

£¤41 

G41 

G58 

 ̈¦§94 

S Milwaukee 

Ave 

W24 

Cty

Atkinson Rd 

Ave 

N Milwaukee 

Waukegan Rd 

Cty 40 

W IL

Route 60 

S Saint Marys Rd 

E Park Ave 

rw

o

o

ds 

Rd 

Rockland Rd

Saint

arys Rd

NW 

AW

AW FW* 

FW 

AW FW FW 

FW 

FW AW FW 

FW* 

FW

FW FW

FW 

FW FW 

AW FW

FW FW AW

FW 

FW

NW 

NW 

AW 

NW 

AW 

NW 

NW FW*

AW FW*

AW 

NW 

NW

FW* 

NW NW

FW* 

NW NW 

FW* 

NW 

FW

FW* FW

NW NW AW

AW 

NW FW* FW* 

AW 

NW 

NW

NW 

FW 

FW* 

FW*

FW 

FW 

AW FW* 

FW

NW 

FW* 

FW* 

FW* NW FW* FW*

NW 

AW

FW* FW* 

NW 

AW FW

FW* AW

NW 

NW

FW 

NW 

FW 

FW FW

NW 

FW* 

FW* 

FW FW

FW

ADID

Site 110 

ADID

Site

128 

ADID

Site 135 

ADID Site

129 

ADID

Site 130

ADID

ADID Site 132

Site

145 

ADID Site

146 

ADID

Site

198 

ADID

Site

198 ADID

Site 154 

ADID

Site

154 

ADID

Site 153

ADID

Site

152 ADID

ADID Site 160

Site

160 

ADID Site

159 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W W W W

W 

W

W W W W 

W W 

W 

W W W 

W WW 

W 

W 

W W W

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W W W

W W W W 

W

W W 

W 

W W W

W W W W

W 

W 

W 

W W

W W

W

W W W

W

W

W W W W

W W

W 

W 

W W 

W

W

W W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W W W

W 

W 

W W W

W W

W W 

W

W

W

W

W W

W 

W W W W 

W 

W 

W 

W

W W

W W W

W

W 

W 

W 

W

W

W 

W 

W

W 

W 

W

W 

W 

W

W W W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W W W W

W W W

W W W 

W 

W W W

W W

W

W W W

W W W

W 

W

W 

W W

W W

W W 

W W W W W 

W

W 

W

W 

W W 

W 

W 

W 

W

W W 

W 

W

W

W W W

W 

W 

W 

W

W W W W 

W 

W 

W W

W W

W 

W

W W W W 

W W 

W

W 

W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W

W W W W W 

W

W W W W W

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W

W 

W 

W 

W 

W W

W W W W

W W

W 

W

W W W W W W W

W W W

W 

WW W W 

W 

W W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W

W W W W 

W 

W

W 

W 

W W

W W W

W W

W W W W W W W

Project_Boundary

Lake Co ADID Wetlands 

Lake Co Wetland Inventory 

Canadian Pacific RR

Metra RR 

155

Wetland Science Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 3

Lake County Wetland Inventory and ADID Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet

