EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

243550

HJOT'S DLSH)S\L LAMJTLL1.

Douglas Bellman and Eileen HelmerEcologists

Assisted by Joe Weiss

Support UnitOffice of Superfund, U.S. EH\ Region V

Septenber 21, 1990

Table _Qf_Con_tents

Project Sunmary 3Introduction ' 4

I. Jurisdictional DelineationBackground 4Study Area Description 9Methods 12Results 13Wetland-Upland Boundaries 16

II. Qualitative Wetlands Assessment 17

List_Qf Figures, Tables, and_Affiei)dices

PageFigure 1. Site Location Map 5

Figure 2. General Wetlands Map 6

Figure 3. Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map 7

Figure 4. Racine County Soil Survey Map 8

Figure 5. Wetland Area A Map 10

Figure 6. Wetland Areas B and C Map 11

Table 1. Plant Species List for Area A 19

Table 2. Plant Species List for Area B 20

Table 3. Plant Species List for Area C 21

Appendix A. Bird Species Seen on Site Visit, 22Sept. 10-12, 1990

Project Summary

On September 10-12, 1990, U. S. EF7V Region V Tectmical Support Unit Staff fromthe Office of Superfund conducted a jurisdictional delineation of the wetlandsat the Hunt's Disposal NPL site. On September 12 staff from the WisconsinDepartment of Natural- Resources and the Southeastern Wisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission participated in a qualitative assessment of the wetlandsat the site.

Tnree different wetland areas at the site were delineated according to"Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands",Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. These areas areArea A, a 2 acre emergent wetland, and Areas B and C, sub-sections of a 16acre emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetland (see figure 2). All threeareas met the 3 wetland criteria and are considered jurisdictional wetlands.A narrow strip of forest between the Root River and the landfill was alsoidentified as a wetland.

The wetlands are important ecological resources at the site, and their lossshould be minimized and mitigated. The narrow strip of forested wetlandbetween the landfill and the Root River is especially valuable in controllingsilt run-off from the landfill into the Root River before, during, and afterremedial activities. 'Hie forest east of the landfill and the lake is an.execptional example of a mature beecliTmaple forest, and includes many nativeplant species now relatively rare in the region. Iwo state-endangered plantspecies, blue-stemmed goldenrod (Sol idago_c.aesia) and hop-like sedge (Carexlupuliformis) were found in these woods. Blue-stenroed goldenrod was found inupland woods 15-20 feet from the landfill, and remedial activities must notinpact these plants to comply with ARARS.

.ENIEODUCTIQNHie Hunt's Disposal Landfill site is an inactive landfill located in CaledoniaTownship, Racine County, Wisconsin (figure 1). This site was placed on theNational Priorities List in 1987 as a result of the preseixre of hazardousmaterials in the landfill. The site borders the Root River and includesseveral wetland areas (figure 2). Following a final Remedial InvestigationReport and Feasibility Stiidy in the surrrner of 1990, Technical Support Unitstaff of the Office of Superfund conducted a wetlands assessment at the site.The assessment objectives were to perform a jurisdictional delineation onwetlands possibly directly impacted by remedial actions and to conduct aqualitative assessment of natural resources at the site.

L _JURIJffiICTI_CNAL DEI.INEATICN

The wetlands delineation was conducted according to the "Federal Manual forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands", Federal InteragencyConmittee for Wetlaix3 Delineation, Cooperative Technical Publication of theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1989.

Background

The project area was located on the Wisconsin Wetlands inventory map (figure3), Racine County Soil Survey map (1970) (figure 4), USGS 7.5 min. quad, map,and U.S. EPA aerial photo (April, 1986). Areas of concern are the smallrectangular area (Area A) between the RR tracks and the site access road justnorth of the dump, and the area to the east and south of the landfill (Areas Band C, respectively), bordered by the Root River on the west and farmlands tothe east (see figure 2). Area A is designated as a wetland area of less than2 acres by the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory. Area B and the eastern half ofArea C are designated as Palustrine Fjnergent Wet Meadow, Narrow-leavedPersistent. The western half of Area C is designated as Palustrine ForestedBroad-leaved Deciduous. The forested wetlands east of the on-site lake,designated as Palustrine Forested will not be delineated, but will bertiaracterized as to vegetation type.

