fishlake:%sediment%removal%plan% · fish!lakesedimentremoval!plan % 2017% 5!...

Fish Lake: Sediment Removal Plan

Upper & Lower Fish Lake

LaPorte County, Indiana

August 25, 2017

Fish Lake Conservancy District

Richard Mangus, Chairman P.O. Box 69

Mill Creek, Indiana 46365 [email protected]

(574) 520-‐0530

Northwater Consulting

960 Clocktower Drive, Suite F Springfield, Illinois 62704

(844) 466-‐7849

Prepared by Northwater Consulting and Berrini & Associates with funding support from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources

FISH LAKE SEDIMENT REMOVAL PLAN 2017

1 Fish Lake Conservancy District

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. 1

Common Acronyms/Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Project Sponsor ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Public Participation .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Summary of Recent Work ................................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Sediment Chemistry Analysis (2014) ......................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Watershed Diagnostic Study (2015) ........................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Fish Lake Management Feasibility Study (2016) ..................................................................................... 12

4.0 Lake Sediment Reconnaissance (2016) ......................................................................................... 14 4.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 14 4.2 Water Depths, Sediment Thickness, & Density ....................................................................................... 15 4.3 Sediment Chemistry ................................................................................................................................ 17

5.0 Project Area Descriptions .............................................................................................................. 19 5.1 Area 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Area 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Area 3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.4 Area 4 & 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 24 5.5 Area 6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 29

6.0 Volume Determination & Extent of Sediment Removal ................................................................ 31 6.1 Area 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 6.2 Area 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.3 Area 3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 6.4 Area 4 & 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 37 6.5 Area 6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 39

7.0 Sediment Removal Methods ......................................................................................................... 41

8.0 Disposal/Dewatering ..................................................................................................................... 42

9.0 Permitting ...................................................................................................................................... 45 9.1 IDNR Review ............................................................................................................................................ 45

10.0 Contractor Selection ...................................................................................................................... 47

11.0 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................................... 48



12.0 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 49

References ................................................................................................................................................ 50

APPENDIX A:

Sediment Removal Cross Sections & Expanded Sediment Removal Volumes

APPENDIX B:

Example Bid Specifications, Landowner Agreement, & Permitting Documents

APPENDIX C:

Lab Report & 2013 Sediment Report

Tables Table 1 – Historical & Current Lake Coverage & Depth ............................................................................................ 7 Table 2 – 2014 Sediment Analysis, Upper & Lower Fish Lake ................................................................................... 9 Table 3 -‐ 2016 Inorganic Sediment Analysis, Upper & Lower Fish Lake .................................................................. 17 Table 4 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Quantities .................................................................................................. 31 Table 5 -‐ Estimated Pumping Distance .................................................................................................................... 41 Table 6 -‐ Project Tasks & Timeline .......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 7 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Estimated Costs ......................................................................................... 49 Table 8 -‐ Sediment Removal Area Cost Breakdown ................................................................................................ 49

Figures Figure 1 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Study Areas ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 -‐ Fish Lake Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 -‐ Locations of Sediment Cores (2014) ....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 -‐ Trends in Lake Sediment & Water Depth, Upper Fish Lake .................................................................... 15 Figure 5 - Fish Lake Sediment Removal Areas & Measurements ........................................................................... 16 Figure 6 – 2014 and 2016 Sediment Cores .............................................................................................................. 18 Figure 7 – Area 1 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom ..................................................................................... 20 Figure 8 – Area 1 -‐ Sediment Density ...................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9 – Area 2 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 10 – Area 2 -‐ Sediment Density .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 11 – Area 3 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom ................................................................................... 25 Figure 12 – Area 3 -‐ Sediment Density ................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 13 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom ............................................................................. 27 Figure 14 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Sediment Density .............................................................................................................. 28 Figure 15 -‐ Area 6 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom .................................................................................... 29 Figure 16 – Area 6 -‐ Sediment Density .................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 17 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 1 ............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 18 – Area 1 Sediment Removal Extent ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 19 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 2 ............................................................................................................... 33



Figure 20 -‐ Area 2 Sediment Removal Extent .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 21 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 3 ............................................................................................................... 35 Figure 22 – Area 3 Sediment Removal Extent ......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 23 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 4 ............................................................................................................... 37 Figure 24 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 25 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 6 ............................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26 -‐ Area 6 Sediment Removal Extent .......................................................................................................... 40 Figure 27 -‐ Dewatering/Disposal Area .................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 28 -‐ Proposed Dewatering Basin Cut/Fill ...................................................................................................... 44

Common Acronyms/Abbreviations

FLCD – Fish Lake Conservancy District FOC – Fractional Organic Carbon GIS – Geographic Information System IDEM – Indiana Department of Environmental Management IDNR – Indiana Department of Natural Resources LARE – Lake and River Enhancement Program NRC -‐ Natural Resource Commission SWPP -‐ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USDA – United States Department of Agriculture USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PNA – Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fish Lake Sediment Removal Plan is supported by a series of previous reports and studies combined with recent sampling to outline and quantify dredging within Upper and Lower Fish Lake and Mud Lake. The 273-‐acre lake system provides a variety of recreational uses for area residents and visitors, including fishing and boating. This plan is sponsored by the Fish Lake Conservancy District (FLCD) and funded by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) through the Lake and River Enhancement (LARE) program.