0 500 0 2,000 August 2015 
156

Riv

e

41 

W24

Cty 

Atkinson Rd 

N Waukegan Rd 

S Saint 

Marys Rd 

E Park Ave 

 Everett 

rw

o

o

ds 

Rd 

Rockland Rd 

Canadian Pacific RR 

1107A 153A 153A 

696B	 228C2 

981A 981A

320A 

696C2 982A 320A 

228A 805B 228A W 465A 465A 320B 320B 465A 298B 

465A 228B 228A 320B 320A

228A

320A 228A 228B 

W 

4103A 

228B 320A 

981A

228B 

465A 

298A 

325B 228B 1107A 228B 320B 

465A 

802B 

465A

1107A 

W 

228C2 

979B	 697A 228C2 

228C2 465A 

531C2 

W 

325A 

1107A W 320B 

228C2 

802B 3107A 

979B 

W 

696D2 

802B 228A 

228C2 

531C2 

153A 698A

443A 

443B 

697A 

228C2

531C2 

228B W 

228B 

320B 

802B 

981B 

1107A 325B 228C2 465A

327B 228B

805B

531C2

153A 

792B W 

443A 

802B 

984B 792A

W 

1107A 

465A 

981B 228A 320A 

465A 

320A 103A 981B

228B 

984B 

984B 792A 983B 

228C2 228A 

465A 228C2 

531C2 W 

443B

984B 

153A 

465A 

696B 

531C2 443A 1107A 

982A 

228C2 982B 

228B

531C2 

989A 984B W 

531C2 443B 443A

984B

443B 

W 

442A 

442A 443B 

228B 228C2 320A W 228B 

531B 

442B 228A 228C2 465A 

228B 

443A 

153A 

1107A 530D2 

228A 228C2 

228C2 228C2

228C2

981B 

320B

330A 

442A 

443A 

443B 

981A 982A 

531C2

153A 

802B 

1107A 

443B	 1107A ST21

153A 

696B 365A 982A 

531B 530C	 228A 

146A

531B

146B 

696B 228B

1107A 

531B 

805B

443B 

696A 228B 465A 

442A 

146B 442A 

442A 

228C2 

228A 

228B 

696B 320B 

W	 465A 146B 

153A 153A 

531B 442A 

325B 465A

W 530D2 

223B

146B 

W 696A 

531C2

W 

442A 

531C2 

442A 

465A

696A 

W 228C2

530D2 

223B 

531B 

442A 325A 

W 531C2 

W W 

327B 228C2

153A 530D2

223B 442A

146A 

1107A 228B2 

531B 

146A

W 

531C2 W 

442A 

223C2 531C2 

146B 

530D2 153A

W 

697A 

531B 

531C2

805B 

531C2 153A 

228C2 320A 

228B 

320B 

320B 

228C2 

320A 

320A 

228C2 int

S

a

N

R

d

y

s

Mar

465A

320A 228C2 

805B

228C2 

228C2 

465A 

228C2 

G41

228C2 

320B2 

320B 

320A 

320B2

320A 

465A 

228A 

228B2 

465A 

228A

228B 

228B2 

981A 

983B 

981A 

153A+ 

365A 

153A 1330A 

365A 

228A 465A 

981A 103A 

320B 805B 

320A

465A W

320B 

W

981A 465A 320B 

 ̈¦§94 320A 

320A 465A 

320A 320A	 228B 320B 

465A	 W 

465A 

320B 

465A 

805B 320A

W 

W 320A 320A 

320A 

W 320B 981A	 320A 

228B 

320A

320A 805B 

320A 981A 

981A 

320A 320B ST176

465A 320B

W 320A

228A 

228B 

W 320B 320A 

320A 

W W 

320B 

981A 

320B 

320A 

981A 

228B 

228B 

320A W 320B 

228B 

228C2 

320B2 228B 

320A 

228A 

228B

W 

320A 

981A 

465A 465A 

983B 

W 

W 805B 

981B 981A 228A

228C2 

228B 

465A 

228B 

320A 

465A 4103A 

228C2

228B 

982A 153A

228B

228B 

465A 330A 

228A 228C2 W 228C2 

320A 982B 4103A 

W 

805B 228B 

696B 

228B 228B 

228B 

320B 

228B 

465A 

805B 

228A 

228C2 

228B

228A 

228A 

228B 

228B 

W 

228B 

805B 

465A	 G58 228B 

465A 

228B	 696B 465A 153A 

W

228A 

228C2 

805B 228B 

228A 465A 465A 

981B 981A 

228B

228B2 

228B 

228B 

228C2 228C2 465A 228B 

W 

465A 

981A 228B 228B 

W 

153A 696B 

W I 

Route 60

L 

805B 

983B 

320A 

228C2 228C2 

465A 

320A	 465A 228C2 W 153A

W

465A 

228A ST60 983B 

228A

981A 

W 

228A 

W 

982A 

982A 

697A 

153A 

465A 

228B 

982B W 365A 

228A 

981A

228A 

228B

465A 

981A 982A 696B 

W 

228A 981A 

228B2

228B 

983B 

228A

228A 

228B 

W 

W 

W 

696B 

228C2 

365A 

228C2

981A 

W 228A 

465A 982A

365A 982B 228C2 