From the site RI report, the study area lies in the 100 year floodplain of theRoot River. The Kenohsa and Racine Counties soil survey, shown in figure 4indicates that Area C soils are mainly Sawmill si Itloam, calcareous variant.This soil type lies on alluvial bottoms along the Root River. A narrow bandof WalLkill silt loam underlies Area B. Narrow areas of this soil type occupywetland borders that adjoin eroded soils, in this case the farm fields east ofthe study area. Soils near Area A, the 2 acre study area, are Kane loam, 1 to3 percent slopes, and Warsaw loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes. Kane loam occupiesdrainageways of high terraces near major streams; Warsaw loam lies on terracescomonly bordered by Matherton soils. Matherton loam, clayey substratum, 1 to3 percent slopes, and Sebewa silt loam occur in areas north and east of theon-site pond.

The 1986 U.S. EPA aerial photo shows that Area A is vegetatively homogeneous;the entire area consists of emergent vegetation, with several small inclusionsof open water evident in this April photograph. Areas B and C consist of atleast 2 community types. Area B and the eastern half of Area C are all

SITE LOCATION

LAKEMICHIGAN

N

PRANK9VILLE

STURTEVANT

Figure 1. STffi IDCNFKN, HINT'S DISPOSAL I/NDOIi

(Adapted from Final Ranodial Investigation R^x>rt, July, 1990, Williams,Russell & Jbimsoi, Inc.)

- WETLAND AREA

WETLAND LESS THAN2 ACRES

Figure 2. ' H U N T ' S D I S P O S A L W E T L A N D S MAP

(Adapted fran Final Renodial Investigation Report, July, 1990, Williams,Russell & Johnson, Inc.)

Figure 3. WISCONSIN 1NVFN11RY

MILWAUKEE^ COUNTY R 22 t

Figure 4. RACINE OCXWTY SOIL SURVEY MAP SHOWING HINT'S DISPOSAL LANDFILL(Landfill in upper middle portion of map)

Scale I

emergent vegetation, with patches of different colored emergent vegetationevident in the photograph. Fairly dense shrubs and possibly some treesdominate the western half of the subject area, along the Root River.

Farmland to the east of the 16 acre study area could be converted wetland, butthe soil survey map indicates that the soil there is Symerton loam, 0 to 2percent slopes, Saylesville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, and Hebron loam,0 to 2 percent slopes. None of these soils are classified as hydric soils.Also, the focus of this wetlands investigation is existing wetland that may beimpacted by remedial activities at the site. Therefore, the farmland adjacentto the site will not be considered in this wetlands investigation.

STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

A preliminary site walk-through was first conducted to familiarize us with thesite and confirm aerial photograph interpretation. In Areas A, B, and cnormal environmental conditions exist. A brief de5;cription of each subjectarea follows.

Area A sits in a long rectangular depression between the Railroad tracks andthe site access road (refer to figure 5). It is bordered on the south by thelandfill and on the north by upland scrub-shrub. Two different vegetationcomnunities occur here, a homogeneous cattail community and a thin strip ofshort willows (5 to 10 feet tall) that occur along most of the area border.The outer edges of these communities correspond to the start of the steep bankwhere brome grass (Brpmus inermes). dominates. A few small willow clones dotthe interior of the cattail area, and 20 foot high eastern cottonwoods(Pc>pjalus_jde.ltoide§) are scattered through the northwestern portion of Area A.On all sides this depression is bordered by fairly steep banks consistingmos'.tly of fill material; these banks rise to a height of approximately 20 feetabove the depression.

Area B is an emergent plant community bordered by farmland to the east, thelandfill to the west, upland forest to the north, and Area C to the south (seefigure 6). (The distinction between Areas B and C is artificial and was doneto simplify the study design.) The area consists mostly of reed canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea), but goldenrods, bulrushes, shrubs, and cattails occurin scattered spots. The farmland to the east is slightly raised above Area B,and the transition from Area B vegetation to the farmland is abrupt. To thewest the landfill edge slopes up away from Area B, but the vegetational changefrom the reed canary grass within Area B to upland brome grass is somewhatgradual. The upland forest edge to the north is distinct, with a sharp 2-3foot rise in elevation occurring at the forest edge.

