Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
HABITAT EVALUATION OF THE
UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND
ADJACENT WETLANDS, 1979-80
FINAL REPORT
Project Leader:
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
ENCAP, Inc.
Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V
Contract numbers:
53219-NASX
68-04-5008
54250-NASX
Date submitted: 18 December 1980
EtfCAP, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
P. O. BOX 721
DCKALB. IL SOUS
TELEPHONE: •15/758-1621
t/.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th floor
IL 60604-359(1
-------
Agertcy
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905-3-81-QQ2
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Des Plaines River and
Adjacent Wetlands, 1979-8'C?
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
ENCAP, Inc.
P.O. Box 721
DeKalb, Illinois 60115
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
53219-NASX
68-04-5008
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 1979-1980
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
'A A From October 1979 through November 1980, a wetland habitat evaluation study
was conducted on the Upper Des Plaines River wetlands near the village of Pleasant
Prairie, Wisconsin. The study was designed to address the following subjects:
1) Species diversity, seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of non-game and game
bird species.
2) Frequency and type of bird use of the area during migration (spring and fall) and
during the breeding season.
3) Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of fish species.
4) Use of the area for spawning, rearing, and residency by fishes.
5) Occurrence of invertebrate species in the river and associated wetlands.
6) Occurrence of other wetland vertebrate species such as mammals, reptiles and
amphibians.
7) Occurrence and distribution of plant species and their respective associations.
8) Presence of threatened or endangered species (Federal and State listed) of plants
or animals.
Information pertinent to each of the abovementioned subjects was used to formulate
conclusions about 1) the characteristics and qualities of the plant communities;
2) the value of the plant communities as habitats for birds, mammals and fishes; and
3) the suitability of the area for continued use by wetland species of plants and
animals.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Ecology
Assessments
Evaluation
Environmental Survey
Surveys
Site Surveys
Wisconsin
Upper Des Plaines River
Habitats
Wetlands
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
This report originally included four volumes. This document includes
Volumes 1 (Parts 1 - 5)and 2 (Parts 6-8) which contain the summarized
field data, evaluations of the wetland based upon the results of each
biotic inventory, and an overall evaluation which gives consideration
to wetland values not considered in the other sections (e.g., recreation,
hydrology). This document does not include Volumes 3 and 4 which contain
a series of photographs depicting habitat characteristics of the wetland,
particularly portions of the area designated as Survey Areas 1-5. For
information regarding Volumes 3 and 4 contact the consultant directly.
EtfCAP, Inc.
-1-
-------
T EfTCAP, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
P.O. BOX 721
D*KAUB, IL. 60115
TELEPHONE: t!S/7S»-1621
18 December 1980
•OARD Of DIRECTORS:
OAVIO W. GREENFIELD. Pt».D.
PAUL. O. SORENSEN. Ph.D.
WILLIAM E. SOUTHERN, Ptt.D.
JERROID H. ZAR. Ph.D.
Mr. William D. Franz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Office of Federal Activities
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Franz:
I am pleased to submit this Final Report covering our evaluation
of the Des Plaines River wetlands in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. Field
work associated with this project was terminated on 14 November 1980.
Data analysis and interpretation were completed thereafter. This re-
port contains a detailed accounting of the biota encountered and a
series of evaluations of wetland quality based on this evidence.
The Des Plaines River wetland is a rich and diversified .resource
that benefits the region through the performance of many natural ser-
vices, such as wildlife production, aquifer recharging and flood con-
trol. We were impressed by its residual quality as it has survived
obvious attempts to destroy its natural values. It is the unanimous
opinion of our research teams that this area is of sufficient quality
to be preserved as a wetland.
This report is presented as four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 con-
tain the summarized field data, evaluations of the wetland based upon
the results of each biotic inventory, and an overall evaluation which
gives consideration to wetland values not considered in the other
sections (e.g. recreation, hydrology). Volumes 3 and 4 contain a
series of photographs depicting habitat characteristics of the wetland,
particularly portions of the area designated as Survey Areas 1-5.
Other photographs, including color slides, remain in the files of
ENCAP, Inc. This latter group of photos includes records of each bird
nest observed on the Project Area.
If the need arises, we will be pleased to assist in the inter-
pretation of any portion of this report.
Sincerely yours,
William E. Southern
Project Leader
-ii-
-------
\
I
t
I
i
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter
Table of Contents •
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Part 1: Description of Project Area and Objectives 1
Description of Wetlands 1
General Project Description 2
Location and General Description of Project Area....3
Topographical Features of the Project Area 3
Location of the Project Area 4
Des Plaines River Water Data 4
Classification of the Des Plaines Wetlands 5
The Riverine System 5
The Palustrine System 6
Report Organization 6
References Cited in Part 1 7
Part 2: Bird Inventory and Habitat Evaluation 14
Introduction 14
Methods 14
Bird Survey Areas 15
-* i e
Survey Area 1 • i3
Survey Area 2 17
Survey Area 3 17
Survey Area 4 18
Survey Area 5 18
Survey Procedures 19
Aerial Surveys 20
Supplemental Surveys 20
Photographic Documentation 20
Results 20
Species Reported from the Project Area 20
Birds Recorded on Survey Areas 1-5 22
Typical Wetland Species Nesting on Survey Areas..24
Threatened and Endangered Species on the
Project Area
- •* - 444.
-------
I Evaluation of Habitat Quality for Wetland Birds....26
r Evaluation Indices Based on Breeding Birds 26
j Habitat Evaluation Based on Waterfowl Requirements.29
References Cited in Part 2 30
Part 3: Fish Inventory and Habitat Evaluation 69
Introduction 69
Methods 69
Description of Sampling Sites 69
! Sampling Site A 70
Sampling Site B 70
Sampling Site C 70
Sampling Site D 70
Sampling Site E 71
Sampling Site F 71
Sampling Site G 71
Sampling Site H 72
Sampling Site 1 72
Sampling Site J 72
Sampling Site K 73
Sampling Site L 73
Results 73
Fish Fauna by Sites 73
Fish Reproduction in the Project Area 76
Discussion.........................................76
|i Comparison with Adjacent Areas 76
Game Fish Survey 77
Fish Reproduction 77
j Habitat Quality 78
ij Suitability of Area for Continued Use by Fishes..80
j References Cited in Part 3 81
! Part 4: Invertebrate Inventory and Habitat Evaluation 90
I Introduction 90
M Methods 90
Description of Sampling Sites 91
Results 92
Habitat Evaluation Based on the Invertebrate
i Fauna 95
E77CAP, Inc. -iv-
-------
References Cited in Part 4 99
Part 5: Inventory of Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals 107
Introduction and Methods 107
Results 107
Amphibians 107
Reptiles 107
Mammals 108
Part 6: Survey of the Upper Des Plaines River
Ploodplain and Wetland Flora and Vegetation 113
Introduction 113
Methods 113
Field Surveys of the Flora and Vegetation 113
Results '.. 114
Synopsis of Plant Communities 114
Description of Plant Communities 115
A. Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Communities 115
B. Upland Communities, Open Sunny Areas 126
C. Upland Communities, Shaded Areas 130
D. Weed Habitats 131
Assessment of Habitat Quality 132
Composite List for the Project Area 137
Endangered and Threatened Plants 137
References Cited in Part 6 138
Part 7: Evaluation of the Des Plaines River Wetland:
An Overview 166
Wildlife and Fisheries Values 166
Hydrological and Associated Values 170
Recreational Values 171
Economic Value of Streamside Wetlands 172
Comments on Human Intrusion within the
Project Area 174
References Cited in Part 7 176
Part 8: Project Summary 178
EfTCAP, Inc.
-V-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Location of Project Area in Kenosha
County, Wisconsin 8
Figure 1-2A. Floodplain topographic map for the Des
Plaines River north of County Highway ML 9
Figure 1-2B. Northern continuation of Figure 1-2A showing
the 100-year floodplain near Pleasant Prairie..10
Figure 1-3. Hydrograph of the mean daily discharge of
the Des Plaines River at Russell, Illinois
from October 1974 through March 1976
(USGS data) 11
Figure 1-4. Distinguishing features and examples of
habitats in the riverine system. 12
Figure 1-5. Distinguishing features and examples of
habitats in the palustrine system 12
Figure 2-1. Location of Survey Areas (1-5) used
during bird surveys 31
Figure 2-2. Relationship of numbers of species and their
assigned index values to acreage censused
in marsh habitat 32
Figure 3-1. Location of aquatic Sampling Sites A-L
within the Project Area 82
Figure 4-1. Location of aquatic Sampling Sites A-L
within the Project Area 101
Figure 6-1. Survey Areas 1-5 used to describe
locations of plant communities 139
EfTCAP, Inc.
-VI -
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Mean monthly discharge (cfs) of the Des
Plaines River at Russell, Illinois from
October 1978 through June 1980 13
Table 2-1. Dates spent in the Project Area to conduct
bird surveys 33
Table 2-2. Total individuals observed per month
within the Project Area 34
Table 2-3. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 1,
1979-80 39
Table 2-4. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 2,
1979-80 41
Table 2-5. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 4,
1979-80 42
Table 2-6. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 5,
1979-80 43
Table 2-7. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 3,
1979-80 44
Table 2-8. Composite list of all bird species recorded
on the Project Area, showing the types of use
each makes of the wetlands, its habitat pre-
ference and its typical seasonal status 45
Table 2-9. Species recorded on Survey Areas 1-5,
1979-80, in birds per party hour....... 58
Table 2-10. Nests of typical wetland bird species recorded
breeding on Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4, 28 May-
16 July 1980 63
Table 2-11. Endangered and threatened birds of Wisconsin....64
Table 2-12. Endangered and threatened birds of Illinois 65
Table 2-13. Calculated average species index and
faunal index for Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4 66
Table 2-14. Mean habitat values established for
waterfowl, fall 1979 67
Table 3-1. Water temperatures (in degrees C) at
Sampling Sites A through L from October
1979 through July 1980 83
Table 3-2. Number of each fish species caught at each
of the 12 sampling sites 84
Table 3-3. Evidence supporting the reproduction of fish
species within the Project Area 86
EfTCAP, Inc.
-vii -
-------
J
Table 3-4. Fish species recorded for the Des Plaines
River in Wisconsin by Greene (1935) but
not collected in the present study, and
those collected in the present survey but
not recorded by Greene 87
Table 3-5. Fish species found in the Des Plaines
River in Wisconsin but not in Lake County/
Illinois, and vice versa 88
Table 3-6. Wisconsin threatened and endangered
fish species. 89
Table 4-1. Macroinvertebrate fauna of Des Plaines
River wetlands for 11 sampling sites 102
Table 4-2. Ranking of sites in decreasing order for
number of taxa and number of individuals/0.5 hr
sampling 106
Table 5-1. Amphibians and reptiles observed on the
Proj ect Area 110
Table 5-2. Endangered and threatened mammals, reptiles
and amphibians on the Wisconsin list Ill
Table 5-3. Mammals observed on the Project Area 112
Table 6-1. Dates of plant surveys, 1980 140
Table 6-2. Vascular plants of the Des Plaines River
Project Area 141
Table 6-3. Endangered and threatened plant species
of Wisconsin 164
EtTCAP, Inc.
-Vlll-
-------
PART 1: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA AND OBJECTIVES
DESCRIPTION OF WETLANDS
The U^S. Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources, contracted this study of the
Upper Des Plaines River and its adjacent wetlands in Kenosha
County, Wisconsin. The purpose of the study was to ascertain
the ecological value of the wetlands within the designated
study area.
A "wetland" is described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as land where water is the dominant factor determining
the nature of soil development and the types of plant and
animal communities living in the soil and on its surface
(Ref. 1). This definition is similar to the one used by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its regulatory program and
appearing in the Executive Order signed by President Carter
in May 1977 (Ref. 1). In these latter instances, wetlands
are described as areas inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. The term wetlands, in accordance
with these definitions generally includes marshes, wet meadows,
bogs, swamps, floodplains and similar areas. The value and/or
quality of a wetland is not contingent upon how natural it
is according to the accepted definitions. Instead, quality is
evaluated in terms of the biotic components of the area, par-
ticularly those species that serve as indicators of habitat
conditions.
To qualify as a wetland an area may be continuously sub-
merged or only intermittently inundated by seasonal river
flooding. Most such areas are readily identifiable by the
presence of typical emergent vegetation or by submerged types
of plants. The types of plant life found in a wetland are in-
fluenced by the depth, chemistry, temperature, and seasonal
occurrence of water. The resulting assemblages of plants and
their distribution within a wetland provide conditions for a
wide array of birds, fishes, mammals, mollusks, crustaceans,
insects and a variety of microorganisms to secure food and
shelter. If marked changes in water quality or quantity occur,
modifications in the vegetative cover, and the associated
animal life, may serve as testimony to these types of altera-
tions. Wetlands are necessarily responsive to fluctuations
, Inc. -1-
-------
in annual precipitation rates. They usually exist at the inter-
face between terrestrial uplands and the aquatic lowlands, and
dynamically reflect, through vegetative cover, the varying
patterns in water availability. The boundaries of some wet-
lands, particularly those associated with riverine systems,
must be delineated on the basis of two sets of water conditions:
1) the limits of permanent or semipermanent stands of open
water and emergent plants; and 2) the limits of seasonal flood
waters as determined by land contours and predicted flow rates
(e.g. 100-year flood) .
Freshwater marshes, such as those found in the Great Lakes
Region, are usually covered by shallow water. The water level
rises during periods of heavy rainfall or heavy river runoff
and recedes during dry periods. The water supply of marshes
may originate from ground water, surface springs, streams,
upland runoff, rainwater, or from a combination of such sources.
Marsh vegetation is characterized by soft-stemmed plants, par-
ticularly grasses, sedges, cattails and rushes.
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lands lying within the floodplain of the Des Plaines
River in Kenosha County, Wisconsin are appropriately described
as wetlands. The quality of such wetlands, or their value,
is reflected by 1) their importance in harboring biotic com-
munities (fish and wildlife values) ; 2) their potential recre-
ational value for local residents; 3) their ability to retain
and retard flood waters; 4) their contribution to purification
of water by reducing silt or nutrient loads; and 5) their role
in recharging local ground water supplies.
From October 1979 through November 1980, a wetland habitat
evaluation study was conducted on the Upper Des Plaines River
wetlands near the village of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. The
study was designed to address the following subjects:
1) Species diversity, seasonal occurrence and relative
abundance of non-game and game bird species.
2) Frequency and type of bird use of the area during
migration (spring and fall) and during the breeding season.
3) Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of fish
species.
4) Use of the area for spawning, rearing, and residency
by fishes.
5) Occurrence of invertebrate species in the river and
associated wetlands.
6) Occurrence of other wetland vertebrate species such
as mammals, reptiles and amphibians.
7) Occurrence and distribution of plant species and their
respective associations.
8) Presence of threatened or endangered species (Federal
or State listed) of plants or animals.
, Inc. -2-
-------
Information pertinent to each of the abovementioned
subjects was used to formulate conclusions about 1) the char-
acteristics and qualities of the plant communities; 2) the
value of the plant communities as habitats for birds, mammals
and fishes; and 3) the suitability of the area for continued
use by wetland species of plants and animals.
LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
Topographical Features of the Project Area
The Des Plaines River watershed lies in eastern Kenosha
County. The drainage pattern of the area is referred to as
parallel, with the major waterways lying in broad, poorly
drained valleys oriented in a north-south direction, and
separated by low, wide, recessional moraines that parallel the
shore of Lake Michigan. This arrangement of moraines in-
fluences drainage so that the Des Plaines River, the area's
major waterway, flows within six miles of Lake Michigan yet
remains part of the Mississippi River Basin. The Des Plaines
River originates in Racine County and drains 143 square miles
within Wisconsin, principally in Kenosha County. The soils
here are predominantly heavy silt and clay loams with poor
or deficient internal drainage. Since the silt loams are
desirable for agriculture, efforts to drain area wetlands
have been extensive (Ref. 2).
In 1961, the surface water resources of Kenosha County
were inventoried by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) (Ref. 2) . In that report, the Des Plaines
River was considered as having three branches: the Center
Branch (Paris and Bristol twps.; 6.7 miles long); the East
Branch (Somers and Pleasant Prairie twps.,* 10.0 miles); and,
the Main Branch (Paris, Bristol and Pleasant Prairie twps;
17.5 miles). At the time of this survey, no wetlands of value
to fisheries remained along the Center Branch. Poss and
Threinen (Ref. 2) advised that prior to extensive drainage
along the stream, much value was realized from the excellent
duck hunting it offered. The East Branch had only 76.5 acres
of marshy wetland remaining along its 10-mile length. At
that time, these areas were used in spring by spawning northern
pike and the stream was said to be managed for forage fishes,
presumably by the DNR (Ref. 2). The most extensive wetland
area (851 acres) was located along the Main Branch as continues
to be the case today. This latter area was referred to as an
important duck hunting area as well as a spawning area for
northern pike. The lower portion of this section of the Des
Plaines River was managed for northern pike and forage fishes
(Ref. 2) . Based on this information, it appears that the
Des Plaines River wetlands of Kenosha County represent a
remnant of more extensive wetlands that once were associated
with the river.
ERCAP, Inc. -3-
-------
Most of the natural features of the area reflect a long
history of agriculture. The Des Plaines River system has
lost much of its wetlands through drainage (Ref. 2). Parts
of the wetland area near Kenosha have been diked and adjacent
canals have drained large portions of the area. Portions so
drained probably were farmed at one time but all have now re-
verted to reasonably typical associations of wetland flora.
The canals remain full of water as pumps are no longer present
to lift the water over the dikes or because existing water
control devices are plugged by mud. Beavers and muskrats
have expedited deterioration of the dikes thereby allowing
water to flow from the canals during high water back into the
adjoining lowlands. Although influenced by the activities of
humans, the low-lying areas bordering the river continue to
function in their capacity as a floodplain and as wetlands
according to the aforementioned definitions. According to
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, this wetland
and floodplain (i.e. the Project Area) probably represent the
last extensive wetland in southeastern Wisconsin (Ref. 3).
Historically this area has been identified as having signi-
ficant fish and wildlife value.
Location of the Project Area
The principal portion of the Project Area is located
in Pleasant Prairie Township (Kenosha County), Sections 13,
14, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Emphasis was placed on the river
and wetlands lying north of County Highway ML, east of 1-94,
west of County Highway H, and south of County Highway C
(Fig. 1-1). In addition, aerial surveys of waterfowl were
conducted along the river farther north and west to include
Section 7 in Pleasant Prairie Township and portions of Sections
12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Bristol Township. Occasional aerial
surveys extended as far west as Section 19 in Bristol Twp.
to include the site of a Great Blue Heron colony. Herons
from this colony foraged on the Project Area but nested colo-
nially in a woodland in this section. The Project Area is
about 60% floodplain and marshes that are associated with the
Des Plaines River (Fig. 1-2 A&B) . The upland portion, about
40% of the area, is currently wooded, agricultural, or resi-
dential. Approximately 900 acres, largely floodplain and marsh,
is used for recreational purposes by members of the Pheasant
Valley Hunting Club. Another parcel of land, located directly
west of the Hunting Club on the opposite side of the Des Plaines
River (about 200 acres) is owned by the Girl Scouts of America
and is used primarily for educational and recreational purposes.
Des Plaines River Water Data
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the water
surface elevation at a 100-year flood would be about 677.4
feet (Ref. 3). This is about 6 feet above the floodplain
adjacent to the Des Plaines River. Plow of the Des Plaines
EfTCAR Inc. -4-
-------
River has varied from zero during drought conditions to 4000
cubic feet per second (cfs) during flood conditions. Esti-
mated volume at the 100-year flood is 6820 cfs (Ref. 3).
Portions of the Project Area designated as floodplain by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Service, on
the basis of 100-year flood statistics, are shown in Figure 1-2
A&B. Precipitation supplying surface water amounts to 31-33
inches per year in this area (Ref. 2).
Figure 1-3 and Table 1-1 show the volumetric flow or
discharge rate of the Des Plaines River recorded by the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) stream gaging station near Russell
(Lake Co.), Illinois. This USGS station is that closest to the
Project Area and the most appropriate one to reflect flow
rates through the Kenosha County wetland since it is located
immediately south of the area. The volumetric flow is the
total volume of water passing a given point during a specific
period of time and is expressed in cubic feet per second.
The maximum or peak discharge listed in Table 1-1 is the
greatest discharge for a single day during each month. Per-
iods of high flow usually reflect precipitation rates but as-
sociated factors, such as frozen ground, also may influence
the proportion of precipitation or snow melt that runs off
into the river.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE DBS PLAINES WETLANDS
The Des Plaines River wetlands near Kenosha can be char-
acterized as a Riverine System with an associated Palustrine
System, in accordance with the most recent U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service wetland classification procedures (Ref, 4).
The Riverine System (Fig. 1-4) includes all wetlands and
deepwater habitats contained in a channel, with the exception
of freshwater wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, or persis-
tent emergent vegetation. A channel is "an open conduit either
naturally or artificially created which periodically or con-
tinuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting
link between two bodies of standing water." The Riverine
System is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the
channel (including natural and manmade levees), or by wetland
dominated by trees, shrubs, or persistent emergents (Ref. 4).
Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the
Riverine System.
Water is usually, but not always, flowing in a Riverine
System. Upland islands or Palustrine wetlands may occur in
the channel but they are not included as part of the Riverine
System. Palustrine wetlands also may occur adjacent to the
Riverine System, often on a floodplain. Many biologists have
suggested that all wetlands occurring on a river floodplain
should be part of the Riverine System. Since some floodplains
EfTCAP, Inc. -5-
-------
are only occasionally flooded, it is subsurface water (the
ground water) that controls to a great extent the water level
in swamps and marshes. Consequently such areas are excluded
from the Riverine System in the new classification system
(Ref. 4).
The Palustrine System (Fig. 1-5) includes all nontidal
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent
plants. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation,
but showing all of the following four characteristics: 1) areas
less than 8 ha (20 acres); 2) active wave-formed or bedrock
features lacking; 3) water depth in the deepest part of the
basin less than 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water; and 4) salinity
due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5% (Ref. 4). This
system includes vegetated wetlands traditionally called by
such names as marsh, swamp, bog, fen, and wet prairie. It also
includes the small, shallow, permanent or intermittent water
bodies called ponds. Palustrine wetlands may be situated
shoreward of lakes, river channels, or estuaries; on river
floodplains; or in isolated catchments (Ref. 4).
Each System is subdivided into classes based on the
general appearance of the habitat in terms of either the
dominant life form of the vegetation or the physiography and
composition of the substrate (Figs. 1-4 and 1-5). Special
modifiers are included in the classification system since
many wetlands are manmade or are natural ones that have been
modified to some degree by humans or beavers. The following
modifiers are applicable in the Des Plaines Palustrine System:
dikes; partly drained; and possibly farmed (Ref. 4).
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The project consisted of four major parts: 1) a bird
inventory directed by Dr. William E. Southern; 2) an inventory
of fishes directed by Dr. David W. Greenfield; 3) an inverte-
brate inventory conducted by Dr. Carl von Ende; and, 4) a
plant inventory directed by Dr. Paul D. S0rensen. Dr. Southern
served as project director and coordinated the various aspects
of the study. In addition to the above, Dr. Southern's team
of investigators recorded all encounters with vertebrate
species other than birds (e.g. mammals, reptiles and amphibians)
during their 14-month study period.
The'results from each major part of the study are pre-
sented in their entirety. That is, the methods, study area
descriptions and results for each are contained as a separate
part of this report. Scientific names of species inventories
on the Project Area are presented in tabular form in the
part of the report dealing specifically with that taxonomic
group. Following presentation of the baseline data and a
habitat evaluation based on the needs of the respective biota,
a section is devoted to an overall evaluation of the quality
EtTCAP, Inc. -6-
-------
of the Des Plaines River wetlands as evidenced by our combined
findings. A series of photographs denoting the ecological and
physical characteristics of the Project Area, particularly
Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4, is included as Appendix 1. Aerial
photographs of the Project Area also are included.
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 1
1. Horwitz, E.L. 1978. Our nation's wetlands. CEQ, Wash-
ington, D.C.
2. Poff, R.J. and C.W. Threinen. 1961. Surface water re-
sources of Kenosha County. Wisconsin Conservation Dept.,
Madison. 37 pp.
3. Owen Ayres and Associates. 1976. Environmental Impact
Statement for I.D. 378-1-00 C.T.H. "H" - I.H. 94 road
C.T.H. "Q"f Kenosha County.
4. Cowardin. L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
5. Anonymous. 1978. Des Plaines River aquatic study. Lake
County Forest Preserve District, Libertyville, 111. 150 pp.
6. Des Plaines River Steering Committees. 1975. Des Plaines
River: Flood plain information maps and profiles, Lake
County, Illinois and Kenosha County, Wisconsin. USDA
Soil Conservation Service.
OTCAP, Inc.
-7-
-------
-HKENOSHA
PLEASANT17*«|?°«ha
PRAIRIE / '1 \ "
rTi[UW
! ,i \ II N
Figure 1-1. Location of Project Area in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin. The section numbers for each section in the
Project Area (at tip of large black arrow) are enclosed
by circles. The entire Project Area is within Pleasant
Prairie Township.
IERCAP,
Inc.
-8-
-------
Figure 1-2A. Floodplain topographic map for the Des Plaines River north of
County Highway ML. Bird Survey Areas 1-5 are within this area. The
shaded areas bordering the river represent the 100-year floodplain. The
darkest portions of the shaded area depicts standing water. (From Ref. 6.)
-9-
-------
Figure 1-2B." Northern continuation of Figure 1 . 2A showing the 100-year
floodplain near Pleasant Prairie. Fish and invertebrate sampling areas
included this part of the floodplain. (From Ref. 6.)
-10-
-------
*
4»0-
|\
,1 JAN.! «kl MALI AN.I MAT1 JUN.1 JUU AOO.1 SIM OCt I HOW. I MCt 1AH-I ML I MALI API.I
WTJ IW*
Figure 1-3. Hydrograph of the mean daily discharge of the
Des Plaines River at Russell, Illinois from October 1974
through March 1976 (USGS data). Figure taken from Ref. 5.
E7FCAP, inc.
-11-
-------
Figure 1-4. Distinguishing features and examples of habitats
in the Riverine System. From Ref. 4.
UFIAIC »AUMTWM
Figure 1-5. Distinguishing features and examples of habitats
in the Palustrine System. From Ref. 4.
OTCAP, Inc.
-12-
-------
Table 1-1.
Mean monthly discharge (cfs) of the Des Plaines
River at Russell, Illinois from October 1978
through June 1980.*
JAN
FEE
MAR
APR
MAY
JTJN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
i 1978
MEAN MAX. MIN. MEAN
13
17
673
432
181
65
20
68
25
32 58 18 4
25 49 14 12
32 81 16 42
1979
MAX.
15
30
2100
1000
698
257
103
263
183
7
44
170
1980**
MIN.
11
13
32
130
21
14
4
4
2
2
3
8
MEAN
27
25
58
228
47
66
MAX.
60
115
154
341
101
212
MIN.
10
8
15
89
22
13
* Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, DeKalb, Illinois. Station
number: 05527800. Location: lat 42°29I22"N, long 87°55'32"W, in SE k
sec. 3, T46N, RUE, Lake County, Illinois.
** Data for July through October 1980 were not available from the U.S.G.S.
at the time of report preparation.
E7TCAP, inc.
-13-
-------
PART 2: BIRD INVENTORY AND HABITAT EVALUATION
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
The relative abundance of bird species using the Project
Area was monitored periodically between 19 October 1979 and
14 November 1980. Representative portions of the wetlands
were traversed by a team of ornithologists who recorded
1) species present; 2) number of individuals present; 3) por-
tion of the available habitat being used; and 4) the type of
use by each species (e.g. foraging, nesting). Scientific
names for birds mentioned in the text are listed in Table 2-8.
METHODS
Bird inventories were conducted on 42 days (168 man-days)
between 19 October and 17 November 1979, and 26 March and
14 November 1980 (see Table 2-1 for dates). A team of four
ornithologists, under the direction of Dr. William E. Southern,
conducted the bird surveys. Each field survey began near
dawn and continued until the selected areas were covered in
entirety. Pour procedures were used to provide information
about the species of birds using the Des Plaines River wet-
lands: 1) birds were counted by the observers as they walked
systematically along transects across each of five Survey
Areas (Fig. 2-1) selected as representatives of the available
wetland habitats; 2) helicopter surveys covering the entire
Project Area were flown during spring and fall periods;
3) perimeter roads, trails within the wetland, and other
access points throughout the Project Area were visited on
each count date thereby providing supplemental information
about birds using the entire wetland system and the associated
uplands; and 4) a breeding bird survey of wetland species was
conducted in 1980 wherein intensive searches for nests were
made on a-weekly basis. The observers recorded the species
of birds encountered and the actual or approximate number
(in the-case of large flocks) of each species. Nests were
marked and coded for individual recognition in order to pre-
vent duplicate counts and to provide some information about
reproductive success.
\ Inc. -14-
-------
Bird Survey Areas
Five Survey Areas were selected within the wetland com-
plex for sampling purposes. The areas varied in size, amount
and type of vegetative cover, and with respect to the amount
and depth of open water. Four of the areas were located
along or near the proposed corridor for the extension of
County Highway Q (Fig. 2-1). The remaining area was situated
slightly farther south. Areas 1, 2 and 4 were selected as
being representative of habitats holding the greatest poten-
tial for use by waterfowl, marsh birds and other wetland
species. Sampling these areas provided a means of evaluating
the quality of existing wetland habitats for birds that are
dependent upon flooded terrain, vegetative cover typical of
wetlands, and an assortment of aquatic organisms as food.
Areas 3 and 5 included, or were close to, open water but
both were covered with dense stands of river bulrush. In both
these areas, there was an absence of interspersed water that
is useful to many avian species typically found in marshes.
In the fall of both years, hunter activity influenced
our counts. Occasionally hunters were present during our
surveys and their presence, particularly in 1979, either pre-
vented us from censusing a particular area or their activi-
ties caused some birds, particularly waterfowl, to depart.
Hunter activity probably reduced the number of ducks that re-
mained on the area to be counted by us. The level of distur-
bance was probably great enough to cause some waterfowl to
seek areas having less human activity. It is likely, there-
fore, that our fall counts of waterbirds represent the mini-
mum number of each species to be expected on the Project
Area during this season. Our data for spring supports this
contention as many more ducks frequented the wetlands during
this season when human disturbance was minimal.
Survey Area 1 (Fig. 2-1) included the eastern segment
(about one-haIf of the length) of the "Q" canal, the pond
at the eastern terminus of the canal, a narrow strip north
of the canal and the flooded expanse south of the canal that
is bordered by woodland to the south and a short north-south
canal to the west (Sections 20 and 29). This area comprises
about 55 acres (20.4 hectares) of wetland. The canals pro-
vide deep open water (1.5-2.0 meters) as do pools where emer-
gent vegetation is sparce. The clonal distribution of cat-
tails, bulrushes and reeds results in a good interspersion
of water and plants. Surface plants (e.g. duckweed) and sub-
merged plants occur throughout the area. Water quality ap-
pears good as there is little turbidity. In the fall of
1980, the bottom of the south canal was clearly visible
through about 1.8 meters of water. Reed canary grass and
other grasses occur on the moist soils surrounding the area.
The arrangement of open pools of water interspersed with
emergent vegetation and some brush provides good habitat for
-------
foraging waterfowl. Sufficient vegetation exists in the
area to provide nesting cover for typical wetland species,
such as grebes, rails, and bitterns.
Water depth varied somewhat between 1979 and 1980 as
a result of different precipitation rates. September of 1979
was an unusually dry month; consequently water levels probably
were near the expected low for the wetlands. This area was
surrounded by a narrow mud zone and a shallow (1-10 cm deep)
vegetated area in 1979 that was ideal for species such as
Common Snipe. Central portions of the marsh remained 0.5-
1.5 meters deep and provided optimal conditions for foraging
and resting waterfowl. Duck hunters had two blinds toward
the west end of this area. Fall of 1980 also had low precipi-
tation rates, but the summer was unusually wet. As a result,
water levels were generally higher throughout 1980 (late
April-November) . Shallows and mud flats did not exist along
the shoreline, instead the fluctuation in water level that
occurred was restricted to the grass-covered perimeter.
In 1980, water depth ranged to 1.75 meters (deeper in the
canals) and an additional 25-30 meters of shoreline was
flooded during most of spring through early fall. Over the
entire study period, water depth in the emergent vegetation
zone ranged between 0.5 and 1.75 meters. During late spring
and early summer the water level reached, and in some places
exceeded, the height of the "Q" dike.
In October 1980, the water level in this area started
declining at the rate of about 0.3 meters per week as a direct
result of a valve at the west end of the east-west canal
("Q" canal) being opened. After two weeks of drainage, the
valve was sealed and within another two weeks water levels
had returned to their previous levels despite the lack of
significant amounts of precipitation during this time. It
appears, therefore, that ground water supplies in the im-
mediate area are adequate for maintaining water levels that
are suitable for waterbirds during most of the year.
Beaver activity in this area has influenced water levels
by the cutting of canals through the dikes and construction
of a dam just beyond the west end of the area. It appears
that water levels have risen in Area 1 during recent years.
Several cottonwoods and aspens, 10-25 centimeters in dia-
meter, on the island near the area's center died during the
last 1-3 years as a consequence of flooding. Other trees
have been cut recently (1979) by beaver thereby setting back
plant succession on the wetland. Wetland habitat quality
is improving in this area as a result of deeper and more per-
manent water levels. Beaver also have dug canals between
the dredged canal and the island which they use to transport
material cut on the island to the deeper water of the dredged
canal. Burrowing activity of muskrats along the dike also
has weakened this structure, thereby reducing its water re-
tention capability.
EfTCAP, Inc.
-------
Survey Area 2 is located on the Girl Scout property
(Fig. 2-1).It is bordered by an east-west canal on the
north, a woodland to the east, a trail to the south and an
upland area with some woods to the west. Included in the
area is an elongated dredged pond (west side) and a shallow,
apparently natural wetland pond (east side). Water depth
in the emergent zone of Area 2 ranged to 1.75 meters. Deeper
water occurred in the dredged pond and in the north canal.
Diversity of vegetative cover was good on this 90 acre
(37.5 hectares) area. Extensive stands of cattail, river
bulrush, giant bulrush and common reed were distributed
throughout the area. The water was clear and a good variety
of other aquatic plants valuable to waterfowl were present.
MusJcrat activity was most prevalent in this area (particu-
larly in 1980), as trapping is not permitted. The muskrat
population appears to be staging a comeback following a de-
cline about two years ago (Robert Vary, pers. communication).
Beaver previously used the canal system at the northern
border of the area but the lodge had been abandoned by the
onset of our study. Fish, amphibians and reptiles inhabit
the area.
The interspersion of water and vegetation is good
throughout much of this area. Toward the southeast end of
the area the topography is slightly higher and an area of wet
sedges, flooded grasses and annual plant species provides
good cover for rails, snipe and similar species. Water
levels in Area 2 are not influenced by current beaver activity
or by drainage efforts that might affect Area 1. Water levels
remained suitable for wetland species of birds throughout
the 1980 study period. In the fall of 1979, most of the area
remained wet, but deep water (over 0.5 meters) was restricted
mainly to the two ponds.