981A 805B 465A 

982A 

982A 

982B

W 

W 

465A 

465A 

531C2 

146B

531C2 

531B 

981A 982A 

982A

982B 228B2 465A 

330A 

320A 

£¤

W

320A 

981A 978A 

232A

465A 298A 

232A 

153A 

320A 

465A 

320B 

981A 320A 

981B 

232A 

465A 

981A 

320B 

232A

981A 

232A

232A

465A 

232A 

981A	 465A

465A

228A 

465A 

465A 

465A 

232A 

228C2 

228A 

320A

ie

ok k

S

N

228B

228A 

w

y

H

981A 320A 

W 

981A 320A

W 

103A 298B 

981A

981A

983B

983B

103A

442A 

103A 978A 

228A 370B 

228A 978A 

978A 

465A

465A 

228A 

320A

320A 228B

805B 

228B

465A 

982A

228B W 

320B 

228B 228B 320B 

1107A

W 

228C2 228C2

320B 

228C2 

228C2 

981B W	 228C2 

W W 

W 320A 298B 

981A 530D2 983B 320B 

465A 

ST43

320A 

228A 

320A 

979B 

228B 

320B 

320B 

320A 

W 

W 228A 

W 

228B 

320B 

228B 228B 

320A 465A 

228A 

228A 

320B

228B 232A 

228A 

981B 228B 

330A 232A 

320A 

365A 228A 

320A 

W 983B 

981A

W 

696B 

153A 982A 

802B 

W 

320A 

W 805B 

978A 232A

979A 

979A 

983B

981A 465A 

228B 

983B

978A 4103A 

979A 320A

320B2 

696B 

465A 320A 

228B 

228C2

465A 

982A 

103A 

W 320A 

228A 

370B 

530D2 228B 

465A

320A 

W 

320A

228B 

228B 

146B 

531C2 

223B 

W

153A 

1107A 365A 

530C2 

365A 

696B 153A 

Cty 40	 W

228A

982B 983B 805B 

982A 228A 

465A 228C2 

228A 

228A 

W

Rd

465A 

W 

228A 228A 

W 228A W 

228A 

698B 982B 

982A

465A 

228B

465A W 

228B 228B 

228A

228B

320A 

Metra

RR 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Wetland Science Program 

Champaign, Illinois 61820

1816 South Oak Street


 

4

1107A - Sawmill silty clay loam, undrained, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded 

153A - Pella silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes 

228B - Nappanee silt loam, 2-4% slopes 

228C2 - Nappanee silty clay loam, 4-6% slopes, eroded 

232A - Ashkum silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes 

320A - Frankfort silt loam, 0-2% slopes 

320B - Frankfort silt loam, 2-4% slopes 

330A - Peotone silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes 

365A - Aptakisic silt loam, 0-2% slopes 

4103A - Houghton muck, ponded, 0-2% slopes 

465A - Montgomery silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes 

696B - Zurich silt loam, 2-4% slopes 

697A - Wauconda silt loam, 0-2% slopes 

802B - Orthents, loamy, undulating

805B - Orthents, clayey, undulating

981A - Wauconda and Frankfort silt loams, 0-2% slopes 

981B - Wauconda and Frankfort silt loams, 2-4% slopes 

983B - Zurich and Nappanee silt loams, 2-4% slopes 

W - Water 

Figure 4

Soil Survey Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters	 Feet 0 500 0 2,000 August 2015 
Riv

e

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ST21 

ST43 

ST176 

ST60 

£¤41 

G41 

G58 

 ̈¦§94 

Cty

W24

N Skokie Hwy

W Rockland Rd 

Waukegan Rd 

S Milwaukee Ave 

N Waukegan Rd 

S Saint Marys Rd 

E Park Ave 

N Milwaukee Ave 

S Waukegan Rd 

wr o

o

ds 

Rd 

Rockland Rd 

Atkinson Rd

Saint Marys Rd

Figure 6E 

Figure 6D 

Figure 6C 

Figure 6B 

Figure 6A 

W IL Route 60 

Metra RR 

Canadian Pacific RR 

157

Wetland Science Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 5

Wetland Determination Overview Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 500 0 2,000 August 2015 
d

e

 

 

 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

 

W Broadland Ln

 

 

 

_ 

! 