Area C includes emergent, scrub-shrub, and forest plant communities and isbordered by the landfill to the north, the Root River to the west, andfarmlands to the east and south (see figure 6). The eastern half of Area Cconsists mainly of a homogeneous reed canary community, with some scatteredareas of goldenrods and a few trees lining the drainage ditch that cutsthrough the reed canary. Shall areas of wetter cattails occur right along thesouthern edge of the landfill and near the southern edge of Area C. Thewestern half of Area C consists of forest along the river and a thin strip ofscrub/slirub between the forest and reed canary. A distinct 2-3 foot rise in

Figure 5. WEHAND AREA A

PLOT L O C A T I O N

U k-' L A

N

•i - 4 6 R I C U L T I / R . A L

EP

LANDFILL

F' rre 6.

WE11AND AREAS B AND C\

E.TWAT £

Fo FORESTEDs

PLOT LOCAT«Ot/

Fo

-3.00

elevation occurs along the forest-to-scrub/shrub transition. A 3-4 foot bermruns along the eastern edge of Area C, separating the reed canary comnunityfrom farmlands. Reed canary covers the berm, but generally gives way tofarmland just past the berm.

ME3HCDS

The sizes of Areas A, B, and C were estimated from the 1986 aerial photographto be 2, 3, and 13 acres, respectively. Since both Area A and B are smallerthan 5 acres and quite Iwmogeneous, the routine delineation method was usedfor these areas. The plant community assessment routine procedure was usedfor both Area A and Area B. For Area C, the intermediate-level method wasused since the area is greater than 5 acres. Specifically, the quadrattransect sampling procedure was used in Area C. Field work was conducted onSeptember 10-11, 1990, by Technical Support Unit Staff Douglas Beltman, EileenHeJmer, and Joe Weiss.

Area ATwo different plant communities were designated in Area A: cattail andwillow. A distinctly different plant comnunity, brome grass, covers the bankssurrounding Area A. The entire area could be seen from tire site access-road,and dominant species of the cattail comnunity were determined from thisvantage point as well as a brief waLk through the cattails. The dominantsptxries of the willow community were determined following a walk along theperimeter of the area. A more complete species list was also obtained for thewillow area from this walk.

Soil pits were dug at the 3 plot locations shown in figure 5. A soil samplecould not be obtained from plot 1 because the surface was inundated and thesoil too unconsolidated for a good sample. Plot 3 was approximately 10 feetuphill from the edge of Area B. Soil color designations are from the MumsellColor Chart. Hydrologic indicators were also examined at the 3 plotlocations.

Area_BAll of Area B could be seen from the adjacent landfill edge. Only onevegetation community, reed canary grass, was designated for the area. Speciesdominance was estimated from a walk through the entire area. The speciesdominance of the forest immediately to the north of Area B and of the landfillbank adjacent to Area B were also determined from waLks through the areas.

Soil plots were dug at the 5 locations shown in figure 6. Soilcharacter!sties and hydrology were determined at these 5 locations. Soilcolor designations are from the Mmsell Color Chart.

AroajCFour vegetation comnunities were designated in Area C: emergent reed canary,emergent cattail, scnjb/shrub, and forest (see figure 6). A baseline wasestablished along the 4-5 foot berm that forms the eastern edge of Area C.Three transects perpendicular to this baseline running to the Root River wereestablished. The transects all ran at 239 degrees from their eastern bermendpoints. Along transect I we positioned one plot approximately half-way

12

across the emergent reed canary community and a second plot in the scrub-shrubcomnunity about 100 feet from the Root River. Three plots were used alongtransect II: one half-way across the emergent reed canary, one in scrub-shnib, and one in forest about 120 feet from the river. Along transect IIIone plot was placed in emergent reed canary, one in emergent cattail, and onein forest 40 feet from the river. An additional plot (#9) was placed in theforest between the landfill and the river near the southern edge of thelandfill.

At each plot in Area C, species areal coverage was estimated within a 5 footradius for herbs and within a 30 foot radius for trees, saplings, shrubs, andwoody vines. Tree diameter at breast height was used as an estimator of treecrown areal coverage. Since most plant communities spanned across the 3transects, each community (except emergent cattail) was sampled with more thanone plot. Therefore, to determine dominant species the species percentcoverage from the multiple plots were combined within each plant community. Asoil pit was dug at the center of each plot, and soil characteristics andhydrologic indicators were examined.