Survey Area 3 (Fig. 2-1) is located along the Des
Plaines River toward the southern portion of the Project
Area (Section 32). A pond (2 meters or deeper) is present
near the east side of this area but the remainder is a
fairly uniform stand of river bulrush. The vegetation is
so dense that walking is extremely difficult. Because of
the thickness of the vegetative cover, the area was not
used by the variety of wetland species that frequented the
more open areas with deeper water. Spring flood waters
covered most of this area and for a short time the pond was
linked to the river. Survey Area 3 consists of about 57
acres (23.8 hectares).
This area was not surveyed as intensively as some of
the others due to 1) its relatively low productivity, and
2) the difficulties involved in walking through it. Several
of the species expected to be most common in such densely
vegetated moist habitats (e.g. rails) are seldom seen as
they usually run beneath the plant growth rather than fly.
An accurate census in this type of habitat is, therefore,
EFTCAP, inc.
-17-
-------
difficult to accomplish.
Survey Area 4 (Fig. 2-1) is located north of the "Q"
canal in the southwestern portion of Section 20. It is bor-
dered to the west by an extension of the "Q" canal that
parallels the Des Plaines River, to the north by upland
agricultural land (west end) and a gravel operation (east
end) , and to the east by fill deposited from the gravel pit
operation, some apparently natural upland and the pond in-
cluded in Survey Area 1. This area contains about 55 acres
(20.4 hectares) of wetland. A sizeable open pool (at least
2 meters deep) exists near the west end. Vegetative cover
is diversified and interspersed with pools and channels of
water suitable for waterbird use. Water depth ranges from
0.5 to 2.0 meters. A channel has been dredged through the
northern half of this area. Water clarity is good in the
western portion but considerable turbidity occurs to the
east. Apparently this latter area was partially filled
with spoil from the gravel operation. Silt associated with
the fill is disturbed and placed in suspension by carp and/or
wave action. The canal bordering the area to the south also
is turbid, much in contrast to the one isolated from it on
the opposite side of the dike. Part of the 1980 silt load
in the canal was the result of runoff from the gravel opera-
tion by way of a ditch that parallels the railroad tracks.
During spring through summer 1980, a much greater pro-
portion of this area was inundated than during the 1979
fall season. Water covered much of the previously filled
area to the east. Areas with annual weeds and other non-
aquatic forms of vegetation remained flooded through fall.
Although impacted by previous filling operations, Area 4
represents reasonably good habitat for a variety of typical
wetland birds. Fish, amphibians and reptiles inhabit the
area. Huskrats are active and assist in maintaining the
open character of the area. Duck hunter blinds were con-
structed on the area in 1979 and 1980.
Survey Area 5 (Fig. 2-1) borders the west end of Area 1
and the south side of Area 4. It is a small area of about
9 acres (3.8 hectares). Beavers occupied a lodge at the
northeast corner of the site during 1979-80. A dam forms a
semicircle south of the lodge and each end of it links up
with the east-west dike ("Q" dike) . A channel has been cut
through the dike near the beaver lodge thereby permitting
the water "behind the dam to seek a level equal to that in
the canal. The dam keeps Area 5 drier than it otherwise
would be since it holds back about 0.5-0.75 meters of water.
This water, however, would not be present on any part of
Area 5 without the cut the beavers made in the dike. Water
in Area 5 is usually only a few decimeters deep. The vege-
tative cover is primarily river bulrush and reeds. Water
conditions in this area probably simulate to »ome extent the
ERCAP, Inc.
-------
conditions that existed in Area 1 prior to beaver and muskrat
perforating the dike and permitting water from the canal to
enter the marsh. It appears, therfore, that beaver have done
much to restore water levels to conditions approaching those
that may have existed prior to the dredging and diking by
humans. Only two muskrat houses were present on this area.
No fish were observed. The normally shallow water (or per-
haps non-existent) prior to beavers opening the dike has
reduced the quality of this area for wetland species of birds
such as waterfowl, bitterns, and Yellow-headed Blackbirds.
Higher water would encourage the increase of the diversified
characteristics important to these species.
Survey Procedures
Each survey area was divided into four variable width
transects, each of which was covered by the same observer
during each of the field surveys. Investigators walked
slowly across each of the areas and recorded all birds
flushed, observed within the vegetation, or noted while on
the water. Procedures used to avoid duplication of sight-
ings of any one bird or group of birds included: 1) obser-
vers staying in line and maintaining visual and/or verbal
contact; 2) observers counting only birds flushed within
their own transect boundaries; 3) observers recording some
species (such as Common Snipe) only at the time of flushing
and ignoring birds circling the area subsequent to flushing;
and 4) observers notifying others on neighboring transects
when a transient bird or flock of birds was being recorded.
Similar methods were used when searching for nests,
except each person followed a meandering course through the
survey area. Each nest located was numbered and a tag bearing
that number was placed on vegetation about two meters from the
nest. Nest contents were recorded during each subsequent
visit to the area.
Aerial Surveys
Helicopter flights were conducted over the Project Area
on 11 days in the fall of 1979 and the spring of 1980. About
30-40 minutes were spent over the Project Area and additional
time was spent along the Des Plaines River west of 1-94 and,
occasionally, at a Great Blue Heron colony in Bristol Town-
ship. The portion of the Project Area covered during the
helicopter flights is outlined by a white line in Figure 2-1.
Helicopter flights followed transect lines that permitted
examination of essentially the entire wetland area. When
necessary we deviated from the straight line flight paths to
examine particular areas more closely or to provide time to
count birds occurring in large flocks. Two persons accom-
panied the pilot, one observer and a recorder. Dr. Southern
assumed the responsibility of identifying and counting birds
observed during all but one of the flights.
, Inc.
-19-
-------
Flight altitude usually was maintained at 250-300 feet
and ground speed was usually 40-60 kilometers/hour. Included
in the aerial surveys was a large water-filled gravel pit in
the northeastern part of the Project Area, a developed lake
near Pleasant Prairie, the Pleasant Prairie sewage treatment
lagoon, and the Des Plaines River starting 0.8 kilometers
south of County Highway ML and meandering north and west
across 1-94 to a point where the river makes an abrupt north-
ward turn (about 5.6 kilometers west of 1-94). On two oc-
casions, the aerial survey included the Bristol Township
(Section 19) heron colony (about 8.6 km west of 1-94 in line
with County Highway V).
Supplemental Surveys
As the team moved between survey areas and during travel
through the Project Area, all birds (except those believed
to be released at the Pheasant Valley Hunting Club - primarily
pheasants and Mallards) observed outside the specific survey
areas were recorded. This procedure provided a supplemental
list of birds using the Project Area. This list was kept
separate from those maintained for each survey area and for
the aerial survey but all data sets were combined to obtain
a species list for the Project Area.
Photographic Documentation
Black-and-white and color photographs were taken of the
survey area, characteristic vegetation, seasonal water levels,
muskrat and beaver activity and nests of wetland bird species
found on the Project Area. Copies of a series of black-and-
white photographs are presented as Appendix 1. The color
photographs have been retained in the files of ENCAP, Inc.
RESULTS
Species Reported from the Project Area (Ground and Aerial Surveys)
During October - November 1979 and March - November 1980,
we recorded 173 species on the Project Area (Table 2-2).
Nineteen of the species are waterfowl (ducks and geese),
7 are waders (herons and bitterns) and 12 are other typical
waterbirds (loons, grebes, rails and gulls). We also recorded
other typical wetland species that use shallow water habitats and
associated serai communities, or are classified as perching
(passerine) species. Included in this category are the fol-
lowing: -Osprey, 10 shorebird species, Belted Kingfisher, Alder
and Willow flycatchers, 6 swallow species, 2 wren species,
Water Pipits, 6 warbler species, 3 blackbird species and 3
sparrow species. Of all avian species observed, 73 (42.2%)
are characteristic of, or dependent upon, various types of
wetland habitats. The occurrence of such a diversity of wet-
ERCAP, Inc. -20-
-------
land forms and their relative abundance indicates that the
Project Area is a highly productive area that is capable of
supplying the needs (food, cover and water) of a great variety
of species.
A Waterfowl use of the area was highest in April and May
(Table 2-2) and next highest during September and October.
Lower use of the area by ducks during the fall probably was
due; in part, to hunter activity. Mallard, Blue-winged Teal
and Wood Duck were present throughout the breeding season.
These data show conclusively that the Project Area is attrac-
tive to an array of waterfowl species and that it is capable
of holding a large number of individuals. This means that a
large supply of desirable food types are being produced on
the flooded areas. At least 95% of the waterfowl counted
during our aerial surveys were within the boundaries of the
Project Area. A few ducks were observed south of County
Highway ML and west of 1-94 when portions of the floodplain
were under water. Water characteristics on the Project Area
are best suited for the dabbling ducks and this is reflected
by the number of this group reported as compared to diving
ducks and mergansers (Table 2-2). The most abundant diving
duck was the Ring-necked Duck, which characteristically fre-
quents open pools bordered by emergent vegetation.
At times when the river floods the adjacent lowlands,
several species of waterfowl frequent the flooded fields and
wooded patches (Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Wood Duck). A
majority of the ducks present in the vicinity, however, used
the wetlands designated as Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4. It is
likely that relatively greater flooding than experienced in
1980 would attract additional waterfowl to the area, including
Whistling Swans (Cygnus olor). This species commonly uses
flooded farm fields in river bottoms as foraging sites during
spring migration through this part of Wisconsin. Concentra-
tions of swans have used portions of the Pheasant Valley
Hunting Club property in recent years (John Burke, pers. com-
munication) . In 1980, however, the river did not flood the
bottomland until after the peak of swan migration.
The minimal number of species reported on the Project
Area (173) represents a reasonably rich avifauna for an area
of this size (Project Area about 792 hectares; survey areas
106 hectares). If additional time had been spent searching
habitats adjacent to the wetlands for woodland or serai com-
munity species, the list undoubtedly would be even more ex-
tensive. About 40 (23.1%) of the species listed in Table 2-2
were observed but once, whereas the other 133 species were ob-
served on two or more occasions. This latter figure perhaps
denotes more accurately the number of species that can be
expected within or immediately adjacent to the flooded part
of the survey areas on a regular basis.
EfTCAP, Inc. -21-
-------
Data provided in Figure 2-2 indicate that the Des Plaines
' River wetlands provide an important stopping place for mi-
grating waterfowl, particularly during spring. We know of no
comparably good area for this purpose in the remainder of
Kenosha County or along the Des Plaines watershed in Wisconsin.
The Project Area also has potential as a breeding area for
some waterfowl and as a loafing area for males while females
incubate or tend broods. The presence of some waterfowl
throughout the summer verifies that this important function
is served by the area. Without further draining attempts by
human residents, the quality of the wetland area for use by
waterfowl should improve as a result of permanent water again
being present on some of the naturally wet areas. In addition,
waterfowl stopping during fall migration find cover and food
on the area. During this season, these birds also provide
recreation for local hunters who use blinds constructed in
or near Survey Areas 1, 4 and 5 or at various places along
the river between County Highways ML and C.
Birds Recorded on Survey Areas 1-5
Species lists for each of the five survey areas are
presented as Tables 2-3 through 2-7. The largest assemblage
of species was obtained for Survey Area 1 (120 species;
Table 2-3). Ranking, in descending order of species present,
for the other four areas is as follows: Area 2, 93 species
(Table 2-4); Area 4, 80 species (Table 2-5); Area 5, 42 species
(Table 2-6); and Area 3, 21 species (Table 2-7).
Nineteen species of waterfowl were observed using the
survey areas. This is the same number of waterfowl species
recorded for the entire Project Area; in other words, no part
of the Project Area attracted species of ducks that were not
found within the survey areas. Areas 1, 2 and 4 were most
attractive to ducks. All three areas were used as loafing
or resting places, foraging areas, molting areas, and as
nesting sites (Table 2-8). Table 2-9 shows the number of
birds, including waterfowl, that were observed per party
hour of observation time. In other words, this is the number
of individuals of each species that the team of four orni-
thologists saw per unit time (hour) of expended effort in
the field. These data provide a more accurate comparison
of the relative abundance of the various species than the ab-
solute number observed per month (Table 2-2). It is apparent
(Table 2-9) that the survey areas are used most frequently
by waterfowl during fall and spring. Three species (Mallard,
Blue-winged Teal and Wood Duck) remain in small numbers
throughout the breeding season. Five species (the preceding
3 plus Gadwall and American Wigeon) intensify their use of
the area as the summer progresses.
Six species of wading birds (herons and bitterns) fre-
quented the survey areas (Table 2-9). They used the area for
ERCAP, Inc. -22-
-------
foraging, resting and in two instances (Least Bittern and
probably Green Heron) for nesting (Table 2-8). Great Blue
Herons from the Bristol Township breeding colony (about 120
nests in 1980) consistently used the Project Area for foraging
purposes. This species is highly territorial during foraging
and consequently considerable space is maintained between
feeding birds during the breeding season. For this reason,
the number of herons observed at any point in time probably
is not indicative of the total number from the colony that
actually use the Project Area. The continued success of the
Bristol colony is dependent upon foraging areas such as those
available on the Project Area. The Project Area is about 9.6
kilometers west of the breeding colony which places it within
optimal foraging range for the herons. The abundance and
diversity of fishes and amphibians within the Des Plaines
wetlands probably contributed to selection and continued use
of this particular nesting site by Great Blue Herons. Nesting
and foraging locations for this species are declining at an
alarming rate in many areas, such as Illinois counties im-
mediately to the south of the Project Area (Ref. 1).
Four members of the family Rallidae (rails, coots and
gallinules) were recorded on the survey areas, primarily 1,
2 and 4. These species used the areas for all of their ac-
tivities, including nesting. Coots were the most abundant
member of this group (Tables 2-2 and 2-9). The number of
Soras present during spring and summer is considered indica-
tive of good wetland quality.
Migrating Osprey occasionally foraged over the survey
areas during spring and fall. This species feeds almost ex-
clusively on fishes and it probably was attracted by the
larger species that inhabit the river, canals and ponds.
The expanses of open water in the immediate aera probably are
inadequate for attracting nesting Osprey but the wetland ex-
panse along the Des Plaines River provides a relatively safe
and productive foraging area for migrants. This becomes in-
creasingly important as lakes in Kenosha County become more
heavily developed for human recreation. Ospreys are on the
Wisconsin Endangered Species List (Table 2-11) and habitat
loss has contributed to their population decline to the
point of endangerment.
Long-billed Marsh Wrens (Table 2-9) were abundant on
the survey areas. This species was a frequent nester and
remained in the Project Area until at least mid-November.
Long-billed Marsh Wrens prefer cattail stands for nesting
but occasionally use bulrushes or reeds. The prevalence of
this species is an indication that existing wetland charac-
teristics (food and cover) are suitable for other marsh birds
as well.
Table 2-9 includes 147 species that were observed on
E7FCAP, Inc. -23-
-------
the survey areas, or 85.0% of the 173 species that were re-
t ported for the entire Project Area. This in part reflects
the amount of survey time that was devoted to these areas
but, in addition, it indicates the importance of these areas
as bird habitat. The areas include open deep pools and ponds
with submerged vegetation, deep water marshes with emergent
vegetation, shallow expanses with emergents, wet sedge and
> grass meadows, scrub-brush areas adjacent to or within flooded
areas, and upland borders with grass, brush or deciduous woods.
The assortment of habitats provided by such a combination of
physical and biotic factors results in high avian species
diversity such as depicted in Table 2-2.
* Typical Wetland Species Nesting on Survey Areas
The flooded wetlands in Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4 were
systematically searched for nests on a weekly basis from
28 May through 16 July 1980. In all, 399 nests were located;
. 62 on Survey Area 1, 223 on Survey Area 2, and 114 on Survey
Area 4 (Table 2-10). The nests of 13 species were identified
on the basis of egg characteristics or as a result of the
adult occupant being observed. A sizeable proportion (93.5%)
of the 185 Long-billed Marsh Wren nests were 'dummy1 nests.
Males of this polygamous species build extra nests as part
I of their effort to attract females and to discourage other
males from invading their territory. Dominant males and
those that ultimately attract the largest number of females
have the highest number of dummy nests (19 or so per male).
We located 12 nests of this species that contained eggs or
young.
t
The tendency for Pied-billed Grebes, Least Bitterns,
Soras, Virginia Rails, Black Terns and Yellow-headed Black-
birds to nest in the Survey Areas indicates that the quality
of the wetland is relatively good. These species have di-
verse foraging habits and exploit a variety of food items.
t Their requirements apparently are satisfied by the wetland
complex contained in the survey areas. The nesting habits
of each species are quite specific and the heterogeneity of
the wetland vegetation, the mosaic arrangement of open water
and vegetation, and the abundance of food types are all
essential to their occurrence.
i
Only two duck nests were located (Table 2-10) . This
is not surprising as the three species recorded on the
areas during the breeding season usually do not nest in the
flooded parts of marshes. Since we did not search upland
meadows, fringe areas of grass or sedges, or woodland sites
for Wood Duck nesting cavities, the number of duck nests
located must be viewed as the absolute minimum number present
on the Project Area in 1980. The vegetated wetlands seem to
provide optimal foraging habitat and cover for female ducks
and their broods, good loafing areas for males and adequate
EFTCAP. Inc. -24-
-------
cover for molting ducks. Its potential as a duck breeding
area appears high, particularly when compared with other lo-
calities in Kenosha County.
Threatened and Endangered Species on the Project Area
Table 2-11 lists the threatened and endangered bird species
for the State of Wisconsin. Two endangered and three threatened
species were recorded on the Project Area. Osprey and Common
Tern (endangered) both foraged on the survey sites. The area
is not considered as optimal foraging or breeding habitat for
the Common Tern although individuals migrating or nesting along
the Lake Michigan shoreline might visit occasionally. Ospreys,
on the other hand, may find the area valuable for foraging pur-
poses during migration. The amount of open water probably is
insufficient to attract breeding Ospreys. This wetland area
could provide nesting habitat for the endangered Forster's
Tern (Sterna forsterii) if water levels are permitted to remain
at or near present levels. None were observed, however, during
any of our visits in 1979 or 1980.
The Great Egret (threatened) was observed on one occasion
within the Project Area. This species might possibly nest in
the Bristol Township heronry but none were observed by us or by
Carl Becker (Coordinator, Illinois Endangered Species Program,
pers. communication), during visits in May and June 1980.
The river and marsh habitats could provide valuable foraging
habitat for this species during migration or during the breed-
ing season if any occur in Bristol Township, Great Egrets that
nest in a colony at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge probably
pass through this area during migration. Loss of foraging
areas is one factor limiting the distribution of Great Egrets
in the Midwest.
The Cooper's Hawk (threatened) was observed on five oc-
casions (Table 2-2) near Survey Areas 1 and 2. This woodland
species may nest on the Project Area but we have no data to
support this speculation. The abundance of birds and other
potential prey on the Project Area make it optimal habitat
for the Cooper's Hawk during migration and during the nesting
season.
The Red-shouldered Hawk (threatened) was observed on two
occasions. This species prefers riparian woodlands such as
those along the Des Plaines River within the Project Area.
We did not document nesting on the area but suitable habitat
seems to exist.
The effect of drainage, dredging and development on
wildlife using wetland habitats is evidenced by the number of
wetland species included on the Illinois Threatened and En-
dangered Species list (Table 2-12). Twenty of the species on
the Illinois list (those checked in Table 2-12) are dependent
, Inc. -25-
-------
upon wetland habitats for foraging, nesting or both. The
destruction of marshes, floodplain habitat and other wetlands,
particularly in northeastern Illinois, have contributed sig-
nificantly to the present jeopardy of these species (Ref. 1).
Several of the species on the Illinois list either nested on
the Project Area or were observed during migration. Continued
wetland destruction in areas adjoining Illinois, such as
Kenosha County, will enlarge the geographic area in which
these species are severely stressed thereby increasing the pro-
bability of their extinction in this part of the Great Lakes
Region.
EVALUATION OF HABITAT QUALITY FOR WETLAND BIRDS
Evaluation Indices Based on Breeding Birds
Determination of the importance or environmental value of
particular pieces of property has been approached in a variety
of ways. The fundamental value of the natural environment
usually is expressed in terms of its value as habitat for wild-
life, frequently described on the basis of vegetative charac-
teristics. It is important that a standardized evaluation
method be adopted for application where impact analysis is
involved. Graber and Graber (Ref. 2) developed a method based
upon: 1) the "cost" of each habitat, specifically its replace-
ment cost as measured in time; 2) the availability of each
habitat, as indicated by its total area in the state or re-
gion of the state; 3) the changing availability (if changing)
of each habitat; 4) the amount of each habitat in the impact
area; and 5) the faunal and/or floral complexity of each
habitat. These factors are used in calculating indices to en-
vironmental value by converting them to numerical values that
reflect natural parameters of habitats (Ref. 2). The result-
ing numerical values then are used in simple equations to de-
terming three indices of environmental value — the Habitat
Evaluation Index, the Average Species Index and the Faunal
Index.
We have used this approach in making an objective de-
termination of the value of the Des Plaines River wetland in
Kenosha County as bird habitat. Graber and Graber (Ref. 2)
provided background information necessary for applying this
method in evaluating marshes in northern Illinois. Since the
Project Area is located immediately north of the Illinois-
Wisconsin border, use of this procedure and their baseline
data for Illinois appears justified.
The components of this evaluation procedure will be des-
cribed briefly. Further details can be obtained from the
original source (Ref. 2). Replacement Cost of the Habitat is
defined as the time required to re-establish a particular bio-
community. Two categories of marshes are recognized from the
EITCAP, Inc. -26-
-------
replacement standpoint — natural marshes and manmade marshes.
Natural marshes have a long evolution and development because
w the underwater soil, which creates conditions suitable for
specific types of vegetative growth, requires many years to
accumulate. Manmade marshes develop more rapidly, have simpler
plant;, communities and usually support few of the characteristic
marsh birds. The span of time required for replacement of
these types of marshes ranges from 3-100 years, with manmade
types being at the lower extreme and natural types at the op-
posite extreme. For the purpose of evaluating the Des Plaines
River wetlands, I arbitrarily selected 25 years as the approxi-
mate replacement time necessary to duplicate some of the types
of conditions currently found in the survey areas.
"
Habitat Availability refers to the acreage of a particular
gross habitat in a specified geographical area. After replace-
ment cost, this is considered the next most important factor
in the evaluation. Since data on wetland acreage in southeastern
Wisconsin were not readily available, I used data for northern
Illinois. In this area, 31,700 acres of marshes occur (Ref. 2).
This figure is probably higher than the actual amount of wet-
land present in Kenosha County and the immediately adjacent
counties. Use of this figure, therefore, tends to deflate
rather than inflate the evaluation results for the Project Area.
Changing Availability of Habitats refers to the rate at which
regional acreage of a given habitat has increased or decreased
during the most recent decade for which data are available.
It is an additive or subtractive modifier to the Availability
Factor. The figures for northern Illinois (Ref. 2) and the
southern tier of Wisconsin counties (if available) probably
would be similar.
The Acreage Factor is an index of the amount of a given
habitat in an area of concern or impact area. This is expressed
as a percentage obtained by dividing the number of acres of a
habitat by the number of acres in the impact area. The Acreage
Factor is used as a multiplier in the computation of the Habitat
Factor (Ref. 2).
The Fauna1 Index consists of a sum of numerical values
assigned to the nesting species of birds that occupy a given
area of habitat (Ref. 2). The numerical values are based on
the state population of each species and the extent to which
each species is specialized toward use of a single gross habitat.
The relationship between any organism and its habitat is always
specialized, but there are differing degrees of specialization,
with some species being more dependent upon a particular habitat
than others. Black Terns, for example, require a certain type
of marsh whereas Gray Catbirds nest in a variety of situations.
The point system reflects these differences. For this purpose,
I used point values from a list prepared by Graber and Graber
(Ref. 2). Species for which nests were found on Survey Areas
1, 2 and 4 were used in calculating the Faunal Index for the
ERCAP, Inc. -27-
-------
Project Area. Although Graber and Graber (Ref. 2) indicated
that occurrence data (repeated observations on a site) during
summer is adequate evidence of breeding for this purpose, I
opted to use only those species for which nests were actually
recorded in 1980. As a result, the Faunal Index calculated
for the survey areas in a minimal value. The Faunal Index
is calculated by dividing the sum of the species values by
the common logarithm of the number of acres of a particular
habitat on the area.
The Average Species Index is calculated by dividing the
number of species for which nesting data exist into the sum
of points assigned to each species (i.e. sum - Total Species
Points). The richer the habitat in both common and rare
species, the higher the Average Species Index value. For a
given acreage of habitat, both the Total Species Points and
Average Species Index reflect the quality of the habitat
(Ref. 2). A tract that supports only a few of the most common
and tolerant species is less valuable biologically than a
tract that supports a large variety of common and rare species.
The calculated values for the survey areas are presented
in Table 2-13 and compared with expected values (Fig. 2-2)
derived by Graber and Graber (Ref. 2). Since the values for
the survey areas are well above the expected values on the
graph, the habitat is considered as superior in faunal quality
and should be given extra consideration in any actions that
might impact the area.
The Faunal Index takes into account the acreage of the
habitat and the Total Species Points without direct reference
to the number of species. The Faunal Index is obtained from
Figure 2-2 by using the acreage at the bottom of the graph.
Using this method, the value for Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4 com-
bined is 630.65 (Table 2-13). This figure is somewhat below
the predicted value for an area of this size. This means that
the combined area is not of superior quality according to this
procedure but yet it probably falls into the good range. It
must be recognized that the indices are indicative only of the
present (1980) condition of the wetland habitats, not of their
future potential. It is likely that the present breeding avi-
fauna of the area reflects the extent to which past manipula-
tion of water levels has influenced habitat quality. With
continuing conditions similar to those in 1980, marsh quality
should improve as will conditions for most of the marsh nest-
ing species. These indices only reflect wetland quality
(biological value) as based on breeding species of birds
rather than the complete assemblage of species that use the
wetland seasonally during migration or use it for other than
breeding purposes. As conclusively shown in this report,
numerous individuals representing a variety of avian species
use the Project Area on a seasonal basis. The importance of
the area for these combined uses, nesting and seasonal (migra-
EfTCAR Inc. -28-
-------
tory) use, is significantly greater than its value for any
single purpose.
The Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) provides a means of
evaluating the richness(potential value) of survey area
habitats as compared to the average for the region. This pro-
cedure, as described by Graber and Graber (Ref. 2) produces
a HEI of 2.25 for the survey areas when compared with the
entire Project Area and 10.66 if only comparable deep-water
marshes (hemimarshes) are considered. This means that richness
of the habitats evaluated is 2.25 to 10.66 times above the
average for the region. Reduction of the replacement time
from 25 to 12 years (represents a reduction in ecological
complexity) results in a HEI of 1.07, which is still slightly
above average (average HEI = 1.00). Characteristics of the
flooded marshes (about 400 acres) are good enough that further
lowering of the estimated replacement time to three years
(minimum for manmade areas) results in a HEI of 1.28, which
is also above average.
These procedures indicate that the habitat and faunal
characteristics of the Project Area, including the breeding
marsh birds, are such that the area should be ranked from
good to outstanding.
Habitat Evaluation Based on Waterfowl Requirements
On four occasions during the project (fall, spring, sum-
mer, fall), each member of the ornithological team prepared
en evaluation of waterfowl habitat found on the Project Area.
The procedure followed was that of Flood et al. (Ref. 3)
in which various habitat characteristics are scored, weighted
and then a mean value established. Table 2-14 shows the type
of factors that were considered and gives our mean scores for
Fall 1979. Because water levels were higher in 1980, the
average scores ranged slightly higher (8.01).
On this basis, the Project Area appears to provide good
habitat (average » 5.0) for waterfowl (a ranking between
average and superior). This conclusion is substantiated by
the number and variety of ducks that used the Project Area
during 1979-80 (Table 2-2).
The two procedures described above plus the documenta-
tion of bird occurrence on the area, singly or in combination,
indicate that the Project Area represents good to very good
habitat for waterfowl, marsh birds and allied species. The
value of the area is even greater than these procedures in-
dicate, since the Project Area is the last remaining expanse
of wetland in southeastern Wisconsin.
EfTCAP, Inc. -29-
-------
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 2
1. Graber, J. W., R. R. Graber and E. L. Kirk. 1978. Illinois
Birds: Ciconiiformes. 111. Nat. Hist. Survey, Biol. Notes
No. 109, Urbana, 111. 8Op.
2. Graber, J. W. and R. R. Graber. 1976. Environmental eval-
ualations using birds and their habitats. 111. Nat. Hist.
Survey, Biol. Notes No. 97. Urbana, 111. 39p.
3. Flood, B. S., M. E. Sangser, R. D. Sparrowe and T. S. Baskett,
1977. A handbook for habitat evaluation procedures. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 139.
EEC A P. Inc.
-30-
-------
Figure 2-1.
EJTCAP. Inc.
Location of Bird Survey Areas 1-5 (enclosed by
broken lines). The area west of the solid line
was covered during aerial surveys.
-31-
-------
NUMBER OF SPECIES
5 10 15 20
o
a.
CO
UJ
UJ
a.
CO
e
o
Q_
X
1 t ' _ * ~"T n - - +- ~f
- - -H- 4-t-- M — 1 -p- '-
i800- ::±::j±±t±:::::::::::::::
* i | ~ j
I c nn tl" i H" • ^
.bUU -^4-^::::::::::f ::::::::
linn . iizzzzzzzzzizzzzzzziiiizziiii.
.HUU • iiiz.zzzz z i:"i:i.:
__^-» -up.
9nn . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.izzzzizzz:
__.uu __z i TZ i i.i.i
nnn • ~~zzzz~zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.zzz.
,UUU izizzztzzzzzizzizzziiizzzizzzi
llMBfriliUllllMMpll Illk II (III 11 lift
i
onn - zz±zzi±zzzzzzzzzz: zzz±j _±z
OUU - T T - , . ' tl .
iz_-zzzzzzzzzz_zzz z.zii
:z:izziz±zz{i"zzzzz:i:<:::z:i:
~ii:ziz:Ezzz_j_zzzzzzii..ziiizzi
cnn. • ii-tizzzizzzzzzzzz: ztzzzzzzz!
DUU "_}_lZ_nziZZ I --•*- (--
_.„_. _ . _!_„.. Ztl _ _
^
/inn • i zi z _i
HUU "_z_i_zt:z-i-i""_z.: i"__i
"ZtZZZIIIZ ZZ-? _.Z . ZC
,,i....lZII ....,_,.
1 .._. ^ J ,,^ . .._.__.
_i. _ _ _L4_ _..-.. ..- - - - _
200 :zzzzz:zi:zzz:zzzzz::zzzz:izz
:::zzz:^::z:zzzz:zz::z±:izzz
" Z — tZZZZZZZZZZZIZZZZZZZ
1 5 2
T
. , a _,., . 1 J.r,
' T i ! 1
t ' , L , i | ill _ . ...
— ~ 4 1 1 " ~H — H~ " i yi ' " ~ ~ "
i ll-ii i'U-ti'l hi 1 l-7(- n
JTI ' *
_v v - . Ztt III ZI. . h7 9
_ i IT T — *D/i__
-y. 1 T
._.,,.. „ _ , _ _ll m*m m m m -r
iiiizi_rr±zzzi Jzzznii:: iz:
z zz i — zzz LZZIZIIII zn .... ,»
zizzzzzzi:zzzzjuzziiiii: z.i.RP Q
z zzzz::zz_z z: z 1 1 1 1 1 :i 1 1 1 00 • 3
II..IIIII :z !zzi in mi: ; z:.
_, : :--:- -- ff. „
-Hj-^l 1 1 yf| 1 1 f H'HIJ H HTT mi 66 ' 5
.._-..,.. _-.. ......... - - .
ZI..IIEZZZIIIIZIIIIIII! I-I • ub . J
_.. .... __._-._....... ...
ri zzzzzziizzziiiziiniii: iii-.cc n
., ZZ ...1. . '.. OZ) . U
17"
1 II Ml III H 1 1 U 1 II 11 II II 1 IM T II 1 Mi t - 54 ,3
1
1 . r^ n
i :zzz.i..± i o_5.u
_ ZZ.Z • K7 K
ztztzziizziizn: Ofc • ZJ
.!_.,. t_u.. .......... rn n
ZZ-.IIZ-Z.I "aLO
I™
IZZZZTZZ "zziiizzi:izzi:ziz:_>c7 c
:--.: :>/,:>
IZIZZZZZI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z !! Z Z Z !!!!!._» C*Z T.
IZ.ZIZZZZ ZZZZZZZ.ZII JJ»J
_________ ____.______.__.._... _. iio n
ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZIZZZZZ 4ft . U
:zzzzzz:z zzzz::zzzz:izz::zzz: . 77 7
I U4- 1 rr r rri IT I '
0 40 80 100 200
CO
UJ
a.
CO
uu
o
UJ
a.
x
NUMBER OF ACRES
Figure 2-2. Relationship of numbers of species and their assigned
index values to acreage censused in marsh habitat. The
black graph line is used to interpret calculated Faunal
Indices in vevaluating impact areas. The black and white
.. line extends between values for the Project Area. From Ref. 2.
EfTCAP, Inc. _32_
-------
Tabl^ 2-1.
Dates spent in the Project Area to conduct bird
surveys.
1979
19 October
21 October
2 November
9 November
17 November
5 days
20 man-days
26 March
4 April
9 April
18 April
19 April
25 April
26 April
2 May
3 May
8 May
9 May
15 May
16 May
27 May
28 May
3 June
4 June
11 June
12 June
1980
18 June
25 June
2 July
9 July
16 July
6 August
29 August
5 September
12 September
19 September
27 September
3 October
8 October
17 October
22 October
31 October
7 November
14 November
37 days
148 man-days
42 days
168 man-days
A r»
-------
Table 2-2. Total individuals observed per month (transects,
aerial and composite surveys combined) within
the Project Area.
1979
GAVIIDAE
Common Loon
PODICIPEDIDAE
Horned Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe
ARDEIDAE
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Green Heron
OCT
11
7
NOV
9
6
Black-crowned Wight Heron
MAR APR
1
8
2 50
3
1
MAY JUN
6 6
59 28
1
34 37
2
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
American Bittern
Least Bittern
ANATIDAE
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shove ler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Canvasback
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Buf flehead
Ducks spp.
Ruddy Duck
Hooded Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
ACCIPITRIDAE
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper ' s Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Marsh Hawk
4
133
2
4
15
7
1
7
2
11
1
1
153
1
1
7
48
11
116
28
11
5
4
39
56 1392
2 68
55
20
178
12 1445
15 490
2 115
5 151
10
9 346
4
33
2
49
1182
4 8
27
2
1
1 21
2
1
1
2
4 24
15
241 97
4
4
3
11
700 57
47
18
30 137
1
2
11 8
4
1
1980
JUL AUG SEP
2
2 3 22
27 23 48
39 47 43
2 2
1?
12 12 1
9
46 106
3
1
41 170 276
3 40
2
55 112 227
4
1 1
3 2 14
1
1 3
OCT
24
4
5
5
53
328
4
6
14
28
161
58
20
74
1
12
14
1
1
2
I
14
1
3
NOV
6
34
1
2
2
1
3
1
EFCAP, Inc. -34-
-------
iau.Le t. — t. wwitu.
ft.
1979
OCT NOV
PANDIONIDAE
0)sprey
FALCONIDAE
American Kestrel 1 2
THASIANIDAE
Ring-necked Pheasant 13 5
•Gray Partridge
IALLIDAE
y Virginia Rail
• Sora 6 2
Common Gallinule
^American Coot 239 145
CHARADRIIDAE
Killdeer 6 5
American Golden Plover
SCOLOPACIDAE
| Common Snipe 150 100
Upland Sandpiper
Spotted Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs 5 2
Lesser Yellowlegs 2
Pectoral Sandpiper 10
IShorebird spp.