! !

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

!! 

! 

! 

! 

( 

Site 7 

Site 1 

Sit 2e 

Sit 2

Sit 3e Sit 3 

Sit 5e 

Sit 7e 

Site 8 

Sit 8

Site 2 

Site 8 

Site 6 

1A 

2B 2A

3A 

3B 

4A 

5A 

6A 

8A 

7A 

7B 

8B 

1B 

5B\6B 

W1 Ditch

W2 Ditch

W1 Ditch 

W2 Ditch 

ST60 

Stanford Ct 

Farms Dr 

Conway 

S 

Bradford 

Ct

S Newport Ct 

N Field Ct 

Yale Ct 

Melody Rd 

S

C

a

n

et rb

ury

Ct 

Woods Dr Academy 

S

As

b

ury 

Ct 

S

D

a

n

b

ury

Ct 

N

Savanna

Ct 

Rue Foret

Longmeadow Ln 

Deerpath Rd 

Academy Rd 

W Kennedy Rd 

4 Faculty

Cir

Inverlieth Rd

Lexington Dr

Ol

Bridg 

Rd 

! Sampling Points 

( Non Wetland Determination Sites 

_ Wetland Continues 

Streams 

Wetland Sites 

Project Boundary 

158

Wetland Science Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 6A

Wetland Determination Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 100 0 400 August 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

( 

( 

( 

( 

( 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

9A 

9B 

10A 

10B 

11A 

12A 

12B 

13A 

14A 

14B 

18A 

15A 

16A 

16B 

17A 

W3 Ditch 

W4 Lake Forest Oasis Trib. 

18 

15 

17 

11 

13 

Site 7 

Site 9 

Site 10 

Site 12 

Site 14 

Site 16 

! Sampling Points Site 9 

( Non Wetland Determination Sites 

_ Wetland Continues 

Streams 

Wetland Sites 

Project Boundary 

159

Wetland Science Program 

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 6B

Wetland Determination Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 100 0 400 August 2015 
Windmere

Ct

 

 

 

 

 

 

W. Irma

Lee Ct

 

Irma Lee Cir

Lucky Lake Dr

 

 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

! 

( 

( 

( 

( 

( 

Site 21 

24A 

23A 

20A 

19A 

21B 

21A 

22A 

W5 Middle

Fk N Br of

Chicago River 

ST176 

Scarborough

Dr 

Isleworth Ct

Baker 

Laura

Ln

Rd 

Elm Rd 

W Laurel Dr 

W Polo Trail Dr 

Ashford Dr 

Arcadia Rd 

Ballard Dr 

Rockland Rd 

24 

23 

20 

19 

22 

! Sampling Points 

( Non Wetland Determination Sites 

_ Wetland Continues 

Streams 

Wetland Sites 

Project Boundary 

160

Wetland Science Program 

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

4 

Figure 6C

Wetland Determination Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet 0 100 0 400 August 2015 
er

 

 

!

 

Waterford

Ct

Oak Ct

Post

Old Rockland Rd

st

ke Ln

 

 

 

 

 

! 

! 

! ! ! 

! 

! ! 

! 

! 

! 