RESULTS

Area A

VegetationTable 1 contains the species lists for the cattail and willow communities andincludes species indicator status as given in "National List of Plant SpeciesThat Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3)", Biological Report 88(26.3),May 1988, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For the cattail community, cattails(Typha anqustafolia and T. latifolia) dominate throughout, with no otherspecies occurring to any great extent. The willow community is dominated byblack willow (Sajjx jiigraj in the shrub stratum and reed canary grass andTorrey's rush (Juncus Torryei) in the herb stratum. Brome grass (an uplandspecies) dominates along the banks that border the area. Since more than 50percent of the dominant species in the cattail and willow communities have anindicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, the hydrophytic vegetationcriterion is met in the cattail and willow communities. It is not met alongthe banks bordering the area.

SoilsNo soil sample was obtainable at plot 1 because the inundated soil was toounconsolidated. However a strong H2S odor was detected at plot 1. At plot 2a ? inch layer of fibrous organic matter overlays a 5 inch layer of sandyclay, 2.5 YR 5/2, that most likely results from washoff from the adjacent fillmaterial. From 7 to 12 inches is a 5Y 5/1 Gley with some mottling. The soilsemitted a strong hydrogen sulfide odor when removed. This soil does not matchtho County Soil Survey, which maps the soil here as Warsaw loam, 2 to 6peicent, a non-hydric soil. At plot 3, approximately 10 feet uphill from thewillow community edge, fill material was found throughout an 8 inch deepsample. Because of the strong Gleying and mottling immediately below the Ahorizon and the hydrogen sulfide odor tlie hydric soil criterion is met in thewillow community. Based on site topography and hydrology, the hydric soil

13

criterion is also assumed to be met in the cattail contniinity. It is not metalong the banks bordering the area.

HydrologyAt plot 1 in the cattail comnunity, 14 inches of standing water covered theground surface. At plot 2 in the willows, 1 inch of standing water coveredthe ground surface. As the investigation was conducted near the summer's endand no significant rain had fallen in the previous few days, these waterlevels are not unusually high. No wetland hydrology indicators were observedalong the area banks. Therefore the wetlands hydrology criteria is met forthe willow and cattail comtunities. It is not met on the banks bordering thearea.

Conclus ion. Area A;Both the cattail and willow communities meet all three wetland criteria andtherefore all of Area A is a wetland. The steep banks bordering thesecomnunities mark the wetland-upland boundary.

Area B

VegetationTable 2 lists the plant species found in Area B and in the forest to the northalong with their wetland indicator status. Reed canary grass is the onlydominant in Area B. The dominant species on the landfill bank are greatragweed (Ambrosia trifida), reed canary grass, and saw-toothed sunflowerHeJ ianthus_grosseserratus. More than 50% of the dominant species are OBL,F7SCW, and/or FAC in Area B, so the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met forArea B. The criterion is not met for the forest to the north of Area B or thebank of the laiKifill.

SoilsThe County Soil Survey maps this area as Wallkill silt loam, a hydric soil.At plots 1, 2, and 5 the soils all matched the Wallkill silt loam profile,although at plot 5 an upper horizon of 12 inches was detected that wasslightly lighter in color (10 YR 3/2) (see data sheets). Mottling wasobserved in soils from plot 5. Soils from plots 3 and 4 did not match theWallkill silt loam soil profile, and were too light in color to be classifiedas hydric soils. Therefore, the hydric soils criterion is met in Area B, butit is not met in the forest iirmediately to the north or on the landfill banks.

HydrologyAt none of the locations was the ground surface inundated or free-standingwater evident in 18 inch deep holes. At plot 2 the soil was saturated at 17",and at plot 5 the soil was saturated throughout the profile but non-uniformly.Oxidized root zones were detected at pit 1, and water-borne sediment depositswere found at plot 5, likely from the landfill cover or the adjacent farmland.No hydrologic indicators were evident at plots 3 or 4. Because of soilsaturation and oxidized root zones, the hydrologic criterion is met in Area B.The criterion is not met along the landfill banks or in the forest immediatelynorth of Area B.

Conclusion, Area B; Area B meets all 3 wetland criteria, and therefore isclassified as a wetland.