Dowitcher
LARIDAE
Herring Gull 3 363
Ring-billed Gull 45 144
> Gull spp.
Bonaparte's Gull
Common Tern
Black Tern
COLUMBIDAE
Mourning Dove 4 3
Rock Dove
CUCULIDAE
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
MAR APR
2
2 6
2
33
2
1 1931
3 22
46
8
53
80
5 32
3 198
10 3
25
32
2
MAY
3
2
153
4
426
21
25
19
20
1
7
40
17
7
24
5
3
1
1980
JUN JUL AUG
1 3
5
1
20 1 18
1 4
94 46 50
18 10 11
4 1
4
8 10 3
3
8
12
43
1
13 14
5 11 32
679
3
111
SEP
2
4
36
11
1031
32
15
14
2
14
7
543
86
121
3
2
1
OCT
3
1
1
1
2651
26
39
74
8
7
1
25
1
17
137
6
2
33
15
1
NOV
2
1
2
43
3
6
20
|STRIGIDAE
Great Horned Owl 1
CAPRIMULGIDAE
Conmon Nighthawk 2
APODIBAE
» Chimney Swift 5 135 13 1 88 27
EfTCAP, Inc. -35-
-------
r
Table 2-2 cont.
.
1979
OCT
TROCHILIDAE
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
ALCEDINIDAE
Belted Kingfisher 3
PICIDAE
Common Flicker 1
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Hairy Woodpecker 1
Downy Woodpecker 1
TYRANNIDAE
Eastern Kingbird
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Alder Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Wood Pewee
ALAUDIDAE
Horned Lark
HIRUNDINIDAE
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow 2
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
CORVIDAE
Blue Jay 7
Common Crow 32
PARIDAE
Black-capped Chickadee 14
SITTIDAE
White-breasted Nuthatch
Red-breasted Nuthatch
CERTHIIDAE
Brown Creeper 2
TROGLODYTIDAE
House Wren
Long-billed Marsh Wren 6
Short-billed Marsh Wren
NOV MAR APR
10
39
2
9
4 3
1
1 1
5
1 351
4
13
90
32
10 1 7
32 11 24
21 11 14
MAY
8
11
2
1
9
12
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
222
238
28
201
21
30
16
13
1
4
185
4
1980
JUN
3
9
1
10
8
6
1
1
60
131
5
38
6
7
3
3
2
306
JUL
5
1
9
3
1
3
7
63
58
9
4
7
2
277
2
AUG
10
10
1
4
1
1
8
10
114
1
9
6
15
17
1
201
1
SEP OCT
1
11 9
18 2
3
2 1
1
1 7
2
2
1
1
427 1
27
1
11
116 15
95 26
10 24
1
1
3
260 133
NOV
6
6
26
9
1
3
EfTCAP, Inc.
-36-
-------
1 Table 2-2 cont.
1979
) OCT NOV
| MIMIDAE
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
TURDIDAE
American Robin 109 21
fc Wood Thrush
Hermit Thrush 1
Swainson's Thrush
Veery
Eastern Bluebird
SYLVIIDAE
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Golden-crowned Kinglet 1 3
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 3
MOTACILLIDAE
Water Pipit
* BOMBYCILLIDAE
Cedar Waxwing
LANIIDAE
Northern Shrike
ft STURNIDAE
9 Starling 69 16
VIREONIDAE
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
> PARULIDAE
Black-and-white Warbler
Golden-winged Warbler
Blue-winged Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
» Nashville Warbler
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler 58 2
i Black-throated Green Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Pine Warbler
Palm Warbler 1
MAR APR MAY
3
3 8
19 120 51
1 4
3
12 2
6
22 2
1
9 102 4
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
39
13
24 28
2
3
1
32
1980
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
5122
7513
30 40 32 237 131 2
4 1
2
4 1
2
1
2
7
1 1
1 10 22 16
1 20 295 141 39
1
1
5
1
5
1
84 59
2
1
2
1 1
1
-37-
-------
Table 2-2 cont.
1979 .
Ovenbird
Horthern Waterthrush
Mourning Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Wilson's Warbler
American Redstart
PLOCEIDAE
, Bouse Sparrow
ICTERIDAE
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Horthern Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Brewer's Blackbird
Common Crackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
THRAUPIDAE
Scarlet Tanager
FRINGILLIDAE
Cardinal
, Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Dickcissel
Purple Finch
Fine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Rufous-sided Towhee
Savannah Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
OCT
1
1
11
1
329
16
3
94
2
2
2
2
1
16
11
67
14
1
Swamp Sparrow 211
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
13
NOV MAR APR MAY
13
1 2
823 818 1894
124 76 10
2
12 53 350
35 15 54
7 4 13
1
1
811
2
1
59 4 2
63 11 30
1
68
17 1
17 121
23 25 83
2
TOTAL:
1
2
2
88
4
3
5
6
11
54
1196
13
145
58
1
12
8
2
10
1
6
2
2
3
3
248
78
JUN
30
5
5
108
807
5
67
4
1
15
1
6
5
4
1
2
87
13
1980
JUL
51
20
10
86
620
1
41
2
3
18
2
25
1
2
5
1
80
26
AUG
17
13
1
3
21
449
1
8
1
2
1
7
19
1
44
12
SEP
2
26
2
9
6
3
9
11
1949
154
69
11
2
23
7
1
1
52
15
OCT
5
2
3
' 1
1
9018
198
229
20
3
1
4
19
5
32
68
19
4
255
22
2
NOV
952
2
2
41
15
6
10
5
35
8
173 species
E&CAP, Inc.
-38-
-------
Table 2-3. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 1, 1979-80.
Common Loon
Pied-billed Grebe
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
American Bittern
Least Bittern
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Duck spp.
Hooded Merganser
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
American Kestrel
Ring-necked Pheasant
Sora
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Killdeer
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Pectoral Sandpiper
Dowitcher
Hearing Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Gull spp.
Common Tern
Black Tern
Mourning Dove
Rock Dove
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
Common Nighthawk
Chimney Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Common Flicker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Kingbird
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Wood Pewee
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Short-billed Marsh Wren
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Wood Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Eastern Bluebird
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Water Pipit
Cedar Waxwing
Starling
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Black-and-white Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Pine Warbler
Palm Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Common Yellowthroat
Wilson's Warbler
American Redstart
ERCAP, Inc.
-39-
-------
Table 2-3 cont.
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Northern Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Brewer's Blackbird
Common Crackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
TOTAL: 120 species
Indigo Bunting
American Goldfinch
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
EJ7CAR inc.
-40-
-------
Table 2-4. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 2, 1979-80.
Pied-billed Grebe
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
Least Bittern
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Bufflehead
Duck spp.
Ruddy Duck
Hooded Merganser
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Marsh Hawk
Osprey
American Kestrel
Virginia Rail
Sora
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Killdeer
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Pectoral Sandpiper
Herring Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Gull spp.
Black Tern
Mourning Dove
Rock Dove
Black-billed Cuckoo
Chimney Swift
Belted Kingfisher
TOTAL: 93 species
Common Flicker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Willow Flycatcher
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Short-billed Marsh Wren
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Wood Thrush
Veery
Cedar Waxwing
Northern Shrike
Starling
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Palm Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Common Yellowthroat
Bobolink
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Northern Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Tree Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
EfTCAP, Inc.
-41-
-------
Table 2-5. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 4, 1979-80,
Horned Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
American Bittern
Least Bittern
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Red-tailed Hawk
Marsh Hawk
Ring-necked Pheasant
Virginia Rail
Sora
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Killdeer
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Shorebird spp.
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Pectoral Sandpiper
Herring Gull
Ring-gilled Gull
Black Tern
Mourning Dove
TOTAL: 80 species
Rock Dove
Chimney Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Common Flicker
Eastern Kingbird
Eastern Phoebe
Willow Flycatcher
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Purple Martin
Blue Jay
Common Crow
House Wren
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Short-billed Marsh Wren
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
American Robin
Water Pipit
Cedar Waxwing
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Bobolink
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Dickcissel
American Goldfinch
Savannah Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Tree Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
ERCAP. Inc.
-42-
-------
Table 2-6. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 5, 1979-80.
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Least Bittern
Mallard
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Red-tailed Hawk
Sora
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Chimney Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
Common Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
TOTAL: 42 species
Long-billed Marsh Wren
American Robin
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Cedar Waxwing
Yellow Warbler
Palm Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Wilson's Warbler
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Red-winged Blackbird
Northern Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Indigo Bunting
American Goldfinch
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
-43-
-------
Table 2-7. Avian species recorded in Survey Area 3, 1979-80.
Great Blue Heron
Mallard
Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Marsh Hawk
Ring-necked Pheasant
Sora
American Coot
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow
Black-capped Chickadee
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Red-winged Blackbird
Dark-eyed Junco
Tree Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lapland Longspur
TOTAL: 21 species
EfTCAP, Inc. -44-
-------
Table 2-8
Composite list of all bird species recorded
on the Project Area, showing the types of
use each species make make of the wetlands,
its habitat preference, and its typical
seasonal status.
Inc.
-45-
-------
to
en
'*«-. X
• Vv
•v '*
.,N
s
wo
•
.
u
t/]
D
oc
CN
0)
-46-
-------
*fc
*te
w
D
E-
W
V *%
>.:>
s
<% S
*. v
w
w
D
*»*,
O
o
oo
O
S* Q
SS'fi
'^G r2
« -O t-A
e o> O-^
8 J* O o
u
O ep •*» fe
t> a»c
" ^-i
*&
»s
^3
-47-
-------
3
S
EH
(A
V
EH
H
0
SC
%
Wl "» x • -^^
w ''^ o..
D! *(,.
-------
'«>
§
EH
E-"
w
g
E-t
H
§
X
^
v.v%
u
CO
**• % *
% **<>^
*
-------
E*
(A
"V
&H
H
CO
<
'<%
•v.
w
en
D
'•>*.
c
o
o
00
I
CM
0)
r-t
-50-
-------
W
-51-
-------
w
D
•^
•^
^ %
***. *
u
to
s^
*.. °
-------
§
EH
<
EH
W
^
V
* .*4
X
EH
H
03
.s*
•
en
D
f$i
V
o
u
ao
l
CM
5
-53-
-------
U3 « « <3
u a ^ w
0} OJ r-i .O
C S a» n
0) Q 9
h T3 K *
•ri 4) «
ti ts a,t>
• ^ V
-54-
-------
w
D
s
e-
w
'
,
^
"
HABITAT
w
w
D
4J
c
o
o
oo
I
0)
-55-
-------
m
J
i
*
^ X °c
^ O
^ ^"fe
*^d *^
>4
cv
^
% *Cr
>? *$a A>
<% ^ ^^o,
'^. **>. ^
u
^ X
Vff V
x°
^0
i?
^>
4J
8
00
0)
-56-
-------
*J
»*. N
in
D
s
E-
S2
t<
M
0
<
ac
w
en
D
c
o
u
00
0)
t-l
X)
A
E"
-------
Table 2-9. Species recorded on Survey Areas 1-5, 1979-80,
in birds per party hour.
GAVIIDAE
Common Loon
PODICIPEDIDAE
Horned Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe
ARDEIDAE
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Black-crowned Night Heron
B
1979
Fall
1.53
0.29
IRDS OBSERVED PER PARTY HOUR
1980
Spring Breeding
0.02
0.38
1.57 1.42
0.75 2.06
0.06
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
American Bittern
Least Bittern
ANATIDAE
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Gadwall
Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Wigeon
Northern Shoveler
Wood Duck
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Buf f lehead
Duck spp.
Ruddy Duck
Hooded Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
ACCIPITRIDAE
Sharp- shinned Hawk
Cooper ' s Hawk
Red- tailed Hawk
Red- shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Rough- legged Hawk
Marsh Hawk
PANDIONIDAE
Osprey
0.38
0.19
16.13
0.29
0.10
1.05
4.58
1.43
4.87
0.10
2.00
0.19
1.05
0.38
0.08 1.06
0.32
26.54 3.84
0.90
1.46
0.47
1.70 0.03
19.61 2.85
9.92
2.41
2.13 5.23
0.21
6.15
0.68
0.04
0.45
0.17
0.58
0.04
0.02
0.34 0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
Summer
0.05
0,50
1.61
4.16
0.14
0.02
0.83
9.00
0.09
11.63
0.55
9.83
0.14
0.05
0.50
0.05
0.09
0.05
Fall
1.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.05
17.50
0.20
0.35
0.70
0.90
7.55
3.00
1.10
2.90
0.60
0.70
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.35
0.05
0.20
E77CAP, Inc. -58-
-------
f
Table 2-9 cont.
B
1979
FaTT
FALCON I DAE
American Kestrel
PHASIANIDAE
Ring-necked Pheasant 0.
Gray Partridge
RALLIDAE
Virginia Rail
Sora 0.
Common Gallinule
American Coot 26.
CHARADRIIDAE
Killdeer 0.
SCOLOPACIDAE
Common Snipe 23.
Spotted Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs 0.
Lesser Yellowlegs 0.
Pectoral Sandpiper 0.
Dowitcher
LARIDAE
Herring Gull 4.
Ring-billed Gull 3.
Gull spp. 0.
Common Tern
Black Tern
COLUMBIDAE
Mourning Dove 0.
Rock Dove
CUCULIDAE
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-billed Cuckoo
CAPRIMULGIDAE
Common Nighthawk
APODIDAE
Chimney Swift
TROCHILIDAE
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
ALCEDINIDAE
Belted Kingfisher 0.
67
76
62
86
95
48
80
95
87
15
19
48
10
IRDS OBSERVED PER PARTY HOUR
1980
Spring
0.02
0.08
3.93
0.15
41.48
0.30
1.31
0.27
0.17
1.18
1.35
0.73
0.36
0.15
0.51
0.21
0.06
0.04
2.73
0.30
Breeding
0.16
0.64
0.03
4.49
0.68
0.32
0.25
0.80
0.32
0.35
0.03
0.32
0.09
Summer
0.14
0.25
2.54
33.61
1.43
0.50
0.23
0.18
0.46
0.65
0.46
0.14
3.92
0.09
2.63
0.18
0.05
0.05
1.98
0.78
Fall
0.05
0.05
0.05
131.40
1.00
2.75
0.40
0.35
0.05
0.05
1.05
14.00
0.10
0.10
1.50
1.05
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.20
EFCAP, Inc.
-59-
-------
Table 2-9 cont.
B
1979
Fall
PICIDAE
Common Flicker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker 0.76
TYRANNIDAE
Eastern Kingbird
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Willow Flycatcher
Eastern Wood Pewee
HIRUNDINDAE
Tree Swallow
Bank Swallow
Rough-winged Swallow
Barn Swallow 0.19
Cliff Swallow
Purple Martin
CORVIDAE
Blue Jay 0.57
Common Crow 3.63
PAR1DAE
Black-capped Chickadee 0.86
SITTIDAE
Red-breasted Nuthatch
TROGLODYTIDAE
House Wren
Long-billed Marsh Wren 0.57
Short-billed Marsh Wren
MIMIDAE
Gray Catbird
Brown Thrasher
TURDIDAE
American Robin 11.45
Wood Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Veerv
IRDS OBSERVED PER PARTY HOUR
1980
Spring
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.17
0.23
0.06
0.04
0.02
10.69
4.43
0.81
6.00
1.14
0.53
0.25
0.40
3.85
0.06
0.04
0.06
1.48
Breeding
0.16
0.03
0.45
0.19
0.09
0.06
2.00
5.66
0.16
1.65
0.19
0.26
0.19
0.32
0.03
17.92
0.13
0.03
0.26
0.03
Summer
0.78
0.05
0.05
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.05
15.24
0.74
21.79
0.09
0.88
3.69
2.17
0.92
24.70
0.09
3.97
0.05
0.09
0.05
Fall
0.05
0.15
0.55
0.05
0.25
1.30
0.55
0.05
6.45
4.20
Eastern Bluebird
SYLVIIDAE
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.25
EFCAP, Inc.
-60-
-------
Table 2-9 cont.
1979
FaTT
BIRDS OBSERVED PER PARTY HOUR
1980
SpringBreedingSummer
Fall
MOTACILLIDAE
Water Pipit
BOMBYCILLIDAE
Cedar Waxwing
LANIIDAE
Northern Shrike
STURNIDAE
Starling 1.34
VIREONIDAE
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
PARULIDAE
Black-and-white Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Pine Warbler
Palm Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
Common Yellowthroat
Wilson's Warbler
American Redstart
ICTERIDAE
Bobolink
Eastern Meadowlark
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird
Northern Oriole
Rusty Blackbird
Brewer's Blackbird
Common Grackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
FRINGILLIDAE
Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Dickcissel
Pine Siskin
American Goldfinch
0.12
0.02
0.38
0.02
0.13
0.03
0.05
1.71
0.05
0.05
2.48
bier
0.10
0.10
0.10
115.55
12.50
0.29
6.58
3.34
0.38
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.71
0.23
0.73
0.60
0.04
1.44
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.21
1.20
51.49
0.19
1.27
0.04
6.37
1.09
0.27
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.09
1.74
0.32
6.33
43.69
0.16
1.58
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.16
0.03
0.42
0.05
0.05
3.42
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
2.35
0.65
3.00
99-95
0.05
1.98
2.31
0.05
0.32
0.18
1.20
2.35
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.05
359.35
10.30
11.60
1.00
0.05
0.80
ErTCAP, inc.
-61-
-------
Table 2-9 cont.
BIRDS OBSERVED PER PARTY HOUR
1979
FaTT
Spring
1980
Breeding
Summer
Pall
Savannah Sparrow
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow 0.10
Dark-eyed Junco 1.91
Tree Sparrow 1.43 0.73
Chipping Sparrow 0.04
White-crowned Sparrow 0.38
White-throated Sparrow 6.39
Fox Sparrow 0.10
Lincoln's Sparrow 0.10
Swamp Sparrow 21.28 7.40
Song Sparrow 2.48 2.99
Lapland Longspur 0.19
0.18
5.11
0.55
5.26
1.43
0.20
1.00
0.70
0.35
0.05
11.50
1.20
0.10
E7FCAP, inc.
-62-
-------
Table 2-10.
Nests of typical wetland bird species recorded
breeding on Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4, 28 May-
16 July 1980.
SPECIES
Pied-billed Grebe
Mallard
Blue-winged Teal
Least Bittern
Sora
Virginia Rail
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Black Tern
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Red-winged Blackbird
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Swamp Sparrow
Unidentified passerine
Unidentified platform nest
NUMBER OF NESTS
Survey Survey
Area 1 Area 2
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
41
2
1
1?
3
3
154*
9t
45
3
2
2
Survey
Area 4
5
1
1
1
1
27
1
19*
It
53
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
62
223
114
* Dummy nests.
t With eggs or young.
EfTCAP. Inc.
-63-
-------
Table 2-11. Endangered and threatened birds of Wisconsin.
From Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Office of Endangered and Nongame Species, 1979.
ENDANGERED
Double-crested Cormorant
Phalaerocorax auritus
Bald Eagle*
Haliaeetue leucocephalus
Osprey
Pandion haliaetue
Peregrine Falcont
Faloo peregrinus
Piping Plover
Charadriud melodus
Forster's Tern
Sterna foreter-i
Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
THREATENED
Great Egret
Casmerod-ium albus
Greater Prairie Chicken
Tympanuohus cupido pi-nnatus
Cooper's Hawk
Acoipiter cooperii
Red-shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatus
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovioianus
*Also U.S. Threatened.
tAlso U.S. Endangered.
.
\
EfTCAP, Inc. -64-
-------
Table 2-12.
Endangered and threatened birds of Illinois.
From Illinois Department of Conservation, 1980.
ENDANGERED
/Double-crested Cormorant
Pnalaaroaorax auritua
/Snowy Egret
Egretta thula
/Great Egret
Caemerodius albue
/Little Blue Heron
Florida caerulea
/American Bittern
Botaurue lentiginoaue
/Black-crowned Night Heron
Nyaticorax nyaticorax
Mississippi Kite
Ictinia misaieeippienaie
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter aooperii
Red-shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatue
Swainson's Hawk
Buteo awainsoni
Bald Eagle*
Ealiaeetue leuaocephalue
/Osprey
Pandion haliaetua
/Marsh Hawk
Circus oyaneua
Peregrine Falcon*
Faloo peregrinua
Greater Prairie Chicken
Tympanuohua cupido
/Yellow Rail
Coturnioops noveboracenais
/Black Rail
Laterallus jamaioensia
/Purple Gallinule
Porphyrula martiniaa
/Piping Plover
Charadriue melodue
Eskimo Curlew*
Numeniua borealia
Upland Sandpiper
Bartramia longioauda
/Wilson's Phalarope
SteganopuB tricolor
/Forster's Tern
Sterna forateri
/Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
/Least Tern
Sterna albifrona
/Black Tern
Cnlidoniaa niger
Barn Owl
Tyto alba
Long-eared Owl
Aeio otus
Short-eared Owl
Aaio flammeua
Brown Creeper
Certhia familiaris
Bachman's Warbler*
Vermivora baahrnanii
/Yellow-headed Blackbird
Xanthoaephalua xanthocephalua
Bachman's Sparrow
Aimophila aeativalis
THREATENED
/Common Gallinule
Gallinula chloropua
Bewick's Wren
Thryomanea bewickii
Veery
Catharus fueceacena
Loggerhead Shrike
Laniua ludovicianua
Swainson's VJarbler
Limnothlypia awainaonii
Brewer's Blackbird
Euphagua cyanooephalua
Henslow's Sparrow
Ammodramua henalowii
*Also U.S. Endangered.
/ Wetland species.
EVCAP, Inc.
-65-
-------
Table 2-13. Calculated Average Species Index and Faunal
Index for Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4.
FAUNAL INDEX
POINT VALUE*
Pied-billed Grebe 200
Least Bittern 80
Mallard 40
Blue-winged Teal 80
Virginia Rail 80
Sora 80
Common Gallinule 200
American Coot 80
Black Tern 200
Long-billed Marsh Wren 80
Short-billed Marsh Wren 20
Yellow-headed Blackbird 80
Red-winged Blackbird 10
Swamp Sparrow 40
TOTAL SPECIES POINTS » 1150
EXPECTED TOTAL SPECIES POINTS (Fig. 2-2) » 900
AVERAGE SPECIES INDEX = 82.12
EXPECTED VALUE FROM FIG. 2-2 =64.3
FAUNAL INDEX BASED ON MEAN SIZE OF THREE SURVEY
AREAS = 630.65
EXPECTED VALUE FROM FIG. 2-2 = 767.8
* From Graber and Graber, Ref. 2
EffCAP, Inc. -66-
-------
Table 2-14. Mean Habitat Values Established for Waterfowl,
Fall 1979.
Evaluation Element: WATERFOWL Habitat Type: MERAMEC RIVER/RIVERINE
CHARACTERISTICS POSSIBLE SCCRS ACTUAL SCORE*
, I. Distance to essential habitat (timber) 1. 8.00
A)l/3 to 0 aile (0.53 to 0 ka) 6-10
8)2/3 to 1/3 ail* (1.1 to 0.53 XB) 3-5
CU to 2/3 ail* (1.6 to 1.1 Jem) 1- 2
NOTE: If distance exceeds 1 mile (1.6 Jon), cease evaluating.
Enter 1 oa line (8) a» th* HABITAT OMIT VAUJE for this Habitat Typ*.
II. Preferred food plant diversity (con*id«r only II. 7.75
species in significant amounts)
A)many species .. 8-10
A) sea* sp*ci*s 4- 7
C)f«w sp*ei*s 1- 3
III. Ea*rg*nt v*g*tation in. 6.50
A)covers 40-60% of water's surfae*...r 3-10
B)covers more than 80% of water's surface... 4- 7
Ocovers less than 40% of water's surface... 1- 3
17. Aquatic cover IV. ^^
A)overhanging vegetation within 1 foot (0.3 a) of
water' s surface 8-10
B)overhanging vegetation within 2-3 feet
(0.6-0.9 a) of water's surface 4- 7
C>overhanging vegetation more than 4 feet
(1.2 a) above water's surface 1-3
V. Water flow/quality V. 5.75
A)many quiet pools/clear 8-10
B) some quiet pools/slightly turbid 4-7
C) few quiet pools/turbid 1- 3
VI. Boosting, loafing, preening sites VT. 6'0°
A)aany 8-10
B) some 4- 7
CJfew 1- 3
VII. External edge VII. 4.25
A)river curves at intervals of 1/8 aile
(0.2 In) or less 5
B)river curves at intervals of 1/4 aile
(0.4 to) 3- 4
C)river curves at intervals of more than
V4 aile (0.4 fca) 1-2
VIII. Terrestrial cover Till. 4-00
A) banks moderately vegetated 5
B)banks heavily vegetated 3- 4
" C) banks sparsely vegetated 1- 2
EfTCAP, Inc.
-67-
-------
Table 2-14 Continued.
NA
XX. Water conditions IX.
A) bank timber flooded for 1-3 months 5
B)b*nX timber flooded for less than 1 month.... 3- 4
Ono flooded timber „ 1- 2
•IF CHARACTERISTIC NOT APPLICABLE, ENTER NA AND DO NOT COUNT IT AS A CHARAC-
TERISTIC USED.
(l)Total scores I-VI (1) 34
(2)Number of CHARACTERISTICS used in (1)
(3)(1) * (2)
(4)Tot*l scores VII-IX
(S)Number of CHARACTERISTICS used in (4)
(6}(4) T (5)
(7)(3) * (6)
(8) (7) x 2*3
(4) 8.25
(5) 2
(6)4.13
(7)10.93
T728 HABITAT UNIT VALUE
(8)
EITCAP, Inc.
-68-
-------
PART 3: FISH INVENTORY AND HABITAT EVALUATION
David W. Greenfield, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
The fish fauna is one of the more obvious components of
the aquatic community, often reflecting the quality of the
habitat. In addition, fishes provide a source of recreation
for fishermen and thus become an important factor in deter-
mining public use of wetland areas.
The fish fauna was sampled and evaluted in terms of the
occurrence and relative abundance of the species present in
the various habitats within the Project Area. Information
also was gathered on the spawning of the various fish species
and use of the habitats as nursery sites within the Project
Area. Based on an evaluation of the kinds of species present
and their use of the Project Area for residency and spawning,
an evaluation was made as to the quality of the habitat for
fishes now and in the future.
METHODS
Collections were made on 21 October 1979, 29 March 1980,
10-14 May 1980, 7-9 June 1980, and 2-3 July 1980, using a
15-meter bag seine with 22-mm mesh wings and an 11-mm mesh
bag, a 7.6-meter bag seine with a 5-mm mesh, or a 4.6-meter
minnow seine with a 2-mm mesh. Specimens either were pre-
served in a 10% formalin solution in the field, returned to
the laboratory, washed in water and transferred to 40% iso-
propyl alcohol or, if readily identifiable in the field,
were measured and returned to the water. In the laboratory,
specimens were identified using Smith (Ref. 1), Hubbs and
Lagler (Ref. 2), Trautman (Ref. 3), Becker and Johnson
(Ref. 4) and Pflieger (Ref. 5). Measurements of specimens
were made using dial calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm and are
reported as standard lengths unless otherwise stated (Ref. 2),
Representative samples of fish species collected during the
project have been deposited at the Field Museum of Natural
History, and the Northern Illinois University fish museum
collection.
Description of Sampling Sites
Sampling sites are identified by letter and are arranged
F7TT.AP. In*. -69-
-------
from north to south within the Project Area, except for Sites
J, K. and L (Fig. 3-1). River widths, depths and flow rates
are reported for low water periods. During periods of flood-
ing these dimensions increase greatly. Water temperatures at
the sites at various sampling times are listed in Table 3-1.
Sampling Site A.—Des Plaines River from bridge crossing
1-94 to U.S. Route 41 to 100 meters downriver. This locality
is downriver from the confluence of the Root River with the
Des Plaines River and includes the confluence of the Kilbourn
Road Ditch. Current flow is moderate in this area, resulting
in riffles at various localities. The substrate varies from
soft mud under the bridge, mixtures of rock, sand and mud in
pools and quiet areas to mixtures of sand and rock in riffle
areas. Aquatic vegetation is lacking, but terrestrial vege-
tation extends into the water along the river bank providing
limited cover. During periods of heavy rain extensive areas
of canary grass are flooded. The width of the river varies
from 4.5 to 9 meters; depth varies from 0.3 to 1.2 meters.
This site was sampled during October, March, May, June and
July.
Sampling Site B.—Des Plaines River from bridge crossing
County Highway C to 1.1 kilometers downriver. There is mod-
erate current flow, resulting in riffles at various localities.
The substrate consists of mixtures of rock and sand/mud.
Aquatic vegetation is lacking and little terrestrial vegeta-
tion extends into the water to provide cover. Fallen trees
and submerged logs are present throughout this area. The
riverbank is lined with trees and brush, providing consider-
able shading. Width of the river varies from about 15 meters
immediately downriver from the bridge to 3 meters farther
downriver, and depth varies from 0.2 to 0.9 meters. This
site was sampled during October, March, May and June.
Sampling Site C.—Canal extending from the Pleasant
Prairie sewage treatment plant southwest 1.2 kilometers to
its junction with the Des Plaines River. The confluence is
approximately 0.6 kilometers south of the southern end of
Sampling Site B. This is a relatively straight, dredged
canal with steep banks covered with grass. Trees border the
canal near its confluence with the Des Plaines River. Current
flow is virtually nil; any flow towards the river is provided
from the outflow of the sewage treatment plant holding pond
and field runoff. The substrate is soft mud throughout.
Near the confluence with the Des Plaines River the depth of
the mud is approximately 0.9 meters, so that during periods of
low water walking through the area results in mud rising to
the surface of the water. The width of the canal is approxi-
mately 6.0 meters, with a maximum depth of 0.9 meters. This
site was sampled during May, June and July.
Sampling Site D.—Des Plaines River from the confluence
'. Inc. -70-
-------
of the Pleasant Prairie sewage treatment plant canal (Sam-
pling Site C) south for approximately 1.6 kilometers to the
confluence of a canal coming from the power plant east of
County Highway H. Current flow is moderate in this area.
The substrate is uniform firm mud and sand, with no rock.
Width of the river varies from 4.6 to 7.5 meters; depth ranges
from 0.3 to 1.2 meters. The majority of this area is bor-
dered by agricultural fields, with scattered trees and grass
near the river banks. This site was sampled once during May.
Sampling Site E.—Canal extending from the power plant
east of County Highway H, southwest along the northern edge
of the gravel pit to its confluence with the Des Plaines
River. The length of the canal from County Highway H to the
Des Plaines River is approximately 2.4 kilometers. This is a
relatively straight, dredged channel with moderately steep
banks covered with grass. There are no trees bordering the
canal except for a small section adjacent to County Highway H.
Current flow is virtually nil and the substrate is soft mud
throughout. Width of the canal is approximately 6.0 meters,
with a maximum depth of 1.2 meters. This site was sampled
once in May.
Sampling Site F.—Des Plaines River from confluence of
canal from the power plant (Sampling Site E) south approxi-
mately 1.6 kilometers to the confluence of a canal west of and
in line with County Highway Q. Current flow is moderate and
the habitat in this area is variable. The substrate is mostly
firm mud and sand in narrower portions of the river, but it
changes to soft mud in a wide section of the river in the
southern half of the sampling site and in a small side lagoon
north of the wide area. The river banks are fairly heavily
wooded, with the agricultural areas being located a greater
distance from the river than in areas to the north. The side
lagoon is bordered with a heavy stand of river bulrushes. The
wide portion of the river also is bordered with river bulrushes.
Lily pads are growing in the wide portion of the river. The
width of the river varies from 6 to 30 meters and depth
ranges from 0.6 to 1.3 meters. This site was sampled once in
May.
Sampling Site G.—Canal extending from the Des Plaines
River east for approximately 1.2 kilometers to within 30 meters
of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad tracks and opposite
the end of County Highway Q. The canal is bordered by dikes
on each side, with several breaks in the dikes allowing water
to flow both north and south from adjacent flooded marsh areas.
At its-west end, the canal turns north for about 50 meters
and then empties into the Des Plaines River through a flood
gate in the dike. Because the flood gate is higher than the
water level of the Des Plaines River, except during high flood
stages, fishes usually are prevented from moving between the
river and the canal. If the control valves are opened, however,
fishes could be washed into the river.
E7FCAP, inc. -7i-
-------
This is a relatively straight, dredged channel with steep
banks covered with grass. Below the water level the banks
are undercut, probably as a result of the burrowing of muskrats,
Scattered trees are present along .the southeastern half of the
canal and signs of beaver are evident. The eastern end of
the canal widens into a small, relatively deep (2.5 meters)
lake. The canal is about 9 meters wide and 2 meters deep,
and has a soft mud substrate. No detectable current is pre-
sent when the water control valves are closed. Terrestrial
vegetation that extends into the canal along its length,
and aquatic vegetation provide cover for fishes. This site
was sampled during October, March, May, June and July.
Sampling Site H.—Des Plaines River from the confluence
of the canal west of and in line with County Highway Q (Sam-
pling Site G) south for approximately 2.3 kilometers to a
sharp eastward bend in the river south of the Pheasant Valley
Hunt Club, opposite 116th Street. Habitat and current flow
in this area are variable. In the southern half of the area
the substrate is mostly mud, varying from firm to soft, and
current flow is moderate. Width of the river in this section
is relatively uniform and approximately 7.5 meters with a
maximum depth of 1.2 meters. The river banks are bordered
by open fields with grass but heavy stands of river bulrushes
occur in the southernmost portion of the area. The northern
half of the study area is bordered by deciduous woods that
provide shade and cover. River flow is variable in the nor-
thern half of the site, with swift currents occurring in the
narrowest parts. These swift riffle areas have a rock and
gravel substrate. The remainder of the areas within the nor-
thern half of the sampling site have more moderate current
flow and substrates of firm mud and sand. This site was
sampled during May, June and July.
Sampling Site I.—Des Plaines River from bridge on
County Highway ML north about 1.0 kilometer upriver. The
river immediately upstream from the bridge is wide (ca. 50
meters) and shallow (to 0.6 meters) with a soft mud bottom.
The shoreline is covered with river bulrushes. Current flow
is very slow in this portion of the river because of its
width. At the north end of this wide area the river narrows
to a small channel about 6 meters wide and 1.6 meters deep,
with a moderate current; the substrate is a mixture of soft
mud and sand, and the shoreline is covered with river bul-
rushes. This upper section adjoins the southern portion of
Sampling Site H. This site was sampled during October,
March, May, June and July.
Sampling Site J.—Pleasant Lake, largest and western-
most lake on the Girl Scout property, west of the Des Plaines
River and west of Sampling Site H. The lake is approximately
0.8 kilometers long and 0.1 kilometers wide at its greatest
width, with a depth in excess of 1.2 meters. The lake is
EFFCAP, inc.
-72-
-------
bordered by river bulrushes, and aquatic vegetation (Utri-
cularia and Myriophyllum) is also present. The substrate :
soft mud. This site was sampled in May and July.
Sampling Site K.—Canal (rectangularly shaped) on the
Girl Scout property, north of Sampling Site J and west of
the Des Plaines River. The southern arm of the canal (ori-
ented east-west) is approximately 0.95 kilometers in length,
the eastern and shortest portion (oriented north-south) is
0.4 kilometers, and the northern arm (oriented east-west)
is 0.74 kilometers long. The arms of this dredged canal are
straight, steep and grass covered. The sides of the canals
are higher than the surrounding landscape, which is relatively
open. Current flow is nil and. the substrate is soft mud
throughout. Width of the canal is approxiamtely 9 meters,
with a maximum depth of 1.2 meters. Aquatic vegetation is
present (Myriophyllum and Ceratpphyllum), often in large
quantities*.This site was sampled in~May, June and July.