( 

( 

( 

( 

( 

( 

Site 31 

Site 32 

Site 28 

32A 

32B

33A 

31A

31B 30A 

29A 

28A 

28B 

27A 

26A 

25A 

W7 

W5 Ditch

W7 Ditch W7 

W6 

W6 

W6 

W5 Middle Fk N Br of Chicago Riv 

W6 Ditch 

W6 

ST176 

 ̈¦§94 

Minard

Ln

Leola Dr

Spring Meadow Ct

N Fo

La 

re

Twin

Lakes Ct

Energy Dr

N Herky Dr

Laura Ln

Baker Rd

Greenbriar Dr 

Fox Run Rd 

W Rockland Rd 

Rockland Rd 

33 

30 

29 

27 

26 

25 

! Sampling Points 

( Non Wetland Determination Sites 

_ Wetland Continues 

Streams 

Wetland Sites 

Project Boundary 

161

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Wetland Science Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

4

Figure 6D

Wetland Determination Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet

0 200 0 600 August 2015 
Parkhill Dr

h

o t

Oak Spring Ln

m

 

 

ST176

 

 

 

 

 

E Park Ave

 

 

 

! ! 

! 

! ! 

! 

( 

( 

( 

_ Site 36 

Site 34 

36B

37A 

35A/34B 

34A 

36A 

38A 

W10 Des Plaines River W7

W7 

W7 

W9 Ditch 

W8 Ditch 

W6 

G41 

W Thornbury

Ln 

N Forest

Lake Ln

H

a

wt orne 

Rd 

Ridgeway Ln 

Victoria Ln 

Kathryn Ct 

N r h

w

o

o

ds 

Dr 

Oak Spring Rd 

Old

Hickory Ln 

Hawthorne Ln 

Benson Ln 

W Oak Pond Ln 

Ca 

elot L

n 

Crescent 

Knoll Dr

Margate Ln 

E Thornbury Ln 

Minard Ln 

S

u

nrise 

Rd 

Woodfield Ln 

Greenbriar Dr 

W Oak Spring Rd 

N Saint Marys Rd N Saint Marys Rd

35 

37 

38 

! Sampling Points 

( Non Wetland Determination Sites 

_ Wetland Continues 

Streams 

Wetland Sites 

Project Boundary 

162

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Wetland Science Program

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820 

4

Figure 6E

Wetland Determination Map

Rondout Siding Extension

Lake County
 Seq. No: 19157 

Meters Feet

0 200 0 600 August 2015 
 

163

APPENDIX D
 

Photographs of Wetlands and Waters of the United States (WOUS)
 
 

164

Wetland Photographs 

Facing north from sampling point 1A, 

overlooking wetland site 1. 

Facing eas from sampling point 2A, 

overlooking wetland site 2. 

Facing east from sampling point 3A, 

overlooking wetland site 3. 

Facing south from sampling point 5A, 

overlooking wetland site 5. 

Facing east from sampling point 6A, 

overlooking wetland site 6. 

Facing west from sampling point 7A, 

overlooking wetland site 7. 
 

165

Wetland Photographs (cont.) 

Facing east from sampling point 8A, 

overlooking wetland site 8. 

Facing east from sampling point 9A, 

overlooking wetland site 9. 

Facing east from sampling point 10A, 

overlooking wetland site 10. 

Facing east from sampling point 12A, 

overlooking wetland site 12. 

Facing east from sampling point 14A, 

overlooking wetland site 14. 

Facing east from sampling point 16A, 

overlooking wetland site 16. 
 

166

Wetland Photographs (continued) 

Facing south from sampling point 21A, 

overlooking wetland site 21. 

Facing north from sampling point 28A, 

overlooking wetland site 28. 

Facing east from sampling point 31A, 

overlooking wetland site 31. 

Facing south from sampling point 32A, 

overlooking wetland site 32. 

Facing west from sampling point 34A, 

overlooking wetland site 34. 

Facing south from sampling point 36A, 

overlooking wetland site 36. 
 

 

167

Waters of the United States (WOUS) Photographs 

Facing west overlooking WOUS site 1. Facing east overlooking WOUS site 5. 

Facing west overlooking WOUS site 2. 

Facing east overlooking WOUS site 6. 

WOUS site 3. 