Area_£

Table 3 shows the species list for the 4 communities of Area C, includingdominant plant species in each community. In emergent reed canary, reedcanary grass was the only dominant. Narrow-leaved cattail, pinkweed(Polygonum_pensylyajucum), and three-square bulrush (Scirpus_ame_ricaiius)dominate the emergent cattail comnLmity. The tree stratum of the scrub/shrubcommunity is dominated by green ash (Fraxinus_peiinsylvanica) and silver maple(Acex.saccharinum). Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) and water-locust (Qledrtsiaaguaiica) dominate the shrub stratum, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)dominates the herb stratum. The forest community is dominated by green ashand silver maple in the tree stratum, hawthorn, box elder (Acer negundo) andsilver maple in the shrub stratum, and reed canary and horse-nettle (Solanumcarolinense) in the herb stratum. Since at least 50% of the dominant speciesin all strata of the 4 plant communities are designated OBL, FACW, or FAC, thehydrophytic vegetation criterion is met for all 4 plant communities in Area C.

SoilsThe- County Soil Survey maps the soils as Sawmill Silt Loam in Area C, whichha.c; a color of 10 YR 2/1 and is a hydric soil. Di the reed canary community,soils were mainly 10 YR 2/1, altliough at one plot the soil matrix was noted as10 YR 3/1. Gleying and red-orange mottling were also detected. The soils inthe reed canary community thus match the description of Sawmill Silt Loam andmeet the requirements of a hydric soil. In the emergent cattail community, nosoil samples were collected as the soil matrix was too unconsolidated toobi ain a good sample. A strong smell of H2S was detected while attempting toobtain a soil sample. Soils in the scrub/shrub community are 10 YR 2/1, withno mottling or gleying observed. Forest coninunity soils varied form 10 YR 3/2to 10 YR 3/1 to 10 YR 2/1. No gleying or mottling was observed in forestsoils. In conclusion, the soils in the reed canary and scrub/shrubcorirnunities match the County Soil Survey's mapping as Sawmill Silt Loam, andthus meet the hydric soil criterion. In the cattail community, the strong H2Ssmell indicates waterlogged soils, and these soils also meet the hydric soilcriterion. Forest community soils generally match the Sawmill Silt Loamdescription, although in some areas they are somewhat lighter in color.

HydrologyIn the emergent reed canary community, the ground surface was not inundated,soil was not saturated, ajid no standing water was observed in 16 inch deepsoil pits. Oxidized root zones, water-stained leaves, and wetland drainagepatterns were observed. In the emergent cattails, the soil surface wasinundated with 1 to 6 indies of water. Water-stained leaves and a strong H2Ssmoll were also observed here. The scrub-shrub community had water marks 12inches high on trees, drift lines, water-stained leaves, and surface scouredareas. The surface was not inundated and soil pits 16 inches deep had nostanding water. Forested areas also had no surface inundation or standingwater in soil pits. However, in these areas water marks 1.5 feet high ontrees, drift lines, water borne sediment deposits, water-stained leaves, and

15

soil caking were observed. The wetland hydrology criterion is therefore metin all 4 vegetation comninities.

Coixrlusion, Area C: All 4 plant conrnmities, emergent reed canary, emergentcattail, scrub-shrub,' and forest, meet the 3 wetland criteria and thereforeare all classified as wetlands.

Area AIn Area A the wetland-upland boundary is easily recognizable, for fairlysteep banks border Area A on all sides. These banks are dominated by bromegrass, an upland species, and the boundary between the lower wetland and theupland banks is easily distinguishable.

Area BThe wetland-upland boundaries on the east and north sides of Area B are alsoeasily distinguishable. To the east the sharp boundary with the farmlandforms the wetland-upland boundary. To the north the wetland-upland edgecorresponds to the 2-3 foot rise that occurs at the forest edge. The boundaryto the south is the artificial line drawn between Area B and Area C. To thewent, the boundary is the edge of the landfill. Here, the landfill banks arenot steep enough to make this distinction by sight alone. Also, reed canarygrass extends partway up the landfill edge, beyond the wetland-upland boundarydetermined by soils. The exact point of this wetland-upland edge wasdetermined at a number of locations by examining the soil, and the boundarygenerally corresponds to an elevational line approximately 1-2 feet higherthan Area B. This line is 5-10 feet west (uphill) of a mowed snowmobile trailevident on the 1986 photograph.