Sampling Site L.—Small lake, east of Pleasant Lake
(Sampling Site J) on the Girl Scout property, west of the
Des Plaines River. The lake is approximately 20 meters long
and 60 meters wide at its greatest width with a depth in
excess of 1.2 meters. The lake is bordered by a heavy stand
of river bulrush. The substrate is soft mud and aquatic vege-
tation is present. This site was sampled in May.
RESULTS
Fish Fauna by Sites
A total of 32 species of fishes was collected from the
Project Area; 24 from Site A, 17 from Site B, 10 from Site C,
16 from Site D, 11 from Site E, 20 from Site F, 17 from Site G,
22 from Site H, 21 from Site I, 10 from Site J, 15 from Site K,
and 7 from Site L (Table 3-2). No endangered or threatened
species (see Table 3-6) were collected or observed in the Project
Area.
Site A had the greatest number of fish species (24),
with the sand shiner, Notropis stramineus, being most abundant,
followed by the Johnny darter, Etheostoma nigrum, the spotfin
shiner, Notropis spilopterus, the bluntnose minnow, Pimephales
notatus, the green sunfish, Leporois cyanellus, and the black-
stripe topminnow, Fundulus notatus. A single specimen of the
northern mimic shiner (Notropis yolucellus volucellus) was
taken at this site but not at other sites in the Project Area.
The only other species in this category was the bigmouth shiner
(Notropis dorsalis) represented by nine individuals. The
following species of gamefishes were present in this area:
northern pike (Esox lucius), black crappie (Pompxis nigromacu-
latus), bluegilTHepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis
4 P. Inc. -73-
-------
gulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis) and black bull-
head (Ictalurus melas). Ripe white sucker males (Catostomus
commersoni) we're observed in this area in March, and ripe
male golden shiners (Notemigonus chrysoleucas) were collected
in May. Juveniles of the brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)
and the sand shiner were collected in June, whereas in July
juveniles of the following species were taken; white sucker,
spotfin shiner, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), Johnny
darter and the blackside darter (Percina maculata).
Site B ranked fifth (tied with Site G) in the total
number of species present (17). The Johnny darter was most
abundant, the bluntnose minnow second, with the blackside
darter and sand shiner tied for third in abundance. No
species was taken at this site that was not collected at other
sites in the Project Area. The following species of game
fishes were present in this area: black crappie, pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus)* yellow bullhead and black bullhead.
Ripe maTes and gravid females of the Johnny darter were col-
lected in May.
Site C, with 10 species, ranked ninth (tied with Site J)
in the total number of species present. The black bullhead
was most abundant, followed by the carp. No species was
taken at. this site that was not collected at other sites in
the Project Area. The following game species were present
in this area: black crappie, white crappie (Pomoxis annularis),
and bluegill. Juveniles of the following species were" col-
lected in July: carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Iowa darter
(Etheostoma exile).
Site D had a total of 16 species and was ranked sixth.
The most abundant species was the spotfin shiner, with the
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) second and the golden
shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas) third. No species were
unique to this area. Six game species were present at this
site: northern pike, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, bluegill,
white crappie and black crappie. Two juvenile northern pike
were collected among the river bulrushes in May.
Site E ranked eighth in the total number of species
present (11). The golden shiner was the most abundant species,
followed by the green sunfish and the fathead minnow. No
species was unique to this area. The following game species
were present at this site: northern pike, black bullhead,
bluegill and black crappie.
Site F had 20 species, ranking fourth among the areas
in number of fish species. The green sunfish was the most
abundant species, with the golden shiner next most abundant.
Two specimens of the yellow perch (Perca flavescens) were
collected in the widest portion of this site.This species
was not collected at any other locality within the Project
EtTCAP, Inc. -74-
-------
Area. A single individual of the blackchin shiner (Notropis
heterodon) was taken at this site. This species was only
collected at two other sites within the Project Area, being
represented by a single individual at each of those sites.
The following game species were present at this site: northern
pike':, black bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, black crappie
and yellow perch. Three juvenile northern pike were collected
at this site in May.
Site G ranked fifth (tied with Site B) in the total num-
ber of species present (17). The most abundant species was
the bluegill, followed by the golden shiner. Four individuals
of the lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) were collected at
this site, but not collected at any other locality within
the Project Area. Ten individuals of the largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) were taken here, only a single in-
dividual was captured at any other site. The bowfin (Amia
calva) was taken here and at two other sites. Game species
present at this sampling site were: northern pike, black
bullhead, yellow bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, largemouth
bass, white crappie, and black crappie. Gravid female central
mudminnows (Umbra limi) and a ripe male northern pike were
collected in March. A ripe male bluegill was taken in May.
Juveniles of the following species were captured in June:
central mudminnow, brook stickleback, northern pike and Iowa
darter. In July, breeding males of the pumpkinseed were
taken as were juveniles of the following species: black bull-
head, bluegill, largemouth bass, golden shiner, carp and
Iowa darter.
Site H had the second greatest number of species present
(22). The spotfin shiner was the most abundant species, with
the sand shiner second, the green sunfish third and the blue-
gill fourth in abundance. Four individuals of the creek chub
were taken here. This species was collected at only one other
locality within the Project Area. The following game species
were present at this site: northern pike, black bullhead,
yellow bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, and black crappie.
Gravid fenales of the blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus)
and the spotfin shiner were taken in June along with juvenile
blackside darter. Gravid females of the spotfin shiner also
were found in July along with juvenile white sucker and black-
side darter.
Site I ranked third in the total number of species
present (21). The golden shiner was the most abundant species,
followed by the spotfin shiner, black crappie and green sun-
fish. A single individual of the bowfin and the blackchin
shiner were taken here and at two other sampling sites. A
single individual each of the warmouth and largemouth bass
were taken here. These species were collected at only one
other site within the Project Area. The following game species
were present at this site: northern pike, black bullhead,
pumpkinseed, warmouth, bluegill, largemouth bass, white
* P, Inc. -75-
-------
crappie and black crappie. A gravid female blackstripe top-
minnow was taken in June along with juvenile northern pike.
A ripe male spotfin shiner was taken in July.
Site J had a total of 10 species and ranked ninth (tied
with Site C) in the tctal number of species present. The blue-
gill was the most abundant species and the pumpkinseed second
in abundance. No species were unique to this area. The
following game species were found: black bullhead, pumpkin-
seed, bluegill, and black crappie. Juvenile black bullheads
were collected in July.
Site K, with 15 species, ranked seventh in the total
number of species present. The golden shiner was the most
abundant species followed by the black crappie and black bull-
head. A single individual of the bowfin and the blackchin
shiner were taken here and at two other sampling sites.
Game species present at this site were: northern pike, black
bullhead, pumpkinseed, bluegill, and black crappie. Ripe
males of the black crappie were collected in May. Gravid
females of the black bullhead and bluegill were taken in
June along with juveniles of the northern pike. Juvenile
northern pike, bowfin, black crappie and Iowa darter were
taken in July.
Site L ranked tenth in the total number of species
present (7) . The green sunfish was the most abundant species
with the golden shiner second and the bluegill third in abun-
dance. No species were unique to this area. The following
game species were present: black bullhead, pumpkinseed,
bluegill and black crappie. A gravid female Iowa darter was
taken in May.
Fish Reproduction in the Project Area
Evidence of reproduction has been obtained for 19 species
within the Project Area. Six of these are game species.
Support for reproduction within the area is from three sources;
presence of gravid females, presence of ripe males, and
presence of juveniles (Table 3-3) . The sampling sites where
the greatest number of species were reproducing were Site G
(10 species) , Site A (8 species) , and Site K (5 species) .
DISCUSSION
Comparison with Adjacent Areas
A total of 32 fish species from ten different families
was collected within the Project Area, indicating a rela-
tively diverse fish community. The total number of fish
species present in the Project Area has not decreased from
the number of species listed for the Des Plaines River by
, Inc. -76-
-------
Greene in 1935 (Ref. 6), who reported a total of 24 species
for the entire river in Wisconsin. The composition of the com-
munity present has changed, however, presumably as the result
of increased siltation and human activities. Table 3-4 lists
nine species of fishes recorded prior to 1935 that were not
collected in this survey and 16 species collected in 1979-80
that were not recorded by Greene (Ref. 6).
A survey of the fishes in the Des Plaines River in Lake
County, Illinois, immediately south of the Project Area, was
reported by the Lake County Forest Preserve District (Ref. 7).
This survey was based on a report by Erickson (Ref. 8) of
the Illinois Department of Conservation. Thirty-one species
of fishes were collected in the Lake County survey. A com-
parison of the fishes taken in Illinois with those recorded
in the present survey shows 13 species were taken in Wisconsin
that were not recorded in Illinois, and 11 species were taken
in Illinois that were not found in this Wisconsin study
(Table 3-5). The combined species list from both areas re-
sults in a total of 42 species in the Des Plaines River.
Game Fish Survey
Ten of the fish species recorded from the Project Area
are listed as game species by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (Ref. 10): northern pike, black bullhead,
yellow bullhead, black crappie, white crappie, bluegill,
warmouth, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass and yellow perch.
Northern pike about 0.9 meters in length and black crappie
about 210 mm long were released after capture. Bluegills
up to 161 mm and pumpkinseeds up to 125 mm in length were
taken. Larger individuals undoubtedly occur within the
Project Area; however, because we were not permitted by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to use gill nets
in our sampling, information about the occurrence of larger
individuals of several of the game species is not available.
These game species should provide a source of recreational
fishing in the area.
Fish Reproduction
Evidence has been gathered supporting reproduction
within the Project Area for six game species (Table 3-3).
Localities within the Project Area appear to have varying
importance as spawning and nursery sites for the different
game species. The northern pike is the earliest member of
the fish community in the Project Area to initiate reproduc-
tion, beginning spawning as soon as the ice withdraws. Ripe
males were collected in March and the first young were col-
lected in May. Spawning takes place over areas of flooded
terrestrial vegetation. Much of the floodplain within the
Project Area is suitable for spawning, as are portions of the
more permanently flooded areas. The marsh areas immediately
EtTCAP, Inc. -77-
-------
north of the canal opposite County Highway Q (Sampling Site G)
represent one such site. In addition, larval northern pike
were collected from areas of flooded river bulrushes along the
main channel of the Des Plaines River within Sampling Sites D,
F and I. Sampling Site G was also an important spawning
locality for bluegill, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, and black
bullhead. The quiet water in the canal at Sampling Site G
provides good habitat for nest construction and spawning of
all of these species. The canal on the Girl Scout property
(Sampling Site K) provides a similar quiet water habitat used
by the black crappie for reproduction. Collections at this
locality yielded large numbers of black crappies (Table 3-2),
including ripe adults and juveniles (Table 3-3).
Several non-game species also reproduce in the canals.
The central mudminnow breeds at Sampling Site G, depositing
its eggs on aquatic and submerged terrestrial vegetation,
as does the golden shiner. This habitat also is used by the
brook stickleback, a species that constructs nests in the vege-
tation. The Iowa darter reproduces at Sampling Site G, in
the canal on the Girl Scout property (Sampling Site K), and
in the canal from the sewage treatment, plant (Sampling Site C).
This species deposits its eggs over roots, aquatic vegetation
or debris. A gravid female Iowa darter also was taken at
Sampling Site L, the small lake on the Girl Scout property.
A single juvenile bowfin was captured at Sampling Site K.
Other non-game species utilize various portions of the
Des Plaines River as sites for reproduction. The remaining
darters spawn in areas of rock, gravel and coarse sand.
The Johnny darter was found at Sampling Sites A and B, whereas
the blackside darter was found at Sampling Sites A and H.
The blackstripe topminnow attaches its eggs to aquatic vege-
tation, and was found at Sampling Sites H and I where there
are heavy stands of river bulrush. The white sucker spawns
in gravelly riffles and pools, with the eggs bedng broadcast
over the substrate. This species was taken at Sampling Sites
A and H. The creek chub spawns over sand and gravel in nests
constructed by the male in pools. Young creek chubs were
collected at. Sampling Site A. Little is known of the repro-
ductive habits of the sand shiner, but juveniles were caught
at Sampling Site A. The spotfin shiner deposits its eggs
on submerged logs. Gravid females were taken at Sampling
Site H and ripe males at Sampling Site I, whereas juveniles
were captured at Sampling Site A.
Habitat Quality
The various areas within the Project Area, including the
lakes, canals and river channel, provide a variety of habitats
where spawning of both game and non-game species may occur.
Thus, the Project Area provides a diversity of suitable sites
for fish reproduction within a relatively limited geographic
area.
EffCAP. Inc.
-78-
-------
Although the fish community within the Project Area is
not unique, it is relatively diverse. The greatest species
diversity was found within the main channel of the Des Plaines
River, with 24 species at Sampling Site A, 22 at Sampling
Site H, 21 at Sampling Site I and 20 at Sampling Site F. The
greater number of species within the river is probably a re-
flection of the greater habitat diversity there, including
pools, riffles, areas with heavy stands of river bulrushes,
and substrates varying from rock, gravel and sand to firm
and soft mud. The number of species found in the various
canals and lakes within the Project Area is fewer than in
the river channel; however, these areas provide habitats
distinct from those in the river where species preferring
standing water flourish. The canal at Sampling Site G is
one such site, supporting a fish fauna including 17 species.
One of the six fish species (pugnose minnow, Notropis
emiliae) reported to occur in the Project Area by Owens
Ayres and Associates (Ref. 9) was not taken in this survey.
Although we have not examined the specimens, we have reason
to suspect that this record of the pugnose minnow is a result
of a misidentification. Owens Ayres and Associates (Ref. 9)
.listed this species as the most abundant one taken by them
(234 individuals), with the total lengths of individuals
ranging from 32 to 28 mm. The most abundant minnow in our
samples was the golden shiner; however, they reported only two
individuals of this species, of 67 and 70 mm in total length.
Because the golden shiner has a very short snout, like the
pugnose minnow, and the diagnostic pelvic-anal ridge is less
obvious in smaller individuals, it is likely that the abun-
dant minnows they identified as pugnose minnows actually were
small golden shiners. The size range of their specimens sup-
ports this explanation.
The single specimen of the northern mimic shiner, Notropis
volucellus vplucellus, collected at Sampling Site A deserves
special mention.Although this subspecies occurs more com-
monly farther north in Wisconsin, its occurrence in Illinois
is sporadic and rare. In Illinois it occurs in a few glacial
lakes in the extreme northeastern section of the state and
a few tributaries of the Wabash River. The key factor for the
occurrence of N. volucellus volucellus seems to be clear water
of high quality (Ref. 1).It appears that the decimation of
this subspecies in the Midwest is due to siltation and de-
terioration of water quality.
Other species taken in low number in the Project Area that
are indicative of clear water include the yellow perch, the
blackchin shiner and the lake chubsucker. The lake chubsucker
does well in areas where the water is clear and vegetation is
luxuriant (Ref. 1). Greene (Ref. 6) reported this species was
represented by only 11 records in Wisconsin, mostly in the
southeastern part of the state. Smith (Ref. 1) reports its
EITCAP, Inc. -79-
-------
natural distribution in Illinois consists of approximately
four "islands" of localities. This species has disappeared
from several Illinois sites where it was known to occur in
the 1930's and 1940's.
Another indication of relatively good habitat quality
is the presence of the black crappie at all sites. This species
is much less tolerant of turbidity and silt than is the white
crappie, represented by a single specimen at three sites and
two at a fourth site in the Project Area. The black crappie
is most abundant in well-vegetated lakes and clear backwaters
of rivers (Fef. 1).
The only fish species present that may possibly indicate
poor habitat quality is the golden shiner. Smith (Ref. 1)
reported this species has great ecological tolerance and can
persist in badly polluted and highly turbid streams: "It is
a good indicator of polluted or modified habitats whenever
it outnumbers other species at a site." The golden shiner
was the most abundant species at three sites; however, the
black crappie also was very abundant at these sites. This
paradox may perhaps be resolved by the fact the golden shiner
is characteristic of quiet water habitats, occurring only
rarely in stream sections with a noticeable current (Ref. 5)
and the canals provide just such habitat. Pflieger (Ref. 5)
reported: "It is tolerant of moderate turbidity, but thrives
in clear, heavily vegetated habitats."
The overall habitat quality of the Project Area for fishes
is good, as indicated by the number and kinds of species pre-
sent. In addition, the fishes appeared to be free from major
infestations of parasites or diseases and generally in good
condition, another indication of good quality habitat. The
habitat is also of sufficient quality and variety to allow
for reproduction of most of the fish species taken within the
Project Area.
Suitability of Area for Continued Use by Fishes
Assuming that the Des Plaines River is not severely im-
pacted by pollution from upriver areas, the portion of the
river within the Project Area should provide suitable habitat
for continued existence and reproduction of fish species.
This conclusion also is based on the assumption that the
floodplain areas adjacent to the river are not disturbed,
because the river bulrushes and adjacent areas of flooded
terrestrial vegetation are important breeding sites for
several- fish species.
The various lakes, ponds and canals within the Project
Area should continue to provide suitable habitat for use by
fishes, including spawning sites, if the water levels in these
areas are maintained and do not receive inputs of pollutants
F^CAP. Inc. -80-
-------
having a negative impact. Draining of these areas or dis-
charge into them of poor quality water would of course re-
duce their suitability as fish habitat.
Considering the impact from pollution and disturbance
the lower Des Plaines River in Illinois has received, the
upper reaches in Wisconsin may serve as a refuge for many
fish species in that river system. If water quality is im-
proved in future years in the lower Des Plaines River, the
upper reaches in Wisconsin could provide a source for repopu-
lation In addition to the main channel of the Des Plaines
River, significant habitat for fish species is provided by
the canals, lakes, marshes and floodplain within the Project
Area. These diverse habitats provide varied sites for repro-
duction, allowing for the continued existence of a relatively
diverse fish fauna within this limited geographic area.
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 3
1. Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. 111.
Press, Urbana. 314p.
2. Hubbs, Cl. L. and K. F. Lagler. 1958. Fishes of the Great
Lakes Region. Rev. ed. Cranbrook Inst., Sci. Bull. 26.
213p.
3. Trautman, M.B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ.
Press. 683p.
4. Becker, G. C. and T. R. Johnson. 1970. Illustrated key to
the minnows of Wisconsin. Dept. Biol., Wisconsin State
Univ., Stevens Point. 45p.
5. Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri
Dept. Cons. 343p.
6. Greene, C. W. 1935, Distribution of Wisconsin fishes.
Wisconsin Cons. Comm., Madison, Wise. 235p.
7. Anonymous. 1978. Des Plaines River aquatic survey.
Lake County Forest Preserve District, Libertyville, 111.
148p.
8. Erickson, G. 1974-75. Stream survey—field data. 111.
Dept. of Conservation, unpubl.
9. Owens Ayres and Associates. 1976. Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Administrative Action for I.E. 3737-1-00
C.T.H. "H" - I.H. 94 road C.T.H. "Q", Kenosha County.
10. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Wisc-
onsin game fish. Publ. No. 239. 25p.
*
E7FCAP, Inc. -81-
-------
Figure 3-1.
Location of Aquatic Sampling Sites A-L within
the Project Area.
ErTCAP, inc.
-82-
-------
Table 3-1. Water temperatures (in degrees Celsius) at
Sampling Sites A through L from October 1979
through July 1980.
SAMPLING TEMPERATURES
CTTTPC
OCT. MARCH MAY
A 19 4 12
B 21 6 12
C 12
D 12
E 12
F 14.5
G 22 10 13
H 15
I 22 6 15
J 19
K 19
L 16
JUNE
21
21
18
22
21
21
21
JULY
24
28
24
22
27
23
23
EfTCAP, Inc. -83-
-------
Table 3-2. Number of each fish species caught (retained and
released combined) at each of the 12 sampling sites.
Number of Times Sampled
AMIIDAE
Bowf in
Amia calva
ESOCIDAE
Northern pike
Eeox luoius
UMBRIDAE
Central mudminnow
Umbra limi
CYPRINIDAE
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Golden shiner
Notenri.gonu.8 ahrysoleueas
Common shiner
Notropis cornutus
Bigmouth shiner
N. dorsalis
Blackchin shiner
N. heterodon
Spotfin shiner
N. spilopterus
Sand shiner
N. stramineus
Northern mimic shiner
N. voluoellus voluoellus
Bluntnose minnow
Pimephales notatus
Fathead minnow
P. pramelae
Creek chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
CATOSTOMIDAE
White sucker
CatOBtomue comnersoni
Lake chubsucker
Erinryzon sucetta
ICTALURIDAE
Black bullhead
IctalianiB melas
A B
5 3
8
6
3 2
5 1
10 8
9
29 9
175 26
1
28 38
3 12
2
17 1
7 18
SAMPLING SITES
CDEFGHIJKL
3111645241
111
5 2 5 26 2 6 14
1412 63 745 20
91 6 4 2 24 5
24 16 26 182 20 95 18 320 13
521
1 11
81 3 14 196 67
17 1 60 4
17 13 1
1 27 8 5 2 8 4 45
4
1 2
4
12 2 1 8 34 3 18 7 170 1
EfTCAP, Inc. -84-
-------
Table 3-2 cont.
A B
Yellow bullhead 5 3
Ictalums natalis
Tadpole mad torn 4 5
No torus gyrinus
CYPRINODONTIDAE
Blacks tripe topminnow 22 3
Fitndulus notatus
GASTEROSTEIDAE
Brook stickleback 3
Culaea inaonstans
CENTRARCHIDAE
Green sunfish 25 17
Lepomis cyanellus
Pumpkins eed 2
L. gibbosus
Warmouth 2
L. gulosus
Bluegill 7
L. macrochirus
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
White crappie
Pomoxis annularis
Black crappie 4 5
P. nigromaculatus
PERCIDAE
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
Iowa darter
Etheostoma exi-le
Johnny darter 49 49
Etheostoma ni,grum
Blackside darter 12 26
Percina maculata
TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES 24 17
SAMPLING SITES
CDEFGHIJKL
2 1 4
1 10 12 361
11 7 14 27 20
75111
3 10 9 32 21 54 49 17 30 23
3 21 1 13 30 57 9
1
2 1 2 14 302 46 37 113 91 11
10 1
12 11
1 2 6 4 44 2 50 5 260 2
2
1 1 22 3 411
1 15 1
21
10 16 11 20 17 22 21 10 15 7
EfTCAP, Inc. -85-
-------
Table 3-3.
Evidence supporting the reproduction of fish
species within the Project Area. Occurrence
listed by sampling site letters.
SPECIES FFMALE
Bowf in
Northern pike*
Central mudminnow G
Carp
Golden shiner
Spotfin shiner H
Sand shiner
Creek chub
White sucker
Black bullhead* K
Blackstripe topminnow H,I
Brook stickleback
Pumpkinseed*
Bluegill* K
Largemouth bass*
Black crappie*
Iowa darter L
Johnny darter B
Blackside darter
RIPE
MALE
G
F
A
I
A
G
G
K
B
JUVENILE
K
D,F,G,I
G
C,G
G
A
A
A
A,H
G, J
A,G
G
G
K
C,G,K
A
A,H
* Game species.
ETFCAP, inc.
-86-
-------
Table 3-4.
Fish species recorded for the Des Plaines River
in Wisconsin by Greene (1935) but not collected
in the present survey, and those collected in
the present survey but not recorded by Greene.
SPECIES RECORDED BY GREENE
BUT NOT COLLECTED IN 1979-80
SPECIES COLLECTED IN 1979-80
BUT NOT RECORDED BY GREENE
Erimyzon oblongue
Noaomis biguttatua
Notropis texanus
Notrop-is heterolepis
Notropis umbratilis
Esox vermieulatuB
Microperoa punatulata
Lepomis megalotis*
Ambloplites rupestris
Cyrpinue carpio
Notemigonus ohfysoleuous
Notropis dorsalis
Notropis heterodon
Notropis apilopterus
Notrop-is stramineus
Notropis volucellus
Pimpehales promelas
Erimyzon suaetta
Ictalurus melas
Culaea inconstans
Esox lucius
EthoBtoma exile
Lepomis maorochir-us
Lepomis gulosus
Pomoxis annularis
* Now on the Wisconsin Threatened Species List.
E7FCAP, Inc.
-87-
-------
Table 3-5.
Fish species found in the Des Plaines River in
Wisconsin but not in Lake County, Illinois, and
vice versa.
FISH SPECIES TAKEN IN WISCONSIN
BUT NOT IN ILLINOIS
FISH SPECIES TAKEN IN ILLINOIS
BUT NOT IN WISCONSIN
Bowfin
Amia calva
Central mudminnow
Umbra limi
Bigmouth shiner
Notropis dorsal-is
Blackchin shiner
Notropis heterodon
Mimic shiner
Notropis volucellus
Creek chub
Semotilus atromaoulatus
Lake chubsucker
Erimyzon suoetta
Blackstripe topminnow
Fundulue notatus
Brook stickleback
Culaea inconstans
Warmouth
Lepomis gulosus
White crappie
Pomoxis annularis
Yellow perch
Perca flavesaens
Iowa darter
Etheostoma exile
Goldfish
Carassius auratus
Pugnose shiner
Notropis anogenue
Lake emerald shiner
Notropis atherinoides
Redfin shiner
Notropis umbratilis
Lake chub
Couesius plumbeus
Hornyhead chub
Nocomis biguttatus
Redhorse
Moxostoma sp.
Spotted sucker
Minytrema melanops
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Yellow bass
Morone mississippiensis
Rock bass
Ambloplites rupestris
EfTCAP, Inc.
-88-
-------
Table 3-6.
Wisconsin threatened and endangered fish species
(from DNR listing).
ENDANGERED
THREATENED
Gravel chub
Hybopsis x-punctata
Striped shiner
Notropis ohryaooephalus
Slender Madtom
Noturus exilis
Starhead topminnow*
Fundulus notti
Crystal darter
Ammocrypta asprella
Gilt darter
Percina evides
Bluntnose darter
Ethecstoma ahlorosomum
Goldeye
Hiodon aloaoides
Speckled chub
Hybopeis aestivalis
Pallid shiner
Notropis amnis
Blue sucker
Cyeleptue elongatus
Black buffalo
lotiobue niger
River redhorse
Moxostoma oarinatwm
Longear sunfish
Lepomis megalotis
Mud darter
Ethostoma aspri-gene
Pugnose shiner
Notropis anogenus
Ozark minnow
Dionda nubila
* Presumably the Northern starhead minnow, now recognized
as Fundulus dispar (Agassiz).
• EtfCAP, Inc.
-89-
-------
PART 4: INVERTEBRATE INVENTORY AND HABITAT EVALUATION
Carl von Ende, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
This report describes a survey of the wetland area asso-
ciated with the Des Plaines River near Pleasant Prairie,
Wisconsin (Pleasant Prairie Quadrangle, Kenosha Co., TIN,
R22E, Sections 1, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 32).
METHODS
The area was sampled three times in the summer of 1980,
although not all sampling sites were visited each time. For
convenience, the sites were assigned a letter from A to R,
and will be referred to accordingly (Fig. 4-1). These are
the same designations used in the fish survey (Part 3).
All sites were sampled during the period 3-5 June. In addi-
tion, sites C and G were sampled during 6-11 June, and site
G was sampled again on 12 July. Samples from all dates were
combined prior to analysis.
The wetland area generally consists of three kinds of
aquatic habitats: 1) the Des Plaines River proper; 2) marsh-
lands adjacent to the river; and 3) deep manmade canals that
may drain into the river. Sites A, B, D, F and I were river
sampling sites. Sites G and H were in marshy areas, and C,
E and K were along the canals. Part of site G was a canal
that overflowed into the marshland.
Because of the variety of habitats and the large area
to be covered, all sampling was done with Turtox triangular
nets. Sampling focused on the macroinvertebrates in the
benthos and those associated with the aquatic vegetation.
Samples from the muddy areas of the river were washed in the
field through a series of three sieves, with the smallest
having a 500-ym screen. The contents of each sieve were
dumped into a white enamel pan for sorting. Invertebrates
from the riffles area of the river were collected by dis-
lodging rocks in front of the submerged net, and by picking
the animals off the rocks. Those collected in the net were
sorted in a white enamel pan. Bottom samples collected from
the marshes and canals also were run through the sieves and
sorted in the pans. Samples from the vegetation were sorted
E7TCAP, inc. -9°-
-------
in pans.
Sampling period duration at each site depended on the
abundance and diversity of the fauna. Sampling was continued
until 25-50 organisms of the more abundant taxa were collected,
or until field identification of the major taxa indicated
that we had a representative sample. The number of locations
actually sampled within a site corresponded with the sizes
of the respective sites. Consequently, sampling time per
site ranged from 0.5-7.0 hours (Table 4-1). All crayfish
reported in the Results were captured by Dr. Greenfield while
seining for fish.
All organisms were preserved in 75% ethanol in the field
and returned to the laboratory for identification. The fol-
lowing taxonomic keys were used for identification of the
organisms: Baker (Ref. 1), Burch and Patterson (Ref. 2),
Edmunds et al. (Ref. 3), Flowers and Hilsenhoff (Ref. 4),
Harman and Berg (Ref. 5), Hilsenhoff (Ref. 6), Hobbs (Ref. 7),
Mathiak (Ref. 8), Mason (Ref. 9), McCafferty (Ref. 10),
Pennak (Ref. 11), Spieth (Ref. 12), and Van der Schalie
(Ref. 13). All taxa were identified to as low a category as
possible. In the case of crayfish, only Form I males could
be identified, as the modified appendages present during
reproduction are essential to accurate identification. All
specimens have been placed in the freshwater invertebrate
collection at Northern Illinois University.
For the riffles area of the river, a Biotic Index (Ref. 14)
was calculated. It is defined as:
B.I. = n.a./N , where
n. = the number of individuals of genus or species i,
a. = the biotic index value assigned to genus or species i,
N = the total number of individuals collected.
Hilsenhoff (Ref. 14) has assigned biotic index values to
genera and species of aquatic arthropods on the basis of ex-
tensive collections in Wisconsin. Where values were not
available for the genus, but only for individual species,
the average value was used. The values for genera or species
range from 0 to 5; 0 depicting species collected only in un-
altered streams of very high water quality, and 5 depicting
species at the opposite extreme thc.t are known to occur in
severely polluted or disturbed streams. Because the taxa do
demonstrate habitat fidelity, the Biotic Index can be used
as an-estimate of habitat quality.
Description of Sampling Sites
The general characteristics of the habitat at each sampling
site and the areas sampled are presented to aid in the inter-
ZJTCAP, Inc. -91-
-------
pretation of the results. At Site A (Fig. 4-1) , the river
has a very sandy substrate with no detectable fine silt,
detritus, or rocks. Only the bottom sediments of the river
were sampled. The sand seemed to be carried in from a tri-
butary entering from the north. The substrate at Site B is
rocks on a firm bottom, and both are covered with a very fine
silty mud. In some places the mud is 15 centimeters deep.
Because of the lack of vegetation on the sides of the river,
only the middle was sampled. The canal at Site C has a thick
mucky bottom of fine silt. The bottom and the sides were
sampled. The river at Site D is narrow and fast flowing, but
again the bottom is a fine silty mud with some clay. There
is overhanging grass on the undercut west side of the river
and a few aquatic plants on the shallower east side. All
three areas were sampled. Site E is similar to Site C and
was sampled similarly. Site F resembles Site D and conse-
quently the same three types of areas were sampled. At the
southern end of F, however, conditions vary slightly. The
river widens and rooted vegetation occurs along the west
side. The middle and the west side were sampled at this
location.
Site G is a large marshy area with an adjoining canal.
The marshy area was sampled at five different locations, in-
eluding the sides of the deep canal. The bottom of the canal
was not sampled. The sediments of the marsh are composed of
decaying plant matter. At Site H the river is narrow and there
is a short riffle area with a rocky substrate. The riffles
were sampled as well as a 50-meter stretch upstream and down-
stream. About 0.5 kilometers south of the riffles, the river
sediments are not completely composed of the fine silty mud
as at Sites B and D, but have a fair proportion of sand. The
channel of the river was sampled in this area. At Site I the
river is very wide. Again the sediments are a fine silty
mud. Both the sides and the middle of the river were sampled
near the bridge across County Highway ML, and 0.6 kilometer
north of the bridge. At Site J there is a marshy area with
a large amount of open water. The benthos and macroinverte-
brates associated with the rooted aquatic vegetation were
sampled at the border of the vegetation and the open water.
As at Site G, the sediments consist of decaying plant matter.
The sides and fine silt sediments of the canal at Site K
also were sampled.
RESULTS
The only invertebrates collected at Site A (Fig. 4-1)
were crayfish of the genera Orconectes and Procambarus
(total of 3 individuals, Table 4-1) . No aquatic insects
were found. The burrowing mayfly Hexagenia limbata was the
only taxon present at Site B, but it was abundant, with 43
specimens being collected in about 0.75 hours of sampling
FWCAP. Inc. -92-
-------
(Table 4-1). The canal at Site C yielded eight taxa (n=29),
but all except two taxa were relatively rare (Table 4-1).
The mayflies present were Paraleptophlebia spp. and an un-
identifiable member of the same family.The damselflies were
Enallagma spp. and Lestes spp. The gastropods present were
Lymnaea TPseudosuccinae) columella, L. (Fossaria) modicella,
and Physa gyrina"!All these taxa weFe associated with the
vegetation on the sides of the canal, including the immature
Corixidae, which was the most abundant taxon, and the midge
Chironomus spp.
At Site D, Hexagenia limbata was the only invertebrate
in the river channel sediments. It was not as abundant as
at Site B (18 individuals in 0.75 hours of sampling, repre-
senting 40% of the sample; Table 4-1). The other taxa found
were associated with the overhanging vegetation on the sides
of the river: the damselfly Enallagma spp. (11%), immature
corixids (29%), and one specimen of each of the beetles
Dineutus spp. and Peltodytes spp. Six juveniles and one
Form II male crayfish were captured in fish seines.
At the second canal, Site E, only two individuals of the
mayfly Caenis spp. were found in 0.5 hour of sampling the
vegetation and the sediments (Table 4-1). Three crayfish
were found in seining, one male Procambarus spp. and two
females.
Site F was similar to Site D in habitat and fauna, ex-
cept it had a few less taxa. Hexagenia limbata was most
common and about as abundant at the northern part of Site F
(11 in 0.5 hr sampling, 50% of sample; Table 4-1) as at
Site D. Only one specimen of Hexagenia was found in the
southern part of Site F. Again, Enallagma spp. (1 individual)
and immature corixids (6 individuals) were associated with the
vegetation on the sides of the river. One snail (Physa spp.)
and two chironomids also were found.
The marshlands at Site G clearly have the most diverse
and extensive invertebrate fauna of the areas sampled.
A total of 56 taxa were found in about 7 hours of sampling
(Table 4-1). Of the 800 specimens collected, the most abun-
dant taxa were the mayfly Caenis spp. (14%) , the amphipod
Hyalella azteca (13%), and the damselflies Enallagma spp.
(12%) and Lestes spp. (9%). Other rather common arthropods
were corixids (6%) , the dragonflies Anax spp. (2%) and
Sympetrum spp. (2%), and the isopod Asellus spp. (3%).
Both beetles and chronomid midges had relatively diverse
faunas,-although no one taxon was very abundant. Thirteen
genera of beetles and nine genera and one tribe of chironomids
were collected, but none had greater than ten individuals.