Facing east overlooking WOUS site 7 

Facing west overlooking WOUS site 4. 
168

WOUS Photographs (continued) 

Facing east overlooking WOUS site 9 

Facing east overlooking WOUS site 8 

Facing north overlooking WOUS site 10 
169

APPENDIX E
 

Preliminary Bat and Swallow Habitat Assessment and Survey
 
 

170

Photo of swallow nests underneath I-94 overpass. 
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Chicago Ecological Service Field Office

1250 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE SUITE 103

BARRINGTON, IL 60010

PHONE: (847)381-2253 FAX: (847)381-2285

URL:

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html

Consultation Code: 03E13000-2016-SLI-0155 March 28, 2016

Event Code: 03E13000-2016-E-00209

Project Name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project

location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

To Whom It May Concern:

The attached species list identifies any federally threatened, endangered, proposed and

candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project or may be

affected by your proposed project. The list also includes designated critical habitat if present

within your proposed project area or affected by your project. This list is provided to you as the

initial step of the consultation process required under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species

Act, also referred to as Section 7 Consultation.

Please note! For all wind energy projects projects that include installing towers that and 

use guy wires or are over 200 feet in height, please contact this field office directly for

assistance, even if no federally listed plants, animals or critical habitat are present within your

proposed project or may be affected by your proposed project.

For all other projects, continue the Section 7 Consultation process by going to our Section 7

Technical Assistance website at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/index.html. If you are familiar

with this website, you may want to go to Step 2 of the Section 7 Consultation process at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/step2.html.

Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) (the regulations that implement Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act) the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be

completed formally or informally. You may verify the list by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website 

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ at regular intervals during project planning and implementation and
completing the same process you used to receive the attached list. As an alternative, you may

contact this Ecological Services Field Office for updates.

Although no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, be aware that bald eagles are

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), as are golden et seq.

eagles. Projects affecting these species may require measures to avoid harming eagles or may

require a permit. If your project is near an eagle nest or winter roost area, see our Eagle Permits

website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html to help you

determine if you can avoid impacting eagles or if a permit may be necessary.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please include the

Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or

correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/28/2016 02:46 PM

1

Official Species List

Provided by:

Chicago Ecological Service Field Office

1250 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE SUITE 103

BARRINGTON, IL 60010

(847) 381-2253

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html

Consultation Code: 03E13000-2016-SLI-0155

Event Code: 03E13000-2016-E-00209

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION

Project Name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157

Project Description: Chicago-Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor, Rondout

Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, CP MP 31.16 to Metra MP 33.85, Lake Co. T44N/R11E/S 13.

New ROW 0.78 ac. No tree removal, instream work NB Chicago R. Middlefork Savanna

INAI/NP/FP. No bats found under bridges; two EPFO plants found, with closest 15' from corridor

& damaged by herbicide drift. Commitments. Timing of construction unknown.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it

may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code

matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'

section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/28/2016 02:46 PM

2

Project Location Map: 

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-87.89783477783203 42.28442103567813, -

87.89457321166992 42.280865005308065, -87.89251327514648 42.275403567891125, -

87.88890838623047 42.254696612008324, -87.88427352905273 42.247072707169636, -

87.88375854492186 42.239574968838696, -87.88650512695312 42.24097291983063, -

87.8957748413086 42.27413339832821, -87.8990364074707 42.27946793846568, -

87.90435791015625 42.28340504748079, -87.91706085205078 42.284675030167485, -

87.91706085205078 42.2860719815549, -87.89783477783203 42.28442103567813)))

Project Counties: Lake, IL

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/28/2016 02:46 PM

3

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 7 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in

an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain

fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species

should be considered only under certain conditions. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may

or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for

critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

 Population: Great Lakes watershed

Endangered

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Threatened

Flowering Plants

Eastern Prairie Fringed orchid

(Platanthera leucophaea)

Threatened Will this project

impact, directly or

indirectly, emergent

wetland, wet meadow,

sedge meadow, fen,

wet to mesic prairie, or

marsh edges?

Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) Threatened

Insects

Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides

melissa samuelis)

 Population: Entire

Endangered

Mammals

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis Threatened

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/28/2016 02:46 PM

4

septentrionalis)

Reptiles

eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus

catenatus)

Proposed

Threatened

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/28/2016 02:46 PM

5

Critical habitats that lie within your project area

There are no critical habitats within your project area.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rondout Extension/Metra Fox Lk 2nd Track, Lake Co, seq. 19157