Area CThe Root River forms the western boundary of this area, and a 4-5 foot bermforms the eastern and southern boundaries. This berm is easilydistinguishable from the adjacent wetland. Reed canary grass covers the berm,and in some areas goes a few feet beyond it. The exact boundary along thisedge was assumed to be the berm; the objectives of this study did not requirea detailed determination by soil examination. The landfill forms the northernboundary of Area C. Soil examination was used to determine the exact locationof the wetland-upland boundary at approximately 50 foot intervals along thesouthern and western edges of the landfill. The determination of the boundarywas made more difficult by the presence of sandy material washed off from thelandfill. This sandy material comprised the top 4-8 inches along the landfilledge. At the immediate southern edge of the landfill the wetland-uplandboundary is approximately 10-15 feet uphill from the strip of cattailsbordering the landfill. Soils downslope of this boundary are dark, moistsoils, with some mottling. Upslope the soils are the fill material comprisingthe landfill cap. This wetland-upland boundary is midslope in a narrow stripof reed canary grass that extends uphill from the cattails. Moving to thewost, the wetland-upland boundary remains in this strip of reed canary grass

16

to a point where the reed canary strip ends and the landfill edge directlyadjoins the floodplain forest along the Root River.

A narrow strip of wetland forest, 15 to 40 feet wide, lies between thelandfill and the Root River all along the landfill's western edge. This stripof forest has similar- species composition and soils as the plots sampled inthe forest wetland of Area C. Many signs of flooding, such as high watermarks 1.5 to 2 feet high on trees, water-stained leaves, and drift lines, areevident. This narrow strip of forest also is classified as a wetland, andshould be added to the list of wetland resources at the site.

II. QUALITATIVE WETLANDS ASSESSMENT

A second objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the naturalresources on the Hunt's Disposal site in order to properly take environmentalhealth into consideration when designing remedial actions.On Wednesday, September 12, 1990, Don Reed and Racliel Lang of the SoutheasternWisconsin Regional Planning Comnission (SWRPC) and Pat Trochlell of theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources joined us for a site walk-through toidentify important natural resource issues. SWRPC and the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources will submit separate letters to the U.S. EPARemedial Project Manager.

The loss of wetlands due to remedial actions at the site is a major concern.Because wetlands directly adjoin the landfill on most sides, slurry wallconstruction will fill in wetlands along the landfill perimeter. Thesewetland losses should be mitigated in some way. Cm-site enhancement of someof the remaining wetlands may be possible, particularly for the large reedcanary grass area in Area C. Such mitigation could include attempts to bringin more desirable wetland plant species through soil and hydrology alterationsor the addition of wildlife ponds. Tt was generally agreed that this reedcanary grass area is the best area for possible on-site wetland enhancement.It should be noted that altering dominant wetland plant species is oftenproblematical, however, and success is not guaranteed. Off-site wetlandsrestoration, enhancement, or protection should also be considered. SWRPC andthe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources should be included in futurediscussions of mitigation.

The loss of the narrow strip of forested wetland between the landfill and theRoot River is of particular concern. This strip of mature second-growthforest is vital in controlling erosional run-off from the landfill into theRoot River. The Root River already suffers from non-point source pollutionand siltation, and additional siltation during slurry wall construction shouldbe minimized. Retaining this strip of forested wetland will help decreasesiJt run-off into the Root River during construction. This forested area alsoprovides valuable habitat to numerous species of songbirds and providesimportant shadecover along the riverbanks.

Another valuable and important ecological resource at the site is the forestedarea to the east of the landfill and the lake. This forest is a mature

17

second-growth forest dominated by sugar maple (Acjer_saccharym) and beech(Fagus grand!folia), and contains many native plant species now relativelyuncommon in the region. Don Reed of SWRPC slated that this forest is one ofthe better examples of mature beech-maple forest in southeast Wisconsin. Itis a valuable ecological resource, and impacts due to remedial activitiesshould be kept to a minimum.

Two state endangered plant species were found in these woods, blue-stemmedgoldenrod (Solidago caesia) and hop-like sedge (Carex lupulifonrus). Theblue-stemmed goldenrod was found in the southern part of the woods near forestedges. In one area, several of these plants are located within 15-20 feet ofthe landfill's western edge. To comply with ARARs the slurry wall and theconstruction road should be located such that these plants will not beimpacted; no trees should be cut down near these plants. The hop-like sedgewas found in ephemeral pond areas in the northern portion of the woods, andsite construction activities are not expected to directly inpact these plants.