Other dipternas were robber fly (Odontomyia spp.) larvae and
crane-fly (Prionocera spp.) larvae. It was striking that
there was also a diverse snail fauna (11 species, 120 indi-
EfTCAP, Inc. -93-
-------
viduals). Lymnaea (Stagnicola) umbrosa (28% of snails),
Physa sayii (34%) and Gyraulus hirsutus (9%) were the most
abundant species. There were four other species of Lymnaea
and two of Physa, in addition to the planorbid species
Heliscma trivolvis. The small bivalves Musculium spp. and
Sphaerium spp. were present also, as were a few oligochaetes.
Besides corixids, the other hemipterans present were the
predaceous genera Belostoma, Gerris, Ranatra, and Notonecta.
Twenty-two crayfish were found, of which four were identi-
fiable Form I males (3 Orconectes spp. and 1 Procambarus spp.).
Twelve females were included in the sample also.
In about one hour of sampling, the riffles area at Site H
yielded the second most diverse fauna in the river (15 taxa,
excluding the bivalves and Hexagenia). Of the 146 specimens,
the mayflies Baetis spp. (26%) and Caenis spp. (25%) were the
most abundant taxa followed by blackfly larvae Simulium spp.
(15%) and the beetles Stenelmis spp. (12%) (Table 4-1).
This was the only site at which Simulium was found. No
Hexagenia limbata were found in the riffles. The only speci-
men was found in the area south of the riffles. The three
caddisfly pupae (Hydropsychidae) and the 13 empty cases in-
dicate this caddisfly family probably is more common, but was
rare because most of the larvae had pupated and the pupae
had emerged by the time of sampling. Five genera of chirono-
mids were found in the riffles (Cryptochirpnomus, Dicrotendipes,
Einfeldia, Polypedilium, and Cricotopus), but none had more
than six individuals. The only specimen of Hexagenia limbata
at Site H also was found in this area. The Biotic Index
for the riffles is 3.17. The southern part of Site H was
unique because it was the only location in the river at which
live unionid clams were found. We collected 15 specimens of
Anodonta grandis (the Floater) and seven of the large Lasmi-
gona complanta (the White Heel Splitter) in 1.5 hours of"
sampling. The only Wisconsin invertebrate on the Federal or
State endangered or threatened species lists is the Higgins
Eye Pearly Mussell (Lampsilis higginsi). It does not occur
within the Project Area.
The wide area of the river at Site I yielded 30 taxa in
3 hours of sampling (Table 4-1). According to the results,
the most common taxon was the immature corixids (53%, n=320).
This finding, however, is biased because the corixids were
collected in a swarm in a shallow area of the river near the
shore. Normally, they were distributed about the same as
the smaller groups. Of the remaining organisms (n=152), the
mayflies Baetis spp. (29%), Hexagenia limbata (19%), and
Caenis 'spp"! (6%) were the most common. Other mayflies
present were Heptagenia diabasia and Stenacron interpunctaturn.
Hexagenia was found in the muddy sediments in the middle of
the river, whereas the other mayflies were found at the base
of the rooted aquatic macrophytes on the sides of the river.
Four individuals of the damselfly Enallagma spp. were present.
EfTCAP, inc. -94-
-------
There were five genera of beetles present (Hygrotus or Hydro-
porus, Stenelmis, Dineutus, Gyrinus, and Enochrus), and a
member of the Noteridae, as well as five genera of chironomids
(Cryptochironomus, Cardiocladius, Cricotopus, Procladius, and
Tanypus).Except for Cricotopus all were represented by fewer
than three individuals. They were associated with the aquatic
vegetation on the sides of the river. Three species of snails
(Lymnaea (Fossaria) modicella, Gyraulus hirsutus, and Helisoma
trivolvis) were present in the same habitat with the bivalve
Sphaerium spp. (all less than 3 individuals). Fourteen cray-
fish were found, but only two Form I males were identifiable
(1 Orconectes spp. and 1 Procambarus spp.).
The invertebrate fauna at Site J was similar to that at
Site H, but much less diverse (17 taxa). Of the 68 specimens
collected in 1 hour of sampling, 26% were the amphipod
Hyalella azteca, 13% the mayfly Caenis spp., and 13% the dam-
selfly Enallagma spp. (Table 4-1). Two individuals of another
damselfly, Lestes spp., also were found. Two new taxa of
hemipterans were present: Mesoyelig spp. (water treaders,
4%), and Neoplea stiola (pygmy backswimmer, 9%). The following
taxa were present at Site J but represented by two or fewer
individuals: beetles - Peltodytes spp. and Tropisternus spp.;
chironomids - Parachironomus spp., Procladius spp., and
Tanypus spp.; crane-fly larva - Prionocera spp.; snails -
Helisoma trivolvis and Promenetus exacuous; dragonfly - Pla-
themis Tydia; oligochaetes; and leeches.
Site K had the same number of taxa as Site J. Of the
80 specimens collected in 1 hour of sampling, Neoplea striola
was the most abundant (26%) followed by HyalelTa azteca (19%),
Caenis spp. (14%) and Peltodytes spp. (10%).Enallagma spp.
comprised only 6% of the sample. The other beetle present
was Hygrotus spp. (1 individual). There were four species of
snails (Lymnaea palustris elodes, Physa sayii, Gyraulus hir-
sutus , and HefTsoma trivolvis).Each of the first three
were represented by only one individual, whereas three speci-
mens of the latter were collected. The remaining taxa were
Chironomus spp., Gerridae, Procambarus spp., Musculium spp.,
and oligochaetes; each represented by one to three individuals.
HABITAT EVALUATION BASED ON THE INVERTEBRATE FAUNA
The three major wetland habitats (river, canal, marsh)
show both similarities and differences in their faunas.
The number of taxa found at a site varies from 1-30 in the
river, 2-11 among the canals, and are 17 and 56 for the
marshes. This is typical for similar habitats at other
locations in the Upper Midwest. At the Des Plaines River
wetland sites, taxonomic diversity generally is correlated
with habitat diversity. Sites with more diverse habitats
created by added physical structure, in the form of rocks
in riffles and rooted aquatic vegetation in the river and
, Inc. -95-
-------
marshes, also were the ones with the largest number of taxa.
This added physical structure provides a greater variety of
microhabitats for the aquatic invertebrates.
Except at Sites A, H, and the lower part of F, the
sediments of the channel of the river were dominated (usually
100% of fauna) by the burrowing mayfly Hexagenia limbata.
At all these sites (B, D, upper part of F, I), the substrate
was composed of a soft silty mud with some clay. Hexagenia
prefers this kind of substrate (Ref. 3). Because the nymphs
build burrows in mud, they are largely restricted to a sub-
stratum that is soft, yet firm enough to permit maintenance
of burrows (Ref. 3). Ordinarily they do not inhabit sand,
gravel, rubble, or peat bottoms that are flocculent. Walder
and Burbauck (Ref. 15) reported that Hexagenia munda never
was found in a substrate containing more than 55% sand by
weight. Apparently, substrates that were too sandy would
not support the establishment of burrows. This would appear
to explain the absence of II. limbata from the sandy Site A,
and its scarcity at the lower part of Site H, where the sub-
strate contained more sand. Also, the peaty bottoms of the
marshes probably are too flocculent and contain too much
coarse plant matter.
With the' exceptions of Site H and crayfish, the taxa
at river sites were associated with the shore or the overhang-
ing vegetation and the rooted aquatic vegetation along the
sides of the river channel. The large amount of rooted
aquatic vegetation at Site I may account for the large num-
ber of taxa at this site. The structuring of the environment
by the plants provides good habitat for mayflies (Caenis spp.
and Baetis spp.), beetles, midges, damselfly nymphs, and
snails.
The greater diversity at Site H undoubtedly is the
result of the added habitat complexity caused by the riffles.
The rocks provide good habitat for the mayfly taxa other than
Hexagenia, and for chironomids, blackfly larvae, and caddis-
flies,
Generally, bivalves prefer stable gravel, sand, and sub-
strates composed of sand or gravel mixed with other materials.
Although soft mud bottoms are usually uninhabited, there are
some "mud loving" Anodonta species (Ref. 11). It appears the
proportion of sand in the substrate at the lower part of Site H
is an acceptable mixture for the two species of unionid clams
we found. This was the only site that had this kind of sub-
strate and also had unionid clams. Both species are wide-
spread in Wisconsin, but Lasmigona complanta (one of the
largest clams in Wisconsin}is most abundant east of a line
from Green Bay to Beloit (Ref. 8). Anodonta grandis is known
to tolerate a wide variety of habitats (Ref. 8). The absence
of macroinvertebrates other than crayfish from Site A probably
. Inc. -96-
-------
is due to the absence of organic matter from the substrate and
larger rocks and pebbles that provide refuges and sites of
attachment for aquatic insects.
The high taxonomic diversity in the marsh at Site G most
likely is the result of the high diversity of micro-habitats
provided by the vegetation in this aquatic environment, and the
large amount of both live and decaying plant matter available
to support a complex community of herbivores, detritivores,
and predators. The snail fauna was the most diverse of all
sites. It is unclear why the marshy area of the lake at Site J
had a less complete fauna, but more intense fish predation or
consistently deeper water may be important factors. The
mayfly Caenis spp. was common in the marsh areas as well as at
river Sites H and I. Merritt and Cummins (Ref. 16) described
this genus as occurring in depositional lotic habitats (run-
ning waters) as well as in the littoral sediments of lentic
habitats.
Except for Site K, the canals had a low number of taxa,
and none of the taxa were unique. The canal faunas represent
small subsets of the marsh faunas because all the taxa in the
canals also were present in the marshes. There were no ap-
parent differences in the canals that would explain the greater
number of taxa at Site K, except that the canal at Site C
does receive effluent from the Pleasant Prairie sewage treat-
ment plant. A longer sampling period may have yielded a few
more taxa at Site E. The lower diversity in the canals
probably, in part, is due to the reduced structural diversity
in the canals. The vegetation along the sides of the canals
provide much less structural diversity than the rooted aquatic
plants in the marshes. Also, the sediments of the canals
were a very fine sandy silt, rather than coarse decaying plant
matter as in the marshes.
Comparison of the results from this study with those
from one conducted on the Des Plaines River in Lake County,
Illinois (Ref. 17) shows that there are several differences.
Firstly, oligochaetes and chironomids were the most common
benthic organisms found in Lake County. We reported only a
few from the Kenosha section of the river. This difference
may reflect variations in water quality, river habitats, or
in the sampling techniques. Our mesh size for the screens
may have been too large for oligochaetes, but we should have
detected the chironomids if they were abundant. The thick
consistency of the muddy substrate may be unsuitable for these
taxa. The second difference is that the Illinois study pro-
duced several genera of caddisflies (Psychomyia, Leptocerus,
and Macronemum) and mayflies (Baetisca, Potomanthus, and
Ephoron) that we did not find. Except for Ephoron, these
genera tended to be found at sites with high percentages of
gravel and rock in their substrates. This kind of substrate
was rare in our study areas.
ERCAP, Inc.
-97-
-------
In conclusion, based on the macroinvertebrate fauna in
the riffles and in the sediments of the river channel, the Des
Plaines River in the Kenosha Project Area can be classified as
having fair to good water quality, i.e. moderate to some en-
richment or disturbance. A Biotic Index value of 3.17 for
the riffles is on the border between fair and poor water
quality (Ref. 14). However, Hexagenia limbata, which was the
taxon found at the most sites in the river, has a Biotic
Index value of 2. This falls within the "good" water quality
range. Apparently the main factors limiting the diversity of
aquatic insects in the river are: 1) the high silt load;
2) the lack of rocky riffle habitats; and 3) possibly effluent
from the sewage treatment plant and other point sources of
pollution. The dominance of Hexagenia, however, is beneficial
to the fish community in the river and to the bird communities
in surrounding habitats. Because H. limbata nymphs can be very
large (up to 30 era in length) , they can be important prey
items for fish. Emerging adult Eexagenia also represent an
important food source for birds when large emergences occur.
Consequently, the abundance of this species that is adapted
to the existing river conditions may be of paramount impor-
tance in the food chain of vertebrate species using the wet-
lands .
A ranking of the sites by number of taxa and abundance
of organisms shows that, with the exception of Site I, those
sites with the greater diversity also had the most organisms
(Table 4-2). These were the marshy areas, the canal at Site K,
and the riffles area of the river. Site B ranked highest
among the remaining sites in terms of abundance because of
the presence of Hexagenia. All but one (Site B) of the higher
quality sampling sites fa's indicated by abundance and diversity
of taxa) (Fig. 4-1), are concentrated in the southern half of
the Project Area (Sites G, K, J, H and I). Although Site L
was not sampled, the substrate characteristics indicate that
it would be similar to Site J. This diverse fauna is impor-
tant in its own right, and because it forms the food base
for vertebrate species occurring in the wetlands habitat.
The list of taxa provided here is not exhaustive and un-
doubtedly more invertebrate taxa would be found if more ex-
tensive sampling was conducted. In particular, more mayfly,
caddisfly, and midge taxa are likely to occur in the riffles
area of the river. Other species of clams may exist locally
at other locations on the river. Crayfish mounds were common
in many areas along the river banks although, as our results
indicate, they were difficult to capture. Zooplankton species
also are present in the river, as shown in the Lake County
study (Ref. 17). In addition, the marsh areas could yield
more genera and species of dragonflies, damselflies, beetles,
hemipterans, midges, other dipterans, and gastropods, as well
as littoral zooplankton species.
The invertebrate fauna expected for the Project Area is
ErTCAP, inc. ~98-
-------
apt to be more diverse than indicated by this study. Never-
theless, the diversity of species and abundance of individuals
documented by this study are sufficient to show: 1) that
water quality is sufficiently good to maintain a diversified
invertebrate fauna; and 2) that the abundance of invertebrates
is adequate to maintain substantial populations of terrestrial
ana aquatic vertebrates.
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 4
1. Baker, F. C. 1928. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin.
Part I. Gastropoda. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Lett., Bull.
70:1-505.
2. Burch, J. B. and C. M. Patterson. 1976. Key to the genera
of freshwater pelecypods (mussels and clams) of Michigan.
Mus. of Zool., Univ. Mich., Circular No. 4.
3. Edmunds, G. F., S. L. Jensen and L. Berner. 1976. The may-
flies of North and Central America. Univ. Minn. Press,
Minneapolis, Minn. 330p.
4. Flowers, R. W. and W. L. Hilsenhoff. 1975. Heptageniidae
(Ephemeroptera) of Wisconsin. Great Lakes Ent. 8:201-218.
5. Harman, W. N. and C. O. Berg. 1971. The freshwater snails
of central New York with illustrated keys to the genera and
species. Search, Agriculture 1:1-68.
6. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1975. Aquatic insects of Wisconsin, with
generic keys and notes on biology, ecology, and distribution.
Tech. Bull. Wis. Dept. Nat. Res. 89:1-52.
7. Hobbs, H . H., Jr. 1976. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North
and Middle America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identi-
fication Manual (USEPA) 9:1-173.
8. Mathiak, H. A. 1979. A river survey of the unionid mussels
of Wisconsin 1973-1977. Sand Shell Press, Horicon Wis. 77p.
9. Mason, W. T., Jr. 1973. An introduction to the identifi-
cation of chironomid larvae. NERC/EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
90p.
10. McCafferty, W. P. 1975. The burrowing mayflies (Ephemer-
optera: Ephemeroidea) of the United States. Trans. Am. Ent.
Soc. 101:447-504.
11. Pennak, R. W. 1978. Freshwater invertebrates of the United
States (2nd ed). John Wiley & Sons, New York. 803p.
12. Spieth, H. T. 1941. Taxonomic studies of the Ephemeroptera,
II. The genus Hexagenia. Am. Midi. Nat. 26:233-280.
EfTCAR Inc. -99-
-------
13. Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron
River, in southeastern Michigan. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich.
Misc. Publ. 40:1-83.
14. Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate
water quality of streams. Tech. Bull. Wis. Dept. Nat.
Res. 100:1-15.
15. Walker, W. H. and W. D. Burbank. 1973. The ecology and
distribution of Hexagenia rounda Eaton (Ephemeroptera) in
Stone Mountain Lake, Georgia, U.S.A. Verh. Internat.
Verein. Limnol. 18:1527-1533.
16. Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins (eds). 1978. An intro-
duction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 441p.
17. Anonymous. 1978. Des Plaines River aquatic survey. Lake
County Forest Preserve District, Libertyville, 111. 148p.
EfTCAP. Inc. •100~
-------
Figure 4-1
Location of Aquatic Sampling Sites A-L visited
during invertebrate studies.
ERCAP. Inc.
-101-
-------
J
•
Table 4-1. Macroinvertebrate fauna of Des Plaines River wetlands
for 11 sampling sites; also sampling time, abundance
of taxa, total number of taxa, and total number of
organisms at each site.
Sampling Time (hr)
INSECTA
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis spp.
Unidentifiable
Caenidae
Caen-is spp.
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia limbata
Heptagenidae
Heptagenia diabas-ia
Stenaoron interpwictatum
Leptophlebiidae
Paraleptophlebia spp.
Unidentifiable
Odonata
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma spp.
Lestidae
Lestes spp.
Aeshnidae
Anax spp.
Libellulidae
Plathemis lydia
Sympetrum spp.
Unidentifiable
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma spp.
Immature
Corixidae
Trichocorixa spp.
Immature
Gerridae
Gerris spp.
Immature
Mesoveliidae
Mesovelia spp.
Nepidae
Ranatra spp.
Notonectidae
Notonecta spp.
SITES
ABCDEFGHIJK
0.5 0.75 1.0 0.75 0.5 0.5 7.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0
6 38 44
1
2 110 37 9 9 11
43 18 12 1 29
1 5
1
2 1
1
25 1 97 495
1 73 2
19
1
19
1
2
1
12 7
12 13 6 38 174
1 1
5 3
3
1
4
EfTCAP, Inc. -102-
-------
Table 4-1 cont.
SITES
H
Notonectidae (cont.)
Immature
Pleidae
Neoplea striola
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Pupa
Cases
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Colymbetes sp.
Coptcmus sp.
Graphoderus sp.
Hygrotue or Hydroporus spp.
(larvae)
Hygvotus spp. (adults)
Elmidae
Stenelmis spp.
Unidentifiable
Gyrinidae
Dineutus spp.
Haliplidae
Haliplus spp.
Peltodytes spp.
Hydrophilidae
Enookrus spp.
Hydrobiue sp.
Hydrocara sp.
I^opisterni^s spp.
Noteridae
Unidentifiable
Diptera
Chironomidae
(Chironominae)
Chironomus spp.
Cryptochironomus spp.
Dicrotendipes sp.
Einfeldia sp.
EndochironomuB spp.
Geoldiehironamue spp.
Kieffentlue spp.
M-icroapectTO. sp.
Paracftirvwomue spp.
Polypedilum 8pp.
1
1
1
11
4
1
1
3
2
9
1
1
2
10
2
3
3
1
1
3
13
18 1
3
1
21
1 8
EFTCAP, inc.
-103-
-------
Table 4-1 cont.
Chironomidae (cont.)
(Orthocladinae)
Cardioolad-ius spp.
Cricotopus spp.
Pseotfooladiue sp.
(Tanypodinae)
Prooladius spp.
Tanypus spp.
Fentaneurini (tribe)
Unidentifiable chironomids
Simuliidae
Simulium spp.
Stratiomyidae
Odontomyia spp.
Tipulidae
Prionocera spp.
Unidentifiable pupae
CRUSTACEA
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Hyalella azteoa
SITES
ABCDEFGHIJK
19 1
168
1
1 1
1 1
6
183
22
5 7
11 2
3
100 1 18 15
Isopoda
Asellidae
Asellus spp.
Liroeus sp.
Decapoda
Astacidae
Oreoneotes spp.
Proaambcams spp.
Unidentifiable males
Females
Juveniles
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaea (Pseudosuaeinea)
oolumella
Lymnaea (Stagniaola) lanaeata
Lynmaea (Fossaria) modicella
Lymnaea palustria elodee
Lymnaea (Faesari) parva
Lymnaea (Stagnicola) umbroea
Lymnaea spp. (immature)
Physidae
Fhyea ancillaria
Physa gyfi-na
3
1
1
6
1
2
1
1
27
1
3
2
5
12
3 1
1 1
2 2
11
4
4
5
1
34
11
1
1
EITCAP, Inc.
-104-
-------
Table 4-1 cont.
i
Physidae (cont.)
Physa aayii
Physci spp. (immature)
Planorbidae
Gyraulue hirsutus
Gyraulu.8 spp. (immature)
Helisoma trivolvis
Promenetus exacuous
Bivalvia
Sphaeridae
MueouHion spp.
Sphaerium spp.
Unionidae
Anodonta grandis
Laamigona complanata
Oligochaeta
Hirudinea
SITES
ABCDEFGH
41
1 1 1
9
4
4
13
1
15
7
3 10 2
I J K
1
1
2 1
113
1
3
3
222
2
Total number of taxa
Total number of individuals
(excluding crayfish)
Number of individuals/0.5 hr
sampling (excluding crayfish)
2 1 8 6 2 5 56 18 30 17 17
0 43 29 38 2 22 778 163 311 68 79
0 29 15 25 2 22 56 73* 23t 34 40
* Estimate only for riffles (n=146).
t Corixids excluded in this estimate.
EfTCAP, Inc.
-105-
-------
Table 4-2. Ranking of sites in decreasing order for number
of taxa and number of individuals/0.5 hr sampling.
Based on data in Table 4-1.
NUMBER
OF TAXA ABUNDANCE
G H
I G
H K
J J
K B
C D
D I
F F
E C
A E
B A
EFTCAP, Inc. -106-
-------
i
PART 5: INVENTORY OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES AND MAMMALS
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION AND METHODS
Concomittant with the bird inventories, the ornitholo-
gical team recorded each sighting of representatives of the
other vertebrate groups. In addition, a census of muskrat
houses was conducted on Survey Areas 1, 2, 4, and 5. Sci-
entific names for the animals mentioned in the text are found
in Tables 5-1 and 5-3.
RESULTS
Amphibians
Five species of amphibians were identified on the Project
Area (Table 5-1). Frogs were observed frequently in Survey
Areas 1, 2 and 4, and occasionally in the other survey areas.
American toads inhabited upland sites but bred in the wetlands.
A single tiger salamander was recorded in Survey Area 1. It
is likely that all five species of amphibians completed their
life cycles in various portions of the Project Area. No
threatened or endangered amphibians were recorded on the Pro-
ject Area (Table 5-2).
Since these forms are dependent upon a variety of aquatic
organisms as food during their larval and adult stages, their
presence is another indication that the invertebrate fauna is
sufficiently productive to support a diversified vertebrate
fauna. Amphibians, in turn, provide food for various fishes,
reptiles, birds and mammals.
Reptiles
Five species of reptiles were observed on the Project
Area (Table 5-1): four kinds of turtles and one snake species.
Turtles were recorded on numerous occasions, particularly in
Survey Areas 1 and 2. The Blanding's turtle, a State Threatened
Species" (Table 5-2) was recorded on at least five occasions.
Two of the sightings were about 1.6 kilometers apart, thereby
increasing the likelihood that they were different individuals.
Each of the Blanding's turtles we observed was considered.to
be adult size. A female was found in a upland area near the
ElTCAP. Inc. -107-
-------
entrance road to the Pheasant Valley Hunting Club where it
may have been preparing to lay eggs. One Blanding's turtle
was captured and photographed on Survey Area 1.
Mammals
Thirteen species of mammals were recorded on the Project
Area (Table 5-3) . None of these appear on the State Threatened
or Endangered Species Lists (Table 5-2). Several of these
species are characteristic of wetland habitats. The activities
of beaver and muskrat influence the wetland area in a variety
of ways. Both species burrow in banks, such as dikes, thereby
reducing their water holding capacity. In addition, beaver
may cut wide canals through earthen dams and dikes. This
has been accomplished by beaver at two locations along the
"Q" dike and other cuts have been started. Construction of
these deep cuts has permitted water to flow from the canals
back into the wetlands that they drain. The higher and more
persistent water levels observed in Survey Areas 1 and 4
during 1980 were, in part, influenced by beaver activity.
Beaver and muskrat also eat marsh vegetation. Muskrats
are important consumers of cattails, sedges and other forms
of emergent marsh vegetation. Their activities influence
the rate at which marsh plants close off the open pools that
are essential to many marsh birds. The persistence of a
healthy muskrat population is an important factor contributing
to habitat quality for many bird species. Besides cutting
vegetation for food, muskrat dig mud and vegetation from
areas about their houses to obtain construction materials.
This process also creates open pools that serve as use areas
by various wetland birds. Muskrat houses often serve as nest-
ing substrates for several bird species (e.g. Pied-billed
Grebe, American Coot, Mallard, Black Tern). Platforms of
vegetation cut by muskrats also are used by several of these
bird species as nesting material or as substrates for nests.
On 14 November 1980, 310 muskrat houses were counted on
Survey Areas 1, 2, 4 and 5 during our bird inventories. The
largest number of houses occurred on Survey Area 2 (167),
with the others in descending order of abundance being Area 4
(62), Area 1 (59) , and Area 5 (2). The abundance of muskrat
on Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4 is further evidence of the high pro-
ductivity of these areas and their generally high quality as
wildlife habitat. A suitable balance between muskrats and vege-
tation should be maintained in a marsh. Trapping activities
within calculated and controlled limits can be used to keep
muskrat-numbers at a level where they do not overgraze a
marsh. Trapping activities also provide recreation and fi-
nancial gain for those involved. During fall 1979 and 1980,
trappers worked the wetlands on the Pheasant Valley Hunting
Club. Several species of mammalian predators (e.g. mink)
E&CAP, Inc. -108-
-------
occur on the Project Area and they also contribute to stabili-
zation of the muskrat population.
Beaver constructed a lodge and dam at the northeast corner
of Survey Area 5 in 1979. A cut was made in the dike and the
beaver concentrate their foraging effort along the canals
and on Survey Areas 1 and 4. Cottonwoods along the dike and
numerous aspen on an island have been cut in Survey Area 1.
On 14 November 1980, a large supply of winter browse had been
stored by beaver in the canal near their lodge. Branches
protruded above the surface at that time and this cache was
photographed. In 1979, beaver stored food in the pond at the
northeast corner of Survey Area 1. A beaver was shot by hunters
during fall 1979, but an active family persisted throughout
1980.
The diversity of amphibians, reptiles and mammals seems
to represent typical wetland diversity suggesting that habitat
quality is suitable for the needs of an array of vertebrate
species. Most of the species included in Tables 5-1 and 5-3
were observed on several occasions or sign (tracks and scat)
were noted frequently.
.
OTCAP, Inc. -109-
-------
I
4
Table 5-1. Amphibians and reptiles observed on the Project
Area.
AMPHIBIANS
REPTILES
American Toad
Bufo am&ri,canus
Bull Frog
Rana catesbe-iana
Green Frog
Rana olam-itans
Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma tigrina
Snapping Turtle
Chelydra serpertina
Blanding's Turtle
Emys blandingii
Painted Turtle
Chrystemys piata
Soft-shelled Turtle
Trionyx spinifer
Garter Snake
Thamnophis sirtalia
EfTCAP, Inc.
-110-
-------
Table 5-2.
Endangered and threatened mammals, reptiles and
amphibians on the Wisconsin list.
ENDANGERED
THREATENED
Mammals
Pine Marten None
Martes amertoana
Canada Lynx
Lynx canadensis
Timber Wolf
Can-is lupus (also U.S. Endangered)
Reptiles
Wood Turtle
Clemmys insaulpta
Ornate Box Turtle
Terrapene ornata
Queen Snake
Regina septevittata
Western Ribbon Snake
Thamnophis proximus
Northern Ribbon Snake
Thamnoph-is sauritus
Massassauga
Sistrurus eatenatus
Glass Lizard
Ophisaurus attenuatus
Blanding's Turtle
Emudoidea blandingii
Amphibians
None
Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma maculatum
Tremblay's Salamander
Ambystoma tremblayi
Burns' Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens burnsii
Pickerel Frog
jf?ana paluetrie
EfTCAP, Inc.
-Ill-
-------
Table 5-3. Mammals observed on the Project Area.
Red Bat
Las-iurus borealis
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Long-tailed Weasel
Mustela frenata
Mink
Muetela vison
Red Fox
Vulpes vulpes
Woodchuck
Marmota monax
Eastern Chipmunk
Tarn-las striatua
Gray Squirrel
Sciurus oarolinensis
Peromyscus sp.
Meadow Vole
Microtus pennsylvanious
Muskrat
Ondatra zibeth-ious
Beaver
Castor oanadena-is
Vlhite-tailed Deer
Odoao-ileus virginiana
EJTCAP, Inc. -112-
-------
PART 6: SURVEY OF THE UPPER DBS PLAINES RIVER
FLOODPLAIN AND WETLAND FLORA AND VEGETATION
Paul D. Stfrensen, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to survey the flora and
vegetation of the wetlands and adjacent uplands along a por-
tion of the Des Plaines River in Kenosha County, Wisconsin,
and to determine the value of these lands as habitat for
plants and animals.
METHODS
Field Surveys of the Flora and Vegetation
Seventeen days were spent in the Project Area conducting
plant surveys and related activities (Table 6-1). The area
was traversed on foot, on horseback, in a four-wheel-drive
vehicle, and by canoe. As the principal botanical investigator,
I was present on all these dates and was accompanied by a field
assistant during 11 of them.
The fundamental approach to the plant study was floristic;
that is, an effort was made to observe and record every vascular
plant species growing without cultivation in the entire Project
Area. Additionally, the kinds of plant communities were iden-
tified and records were kept of the principal plant species
characterizing each. While visiting the sites, lists were
made of all the plant species that could be identified positively
in the field. Species that could not be identified on sight
were collected and preserved by conventional means for identi-
fication in the laboratory. This procedure also was followed
when the plant in question belonged to groups in which the
individual taxa could be determined only by small, detailed
and technical characters that meant field identification might
be open to question. Many of the sedges (Cyperaceae) fall into
this latter category. All specimens resulting from these col-
lections are on deposit in the Herbarium of Northern Illinois
University, DeKalb, Illinois. Duplicates, when available,
eventually will be deposited in the herbarium of Morton Arboretum.
While several standard manuals that cover the flora of
this region were used to identify unknown plants, in all cases
"TST A P. fn*v -113-
-------
! RESULTS
i the nomenclature given in this report follows that adopted by
* | Swink and Wilhelm (Ref. 1) who, in turn, base their nomenclature
| on that of Fernald (Ref. 2).
Field notes, together with records of specimen identifi-
t cation, were used to prepare a written description of each plant
^ ' community recognized for the Project Area, and a total list of
all species recorded. Personal observations along with species
occurrence data were used to evaluate habitat quality insofar
as can be judged from the flora and vegetation.
I
f
I Synopsis of Plant Communities
Costing (Ref. 3) defines a plant community as "an aggre-
; gation of living plant species that occur together." This
+ ' definition was applied to the Project Area; particular aggre-
| gations of plants that occurred together are referred to as com-
munity types. The following community types were identified
' within the Project Area:
A. Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Communities
5 '
1. Submerged or floating plants of slow moving or
standing waters.
2. Emerged plants of littoral zones and marshes.
'. 3. Bulrush beds.
^ ' 4. Open, undrained depressions, seasonally inundated.
f 5. Shaded, undrained depressions, seasonally inundated.
; 6. Meadows around ponds and depressions.
7. River terrace meadows.
8. Margins of streams, canals, and sloughs (muddy margins)
9. Riparian thickets.
10. Alluvial woods along streams and river terraces.
B. Upland Communities, Open Sunny Areas
11. Old fields and roadsides.
12. Degraded remnants of mesic prairies.
13. Margins of upland woods and serai woodlands.
C. Upland Communities, Shaded Areas
14. Deciduous forest.
D. Weed Habitats.
15. Disturbed areas along walks, paths, roadways, edges
nr. -114-
-------
of cultivated fields, corrals, and around foundations
of barns and other structures
Description of Plant Communities
Fifteen plant communities were identified and described
for the Project Area. Community status was assigned on the
basis of the following characteristics: 1) physical features;
2) principal plant species; and 3) the most prevalent associated
species. This report provides a list of locations where examples
of each community type were found within the Project Area; an
estimate of the total amount of each community type; and, a
list of typical species that make up each community.
The lists of species accompanying each community descrip-
tion represent typical species only, and are not exhaustive
accounts. A complete list of plant species found in the Project
Area is provided in Table 6-2. The abbreviated lists are in-
tended to convey an impression of each community based upon
plant species having well-known habitat preferences. Plant
species with very wide ecological amplitude may occur in an as-
sortment of habitats, consequently such species are excluded
from the abbreviated lists.
A. Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Communities
Community Type 1. Submerged or floating plants of
slow-moving or standing waters.—All areas of open water that
support some vegetation are included: the Des Plaines River
and its tributaries; slow-moving water in canals; and, standing
water of ponds, marshes, and pond-marshes. This community
type corresponds to the "O" for open water and "D" for duckweed
designations on the vegetation overlay, Plate 17, in the work
by Shines (Ref. 1).
During periods of high water caused by run-off, the Des
Plaines River might be described as a fast-flowing stream but,
during part of the growing season, the river level subsides
and the stream slows down enough to allow a meager flora to be-
come established. Just two plant species grow in the river
bed proper: Heteranthera dubia (Water Stargrass) and Nuphar
advena (Spatterdock).The former is found at the extreme
southern end of the Project Area, rooted on the bottom, where
the river widens and becomes quite shallow and slow-moving.
The latter forms patches with their familiar broad floating
leaves in the river bed adjacent to the quarry woods in the south-
east quarter of Section 19, just northwest of Survey Area 4
(Fig. 6-1). These two species hardly constitute a stream bed
community, especially when one considers how far apart they
occur. They are mentioned here primarily for the sake of com-
pleteness. Throughout the 1980 growing season, water level in
the river never receded to a point that the bottom was clearly
visible. Possibly a few additional submerged species occur in
ERCAP, Inc. -115-
-------
the river bed.
Compared with the sparce flora of the Des Plaines River,
the, submerged flora of open waters elsewhere is rather rich.
Owirig to the nature of reproduction and other characteristics
of certain floating and submerged plants, it is difficult to
assign dominance to one or two species. For example, in the
early part of the growing season a tiny floating plant called
Duckweed (Lemna minor) may be represented by just a few indi-
viduals. As the season advances and waters warm, Duckweed
undergoes massive vegetative reproduction to the extent that
this single species, or a combination of this species and one
or more of its close relatives (Spirodela polyrhiza, Great
Duckweed and Wolffia columbiana. Water Meal) may cover entire
bodies of water. As autumn approaches and as various animals
continue to forage on these plants, they decline remarkably
in number.
The floristic composition of open waters is quite similar
from place to place. The reason for this is again a function
of the kinds of reproduction that take place. The duckweeds
mentioned above can float freely from place to place within
contiguous waters, as in the canals and marshes of Survey
Areas 1, 4 and 5 (Fig. 6-1). Likewise, even plants anchored
on the bottom disperse when pieces break off, float to a new
location, take hold, and grow. Waterfowl and mammals serve
as dispersal agents when they carry bits of these plants across
non-aquatic areas and introduce them into other bodies of water.
The consistent repetition of the floristic composition
unifies the several bodies of open water into one community
type. There are essential differences, however, in physiog-
nomy that characterize each of the facies of this community
type within the Project Area
Facies 1. Stream beds.—The stream bed proper of the Des
Plaines River and its tributaries represents the most aberrant
expression of the open water community type owing to its de-
pauperate flora. Only in the extreme southern portion of the
river does species diversity increase, but in this instance the
diversity is derived from associated bulrush beds designated
here as Community Type 3.
Facies 2. Slow-moving waters of canals.—Since all the
canals have been dug and ao not represent natural waterways,
they lack gradually sloping sides or margins. Thus the transi-
tion from upland habitats (along dikes) to open water takes
place over a very short distance. In such circumstances,
emergent vegetation or a littoral zone (Community Type 2)
cannot develop. A further hindrance to development of a lit-
toral zone is the composition of the bottom beneath the open
water. Bottom rooted plants that remain submerged (except
for a brief period when their flowering parts protrude from
-116-
-------
the water) are not encumbered in their development nor are the
floating plants. Canals occur within or along Survey Areas 1,
2, 4 and 5 (Fig. 6-1).
Facies 3. Ponds and pond-marshes.—The pond-marsh habitat
is characterized by open water lacking any interspersion of
emergent vegetation. The absence of emergent vegetation is
a function of water depth in a transect perpendicular to the
shore. The name "pond-marsh" is applied to indicate that the
pond, being a natural body of water, has gently sloping sides
that can support a distinct band of emergent vegetation
making up a marsh-like transition area known as the littoral
zone. Some of the floating and submerged plants of the open
water community may be present among the emergent sedges and
bulrushes of the littoral zone but the reverse does not occur.
The best example of pond-marsh habitat occurs in the eastern
sector of Survey Area 2 (Fig. 6-1). Others are found more or
less in the centers of Survey Areas 3 and 4. What may have
been an old meander of the Des Plaines River that now has
acquired the general characteristics of a pond-marsh is situ-
ated directly west of the quarry woods in Section 19.
Facies 4. Open water and marshes.—The open water of
marshes is distinct from open water of ponds and pond-marshes
in that the area of open water is interspersed with clumps
of emergent vegetation and sometimes also exposed mud or even
small islands of upland habitat. Marshes form over natural
terrain with typically undulating swell and swail topography
resulting in varied water depths that produce the patchy or
mosaic-like nature of such habitats. As with the pond-marsh,
floating and submerged plants can appear among the stalks of
the sedge and cattail clumps. One of the best and most ex-
tensive examples of this habitat type in the Project Area is
found in Survey Area 1 (Fig. 6-1). This tract also yielded
the largest number of plant species. Open water marshes
also can be found in Survey Areas 2, 3,4 and 5 (Fig. 6-1);
in backwaters of the river north of County Highway ML; and
east of the Des Plaines River in Section 32.
Typical floating and submerged plants colonizing open
waters throughout the Project Area include the following:
Lemna minor Potamogeton foliosus
Lemna trisulca Potaroogeton pectinatus
Ceratophyllum demersum Ranunculus longirostris
>phy_
>hyl
Myriophyllum exalbescens Spirodela polyrhiza
Najas flexilis Utricularia vulgaris
Nuphar advena Wolffia columbiana
Nymphaea""tube ro s a
Community Type 2. Emergent plants of littoral zones
and marshes.—In shallow waters and where the transition from
open water to upland areas is very gradual, there occur
EFTCAP, Inc. -117-
-------
patches and zones of vegetation characterized by upright
growing plants that elevate both their vegetative and repro-
ductive parts above the water. These are the emergent plants
that comprise the littoral community (designation in part or
all of Se-Sedge, Sp-Cord Grass, RC-Rush & Cattail of Shines,
Ref. 4). Owing to its frequent occurrence as a band around
bodies of water, it is most convenient to visualize this
community type as a zone. Littoral zone is the most con-
spicuous wetland vegetation that develops where shallow
standing water remains the whole year. The principal species
making up the community typically have tallr coarse stalks
1-2.4 meters above the water and grow from sturdy, creeping
rhizomes. The rhizomatous habit allows a species, once es-
tablished, to form large clones that can be so dense as to ex-
clude entirely other tall-growing species of similar habit.
The arrangement that results from these characteristics of
littoral species is a patchwork of different clones in which
a clump of cattails may give way to a stand of Great Bulrush
(Scirpus acutus) that in turn a bit farther on is replaced by
Sweet Flag (Aco"rus calamus) or some other coarse-growing
! species. In such circumstances, dominance of a single species
shifts from one to the next as one proceeds along a transect.
Most often, sufficient searching in any particular marsh will
produce representatives of the preceding species plus all of
the following that share these growh characteristics:
Phragmites communis Sparganium eurycarpum
Scirpus fluyiatilis Typha angustifolia
Scirpus validus'Typha latifolia
1 As mentioned under Community Type 1, the floating plants
of open water habitats can be found among the tall sedges
and cattails of the littoral zone. When the floating plants
{ disperse among the sedge stalks, they are protected from being
j blown out into open water again. Here they reproduce vegeta-
I tively in profusion and form solid mats that have the effect
\ of shading the underwater plants as the latter die. Thus,
I in the later parts of the growing season, the littoral zone
community includes floating plants but the underwater plants
may disappear or decline. Some plants that are part of the
j littoral community do not actually take root in the bottom
! but have their roots suspended in the water. Lacking a firm
anchorage, these plants are unable to elevate their stems
above the water except where they are supported by the
sturdier sedges and cattails. An example is the annual Stiff
; Bedstraw (Galium tinctorium). Bottom-rooted, stool-forming
species such as one of the sedges (Carex hystricina) form yet
another kind of plant characterizing littoral zone vegetation.
Plants of the littoral zone are not dependent upon being
constantly in standing water. Indeed, some of the species
with sturdy rhizomes occasionally can be found creeping out
of the wetlands and persisting on convex topography. Moreover,
most of the littoral zone species also can be found in meadows
EWCAP, Inc. -118-
-------
(Community Type 6) where they do not attain dominance. Their
occurrence in meadows may be interpreted in this way: the low-
lands along the Des Plaines River, even those that we know to
be only seasonally inundated (Community Types 4 & 5), are
flooded often enough and for long enough periods for occasional
littoral zone species to take hold, when the waters recede
the sturdy rhizomes of these plants aid them in persisting.
The reverse movement, from meadow to littoral zones, cannot
take place because the meadow species are intolerant of having
their roots submerged constantly. Thus littoral zone species
are components of the flora of meadows and occasionally even
more upland communities, but upland and meadow plants are not
part of the littoral zone flora.
Excellent examples of littoral zone vegetation can be
found in several places in the Project Area. Most noteable,
owing to rather complete representation of species, are those
that make up large portions of Survey Areas 1 and 2 (Fig. 6-1),
and to a lesser extent in Survey Area 3. Small patches occur
among the stands of deciduous forest on the Pheasant Valley
Hunting Club property and directly south of the club in
Section 32. Northwest of the quarry in the west center of
Section 20 is another small example.
Littoral zone species in addition to those mentioned or
listed previously are:
Acorus calamus Polygonum hydropiperoides
Alisma subcord'atum Proserpinaca palustris"
Alisma trivia£eRanunculus pensylvanicus
Eguisetum fluvTatile Salix interior
Cicuta maculataScirpus cyperihus
Ludwigia paiustris Scutell'aria lateriflora
Polygonum coccineum Sium suave
Community Type 3. Bulrush beds.—Extensive areas along
both sides of the Des Plaines River and around depressions
throughout the Project Area are sometimes given over to stands
of the River Bulrush (Scirpus fluviatile) in which very few
other species grow. These stands represent essentially large
areas of littoral zone vegetation and one might feasibly in-
clude them as another facies of that community type; however,
I have chosen to keep them separate and call them bulrush
beds. Two factors influenced this decision: 1) the community
lacks the floristic diversity of typical littoral zones; and
2) unlike littoral zone vegetation, bulrush beds seem to occur
where water levels fluctuate greatly. Indeed, it appears
that they can withstand long periods without being submerged.
It is beyond the scope of this study to explain fully the fac-
tors that contribute to the development of bulrush beds in
favor of typical littoral zone vegetation. No doubt the fac-
tors involve a combination of the aggressive nature of the
principal species as well as seasonal changes in the physical
E7TCAP, Inc. -119-
-------
characteristics of the habitat.
The River Bulrush is a coarse perennial with stiff, tri-
angular culms. It reproduces principally by vegetative means
and where it has once taken hold it need not rely upon seedling
establishment for spreading outward. The plants are very
durable and can recover quickly from serious kinds of distur-
bances, such as all terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic.
Curtis (Ref. 5) barely mentions River Bulrush as a major
component of aquatic vegetation in Wisconsin. Nowhere does
he bring out the fact, as do Swink and Wilhelm (Ref. 3), that
the species can predominate, to the exclusion of other species,
over large areas of wetland. Possibly its importance and pre-
valence as a wetland species is something of a local phenomenon
and extensive beds of River Bulrush may not occur elsewhere
in the state. During a floristic study covering 1600 square
miles (2560 sq. km.) of Central Wisconsin, I (Ref. 6) did
not record the species. It is likely that the recognition
of bulrush beds as a distinct community type, or as a distinct
facies of littoral communities, is reported here for the first
time.
Good examples of bulrush beds occur along both sides of
the Des Plaines River at the south end of the Project Area
(Section 32). In Section 19, the zone of emergent vegeta-
tion surrounding a quiet backwater of the river is mostly
bulrush bed. Perhaps the largest unbroken expanses of River
Bulrush is in Survey Area 3 (Fig. 6-1).
One can traverse several hundred feet of bulrush bed and
not encounter another plant species; nevertheless, with
diligent searching a few do appear. The list that follows
contains the entire complement of species in the bulrush bed
in Survey Area 3:
Polygonum hydropiperoides Scirpus acutus
Lemna trisulca Scirpus validus
B"idens~vulgata
Community Type 4. Open undrained depressions, seasonally
inundated.—The essential character of these communities is
that they develop in places that accumulate water early in
the growing period thereby preventing vegetation from taking
hold until the water recedes. Seedlings of fall flowering
annuals such as Spanish Needles (Bidens spp.) and Barnyard
Grass (EchinochloS crus-galli) begin to appear on the exposed
mudflats by the middle or the growing season. These species
and others of the community can tolerate periodic flooding
throughout their life cycle. Some perennials, e.g., Marsh
Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), also may become established
as the season progresses. Tn"is latter species also is indi-
cative of seasonal or temporary drying as it is not a compo-
nent of the flora found in permanently flooded areas.
EWCAP, Inc. -120-
-------
Most examples of Community Type 4 were found in parts
of cultivated fields and as patches in meadows. The fields
may be cultivated in years when they dry sufficiently early
to be planted to crops. Open, undrained depressions appear
in several places on the Hunting Club property, in Section
32 on both sides of the Des Plaines River, west of the river
in the northeast corner of Section 9, and in small patches
around the perimeter of Survey Areas 2 and 4 (Fig. 6-1).
When flooded in the fall, these areas provide good foraging
habitat for waterfowl.
Typical plant species of Community Type 4 are:
Asclepias incarnata Bidens frpndosa
Aster prealtus Bidens vulgata "
Bidens cernua Boltonia latisquama
Calamagrostis canadensis Physostegia paryiflora
Cxrsium arvense Polygonugv pensylvanicum
Echinochloa cru's-qalli Rumex yerticillatus
Eriqeron stngosus Salix bebbiana"
Mimulus ringens Salix interioF
Panicum dicnotomiflorum Salix riqida
Phalaris arundinacea Sphenopholis intermedia
Vernonia fasciculata
Community Type 5. Shaded undrained depressions, season-
ally inundated.—As with Community Type 4, this one also de-
velops upon silty and muddy soils exposed after spring flood
waters have drained away or evaporated. The two communities
(4 and 5) differ mainly in floristic composition. Inevitably,
some species will be found in both types of habitats but other
species are completely restricted to shaded versus open de-
pressions. The shaded character of this community type re-
sults from its occurrence in association with surrounding
forest. The vegetation of the depression area is wholly
herbaceous, but along the margins there usually appear some
invasive shrubs such as willows (Salix spp.) and dogwoods
(Cornus spp.) or trees (e.g. Populus spp.).
The best example of Community Type 5 is a crescent-shaped
depression that runs through the oak forest in Sections 19 and
20, just east of a big bend in the Des Plaines River. This
depression looks as though it might be an old meander of the
river that is now cut off. It may have been an ox-bow lake
at one time in the past. Elsewhere shaded depressions occur
in small patches in the wooded areas of the Hunting Club
property and on the Girl Scout property.
Typical species in this community are:
Boehmeria cylindrica Impatiens pallida
Elymus vTrg3.nj.cus Iris virginica
Equisetum arvense Leersia oryzpides
Hackelia"virginiana Lysimachia thyrsTflora
EfTCAP, Inc. -121-
-------
Community Type 6. Meadows around ponds and depressions.—
Wherever the terrain surrounding depressions is generally flat
and poorly drained, a vegetation develops that is character-
istically rich in grasses, sedges, and forbs. In the more
upland, and hence better drained and drier portions of these
areas, the vegetation can take on the appearance of a prairie;
in the lower and more poorly drained areas, the appearance
is similar to littoral zone vegetation. Here and there woody
plant clumps and thickets dot the meadow.
A majority of meadow species are perennial and many have
tough rhizomes. As with littoral vegetation, meadows acquire
a patchy look with a single species forming a clone that ad-
joins the clone of a second, or even a third species. Co-mingling
with the clonal species are those plants that do not form patches
but instead produce stools, clumps, or grow from a single stalk.
Under these circumstances one cannot assign dominance to any
plant species over sizeable portions of the community. Some
of the more prevalent species, however, are Blue Joint (Cala-
magrpstis canadensis), Tall Goldenrod (Solidagp altissima and
!3. gigantea), a stool-forming sedge, Carex haydenii. Slough
Grass (Spartina pectinata), and Reed Canary GrassCPhalaris
arundinacea), the single most prevalent terrestrial plant
species found in the entire Project Area.
Scattered throughout the Project Area there are patches
of dry upland habitats containing strips, zones, or patches
of meadow vegetation. Excellent examples of such sites oc-
cur in Survey Areas 2 and 5 (Fig. 6-1). In both areas, the
meadow vegetation grades into forest on the dry side and into
wetland on the moist side. Other extensive areas of meadow
occur in the northwest portion of Section 20 and in the adja-
cent southwest part of Section 17. Irregular strips of meadow
appear here and there along the entire length of the Des Plaines
River, wherever the river terraces are sufficiently high to
avoid prolonged flooding. On the aerial overlay prepared by
Shines (Ref. 4) the designation LG, Lowland Grasses, cor-
responds most closely to my classification of meadow.
Meadow vegetation surpasses all other wetlands in species
diversity. The following are typical species:
Anemone canadensis
Apocynum sibiricum
Asclepia's incarnata
Aster npvae-angliae'
Aster simplex
Bidens connata
Boltonia latisquama
CampanuTa aparinoid'es
Carex lanuginosa
Cicuta maculata
Cornus stolonifera
Galium obtusum
Galium tinctor'ium
Geum laciniatum
Impatiens capensis
Iris virginica
Lathyruspalustris
Leersia oryzoides
Lycppus americanus
Lysimachia quadriflora
Lysimachia thrysiflora
Mentha arvensis
EFTCAP, inc.
-122-
-------
Cyperus strigosus
Eleocharis palustris
Epilobium coloratum
Epilobium glandulosum
Polygonum cQccineum
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum lapathifolium
Ranunculus gensylvanicus
Ribes americanum
Rorripa islandica
Rosa blanda
Salix""Sebbiana
Salix gracilis
Salix interior
Salix rigida
Scirpus acutus
Mimulus ringens
Physocarpus opulifolius
Poa palustris
Polygonum amphibium
Scirpus validus
Scuterraria epTlobiifolia
Scutellaria lateriflora
Slum suave
Solanum dulcamara
Sphendpholis intermeadia
Spiraea alba
Stachys tenuifolia
Thalictrum dasycarpum
Urtica procera
Verbena hastata
Vernonia fasciculata
Community Type 7. River terrace meadows.—There are
similarities between the meadows of river terraces and the
meadows described above as Community Type 6. I described
the river terrace meadows as a distinct community type because
of its rather consistent occurrence along the Des Plaines
River and because its plant species diversity is consistently
much lower than that associated with meadow vegetation.
The dominant plant species and often the only one present
is Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Establishment
of this coarse wetlands perennial grass eventually reduces
species diversity wherever it occurs. Examples of river ter-
race meadows stretch more or less the entire length of the Des
Plaines River through the Project Area. Away from the river
bed Reed Canary Grass meadows are found in numerous places.
Large expanses occur in the eastern part of Section 30 and
the western part of Section 29. This vegetation type probably
is less extensive than indicated by Shines (Ref. 4). Some of
what she calls R (for Reed Canary Grass) no doubt represents
Community Type 6.
A slightly different facies of river terrace meadows
has been created on convex topography by dredging out canals
to form the dikes in Survey Areas 1, 4 and 5 and at the north
end of Survey Area 2 (Fig. 6-1). Plants growing on the dikes
are not included in the list of species for this community
type even though Reed Canary Grass is the dominant species.
This procedure was adopted because the scooping up of adjacent
meadow, substrate to build the dikes introduces rhizomes of
meadow species, some of which manage to survive. Today,
these dikes support a mixture of species normally not found
together, including recent terrestrial colonizers, such as
Box-elder (Acer negundo), along with persistent meadow species
such as Blue Flag (Iris' virqinica) and Cattail (Typha latifolia),
plus many others.
, Inc.
-123-
-------
The species listed below as typical of river terrace
meadows are never very abundant but occur in small patches
representing perhaps clumps that persist after the site has
been taken over by Reed Canary Grass rather than recent colon-
izers.
Calamagrostis canadensis
Crataequs coccinea
Erechtites hieracifolia
Phragmites communi^
Polygonum coccineum
Pyrus ipense
Rosa blanda
Salix~bebbiana
Salix gracilis
I
Salix interior
Spartina pectinata
Urtica procera
Community Type 8. Muddy margins of streams, canals and
sloughs.—Although not very large in the aggregate, muddy mar-
gins support a distinctive flora. The habitat is just at the
water's edge where more upland communities give way to aquatic
communities. Here, where a harrow band of mud and/or organic
ooze is open to colonization, plants occur that are not seen
in other habitats of the Project Area (e.g. Needle-grass,
Eleocharis acicularis). The plants of this community take ad-
vantage of the increased amount of sunlight that reaches them
from the open water side. They are prevented from spreading
into upland areas by the taller-growing reeds and grasses that
would shade them out and their intolerance of standing water
prevents them from becoming part of the littoral zone flora.
Thus, the best developed examples of muddy margin communities
are found where the terrain slopes steeply into open water areas
leaving little space for the growth of coarse species of lit-
toral zone vegetation. Sites with these kinds of conditions
are found in Survey Area 2 of the Girl Scout property, at the
north end of Survey Area 2 along the canal, and at similar sites
along canals within other survey areas (Fig. 6-1).
The following list of muddy margin plants is compiled from
numerous small increments of this habitat type throughout the
Project Area:
Acnida altissima
Alisma subcordatum
Asclep'ias incarnata
Cardamine pensylvanica
Cicuta maculata
Eleocharis acicularis
Eleocharis palustris
Erigeron strigosus
Geum 1aciniaturn
Galium aparine~
Impatiens capensis
Iris virginica
Lobelia spicata
Lycopus americanus
Mentha arvensis
Parietaria pensylvanica
Potentilla nprvegica
Ranunculus abortivus
Rumex verticillatus
Scutel'laria lateriflora
Sonchus uliginosus
Verbena hastata
Community Type 9. Riparian thickets.—Riparian thickets
are patches of woody vegetation made up of shrubs, woody vines,
E7STCAP, inc.
-124-
-------
.
and young trees that develop along the floodplain and terraces
of the Des Plaines River and its tributaries. Sometimes these
thickets are very difficult to pass through because of the den-
sity of the canes. Unless burned or destroyed by floods the
tendency is for them to develop slowly into alluvial forest.
This process is hastened where shrubs, such as willows, and trees
typical of alluvial forest (Community Type 10) happen to colonize
a site more or less at the same time. If willows get a head
start and manage to produce a fairly dense shade within the
stand, alluvial forest species cannot flourish. A fine example
of this latter kind of thicket composed of three species of
willow (Salix interior, S_. petiolaris, and S. rigida) has
grown up in Section 32 east of the river at"~the north end of
the agricultural fields. Elsewhere good examples are found
close to the river in Section 29, on the Hunting Club property.
The designation by Shine (Ref . 4) for willow vegetation is "w"
and her perception of that community type in the overlay of the
aerial photo with a few exceptions corresponds to the riparian
thickets described here.
Of the 27 species listed below as typical of riparian
thickets in the Project Area, only five are herbaceous. This
disproportionately low representation of herbaceous plants
exemplifies the predominance of woody plants in this community.
Acer negundo Pyrus malus
Acer saccharinum Rhamnus cathartica
Ambrosia trifid'a' Rosa multiflora
Cornus racemosa Rudbeckia laciniata
Crataegus crus-galli Salix alFa
Cuscuta spp. Salix amygdaloides
bbi
Laportea canadensis Salix bebbiana
Morus alba Salix fragili's"
Parthenocissus vitacea Salix interior
Poa palustris Salix nigra
Populus deltoides Salix rigida
Prunus americana Sambucus canadensis
Prunus serotina Vitis rTparia
Pyrus ioense
Community Type 10. Alluvial woods along streams and
river terraces. — Alluvial woods are characterized by mature
trees growing on fine-textured, silty soils that remain at or
beyond field capacity (the amount of water left after gravita-
tional drainage has taken place) through the entire growing
season. Alluvial areas typically undergo seasonal inundation
as well, as periodic inundation during times of high rainfall.
Spring and often fall flooding bring new layers of silts to
the sites that later become available for colonization by
herbaceous annuals such as Wood Nettle (Laportea canadensis) ,
Clear Weed (Pilea pumila) , or Nimble-will (MuhTlenEergia scKre-
beri) . Owing to the particular seed source at hand, the
, Inc. -125-
-------
herbaceous understory can vary considerably from place to
place. For example, in one portion of an alluvial forest the
Wood Nettle may form a monotypic stand over a wide area, else-
where another of those mentioned above may predominate. The
tree species that comprise the canopy include Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), Common Elm (Ulmus americana), Silver
Maple (Acer saccharinum), and Black Willow (SaTTx nigra).
Most of the alluvial woodlands in the Project Area consist
of rather narrow stands developed on strips of river terrace.
The largest expanse occurs where the upland forest on the
Hunting Club approaches the river between Survey Areas 3 and
5 (Fig. 6-1). Similar habitat is found between the river and
upland forest north of Survey Area 4. Alluvial woodlands recog-
nized in this report correspond to the designation "C" for
Cottonwood as given by Shines (Ref. 4).
Typical plant species of alluvial woodlands are:
Acer negundo
Acer sacchar'inum
Aliiurn canadense
Allium tricoccum
Ambrosia trifida
Boehme'rTa cylindrica
Crataegus spp.
Elymus virginicus
Egjuisetum arvense
Erythronium albidum
Hydrophyllum vxrginianum
Isopyrum biternatum
Lonicera tartarica
Lysimachia nummularia
Lysimachia thrysiflora
Osmorhiza claytoni
Populus deltoides
Populus grandidentata
Populus tremuloides
Potentilla norvegica
Pgtentilla simplex
Pyrus ioense
Quercus ellipsoidalis
Quercus macrocarpa
Ranunculus abortivus
Ranunculus septentrionalis
Rhamnus cathartica
Rubus occidentalis
Rudbeckia laciniata
Salix alba
Salix nigra
Sanicula gregaria
Trillium recurvatum
ulmus americana
Viburnum lentago
B. Upland Communities, Open Sunny Areas
Community Type 11.
weedy habitats. An abandoned field remains
Old fields and roadsides. — These are
weedy" for a number
of years following its withdrawal from cultivation. The plant
species that flourish here are called weeds because of their
aggressive nature. They move rapidly into an available habitat
but may not persist there for long. Whereas many of the early
colonizers are annuals, some of the aggressive species are
perennial and, consequently, often remain part of the "old
field" flora long after the annual weedy species have declined.
Old fields occupy areas of intermediate elevation with
respect to the Des Plaines River bottomland. They are on
EFTCAP, inc.
-126-
-------
terrain high enough to avoid excessive flooding except during
the worst of times but low enough to be covered by spring flood
waters that contribute a periodic deposition of silts. The dis-
turbance caused by flooding and silt deposition has the effect
of encouraging reproduction of weedy species that seem suited
to a perturbed environment. Among these are several perennial
Eurasian grasses, long ago introduced as pasture grasses but
now found widespread in an assortment of habitats. They are
the sod forming species of Hungarian Brome (Bromus inermis),
Timothy (Phleum pratense), and Kentucky Blue Grass (Poa
pratensisTToTd fields having remained unplowed for several
years support a vegetation in which these three grasses have a
major or dominant role. Once established they form a tough
sod that resists the successful invasion of woody plants.
Periodic mowing for hay, considered high quality from such
fields, undoubtedly also aids in keeping out shrubs and trees.
Since various kinds of agriculture and animal husbandry
have probably been the past history of most of the upland
parts of the Project Area, remnants of old fields and pastures
are found frequently. Several tracts dot the Hunting Club
property as well as the area south of it. A large amount of
old field is located on the west side of the river northeast
of the Girl Scout property, also, northwest of the quarry across
a channelized stream. Shine (Ref. 4) designates a community
as "UG" for upland grasses that corresponds to my category of
old fields.
Typical floristic elements of old fields reflect a mixture
of annuals and perennials as follows:
Achillea millefolium
Agropyron repens
Agrostis alba
Asclepias syriaca
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Barbarea* vulgar is"
BrassicaT aigra
Bromus inermis
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Carduus nutans
Geum laciniaturn
Hordeum jubatum
Juncus tenuis
Lactuca scariola
Lepidium campestre
Lepidium yirginicum
Lychni s""a Iba
Medicago lupulina
Medicago sativa
Melilotus alba~
Oenotfeera' biennis
Oxalis europea
Carex sparganioides
Chenopodium album
Cichprium intybus
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium vulgare
DactylTs glomerata
Daucus carota
Dracocephalum paryiflorum
Erigeron canadensis
Erigeron strigosus
Poa pratensis
Polygonum sagittatum
Potentilla norvegica
Potentilla recta
Rosa Carolina
Rumex crispus
Senecio plattensis
Silene""cucubalus
Stellaria media
Solanum dulcamara
Taraxacum officinalis
Thlaspi arvense
ERCAP. Inc.
-127-
-------
Oxalis stricta
Phleum pratense
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
Plantago" rugellii
Tragopogon
p
l
Tritoiuin hybridum
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Veronica peregnna
Community Type 12. Degraded remnants of mesic prairie.—
Prairie-dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum), an herbaceous peren-
nial with huge fan-shaped basal leaves, is the most conspicuous
species signalling the location of this habitat. This species,
along with several of its associates, is completely intolerant
of plowing and thus may be used as an indicator of where prairie
vegetation was present in the past. Today most of these prairie
patches have been destroyed by conversion to cultivated fields
or they have been grazed to such an extent that non-prairie
species have invaded the community, gradually changing it to
something quite different, usually serai woodland (Community
Type 13).
Within the Project Area proper, I recorded a small patch
of remnant prairie located in Section 29 between stands of Bur
Oak woods on the Hunting Club. Another occurs along the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad line in
Section 32. Shine (Ref. 4) was unable to discriminate this
community type. The two tracts mentioned here are designated
by her as "F" for forest (owing to the proximity of the first
to a Bur Oak stand)., "LG" for lowland grasses, and "R" for Reed
Canary Grass. Typical mesic prairie species that persist even
in degraded remnants along with some recent invaders found in
the two sites are:
Achillea millefolium
Allium"cernuum
Amorpha canescens
Andropogon gerardi
Anemone canadensis
Aster ericoides
Aster laevis
Aster noyae-angliae
Aster pilosus
if
Panicum virgatum
Pycnanthemum virginianum
Ratibida pinnata
Rosa arkansana
Rosa Carolina
Rubus~allegheniensis
Rudbeckia hirta"
Scirpus lineatus
Scrophularia lanceolata
Coronilla varia
Euphorbia corollata
Gentiana andrewsii
HeliantEus laetiflorus
Heliopsis helianthoidlTs
Juneus torreyi
Lathyrus palustris
Linaria vulgaris
Oxalis"europea
>E|
ihl
Silphium integrifolium
Silphium terebinthinaceum
Si IP
Smil
acina racemosa
Solidago gigantea
Solidago' graminij-blia
Solidago' rigida
Spiranthes cernua
Sporobolus vaginiflorus
Verpnicastrum virginicum
1
EtfCAP, Inc.
-128-
-------
Community Type 13. Margins of upland woods, fencerows,
and serai woodlands.—Habitats of this sort often combine
elements of both forest and field communities. Under natural
conditions these are unstable areas that gradually change with
the expansion and development of mature forest communities.
In places where the adjacent fields are cultivated, however,
as in the Project Area, the woodland margins remain more or
less stationary. Serai upland woods are the kind that develop
in previously grazed, timbered, or cultivated areas that are
now abandoned. The assemblage of species making up the flora
of these kinds of sites is remarkably similar. It includes
herbaceous perennials of open habitats, such as Downy Aster
(Aster pilosus) and Sunflower (Helianthus strumosus); scrubby
trees or serai woodlands such as Cockspur Thorn (Crataegus
crus-galli) and Box-elder (Acer negundo); and young saplings
that are among the principal trees of mature upland woods,
such as Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata) and Black Oak (Quercus
velutina).
Since much of the land in the Project Area was once cul-
tivated or pastured but now abandoned, there are many acres of
serai upland woods. Woodland edge or margin is also extensive
owing to many discontinuities in forested land that may have
resulted from activities such as building roads and clearing
fields. The vegetation that develops along fences is a further
expression of this same assemblage of species. Thus, in total
when one adds the hundreds of meters of forest edge to those
of the fencerows and then combines these with the acreage of
serai woodlands, the aggregate comprises a considerable pro-
portion of the Project Area. Shine (Ref. 4) does not distin-
guish between mature forest and serai woodland communities.
In addition to the six species mentioned above, the following
are also typical:
Achillea millefolium
Agropyron repens
Arctium minus
Crataegus coccinea
Crataegus margaretta
Elymus virginicus
Fraxinus pennsylvanicus
Galiunfaparine
Geum canadense
Helianthus grosseserratus
Monarda fistulosa
Morus alba
Physalis subglabrata
Poa compressa
Poa pratensis
Polygonatum cannaliculatum
Polygonum scandens
Potentilla norvegica
PotentifTa recta
Prunus americana
Prunus serotina
Prunus virginiana
Pyrus ioense
Quercus alba
Quercus macrocarpa
Rhamnus cathartica
Rhus glabra
Rhus radicans
Rosa multiflora
Rubus allegheniensis
FWC.AR inc.
Rubus occidentals
Sambucus canadensis
Setaria""glauca
Solanum dulcamara
Solidagb altissima
Sonchus uliginosus
Stachys tenuifolia
Ulmus americana
Olrous rubra
Verbena urticifolia
Viburnum lentago
-129-
-------
C. Upland Communities, Shaded Areas
Community Type 14. Deciduous forest. — Oak-hickory forest
makes up the major amount of upland deciduous forest present in
the Project Area. At one site the oak-hickory is replaced by
a small stand of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) indicating that
a Sugar Maple forest eventually may develop at the expense of
oak-hickory. In other places there occur remnant stands of
Bur Oak groves. I have grouped these three upland deciduous
forest types under one category inasmuch as I did not observe
clear differences among them in their floristic composition.
The presence of the Bur Oak groves has an historical basis in
connection with past prairie communities. Now, however, the
understory of the Bur Oak stands is substantially like that of
any other deciduous forest nearby. Indeed, the reproduction
of tree species, as noted in the identity of the saplings,
indicates that they will become typical oak-hickory forests.
None of the forest tracts cover wide unbroken areas.
All of them occur either as islands in the floodplain where
convex topography exists or they have been broken up by the
construction of roads, ponds, fields, and the like. The largest
expanse (before the construction of a road through it) is the
forested tract lying west of the gravel quarry and northwest
of Survey Area 4 (Fig. 6-1) . Of all the natural habitats pre-
sently found in the Project Area, this one has the greatest
number of native plant species, and it seems least perturbed
by human activities (though recent road-building in one sector
has left some extremely severe scars and disrupted habitat) .
This forest is mostly of the oak-hickory type, with White Oak
(Quercus alba) and Shagbark Hickory (Gary a ovata) clearly domi-
nant. Slight topographic discontinuities, such as a small
slope with an elevation change no greater than 2 meters, allow
for a shift toward Sugar Maple. Basswood (Tilia americana)
and Sugar Maple comprise the dominant species of the climatic
climax forest for this region (Ref . 5) . Vigorous reproduction
of Basswood is evident throughout this tract indicating that
the forest may be developing toward climax conditions.
Other extensive deciduous forest tracts in the Project
Area are located on the Hunting Club property and across the
Des Plaines River on the Girl Scout property, Sections 29 and
30, respectively. These parcels, while remaining reasonably
good as woodland habitat, show signs of disturbance, as from
past grazing. I expect, however, that none of the original
woodland species have been extirpated from them. There are
signs indicating that owners of the Girl Scout property have,
in the past, attempted to convert wild forest areas into
park- like settings by underplanting ornamental perennials and
conifers among the woodland oaks and hickories. Grazing seems
to have been the principal form of disturbance in the Hunting
Club woods but, again, the woodland flora is still present,
with only the relative numbers of individuals of the several
. Inc.
-------
species changed as a result of past use.
The designation "F" for Hardwood Forest by Shines (Ref. 4)
corresponds to deciduous forest as described here.
Many of the species on the following list are confined
to a woodland habitat and thus are restricted in their distri-
bution within the Project Area to the patches of forest des-
cribed above (or their equivalent):
Ac tea rubra
Agrimonia
>sepala
Agrimonia pubescens
Amphicarpa bracteata
Anemone1la thalictroides
Aralia nudicaulis
Asclepias exaltata
Athyrium filix-femina
Bromus purgans
i
Campanula americana
Carex blanda
Carex cephalophora
Carex rosea
Carex tribuloides
Carya cordiformis
3!
Hi
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Circea quadrisulcata
Cornus racemosa
Corylu's americana
Crataegus spp.
Dentaria laciniata
DesmodTvon glutinosum
Dioscorea villosa
DodecatheoiT"meadia
Erythronium albidum
Fraxinus americana
Galium"aparine
Galium concinnum
Gerani'um maculatum
Geum canadense
Hepatica acutiloba
Hydropnyllum virginianum
Hystrix patula
Isopyrum biteFnatum
Lonicera dioica
Lonicera tartarica
Menispermum canadense
Onoclea sensibilis
OsmorhTza claytoni
Osmorhiza longistylis
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
guingi
lifol:
Physocarpus opulifolius
Poaophyllum peltatum
Potentllla simplex
Prenanthes alba
Prunus serotina
Prunus virginiana
Quercus ellipspidalis
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Ranunculus fascicularis
Ranunculus septentrionalis
Rhamnus cathartica
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus occldentalis
Silene stellata"
Smilax herbacea
Taenidia integFrrima
Thalictrum dioicum
Trillium flexiges
Trillium recurvatum
Triosteum aurantiacum
Viburnum lentago
Viburnum rafinesquianum
Viola pensylvanica
Viola sororia
.s riparia'
D. Weed Habitats
Community Type 15. Disturbed areas along walks, paths,
roadways, edges of cultivated fields, corrals, and around founda-
tions of barns and other structures.—Disturbed places that fit
into this community type mostly occur in upland areas. While
the present study is primarily directed at the wetlands of the
EfTCAR Inc.