18

2'abje_l_. Plant_species_list _fpr _An(* denotes dominant species)

CcninunityWi]low

Stratum

Shnib/Sapling

Herb

CattailHerb

Species

*SaIix_nigraSalix exigua£ornys_stolQni fe_raAcer_sacch)arinuiDQornus Ancfnum

*Phalaris arundinacea*jyixnjs TbrreyiMisma plantago-aguaticaEleochaiLis eiythropodaIris sp.Carex lupulinaAster__sinplexAS ter _iat eri f i or usElynus virqinicusCarex lacustrisSi urn suaveRiysostegia virginianaPoa conpressaCarex BebbiiMimulus ringensLeersia oryzQides

Cyperus. escu 1 entus

*5 pha_ai)gusti foiia*Typha latifolia*Typna X glauca

IndicatorStatus

CBLOBLFACWFACWFACW

FACWFACWOBLQBL

OBLFACWFACWFACWCBLCBLFACWFACUCBLCBLCBLCBLFACWOBLFACWFACW

CBLCBLCBL

OBL^obligate wetland species, FACW=facultative wetlaiid species, FAC=facultative species, FAG>facultative upland species, UPL=upland species

19

Table_2, Plant_specjes.._list. for Area B.(* denotes dominant species)

IndicatorCpjitmjuiity Stratum Species StatusBnergent/Reed Canary Herb

*0ialarj,s_arundinace_a FACWSoJ.idago_j}igantea FACWScirpus atrovireiis ORLCar ex stricta CBLye_ronica_gigantea F7\CAiiempne_canadeiis_is F7VCWJuncus sp.Aster_lateriflQrus F7XCW£arex_blanda FTCEiipatorium perfoliaturn F7CW

sp.

CBL=obligate wetland species, F7CW=facultative wetland species, FAOfacultative species, f?iCU=facultative upland species, UPL=upland species

20

ComnunityEmergent/Reed Canary

Emergent/Cattail

Scrub/Shrub

StratumHerb

Herb

_spec ies_ lis_t_ _f or_Ari(* denotes dominant species)

Species

*Ebalaris arundinaceaSplidago gigantea

Tree

Shrub

Forest

Herb

Tree

Slirub

Herb

* ED lygpnum pensylvanicum*Scirpus americanus

*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*Acer sacciiarinurn

*Gleditsia aguatica*Crataegus sp.Acer saccnarinunFraxinus pennsylvanica

*Tt«LCQdeiTdro!.TL radicansgieditsia aguatica

*Fraxjnus_peiinr,ylvaiHC_a*A eL_s iccharn)uingrataegus sp.

sp.*Ace_r_neguridQ*Acer sacchar iiiumFraxinus pennsylvanica

*Phalaris arundinacea*Solanum carolinenseAsarum canadenseElymus virginicusEchinocystis lobataBoehmeria^cylindricaAmbrosiajtrifidaCarex_lupulj naToxicodendrpn radicansIris sp.Geum canadenseRvctoeckiajaciniata

Physostegia virginianaRubus occidental is

Indicatorstatus

FACWFACW

OBLFACWCBL

FACWFACW

CBL

FACWFACW

FAC

FACWFACW

CBL

FACWFACWFACW

FACWFACUUPLFACW

CBLFACCBLFAC

FACFACWCBLFACWUPL

OBL=obligate wetland species, FACW= facultative wetland species, FAC=facultative species, FACU=facultative upland species, UPL=upland species

21

Appendix ABirds seen during site visit of September 10-12, 1990

Hunt's Disposal Landfill

Great Blue HeronRed-tailed HawkKilldeerSpotted SandpiperNbuming DoveBelted Kingf isherNorthern FlickerDowny WoodpeckerEastern Wood PeeweeBlue JayCarmen CrowBlack-capped ChickadeeGrey CatbirdAmerican RobinCedar WaxwingRed-winged BlackbirdAmerican Goldfinch

Buteo jamaicensisPjar adri us vociferusActitis maculariaZenaidura macrouraMegaceryle alcyon

Dendrocopus pubescensCoi it OPUS virengCyanocitta cristataCpn/us_bracjTy_rynchQ§Parus _at ricapillusDumetel la carol inensisTurdus migratoriusBombyci lla cedrorumAgelaius pt)oemceusSpinus tristis

22