-131-
-------
Project Area, it is worthwhile for the sake of completeness
to report the composition of the upland weed flora.
In the list that follows there appear many species that
have been introduced from abroad and represent familiar garden
and sidewalk weeds known generally across the Upper Midwest.
The name of the places where such communities occur describes
fully its extent in the Project Area. Shines (Ref. 4) does
not indicate a category for this type but does give the desig-
nation "A" for agricultural fields. It is safe to assume that
a typical weed flora will be expected around the edges of all
the cultivated fields. Shines' (Ref. 4) designations "U" for
urban and built up land, and "RD" for recently developed sites
would be additional places for weed floras corresponding to
the following list:
Allium canadense
Amaranthus graecizans
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ambrosia' trifida
Anthemis" cotula
Aster pTlosus
Bidens frpndosa
Bidens vuigateT"
Brassica nigra
Cichorium intybus
Convolvulus arvensis
Daucus carota
Digitaria ischaemum
EchinochloS crus-galli
Eragrostis pectinacea
Erigeron canadensis
Euphorbia supina
Festuca elatior
Hibiscus trionum
Hordeum jubatum
Juncus tenuis
Lychnis alba
Melilotus alba
Melilotus officinalis
Muhlenbergia schreberi
Oxalis stricta
Panicum capilfare
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Pastinaca sativa
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago" major
Plantago" rugellii
Polygonum aviculare
Polygonum erectum
Polygonum pensylvanica
Rumex crispus
Setaria faberii
Setaria glauca "
Setaria viridis
Sonchus asper
Sonchus ullqinosus
Taraxacum officinalis
Assessment of Habitat Quality
The following criteria have been used in evaluating
habitat quality of the plant communities that occur within
the Project Area: 1) species diversity? 2) relationship
between native and non-native species; and 3) the amount of
disturbance as evidenced by species composition.
Species Diversity, as used here, is employed in a quali-
tative sense and reflects the total number of plant species
present in an area. It does not tell anything about the num-
ber of individuals of each species. No quantitative data of
these kinds were gathered during the study of the flora. The
supposition made here concerning species diversity is that
EtTCAP, Inc.
-132-
-------
communities with a larger number of plant species are intrin-
sically more valuable, hence of higher quality, than communities
composed of just a few species. In using this criterion one
must take into consideration the kinds of communities being
compared, as for example, wetlands versus uplands. The latter
generally support more plant species.
Native versus non-native species comparisons rest on the
supposition that communities composed of a greater percentage
of indigenous species possess greater quality than those with
high percentages of introduced species. Species marked by an
asterisk (*) on the species list (Table 6-2) are designated
non-native by Fernald (Ref. 2) and Swink and Wilhelm (Ref. 1).
The amount of disturbance reflected in a community is a
somewhat subjective evaluation. The supposition is that undis-
turbed communities are of greater value than disturbed ones.
When considered separately, the amount of disturbance does not
serve as an accurate indication of the value of some communi-
ties as habitat for wildlife. A fencerow community (Type 13),
for example, develops in a disturbed environment yet provides
excellent habitat for particular types of wildlife. In the dis-
cussions that follow I shall confine my evaluations to the
amount of disturbance alone without regard for the potential
value of the communities as habitat.
All of the aquatic areas that support submerged and
emerged vegetation (Community Types 1, 2 & 3) are of high
quality. Species diversity is not particularly high when com-
pared with the large number of species comprising the flora of
an upland forest, for example, but relatively low numbers of
species are typical for permanently wet habitats. The low
species diversity is amply balanced by the absence of invasive,
non-native plants.
As these community types mature, species diversity can be
expected to increase. There are, for instance, several pond-
weed species that could appear as a result of natural disper-
sal from nearby populations.
Parts of the three wetland communities considered here
have received recent disturbance from siltation, especially
in Survey Areas 1 and 4. I think that this kind of disturb-
ance should not be considered permanently damaging to emergent
plants, unless it permanently reduces water depth in the future.
When the contribution of new silt ceases the vegetation will
recover. High turbidity can have detrimental impact on sub-
merged -forms of vegetation as it interferes with light pene-
tration.
Species diversity increases slightly in seasonally inun-
dated habitats (Community Types 3 & 4) over that of those that
remain constantly inundated. As is the case with wetlands
EWCAP, Inc.
-133-
-------
generally, native plant species predominate. Barnyard Grass
(Echinochloa crus-galli) is suspected of being introduced.
The populations of this species in southwestern Wisconsin
probably include both native and Eurasian strains. I saw no
signs of its increasing to nuisance levels that might indicate
a^prevalence of the Eurasian strain. In these community types,
even a weedy species is probably kept under control owing to
the seasonal inundation that would forestall expansion of an-
nuals such as this one.
Earth-moving and siltation have been the most serious
forms of disturbance to these depressions. Such activities
are confined to Survey Areas 1 (northeast corner) and 4. Repli-
cates of Community Types 3 and 4 elsewhere seem fairly undis-
turbed. Though not great in terms of total area, I rank these
community types high in quality.
The highest evaluation of habitat quality among wetland
communities is given to Community Type 6, meadows around ponds
and depressions. No other wetland type surpasses this one in
numbers of species. Of the 103 recorded, 98 are native. From
my observations, none of the five introduced species has had a
deleterious impact on species diversity in the community.
One of them, Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is known
to have aggressive tendencies and has been implicated in ser-
iously degrading Community Type 7. The fact that Reed Canary
Grass in these meadows seems not to possess aggressive growth
characteristics suggests that this strain is the local American
one and not the Eurasian strain mentioned by Swink and Wilhelm
(Ref. 1).
Meadow vegetation might have been more extensive in the
past before attempts were made to drain parcels of land for
farming or pasturing. Of those meadows that remain, none
shows severe signs of disturbance by the activities of people.
Recent earth-moving in areas adjacent to and within Survey
Area 1 doubtlessly has obliterated some meadow vegetation.
Habitat quality reaches its lowest among the wetland com-
munities in Community Type 7, river terrace meadows. The rea-
son for this poor evaluation stems from the low species diver-
sity that has resulted from the overabundant growth of Reed
Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Here, as elsewhere in the
Upper Midwest, this species has taken hold along streams and
grown so vigorously as to obliterate all but the hardiest of
meadow plants. This phenomenon is mentioned by Swink and
Wilhelm (Ref. 1) who point out that the aggressive character-
istics" of this species are found in the Eurasian strain, which
Curtis (Ref. 5) suggests has a wider ecological amplitude than
the native Wisconsin ecotype.
Five of the 33 species of river terrace meadows are
non-native. Others are ubiquitous weeds that grow here in
, Inc. -134-
-------
response to the disturbance maintained by seasonal flooding.
The remainder, the coarsest of meadow species, constitute a
minor part of the vegetation.
Ironically, this community type has had little disturbance
by people. Its poor evaluation derives principally from its
low species diversity.
Reasonably good quality habitat is associated with Com-
munity Type 8. Though low in total numbers of species, each
replicate of this community seems to have approximately the
same mix with no single species outstripping the remainder in
growth rates or shading or any other attribute that would tend
to depress species diveristy. Only one species is considered
non-native: Sow-thistle (Sonchus uliginosus), a plant that
in upland habitats has weedy and aggressive tendencies but in
wetland areas seems benign.
Where cows graze, muddy margins suffer badly. No grazing
activities were observed in the Project Area at the present
time, hence, the muddy margins are spared this kind of dis-
turbance .
Community Types 9 and 10, riparian thickets and alluvial
woods, are ecologically associated and seem roughly equal in
habitat quality. Overall species diversity is not high, with
44 and 39 species recorded for each community type, respec-
tively. Eighteen of the species are found in both community
types, consequently only 26 and 21 species, respectively, are
used to distinguish the communities. About 10 percent of the
species in each community are not indigenous to the area.
Both these community types are subject to natural distur-
bances, such as flooding, that can alter their floristic com-
position. Presently only natural disturbances prevail except
immediately adjacent to bridge crossings where minor disrup-
tion has resulted from fishermen and other sports enthusiasts
who attempt to gain access to the river through riparian vege-
tation.
The prevalence of these community types along the length
of the Des Plaines River adds greatly to the total ecological
diversity of the Project Area. The two communities alternate
with one another to produce a dappled environment that is more
diverse in its physiognomy than if only one or the other pre-
dominated. In consideration of all these factors, I rate
these community types of good quality.
Community Type 11, old fields and roadsides, has the
highest number of plant species (151) recorded for any com-
munity type recognized in this study. From this aspect alone
an old field would seem to possess high habitat quality. But,
of the 151 species a full 40 percent (60) are considered non-
EtTCAP, Inc. -135-
-------
native, and of the remaining 91 native species, many are the
ecological equivalents of the introduced ones; that is to say,
they have aggressive and weedy growth characteristics.
Surely the high number of both native and non-native
plants in the "old field" flora adds greatly to the total
species diversity of the Project Area, and one should not mini-
mize this trait. On balance, however, this community type
rates rather low in habitat quality for the reason that its
existence, including its high species diversity, is a function
of more or less continual disturbance as from plowing, mowing,
game keeping, and the like. If protected from disturbance,
overall species diversity would decline in these instances
while habitat quality would rise as the flora gradually lost
its weedy elements.
The tiny prairie remnant (Community Type 12) within the
Project Area, on the Hunting Club property, supports only
six characteristic prairie plant species and these survive
here only because they are perennials. How long they can per-
sist is doubtful since cultivation of the open fields on one
side and the encroachment of woodland on the other will slowly
bring about their decline. Habitat quality of this community
type rates rather low. This becomes particularly apparent when
one compares the species number above with the 78 species re-
corded for the prairie remnant along the railroad tracks just
outside the Project Area.
Community Type 13, woodland margins and serai woodlands,
supports 98 species of which 15 are considered non-native.
Among these 15 are a few perennials that persist in serai
areas during the ecological change from an open to a shaded
community. Only three of the non-native species would be ex-
pected to remain as components of a woodland flora when this
change is complete (see evaluation of Community Type 14).
Free from disturbance, this community type will improve as
native species gradually replace introduced ones. This process
is most evident in the patches of serai woodlands that are not
contiguous with cultivated fields.
The prospects for habitat improvement and the relatively
high species diversity combine to produce a high rating of
habitat quality of this community type.
Deciduous forest, Community Type 14, ranks highest in
habitat quality. Of the 93 species recorded from upland
deciduous forests in the Project Area, only three are not indi-
genous." As stated previously, I believe that all of the ele-
ments of the native forest flora are still present in the
area, only their relative numbers have changed. For example,
past grazing practices may have contributed to a rise in the
number of individuals of Wild Gooseberry (Ribes missouriense)
and, at the same time caused the decline, without complete
', Inc. -136'
-------
extirpation., of some other species. While such disturbances
can account for present representations of species, most of the
forested areas observed in this study showed signs of recover-
ing from past abuse. The evidence for this is the good repro-
duction of the dominant tree species.
Two factors persist to bring about a certain amount of
habitat degradation in the forests of the Project Area: I) the
continued reproduction and increase of two nuisance species,
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera
tartarica); and 2) disturbance from road building and continued
use of existing roads. The first is a problem in forests
throughout the Upper Midwest where these two shrub species
have invaded. It is doubtful that natural succession of mature
forest can completely force them out. They have probably be-
come permanent components of the flora. In the case of the
latter, recovery can begin as soon as road building and use
cease.
Weed communities (Type 15) rank lowest in habitat quality.
A remarkably large number of species (85) find room to grow in
disturbed areas along walks, paths, roadways, foundations, etc.,
but of these only 20 are native to southwestern Wisconsin.
As is the case with many native species of old fields (Com-
munity Type 11), among the 20 considered here are some of the
most weedy and aggressive plants of the indigenous flora.
Weed habitats thrive on disturbance. Persistent development,
farming, and recreation activities in the Project Area will
assure the survival of this community type.
Composite Species List for the Project Area
Table 6-2 lists every vascular plant species observed in
the Project Area. The arrangement is alphebetical by the Latin
binomials. Each entry includes the genus, species, vernacular
name(s) and a mark (x) in the column(s) representing the com-
munity type(s) where the species occurred. The community types
are designated by numbers that correspond to those used in the
text.
Nomenclature follows that of Swink and Wilhelm (Ref. 1).
The vernacular names for the most part are from Swink and
Wilhelm but in a few instances I substituted names heard in
use by persons dwelling in the Project Area. These English
names have apparently not yet found their way into the botan-
ical literature. An example is the one used for Trillium
recurvatum that Swimk and Wilhelm call Red Trillium but is
regionally known as Bloody Noses.
Endangered and Threatened Plants
Table 6-3 provides a list of plant species considered
. Inc. -137-
-------
.
endangered or threatened in the state of Wisconsin. This
updated (1979) compendium was provided by the Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources. The nomenclature follows the
usage by that agency. None of the listed species were observed
in the Project Area.
Two species listed in Table 6-2 are considered as rare and
are here reported for the first time as additions to the known
flora of Kenosha County (see Ref. 1). These are Carex atherodes
and Dracocephalum parviflorum. Neither appears on the threatened
or endangered list (Table 6-3).
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 6
1. Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago
Region. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, 111.
2. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th ed.
American Book Co., Boston.
3. Costing, H. J. 1956. The study of plant communities.
2nd ed. Freeman Co., San Francisco.
4. Shine, J. E. 1980. Des Plaines River watershed wetlands
survey, August 1979. EMSL-LV Project AMD 7985. Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
5. Curtis, J. T. 1959. Vegetation of Wisconsin. Univ. Wis-
consin Press, Madison.
6. Stfrensen, P. D. 1966. Flora of the old bed of Glacial
Lake Wisconsin and the adjacent terminal moraine. MS
Thesis, unpubl., Univ. Iowa, Iowa City.
I
EfTCAP, Inc. -138-
-------
Figure 6-1. Survey Areas 1-5 referred to in Plant Section.
These are the same areas covered during the bird study.
EKTCAP, Inc.
-139-
-------
Table 6-1. Dates of plant surveys, 1980.
TRIP f
DATE
PRINCIPAL
SITE(S) VISITED
1
2
3-5 May
12 June
Quarry woods
Hunt club woods
Hunt club
Des Plaines R. at jet.
with Co. Hwy. C
Girl Scout camp
3 14 June
4 4 July
5 6 July
6 27 July
7 2-3 August
8 23-24 August
9 8 September
10 15 September
11 21 September
12 5 October
Des Plaines River (canoe)
Marshes, dikes, and ad-
joining areas - Survey
Areas 1, 4 & 5
Marshes - Girl Scout camp
Hunt club, Girl Scout camp
Hunt club
Survey Area 5
Quarry woods
Girl Scout camp
Prairie along railroad
SE portion of Project Area
(S of hunt club)
Survey Areas 1 & 4
Prairie along railroad
Upland areas of Girl
Scout camp
EFTCAP, Inc.
-140-
-------
Table 6-2. Vascular plants of the Des Plaines River Project Area.
Community Type
Species
Abutilon theophrasti
Velvet Leaf, Button Weed
Acalypha rhomboidea
Three-seeded Mercury
Acer negundo
Box-elder
Acer saccharin urn
Silver Maple
Acer saccharum
Sugar Maple
Achillea mille folium
Yarrow, Milfoil
Acnida altissima
Water-hemp
Acorns calamus
Sweet Flag
Actea rubra
Red Baneberry
Agrimonia gryposepala
Agrimony
Agrimonia pubesoens
Agrimony
Agropyron repens
Quack Grass
Agrostis alba
Red Top, Bent Grass
Alisma subcordatum
Water-plantain
Alisma triviale
Water-plantain
Allium canadense
Wild Onion
Allium cernuum
Nodding Onion
Allium tricoccum
Wild Leek
1
2
X
X
X
X
3
4
X
X
5
X
6
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
X
LO
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
33
X
X
X
X
X
X
]4
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
EWCAP, Inc.
-141-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Amaranthus graecizans*
Creeping Amaranth
Amaranthus hybridus*
Green Amaranth
Ambrosia artemisii folia
Ragweed
Ambrosia trifida
Giant Ragweed
Amphioarpa bracteata
Hog-peanut
Andropogon gerardi
Big Blue Stem
Anemone oanadensis
Meadow Anemone
Anemonella thalictroides
Wood- rue
Anthemis cotula*
Dog-fennel
Apios americana
Ground Nut
Apocynum oannabinwn
Indian-hemp, Dogbane
Apoaynum sibirioum
Indian-hemp, Dogbane
Aralia nudicaulis
Wild Sarsaparilla
Arctium minus*
Burdock
Arisaema atrorubens
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Asclepias incamata
Marsh Milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
Milkweed
Aeclepias verticillata
Whorled Milkweed
1
2
X
3
4
X
5
6
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
X
31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EfTCAP. Inc.
-142-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Asparagus offioinalis*
Asparagus
Aster eriooides
Heath Aster
Aster laevis
Smooth Aster
Aster pilosus
Downy Aster
Aster simplex
Aster
Aster sagittifoliue
Blue Aster
Athyrium filixr-femina
Lady Fern
Atriplex patula*
Common Orach
Barbarea vulgaris *
Yellow Rocket
Bidens aernua
Beggar's Ticks
Bidens oonnata
Beggar's Ticks
Bidens frondosa
Spanish Needles
Bidens vulgata
Spanish Needles
Boehmeria aylindriaa
False-nettle
Boltonia latisquama
False-aster
Brassioa nigra*
Field Mustard
Bromua inermis*
Hungarian Brome
Bromus purgans
Woodland Brome
1
2
X
3
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
6-
X
X
X
X
X
7
8
X
X
9
X
10
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
EfTCAP. Inc.
-143-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Calamagrostis oanadensis
Blue Joint
Campanula americana
Tall Bellflower.
Campanula aparinoides
Marsh Bellflower
Capsella bursa-pas tor-is *
Shepherd's Purse
Cardamine pensylvaniaa
Bitter Cress
Carduus nutans *
Musk-thistle
Carex atherodee
Sedge
Carex blanda
Sedge
Carex cephalophora
Sedge
Carex haydeni-i
Sedge
Carex hystricina
Sedge
Carex lanuginosa
Sedge
Carex normalis
Sedge
Carex rosea
Sedge
Carex sparganioides
Sedge
Carex of. strict a
Sedge
Carex tribuloi-des
Sedge
Carex vulpinoidea
Sedge
1
2
X
X
3
4
5
X
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
X
10
11
X
X
12
13
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
EfTCAP. Inc.
-144-
-------
Table. 6-2. Cont.
Carya oordiformis
Yellow-bud Hickory
Carya ovata
Shagbark Hickory
Caulophyllum thaliatroides
Blue Cohosh
Ceanothus amerioanus
New Jersey-tea
Celastrus seandens
Bittersweet
Ceratophyllum demersum
Hornwort, Coontail
Chenopodium album*
Lamb's Quarter
Chrysanthemum leuoanthemum*
Ox-eye Daisy
Ciohorium intybus *
Chicory
Ciauta bulbifera
Water-hemlock
Cicuta maculata
Water-hemlock
Circea quadrisulcata
Enchanter ' s-nightshade
Cirsium arvense
Canada Thistle
Cirsium vulgare
Bull Thistle
Claytonia virginica
Spring Beauty
Convolvulus arvensis*
Field Bindweed
Convolvulus sepium
Hedge Bindweed
Cornus raeemosa
Gray Dogwood
1
X
2
X
X
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
9
X
10
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EWCAP, Inc.
-145-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Cornus atolonifefa
Red Osier
Coronilla var-ia*
Crown-vetch
Cofrylus americana
Hazel Nut
Ctfataegus aocoinea
Hawthorne
Crataegus crue-galli
Cockspur Hawthorne
Crataegus mavgaretta
Hawthorne
Crataegus mollis
Downy Hawthorne
Crataegus punatata
Hawthorne
Cryptotaenia oanadensis
Honewort
Cuscuta polygonorum
Dodder
Cyperus erythrorhizus
Umbrella Sedge
Cyperus escitlentus
Chufa
Cyperus strigosus
Umbrella Sedge
Dactyl-is glomerata*
Orchard Grass
Daucus carota*
Queen Anne ' s Lace , Carrot
Dentaria laainiata
Toothwort
Desmodiiun oanadense
Showy Tick Trefoil
Desmodium glutinoaum
Tick Trefoil
1
2
X
3
4
X
5
X
>
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
-X
X
9
X
X
X
10
X
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-146-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Dianthus armeri-a*
Depthford Pink
Diaentra cucullaria
Dutchman's Britches
Digitaria isohaemum*
Smooth Crab Grass
Diqitavla sanguinalis *
Hairy Crab Grass
Dioeeorea villoaa
Wild Yam
Dipaacua eylvestria*
Common Teasel
Dodecatheon meadia
Shooting Star
Draooeephalum parviflorum
American Dr a go ahead
Eohinoohloa cruagalli
Barnyard Grass
Eahinoohloa walteri
Salt Marsh Cockspur Grass
Ech-inooy.stis lobata
Wild-cuciomber
Eleocharis a a ten I arts
Needle Spike-rush
Eleoahar-ie calva
Spike^rush
Eleoaharis compressa
Spike-rush
Eleooharis paluetris
Spike-rush
Elymua canadensia
Wild Rye
Elymue' yirginious
Wild Rye
Epilobium ooloTatum
Cinnamon Willow Herb
1
2
X
X
X
3
4
X
X
X
X
5
3
X
X
X
X
X
7
8
X
X
X
X
9
10
X
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
B
X
X
14
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-147-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Epilobium glanduloaum
Willow Herb
Equisetum arvense
Scour ing- rush, horsetail
Equisetum fluviatile
Pipes
Eragrostis pectinaoea*
Love Grass
Ereohtites hieraoifolia
Fireweed
Erigeron annuus
Annual Fleabane
Erigeron canadensis
Muletail
Erigeron phi lade Iphicus
Marsh Fleabane
Erigeron strigosus
Fleabane-daisy
Erythronium albidum
Dog-tooth-violet, Trout Lily
Eupa tori urn altissimum
Tho roughwo rt
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Boneset
Euphorbia aorollata
Flowering Spurge
Euphorbia supina*
Prostrate Spurge
Fagopyrum sagittatum*
Buckwheat
Festua elatior *
Meadow Fescue
Feetuoa obtuea
Nodding Fescue
Fragaria virginiana
Wild Strawberry
1
2
X
3
4
X
s
X
fi
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
10
X
X
1.1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
-------
Table.6-2. Cont.
Fraxinus amerioana
White Ash
Fraxinue penneylvanioa
Green Ash
Galium aparine
Cleavers , Annual Bedstraw
Galium circaezans
Wild-licorice
Galium oonoinnum
Shining Bedstraw
Galium obtuaum
Wild Madder
Galium tinctorium
Stiff Bedstraw
Geranium maaulatum
Cranesbill, Wild Geranium
Geum oanadense
White Avens
Geum laoiniatum
Rough Avens
Gleahoma hederacea*
Creeping Charlie/ Ground-ivy
Glyoeria striata
Manna Grass
Gnaphalium obtusi folium
Old-field Balsam, Everlastin
Raokelia virginiana
Sticks eed
Helianthus grosseseTratus
Sunflower
Selianfhus laetiflorus
Prairie Sunflower
Selianthua strumosus
Woodland Sunflower
Reliopsia helianthoides
Ox-eye-daisy
1
g
2
X
X
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
15
X
-149-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
HemeTooallis fulva*
Orange Day Lily
Hepatica acutiloba
Hepatica
Heteranthera dubia
Water Star-grass
Hibiscus trionum*
Flower-of-an-hour
Hieracium aurantiacum*
Orange Hawkweed
Hieracium canadense
Canada Hawkweed
HierochloS odorata
Vanilla Grass
Hordeum jubatum*
Squirrel-tail Grass
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Waterleaf
Hypericum per for a turn
St. John's Wort
Hystrix patula
Bottle Brush Grass
Impatiens aapensis
Spotted Touch-me-not
Impatiens pallida
Touch-me-not
Iris virginiaa
Blue Plag
Isopyrum bitematum
False Rue-anemone
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Junaus' dudleyi
Rush
JunouB tennis
Path. Rush
1
X
2
3
4
X
5
X
X
6
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
9
X
X
LO
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L2
13
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
E7TCAP, inc.
-150-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Juncus torreyi
Rush
Laatuca oanadensis
Wild Lettuce
Lactuca soariola*
Prickly Lettuce
Laportea oanadensis
Wood Nettle
Lathyrus palustris
Marsh-pea
Leers-La oryzoides
Rice Cut Grass
Lemna minor
Small Duckweed
Lemna trisuloa
Forked Duckweed
Leonurus oardiaoa*
Motherwort
Lepidium campestre*
Field Cress
Lepidium densiflorum*
Small Pepper cress
Linaria vulgaris*
Butter-n-eggs
Lobelia spioata
Blue Lobelia
Lobelia syphilitica
Giant Lobelia
Lonioera prolifera
Yellow Honeysuckle
Lonicera tatarica*
Tartarian Honeysuckle
Ludwigia palustris
Marsh' Purslane
Lychnis alba*
White Campion, Evening Lychr
1
X
X
X
is
2
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
4
5
X
6
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
X
X
9
10
X
LI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ERCAP. Inc.
-151-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
•
Lycopus amer-iaana
Water-ho rehound
Lysimachia nummularia*
Moneywort
Lypimachia quadr-i flora
Loosestrife
Ly,simach-ia terrestris
Tufted Loosestrife
Lythrum alatum
Winged Loosestrife
Malva neglecta*
Cheeses
Matyioaria matrioarioides *
Pineapple Weed
Medicago lupulina*
Black Medic
Med-icago sativa*
Alfalfa
Melilotus alba*
White Sweet Clover
Melilotus officinalis*
Yellow Sweet Clover
Men-ispermum canadense
Moonseed
Mentha arvens-is
Wild Mint
Mimulus ringens
Monkey Flower
Mirabilis nyctaginea*
Wild Four O'clock
Monarda fistulosa
Wild Bergaraot, Horsemint
Morus alba*
Mulberry
Muhlenbergia schreberi*
Nimble-will
1
2
X
X
3
4
X
5
X
$
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
10
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
}r2
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-152-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Myriophyllum exalbescens
Water-milfoil
Najas flexilis
Slender Naiad
Nepeta oataria*
Catnip
• Nuphar advena
Spatterdock
Hymphaea tuberoea
White Water-lily
Oenothera biennie
Evening-primrose
Onoelea sensibilie
Sensitive Fern
Osmorhiza alaytoni
Hairy Sweet Cicely
Osmorhiza longistylis
Sweet Cicely, Wild-licorice
Oamunda dayton-iana
Interrupted Fern
Ostrya virginiana
Hop Hornbeam, Ironwood
Oxalis europea
Tall Wood Sorrel
Oxalis str-iata
Wood Sorrel
Panicum capillare
Fall Panicum
Panioum dichotomiflorum
Barnyard Panicum
Panioum of. impliaatum
Panic Grass
Panicum virgatum
Switch Grass
Parietaria peneylvanioa
Pellitory
1
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
3
4
X
5
}
7
8
X
9
10
X
LL
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
L5
X
X
X
X
ERCAP. Inc.
-153-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Parthenoaissus quinquefolia
Virginia Creeper
Par then oats s us vitaaea
Virginia Creeper
Pastinaca sativa*
Wild Parsnip
Phalaris arundinaoea*
Reed Canary Grass
Phleum pratense*
Timothy
Phragmitea oommunie
Common Reed
Phryma leptoetachya
Lopseed
Phyaalia heterophylla
Clammy Ground-cherry
Physalis subglabrata
Tall Ground- cherry
Phi< so carpus opulifoliua
Ninebark
Physostegia parwiflora
Obedient Plant
Pilea pumila
Clearweed
Plantago lanceolata*
English Plantain
Plantago major*
Common Plantain
Plantago rugellii
Red-stalked Plantain
Poa oompressa*
Canada Blue Grass
Poa paluatris
Marsh Blue Grass
Poa prateneis*
Kentucky Blue Grass
1
•
2
X
X
X
3
4
X
X
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
10
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
13
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
-154-
-------
Podophyllum peltatum
May-apple
Polemonium reptans
Jacob ' s Ladder
Polygonatum cannaliculatum
Solomon's Seal
Polygonum amphibium
Water Knotweed
Polygonum aviculare*
Common Knotweed
Polygonum cocc'Cneum
Water Heartsease
Polygonum erectum
Erect Knotweed
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Water-pepper
Polygonum lap athi folium
Heartsease
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Knotweed
Polygonum persioaria*
Lady ' s Thumb
Polygonum sagittatum
Tear Thumb
Polygonum scandens
Climbing-buckwheat
Pontederia cordata
Pickerel Weed
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Populus gxandidentata
Large-tooth Aspen
Populus tremuloides
Quaking Aspen
PoTtulaoa oleraoea*
Purslane
1
2
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
9
X
X
10
X
X
X
11
X
12
13
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
X
EffCAP. Inc.
-155-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Potamogeton foliosus
Pondweed
Potamogeton peot-inatus
Pond-sago
Potentilla norveg-iaa
Rough Cinque foil
Potent-ilia recta
Sulfur Cinque foil
"Potent-ilia a-implex
Common Cinque foil
Prenanthes alba
Lion's Foot
Proserpinaoa palustris
Mermaid Weed
Prunus amer-ioana
Wild Plum
Prunus serotina
Wild Black Cherry
Prunus vi.yg-Ln-L.ana
Choke Cherry
Prunella vulgar-is*
Self Heal
Py onanthemum virg-inianum
Common Mountain Mint
' Pyrus ioense
Wild Crab Apple, Iowa Crab
Querous alba
White Oak
Querous ellipsoidalis
Hill's Oak
Querous maarocarpa
Bur Oak
Querous rubra
Red Oak
Querous velutina
Black Oak
1
X
X
X
2
X
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
7
8
X
9
X
10
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
ERCAP, Inc.
-156-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Ranunculus abortivus
Small- flowered Crowfoot
Ranunculus acris *
Tall Buttercup
Ranunculus fascicularis
Early Buttercup
Ranunculus longirostris
Stiff Water Crowfoot
Ranunculus pensylvanicus
Bristly Buttercup
Ranunculus scleratus
Cursed Buttercup
Ranunculus septentrionalie
Swamp Buttercup
Ratibida pinnata
Yellow Coneflower
Rhamnus cathartica*
Common Buckthorn
Rhus glabra
Smooth Sumac
Rhus radicans
Poison-ivy
Ribes americanum
Wild Black Currant
Ribes missouriense
Gooseberry
Rob-inia pseudo-acacia
Black Locust
Rorripa islandiaa
Marsh Cress
Rosa afkansana
Sunchine Rose
Rosa b tan da
Early Wild Rose
Rosa Carolina
Pasture Rose
1
X
2
X
3
4
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
1-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
15
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-157-
-------
.Table 6-2. Cont.
Rosa multiflora*
Multi flora Rose
Rubue allegheniensis
Blackberry
R-ubus oocidentalis
Raspberry
Rudbeokia hirta
Black-eyed Susan
Rudbeokia laciniata
Wild Golden Glow
Rumex altissimus
Pale Dock
Rumex criapus*
Curly Dock
Rumex orbiculatus
Great Water Dock
Rumex vertiaillatus
Swamp Dock
Sagittaria brevirostrata
Duck-potato
Sagittaria latifolia
Common Arrowhead
Salix alba*
White Willow
Salix amygdaloides
Peach-leaved Willow
Salix bebbiana
Beaked Willow
Salix fragilis*
Crack Willow
Salix gracilis
Petioled Willow
Salix interior
Sandbar Willow
Salix nigra
Black Willow
1
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
4
X
5
X
6
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
LI
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-158-
-------
Salix rigida
Willow
Sambuous oanadensis
Elderberry
Sanicula gregaria
Black Snakeroot
Saponaria officinalis*
Bouncing Bet, Soapwort
Seirpus acutua
Hard- stemmed Bulrush
Scirpus atrovirens
Common Bulrush
Sairpus cyperinus
Wool- grass
Scirpus fluviatilia
River Bulrush
Scirpus lineatus
Red Bulrush
Scirpus validus
Great Bulrush
Sorophularia lanoeolata
Figwort
Scutellaria epilobii folia
Marsh Skullcap
Scutellaria lateri flora
Mad-dog Skullcap
Senecio plattensis
Prairie Ragwort
Setaria faberii*
Giant Pox tail
Setaria glauca*
Yellow Foxtail
Setaria vifidis*
Green Foxtail
Silene stellata
Starry Campion
1
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
4
X
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
8
X
X
X
9
X
X
10
1J
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
13
X
14
X
X
15
X
X
X
X
-159-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Silphium integri folium
Rosin Weed
Silphium terebinthinaceum
Prairie- dock
Sium suave
Water-parsnip
Smilacina raaemosa
False Solomon's Seal
Smilacina stellata
False Solomon's Seal
• Smilax ecirrhata
Carrion Flower
Smilax herbacea
Carrion Flower
Solanum dulcamara*
Bittersweet Nightshade
Solidago altissima
Tall Goldenrod
Solidago gigantea
Late Goldenrod
Solidago gramini folia
Meadow Goldenrod
Solidago ridellii
Goldenrod
Solidago rigida
Stiff Goldenrod
Sonahus asper*
Spiny Sow-thistle
Sonchus uliginosus*
Common Sow-thistle
Sorghaatrum nutans
Indian Grass
Sparganium eurycarpum
Common Bur Reed
Spartina peotinata
Slough Grass , Cord Grass
1
2
X
X
X
3
4
X
5
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
9
X
10
1
X
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
5
X
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-160-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Sphenopholis intermeadia
Wedge Grass
Spiraea alba
Meadowsweet
Nodding Ladie^s Tresses
Spirodela polyrhiza
Great Duckweed
Spovobolus ofyptandrus
Sand Dropseed
Sporobolue vaginiflorus
Small Rush Grass
Staohys palustris
Woundwort
Stachys tenui folia
Hedge-nettle
Stellaria media*
Common Chickweed
Taenidia integerrima
Yellow Pimpernel
Taraxacum officinalis*
Dandelion
Teuorium oanadense
Germander
Thalictrum dasyaarpum
Meadow Rue
Thalictrum dioioum
Early Meadow Rue
Fhlaspi arvense*
Penny Cress
Tilia americana
Basswood
Tovara -yirginiana
Jumpseed
Tfade&oantia ohiensis
Spiderwort, Widow's Tears
1
X
2
X
X
3
4
X
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
8
X
X
9
X
X
10
X
X
11
X
X
X
12
X
X
X
X
13
X
X
14
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
E7FCAP, inc.
-161-
-------
Tragopogon major*
Goat's Beard
Tri folium hybridum*
Alsike Clover
Tri folium pratense*
Red Clover
Tri folium vepens*
White Clover
Trillium flexipee
White Trillium
Trillium recurvatum
Bloody Noses
Triosteum aurantiaoum
Horse-gentian
Typha anguati folia
Narrow- leaved Cat- tail
Typha latifolia
Common Cat-tail
Vlmus americana
Common Elm
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm
Urtica procera
Tall Nettle
Vtricularia vulgaris
Great Bladderwort
Verbasaum blattaria*
Moth Mullein
Verbasoum thapeus*
Common Mullein
Verbena hastata
Blue Vervain
Verbena uxtici folia
White Vervain
Vemonia fasaioulata
Common Ironweed
]
X
2
X
X
X
3
4
X
5
6
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
X
9
X
n
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
13
X
L4
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
X
£N"CAP. Inc.
-162-
-------
Table 6-2. Cont.
Veronica peregrina
Speedwell
Ve ran i cast rum virginicum
Culver's Root
Viburnum lentago
Nannyberry
Viburnum rafinesquianum
Arro-wood
Viola papilionaoea
Common Blue Violet
Viola pensylvanica
Yellow Violet
Viola sororia
Hairy Wood Violet
Vitis riparia
Wild Grape
Wolffia aolumbiana
Common Water Meal
Xanthium strumarium*
Cocklebur
Xanthoxylum americanum
Prickly- ash
Zizia aurea
Golden Alexander
* Non-native, introduced species
1
X
2
3
4
X
5
6
X
X
7
X
8
9
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
LI
X
12
X
X
X
13
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
EfTCAP, Inc.
-163-
-------
Table 6-3. Endangered and threatened plant species of Wisconsin.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
'Anemone multifida - no common name (Ranunculaceae)
Arenaria maarophylla - no common name (Caryophyllaceae)
Armoracia aquatiaa - Lake Cress (Brassicaceae)
-Asplenium viride - Green Spleenwort (Polypodiaceae)
Astragalus alpinus - Alpine Milk Vetch (Fabaceae)
Caltha natans - a Marsh Marigold (Ranunculaceae)
Carex lupuliformis - no common name (Cyperaceae)
Carex media - no common name (Cyperaceae)
Collinsonia oanadensis - Stoneroot (Lamiaceae)
Con-Co s elinum chinense - Hemlock-pars ley (Apiaceae)
Draba lanceolata - no common name (Brassicaceae)
Eleocharis quadrangulata - a Spike-rush (Cyperaceae)
Eleooh arts wo I fit - a Spike-rush (Cyperaceae)
Erigenia bulbosa - Harbinger-of-spring (Apiaceae)
Fimbristylis puberula - no common name (Cyperaceae)
Geoaaulon lividum - Northern-commandra (Santalaceae)
Geum macrophyllum - Large-leaved Avens (Rosaceae)
Listera auriculata - Auricled Twayblade (Orchidaceae)
Parnass-ia parviflora - a Grass-of-Parnassus (Saxifragaceae)
Plantago aordata - Heart-leaved Plantain (Plantaginaceae)
Poly gala incarnata - Pink Milkwort (Polygalaceae)
Prenanthes creptdinea - Great White Lettuce (Asteraceae)
Pterospora andromeda - Pine Drops (Ericaceae)
Pyrola minor - Small Shinleaf (Ericaceae)
Rhododendron lapponicum - Lapland Rosebay (Ericaceae)
Ruellia humilis - Wild Petunia (Acanthaceae)
Salix aordata - Sand Dune Willow (Salicaceae)
Tanaoetum huronense - Lake Huron Tansy (Asteraceae)
Thaspium barbinode - Hairy Meadow Parsnip (Apiaceae)
Vacoinium aespitosum - Dwarf Bilberry (Ericaceae)
Vaocinium vitis-idea - Mountain Cranberry (Ericaceae)
Viburnum edule - Squashberry (Caprifoliaceae)
Viola fimbriatula - a Violet (Violaceae)
THREATENED SPECIES
Aconitum novaboracense - Northern Monkshood (Ranunculaceae)
Carex conoinna - no common name (Cyperaceae)
Carex lenticularis - Lenticular Sedge (Cyperaceae)
Cireium pitaheri - Dune Thistle (Asteraceae)
Cypripedium arietinum - Ram's-head Lady's-slipper (Orchidaceae)
Cypripedium candidum - White Lady's-slipper (Orchidaceae)
Drosera angelica - a Sundew (Droseraceae)
Drosera linearie - a Sundew (Droseraceae)
Inc.
-164-
-------
Table 6-3, cent.
Featuoa occidentalis - Western Fescue (Poaceae)
Fraxinus quadrangulata - Blue Ash (Oleaceae)
Habenaria flava var. herbiola - Tubercled Orchid (Orchidaceae)
Habenaria leuaophaea - Prairie White-fringed Orchid (Orchidaceae)
Iris lacustris - Dwarf Lake Iris (Iridaceae)
Lespedeza leptostaahya - Prairie Bush-clover (Fabaceae)
Opuntia fragilia - Brittle Prickly-pear (Cactaceae)
Orchis rotundifolia - Small Round-leaved Orchis (Orchidaceae)
Oryzopsis oampestris var. ehartacea - no common name (Fabaceae)
Parnassia paluetris - a Grass-of-Parnassus (Saxifragaceae)
Potamogeton confervoides - no common name (Potamogetonaceae)
Polytaenia nuttallii - a Prairie-parsley (Apiaceae)
Solidago spathulata var. gillmani - Dune Goldenrod (Asteraceae)
Trillium nivale - Snow Trillium (Liliaceae)
Viola novae-angliae - a Violet (Violaceae)
Inc. ~165-
-------
PART 7: EVALUATION OF THE DBS PLAINES RIVER WETLAND:
AN OVERVIEW
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES VALUE
During the project period (October 1979-November 1980),
the following resources were inventoried on the Des Plaines
River wetlands near Kenosha, Wisconsin (the Project Area):
wildlife, fishes, invertebrates and vegetation. These studies
were designed to determine 1) the species present in the area;
2) the relative abundance of species found (except for plants);
and 3) the quality of the Project Area as fish and wildlife
habitat, now and in the future. Parts 2-6 of this report
describe the biological inventories that were conducted. Each
part includes an evaluation of habitat quality as it pertains
to the particular group of organisms being discussed (e.g.
birds, fishes, etc.).
The data collected for each of the taxonomic categories
listed above indicate conclusively that the Project Area con-
tains quality habitat for typical wetland species of birds
(73 species), mammals (13), amphibians (5), and reptiles (5).
In addition, the area supports a diversified fish fauna (32
species), including 10 game species. Six game and 13 nongame
fish species reproduce on the area. The fish and wildlife
populations are directly or indirectly dependent upon the vege-
tation (408 plant species) and invertebrates (at least 80 taxa)
found on the area for their survival; consequently the abundance
of fishes and wildlife is a reflection of the quality of these
communities.
The Des Plaines River wetlands provide an important
stopping place for migrant waterfowl (19 species) and other
species of waterbirds (19) during both spring and fall migra-
tion. The total number of avian species (173) and the number
of individual birds recorded on the area is impressive. A
few species of ducks breed on the area and potentially others
could. . Several species of marsh birds that are declining in
abundance (e.g. Common Gallinule, Black Tern) nest on the
Project Area. The presence of these forms is further evidence
that portions of the wetlands are of sufficient character and
quality to satisfy their specific habitat requirements. Because
of the diversity of habitats available over the Project Area,
an extensive species list has been established for the area;
A r> r - -166-
-------
some of these birds use open-water marshes, some use transition
areas and others use the wooded portions of the floodplain.
In general, high species richness in any of the fauna1 groups
(i.e. species number) can be equated with high productivity in
the marshes on the Project Area; consequently, species number,
particularly in the case of birds, fishes and plants, indicates
the Project Area habitats are of good quality.
It has been shown (Ref. 1) that the number of bird nests
in marshes is positively correlated with the number of plant
communities present. Thus the diversified nature of the Project
Area, as evidenced by the number of plant communities identified
(15), increases the probability that a large number of birds
and other wildlife will find the area suitable for their needs.
In the marshes proper, the interspersion of several plant zones,
rather than extensive homogeneous stands, benefits wildlife
(Ref. 1). Larger duck nesting populations, for example,
have been reported (Ref. 2) in broken stands than in solid
stands of emergent vegetation. In general, wetland hetero-
geneity is considered important to waterfowl productivity
(Ref. 3). This applies to use of an area by waterfowl during
migration as well as during the breeding season. Many species
of marsh birds, such as Black Terns, nest near water-cover
interfaces (Ref. 4) that are prevalent in portions of the
Project Area. Most species favor marshes that are in a "hemi-
marsh" stage with a ratio of about 1:1 cover to water inter-
spersion (Ref. 5). A positive correlation also has been
noted (Ref. 6) between bird species and the proportional amount
of open water or the number of openings within the emergent
cover. Marshes with complex plant zonation have several heights
or layers of vegetation and open water acts as another layer.
This combination of characteristics attracts swimming birds
that feed in the open but use the cover or edge for nesting
(Ref. 5). Most birds select nesting areas on the basis of plant
structure rather than the taxonomic composition of a stand of
emergent vegetation. Yellow-headed Blackbirds, for example,
may use cattail, river bulrush, reeds or small willows for
nests provided such stands are in water and adjacent to open
water (Ref. 5).
Plants are important sources of food for wildlife. Many
species that nest in deep open water communities may feed in
wet meadows because the plants there are better food sources
than cattails. Emergent plants are important to many birds
and to muskrats as food but the submergent plants provide the
substrates for invertebrates that serve as food for ducks
(Ref. 7). Consequently, plant community diversity is essential
to high wildlife diversity and productivity on the area. The
Project Area offers good diversity and is of unquestionable
value to fishes and wildlife. Its importance for this purpose
is intensified when placed in perspective with the scarcity of
comparable areas in the region (southeastern Wisconsin or
northeastern Illinois). The size of the area as well as its
EtfCAP, Inc. -167-
-------
geographic location increases its value as wildlife habitat
because comparable areas are becoming increasingly rare in
this part of the Midwest.
Size of a wetland is vital to maintenance of a marsh fauna,
especially when the marsh is a relict(Ref. 5). Evidence exists
showing a typical wildlife fauna can be preserved in wetlands
of about 240 acres (100 hectares) in size (Ref. 5). Because
smaller areas are less attractive or even unattractive to marsh
species, continued survival of marsh birds on a regional basis
is dependent upon the few remaining large tracts of wetlands
that retain their integrity. The Project Area is sufficiently
large to satisfy this requirement.
Marshes usually are constantly changing in response to
water regimes, temperature extremes 'and other variables.
Such changes often reverse plant succession, thereby extending
the life of a marsh system. Because of this, marshes exist
for long periods, ecologically speaking, if they are not
drained or filled by man for agriculture or other purposes.
Short-term changes in water levels may have dramatic effects
on plant growth and distribution. Many emergent plants (e.g.
cattail) germinate only in shallow water or on mud flats, and
revegetation of an open marsh occurs rapidly only when water
levels are low (Ref. 5). Even vegetative reproduction of
cattail is more pronounced in low water depths (Ref. 8).
As a result, deep basins with relatively stable water levels
remain open as vegetative propagation does not equal losses to
muskrats and other consumers. A temporary reduction in water
level in an open marsh will result in a "germination" phase
in which sedges and cattails flourish. The resulting dense
stand of vegetation may not be conducive to diversified wild-
life populations but following reflooding, flotation (uproot-
ing and drifting of plant clusters) or herbivore action will
reopen the area. The resulting interspersion of emergent cover
will produce a productive "hemimarsh". The role of herbivores,
such as muskrat, is extremely important in this process.
Marsh invertebrates clearly respond to water and vegetative
stages of marsh development and appear most productive in the
"hemimarsh" stage, thereby accounting for its high productivity
in terms of birds.
Portions of the Project Area, particularly Survey Areas
1 and 4 and to a lesser extent 2, apparently have undergone
periods of change in water level and plant growth. Water levels
have been low in large portions of these areas as a consequence
of drainage through the existing canal system, or due to low
precipitation in some years. During low water, plant growth
proliferated (river bulrush, canary grass) and the quality
of these habitats was reduced for typical marsh birds. Recently
water levels have risen again, perhaps in part due to beaver
activity, and this has increased interspersion, invertebrate
productivity, herbivore action and, in general, brought about
-\ £0
-------
an increase in bird diversity. Changing water levels often
are interpreted as signs of disturbance but the effects, as
indicated here, may be beneficial rather than detrimental to
habitats and wildlife.
The future of the Project Area as habitat for marsh birds
is dependent upon retention of Survey Areas 1, 2 and 4 as hemi-
marsh habitat of equal or superior quality to what now exists.
Removal of any one of these areas, or any development that
further isolates the areas from one another, will sufficiently
reduce the total amount of this marsh type to jeopardize con-
tinued use of any part of the area by typical marsh species
(e.g. Common Gallinule, Black Tern). Continued use of the
area by migrating waterfowl also is influenced by the avail-
ability of open water in these particular Survey Areas. Use
of the Project Area by molting or breeding waterfowl is dependent
upon the open water and cover found in these areas. When the
river is at flood stage, water for ducks is available over large
portions of the floodplain. At other times, however, most ducks
are dependent upon the standing water of the marshes where food
availability is high.
The present value of the Project Area as wildlife habitat
is rated as high and, barring changes in water levels or area
size, we envision habitat quality remaining similar to what we
recorded or even improving in years to come. The probability
is high that additional wetland species of birds will use the
area if hemimarsh conditions persist in Survey Areas 1, 2 and
4. It also is likely that the breeding populations of Black
Terns, Common Gallinules and othe typical marsh dwelling birds
will increase as the progeny of established breeding pairs
return to this area to nest.
The Project Area provides good quality fish habitat as
well, as indicated by the number (32) and kinds of species
present. A number of the fish species present in the area
are indicators of good water quality. The fishes appeared to
be free from major infestations of parasites or diseases and
generally in good condition. In addition to the main channel
of the Des Plaines River, significant habitat for fish species
is provided by the canals, lakes, marshes and floodplain within
the Project Area. These diverse habitats provide varied sites
for reproduction allowing for the continued existence of a rela-
tively diverse fish fauna within this limited geographic area.
This area may thus serve as a refuge for many fish species
within the Des Plaines River, which has been negatively impacted
due to pollution and disturbance in its lower reaches. The im-
portance of the floodplain as seasonal spawning and rearing areas
for northern pike and other game fishes (total of 6 species)
is increasing because comparable areas are essentially non-
existent elsewhere along the Des Plaines River. Four other
game fishes were observed on the area, but breeding was not
verified. These game species can provide a valuable recrea-
tional resource for individuals in the area.
. Inc. -169-
-------
The diversity of amphibians, reptiles and mammals recorded
on the Project Area indicates that habitat quality is suitable
for the needs of a wide array of vertebrate species in addition
to fishes and birds.
HYDROLOGICAL AND ASSOCIATED VALUES
Wetlands retain water from rain, snow melt and other
sources on the local landscape thereby permitting it to perco-
late into the water table. In addition, riverine wetlands
function as a floodplain thereby providing space for flood
swollen rivers to expand into, deposit part of their silt load,
purify their waters and otherwise reduce the impact of flooding
at downstream locations. These types of wetland functions are
becoming better understood as well as appreciated by the public.
Retention of wetlands and floodplains is an economical and ef-
ficient way of reducing flood losses and also altering the
alarming rate at which ground water supplies are being diminished.
We are experiencing a destructive loss of freshwater marshes
in the United State at the rate of 0.5-1.0% annually through
drainage and other forms of exploitation (Ref. 9). As we ap-
proach the end of this century, there are signs we are encoun-
tering acute stress for usable freshwater. Contemporary needs
for freshwater resources exceed availability in several large
regions (e.g. the Northeast, Florida). Dependence upon ground
water reservoirs will increase in coming decades in all areas.
To be utilized effectively within a regime of fluctuating
climatic replenishment, these reservoirs must be refilled in a
systematic manner from surface catchment sources (Ref. 9).
Wetlands play an important role in such replenishment. These
long-term considerations should outweigh the relatively short-
term needs that often threaten wetlands.
Wetlands also may serve as nutrient traps wherein nitrogen
and other compounds leached from agricultural fields or included
in effluent from sewage treatment plants, septic systems or live-
stock operations are filtered from the water by vegetative action
or other processes. Wetlands may assist, therefore, in the puri-
fication of runoff before it moves into a major river system and
travels downstream. The Des Plaines wetland is largely vegetated
and has the potential for provision of this important function.
The floodplain of the Des Plaines River has the potential
for holding back substantial quantities of flood water thereby
reducing the flood hazard downstream. The porous soil and vege-
tated surface of the broad floodplain retards the rate at which
water enters the river. The 100-year floodplain of the river
covers an extensive portion of the Project Area (see Part 1,
Fig. 1-2 A&B), and provides an efficient and economical means
of impounding water and reducing floods along the developed sections
of the Des Plaines River. An increase in water depth of about
4P, Inc. -170-
-------
15 centimeters (6 inches) within a 10 acre (4.2 hectare) wet-
land results in 1.5 million gallons of water being retained
(Ref. 10). The Project Area, therefore, has the potential for
playing a significant role in flood control and the maintenance
of ground water supplies. During flooding, the wetland contri-
butes to water filtration, provides wildlife habitat and serves
as a spawning and rearing area for several species of game fish.
The Des Plaines River wetland is considered by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources as the last extensive wetland
in southeastern Wisconsin (Ref. 11). This being the case, the
value of the area for all of the purposes discussed in this
report is increased significantly, as alternate sites of similar
size, potential, and characteristics do not exist in the area.
RECREATIONAL VALUES
The Des Plaines River and the associated wetlands provide
a large number of man-use days of recreational activity on an
annual basis. During the 1979-80 study period, we observed
the following activities being conducted within the Project
Area on a repeated basis: upland small game hunting, waterfowl
hunting, deer hunting (gun and bow), fishing (rod and bow),
furbearer trapping, tent camping, canoeing and hiking.
Hunting was the most frequent type of recreational use
we observed. Members of the Pheasant Valley Hunting Club
used the area on a regular basis and other hunters (non-members)
hunted portions of the area during the regular hunting season.
Two duck blinds were constructed on or near Survey Area 1 in
1979 (Pheasant Valley Hunting Club property). Other hunters
used natural cover for blinds along the dikes bordering Areas
1 and 5 and at numerous locations along the river. Occasionally
duck hunters were observed on the Girl Scout property (Survey
Area 2) although an attempt was made by the owner to exclude
hunters. The area north of the "Q" canal also was hunted rather
heavily. Blinds were constructed on the marsh (Survey Area 4)
in 1979 and 1980. During our fall aerial surveys, hunters were
observed at locations throughout the Project Area, particularly
during waterfowl and deer seasons. The area has significant
value as habitat for wildlife species that are harvested by
hunters. Our bird inventory includes a significant number of
game species that occurred regularly on the Project Area. Our
aerial surveys indicated more waterfowl (species and indivi-
duals) used the Project Area than any adjacent property, includ-
ing the floodplain west of 1-94. The recreational value of the
Project Area to area hunters is significant as is their con-
tribution to the local economy.
Fishermen entered the area from several access points.
They fished from bridges, canoes and the banks. The presence
of one or more fishermen during our visits to the Project Area
was not unusual. Fishermen, however, were a minority compared
E7TCAP, Inc. -171-
-------
to hunters. The variety of game fishes found on the Project
Area represents an attractive resource for use by this group
of sportsmen. Again, this activity is of regional economic
value and the recreational activity provided is important to
the participants and to the surrounding communities.
Trapping for muskrats and other furbearers occurred in 1979
and 1980 on the Project Area. Trappers worked most of the
marshes on the Pheasant Valley Hunting Club property. At cur-
rent market prices, a successful trapping operation would provide
a good supplemental income as well as recreational benefits.
All of the forms of wildlife harvested from the wetland repre-
sent a renewable resource (under proper management) that can
provide these types of benefits on an annual basis.
Camping was conducted on several occasions on the Girl
Scout property by groups of persons. These organized groups
obtained recreational as well as educational values from the
wetland and the adjacent upland arears. Such experiences are
of immeasurable benefit to the individuals involved and to
society. The availability of a regional resource that can
satisfy these needs is of significant value to a community.
Canoes were observed along the rivers and on the flood-
plain on several occasions. Sometimes fishermen used canoes
to reach fishing spots but other times the individuals simply
were enjoying the experience of traveling along the slow-moving
river. The natural surroundings and wildlife present along the
river make it an enjoyable place for this purpose, particularly
during periods of high water. In spring, hikers were observed
on numerous occasions along various portions of the river.
The fact that people selected the undeveloped terrain along
the river for this purpose suggests that there is a paucity of
suitable sites in the area for such purposes.
Our observations indicate the Project Area plays an impor-
tant role in the outdoor activities of a sizeable group of people.
As a result, retention of the Project Area as open space would
benefit many people. Any action that would reduce the quality
of the area's wildlife habitat also would detrimentally influ-
ence the recreational values the area offers.
ECONOMIC VALUE OF STREAMSIDE WETLANDS
The Illinois Institute of Natural Resources (Ref. 12)
has appraised the economic value of natural wetland functions.
In a study of the wetlands along the Kankakee River in north-
eastern Illinois, they calculated the cost of replacing the
functions of this ecosystem through technology. Their study
area incorporated a six-mile section of floodplain forest,
marshes, sloughs and upland forest that bears considerable
resemblance to the Des Plaines River Project Area. In fact,
EfTCAP, Inc. -172-
-------
the Kankakee River joins the Des Plaines River in the northeast
corner of Grundy County (Illinois) to form the Illinois River.
The two watersheds also are similar with respect to man's in-
fluence on them. Ditching, tiling and related activities have
changed drainage patterns and resulted in only remnants of the
original wetlands remaining. The conclusions from the Kankakee
River study (Ref. 12) are presented here as an indication of the
potential value of some of the natural functions or services
provided by the Des Plaines wetlands in Kenosha County, Wisconsin,
The natural or public service functions of wetlands include
fish and wildlife protection, flood control, drought prevention,
water quality enhancement and sedimentation control. (Other
services, such as recreation, could be added to this list but
they were not included in the Kankakee calculations.) The cost
to the region to replace all of the ecosystem services provided
by the Kankakee wetlands amounted to $494/acre per year (Ref. 12).
If the Des Plaines wetland is considered comparable in quality,
the value of the services provided by the 1500 acre (approximate)
Project Area would be $741,000 annually. Since the Kankakee
study did not consider all possible sources of value, this
figure is considered minimal.
Wetlands also have been evaluated by other investigators
with respect to their economic value to mankind. A Georgia
study (Ref. 13) estimated the value of wetlands at $3,126/acre
per year, or 8.33 times the acreage value arrived at in the
Kankakee study. The sizeable difference between the two sets
of figures is the result of the Georgia study including values
to education and public use (recreation) in addition to those
considered in the Illinois study. Another Illinois study ex-
amined the value of a cypress swamp along the Cache River as a
flood control reservoir and as a means of removing excess phos-
phorus from floodwaters (Ref. 12). The estimated value based
on these two functions alone was $246/acre per year.
If the annual social value of an acre of wetland is con-
sidered to be $500 (as in the Kankakee study), income-capitali-
zation (Ref. 14) of these data at five percent interest yields
a per acre valuation of $10,000. Obviously this figure would
be higher if other important values were included.
This approach provides an added indication of the value
of wetlands such as those found in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
(It is not intended, however, to indicate actual retail value
of the property.) The descriptions provided in this report of
the value of the Des Plaines wetland as fish and wildlife habi-
tat and the estimates of its contribution to the economic well-
being of the region appear sufficient to justify preservation
of the wetlands in their natural state.
EfTCAP, Inc. -173-
-------
COMMENTS ON HUMAN INTRUSION WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
The most obvious forms of disruption to the natural pro-
cesses of the area have been the attempts of man to drain large
portions of the wetlands. The use of dikes, canals and pumps
to control water levels in the past seriously altered the
habitats present on the area and these structures are still in-
fluencing patterns of water flow. Abandonment of maintenance
of the dike and canal system at some point in time, and an ap-
parent decline in attempts to farm the floodplain have permitted
conditions to revert back to something resembling what existed
earlier. Evidence of disturbance is obvious but a good variety
of wetland habitats and the associated forms of wildlife have
returned. Except to the extent that they may detrimentally
affect water levels, the circumstances of the past are insig-
nificant. The wetland has the potential for recovering from
these former intrusions and it is well on its way toward doing
so.
Maintenance of water levels similar to those observed in
1980 is important to use of the hemimarshes by marsh-nesting
birds. Muskrats and beavers are destroying the dike system and
this could alter the distribution of water in some areas. The
west end of Survey Area 4, for example, has a dike between the
marsh and the river. Loss of the dike could hasten drainage of
the area thereby reducing its value to wetland species. Without
the associated canal (manmade) this danger would not be as
severe since the basin of the wetland would be capable of re-
taining sufficient water to maintain marsh vegetation. As is,
however, the deeply dug canal drains water out of the marsh and
in the absence of the west dike would emit water until it reached
a level similar to that of the river. Even if this happened,
the value of the area to wildlife would not be lost, but there
would be a change in species composition and diversity. A
variety of wildlife also use habitats that do not remain flooded
all year but species such as Black Terns, Common Gallinules and
Least Bitterns would be lost. Given time, no further drainage
attempts, and prevention of the "Q" canal from joining the river,
the habitats available on the Project Area should improve in
quality for most forms of fishes and wildlife.
Hunter activity is compatible with use of the wetlands by
wildlife. Hunter activity is concentrated in the fall after the
breeding season. This allows breeding birds to use the area
undisturbed during the summer (no disturbance was recorded in
the marshes during spring or summer) and also during spring
migration. This activity as well as fishing, is not considered
as unusually disruptive to the ecological values of the Project
Area.
Present agricultural activities on the uplands bordering
the Project Area have little impact. There was little evidence
of siltation from agriculture on the Project Area, although the
EtfCAP, Inc. -174-
-------
river carries a heavy silt load from upstream sources. Water
entering the river from the nearby electric power plant and
from the Pleasant Prairie sewage treatment plant is a poten-
tial source of pollutants. Most parts of the wetland (except
for the river) had reasonably clear water and the invertebrate
populations reported in this study support this contention.
The only significant evidence of introduced silt into the
Project Area wetlands from surrounding activities occurred in
1980. Effluent pumped from the gravel pit operation located
northeast of Survey Area 4 entered the pond at the northeast
corner of Survey Area 1 and also the "Q" canal system. The
water emitted from a large pump at the gravel pit entered a
ditch paralleling the railroad tracks and flowed southward to
enter the wetland. The eastern portion of Survey Area 4 also
was affected by this process. The water entering the wetland
was beneficial but the heavy silt load was not. The area im-
pacted by silt was used by spawning northern pike in the early
spring of 1980, prior to the onset of pumping. The suspended
silt in the water of these areas also detrimentally affects
growth of submergent vegetation and associated invertebrate
production which, in turn, influences fish and wildlife activities,
Drainage of the gravel pit effluent directly into the wetland
should not continue. A settling pond should be established on
an upland area to trap the silt. The clear, clean water should
be allowed to enter the wetland.
Sometime prior to this study, a portion of Survey Area 4
apparently was filled with spoil from the gravel operation.
This procedure apparently reduced the size of this important
hemimarsh area by perhaps 40-50 percent. The area's contour
lines bordering the dark-shaded areas in Figure 1-2 A&B (Part 1
of this report) probably delineate the original extent of this
wetland. Returning this marsh to its original size would re-
sult in an area having even greater importance for nesting
purposes for marsh birds that are becoming increasingly rare.
Area 4 had a good representation of breeding and migrant marsh
birds, including Common Gallinules, Black Terns and numerous
waterfowl. The populations of these species probably would
respond favorably to enlargement of the area. Following re-
moval of the fill, typical marsh vegetation would invade from
existing nearby stands and within a few years habitat quality
would be optimal. The populations of wetland birds would
respond favorably to enlargement of the area as there would be
space for more breeding pairs. Loss of Area 4 as a consequence
of further filling would seriously reduce the amount of hemimarsh
available on the Project Area.
The dike system bordering Survey Areas 1, 4 and 5 has two
water control valves at the west end of Area 4. These valves
(one at the southwest corner, the other near the northwest cor-
ner of Area 4) can be opened to permit water to flow out of the
marshes and into the river. Because beaver have cut through the
dike in places, movement of water out through these valves in-
EfTCAP, Inc. -175-
-------
fluences water levels in all three survey areas. During the
last two weeks in October 1980, the water level in Areas 1 and
4 was declining at the rate of about 0.3 meters per week. This
was the result of someone opening the southwest valve and clean-
ing out the culvert leading into it. The water had dropped by
0.6 meters before the valve was closed on 31 October. Within
two weeks thereafter, the water level returned to its prior
level (gained 0.6 m) . It is important that these valves re-
main closed, otherwise water depth will be reduced to the point
that wildlife values will be changed significantly.
It is obvious the Project Area has been tampered with by
man over a series of years. It would be improper, therefore,
to refer to the area as a natural area. This fact, however,
does not reduce its value as a wetland or significantly reduce
its effectiveness in performing typical wetland functions
(e.g. wildlife production, fish production, flood control,
recreation, etc.). Data contained in this report show con-
clusively that the Project Area serves as quality habitat for
a wide variety of fishes and wildlife. The importance of the
area's habitats will increase in decades to come as will the
other wetland values it offers.
REFERENCES CITED IN PART 7
1. Beecher, W. J. 1942. Nesting birds and the vegetation
substrates. Chicago Ornithol. Soc., Chicago. 69p.
2. Steele, P. E., P. D. Dalke and E. G. Bizeau. 1956.
Duck production at Gray's Lake, Idaho, 1949-51. J. Wildl.
Manage. 20:279-285.
3. Patterson, J. H. 1974. The role of wetland heterogeneity
in the reproduction of duck populations in eastern Ontario.
Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 29:31-32.
4. Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat
in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Iowa
Agric. Home Econ. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. No. 43. 31p.
5. Weller, M. W. 1978. Management of freshwater marshes
for wildlife. In; Freshwater wetlands: Ecological pro-
cesses and management potential. R. E. Good, D. E. Whigham
and R. L. Simpson, eds. Academic Press, pp 267-284.
6. Weller, M. W. and L. H. Fredrickson. 1974. Avian ecology
of a managed glacial marsh. Living Bird 12:269-291.
7. Krull, J. N. 1970. Aquatic plant macroinvertebrate assoc-
iations and waterfowl. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:707-718.
8. Weller, M. W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to
management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State J. Sci. 49:
333-412.
9. Good, R. E. , D. F. Whigham and R. L. Simpson. 1978.
Freshwater wetlands. Academic Press, N.Y. 378p.
EtTCAP, Inc. -176-
-------
10. Horwitz, E. L. 1978. Our Nation's Wetlands. Council on
Environmental Quality/ Washington, D.C. 7Op.
11. Owen Ayres and Assoc. 1976. Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Administrative Action for I.D. 3738-1-00,
C.T.H. "H"-I.H. 94 road, C.T.H. "Q", Kenosha County.
12. Mitsch, W. J, and M. D. Hutchinson. 1979. The Momence
Wetlands of the Kankakee River in Illinois—an assessment
of their value, a descriptive and economic approach to
the appraisal of natural ecosystem function. 111. Inst.
Nat. Res. Doc. No. 79/17. 55p.
13. Wharton, C. H. 1970. The southern river swamp—a multiple
use environment. Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
Georgia State Univ, Atlanta.
14. Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum and R. M. Pope. 1974. The
value of the tidal marsh. Center for Wetland Resources,
Publ. No. LSU-SG-74-03. Louisiana State Univ., Baton
Rouge. 3Op.
EFTCAP, Inc. -177-
-------
-------
PART 8: PROJECT SUMMARY
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
An evaluation of wetland habitat quality was conducted
along the Des Plaines River, Kenosha County, Wisconsin during
October through November 1979 and March through November 1980.
The study emphasized species occurrence and abundance as indi-
cators of habitat quality. Inventories of the following groups
of biota were conducted: birds, fishes, invertebrates, other
vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, amphibians) and plants. The
animal groups are listed according to the relative amount of
effort devoted to inventorying each group.
A total of 173 bird species (19 waterfowl; 19 other water-
birds; total of 73 wetland-associated species) were reported
from the Project Area. About 95 percent of the waterfowl re-
corded during aerial surveys in the vicinity were sighted on
the Project Area. Numerous waterfowl used the Project Area
during spring. Fall concentrations provided hunting opportun-
ities for a number of persons. During 1980, 399 nests of 13
marsh dwelling species were located. Nest searches were re-
stricted to areas of hemimarsh. Two endangered and three
threatened bird species were recorded on the Project Area.
i
(I
-------
PART 8: PROJECT SUMMARY
William E. Southern, Ph.D.
An evaluation of wetland habitat quality was conducted
along the Des Plaines River, Kenosha County, Wisconsin during
October through November 1979 and March through November 1980.
The study emphasized species occurrence and abundance as indi-
cators of habitat quality. Inventories of the following groups
of biota were conducted: birds, fishes, invertebrates, other
vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, amphibians) and plants. The
animal groups are listed according to the relative amount of
effort devoted to inventorying each group.
A total of 173 bird species (19 waterfowl; 19 other water-
birds; total of 73 wetland-associated species) were reported
from the Project Area. About 95 percent of the waterfowl re-
corded during aerial surveys in the vicinity were sighted on
the Project Area. Numerous waterfowl used the Project Area
during spring. Fall concentrations provided hunting opportun-
ities for a number of persons. During 1980, 399 nests of 13
marsh dwelling species were located. Nest searches were re-
stricted to areas of hemimarsh. Two endangered and three
threatened bird species were recorded on the Project Area.
The fish inventory indicated 32 species, including 10
game species, occurred within the Project Area. Six of the
game species were documented as breeding there, as were 13
nongame fishes. The fish fauna is considered to be relatively
diverse on the basis of these data.
The number of invertebrate taxa (over 80) located at the
various sampling stations was considered typical for similar
habitats in the Upper Midwest. High species diversity occurred
in the hemimarshes thereby increasing the value of these areas
for wildlife species.
Five species of amphibians (4 frogs, 1 salamander), five
reptiles (4 turtles, 1 snake) and 13 mammals were recorded.
Beaver and muskrats were permanent residents on the Project
Area. One beaver lodge and dam was located and 310 muskrat
houses were recorded in 1980 within the bird survey areas.
One threatened reptile (Blanding's turtle) was recorded on
several occasions.
Fifteen plant communities were identified within the
EFCAP, Inc. -178-
-------
i
Project Area. A total of 408 plant species were identified.
Although no threatened or endangered species were located, two
I of the species are considered to be rare as the specimens found
represent the first records for Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
All of the aquatic areas that support submerged or emerged
vegetation are rated as having high quality from the standpoint
of plant species diversity, the presence of native species and
& the existence of little evidence of community disturbance.
Wetland meadows bordering ponds and depressions (Community
Type 6) had the highest species diversity (103 species) of any
of the wetland communities.
Habitat quality is considered good to very good for the
* groups inventoried. Various procedures were used to evaluate
habitat quality and each of the methods produced similar results.
The wetland (1) has high wildlife and fisheries values; (2)
plays an important recreational function in the area; (3) serves
a critical role in flood control, ground water supply renewal
and filtration; and (4) represents a rapidly diminishing land-
form and ecosystem in the region. The annual value of these
ecological services to the region was estimated.
Although the area has been impacted by human activities
in the past, considerable natural repair has occurred. As a
result, habitat quality shows signs of recent improvement and
continued enhancement of quality is anticipated, barring fur-
ther human attempts at dredging or filling. The Project Area
is considered an important ecological area because of the
wildlife, fisheries and related values identified in this
report. These values appear important enough to justify pro-
tection of the area from activities -that would reduce wetland
quality. The Des Plaines wetlands in Kenosha County appear
vital to the future of the river. Loss of the marshes, wet
meadows, floodplain grasslands and forests, and other habitats
would reduce significantly the variety and abundance of wild-
life and fishes associated with this river system.
EfTCAP, Inc. -179-
1
------- |