In Fish Lake, both the open water area suitable for boating and maximum depths have decreased due to the expansion of emergent or macrophytic vegetation and the accumulation of organic sediment. It is estimated that annual sediment accumulation in some parts of the lake averages 1.8 inches per year.

To address sediment accumulation, a total of 6 sediment removal sites were evaluated for a total of approximately 50 acres. These sites were located in the southern portion of Lower Fish Lake, the boating channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lake, the North end of Upper Fish Lake at the mouth of Fish Creek, a boating access channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake, and a small channel in the southern portion of Mud Lake. In 2016, a total of 202 field points were collected in each area from which water depth contours, sediment thickness, and sediment density maps were generated. Results indicated:

1. Average water depth of 2.7 feet, maximum water depth of 6.5 feet.2. Average hard bottom depth of 5 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 13 feet.3. Average sediment density (expressed in depth to 0.6 psi resistance) of 3 feet; ranging from 0.1 – 8.6

feet.

Following an analysis of sediment depth and density, local priorities and biological limitations, the total dredging area was reduced to 21.9 acres over the 6 sites. Total sediment removal volume was determined to be 117,791 cubic yards with an average sediment removal thickness of 3.73 feet.

A hydraulic auger or cutterhead dredge is recommended to minimize sloughing of the low density sediment present in Fish Lake. Two dewatering basins are to be constructed at a site immediately to the south of Mud Lake; it is anticipated that the sandy soils present will result in rapid dewatering through infiltration, eliminating the need for excess water to be discharged off-‐site. Numerous routes were evaluated for pumping dredged sediment to the dewatering ponds and it was determined that a route through the lake is the most feasible option. Permitting this project is likely to be straightforward as no wetlands will be impacted and infiltration will eliminate the need for surface discharge from the dewatering basins. Sediment removal or dredging is to occur over a period of two years with an estimated cost of just over 2.3 million dollars.

Acknowledgements

• The FLCD Board provided support throughout the study. Richard Mangus and Janice Berg were directresources and made themselves available to support the study team.

• Peter Berrini of Berrini & Associates provided valuable technical expertise and knowledge in regards toin-‐lake management approaches and sediment analysis. Peter collaborated on all aspects of the report.

• Doug Nusbaum, Project Manager with the IDNR LARE program and Nate Thomas, Lakes PermittingBiologist provided data, guidance, review, and comments.



1.0 Introduction

Six sediment removal sites were evaluated and are addressed in the Sediment Removal Plan. Each location was selected with the primary goal to enhance access and address areas of significant sediment accumulation. Sites were identified based on previous studies and priorities of lake residents. Sediment removal areas are depicted in Figure 1. Area 1 is located at the south end of Lower Fish Creek and is approximately 17 acres in size. Area 2 is located within the channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lake and is 16 acres in size. Area 3 is located within the access channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake and is 4 acres. Sites 4 and 5, located at the north end of Upper Fish Lake at the outlet of Fish and Mill Creek combined, total of 11.5 acres. Area 6 is an access at the south end of Mud Lake and is less than 1 acre in size. The final extent of sediment removal in each area is presented in Section 6. The final proposed dredging extent within each area was reduced to address a series of biological and physical constraints.

Figure 1 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Study Areas



1.1 Project Sponsor

The Sediment Removal Plan is sponsored by the Fish Lake Conservancy District (FLCD).

Fish Lake Conservancy District P.O. Box 69

Mill Creek, Indiana 46365 http://www.fishlakedistrict.net/contact.htm

It is the responsibility of the FLCD to help maintain the condition of Fish Lake for its residents and users by controlling specific species of aquatic plants through weed-‐kill methods. It is also the responsibility of the district to maintain sediment traps to reduce sediment loading into the lake from its tributaries.

The primary contact for this project is Richard Mangus, Chairman of the FLCD:

Richard Mangus 1508 Shore Dr.

Walkerton, IN 46574 (574) 520-‐0530

[email protected]

1.2 Project Location

Fish Lake is located in the east-‐central section of LaPorte County, Indiana, and is comprised of Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake (139 acres) and Lower Fish Lake (134 acres). The Fish Lake chain is within Township 36N Range 1W, Sections 17, 20, and 36. The twelve-‐digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for the Fish Lake watershed is 071200010208.

The lake’s 273 acres of surface water provide a variety of recreational uses for area residents and visitors, including fishing and boating. Fish Lake is an unincorporated community surrounding the lakes; the FLCD is the entity responsible for lake maintenance and improvements.

Figure 2 -‐ Fish Lake Overview

Fish Lake is a natural glacial lake system and, prior to the installation of a concrete spillway sometime after 1949, was described by early accounts as being of peculiar shape, divided into four parts connected by narrow



passages or straights (Ball, 1900). Today, the legal lake level for Upper and Lower Fish Lake is 688.22 feet (Chrisman, 1990). The lake level is controlled by a spillway at the downstream (south) end of Lower Fish Lake.

Fish Creek and Mill Creek are the primary tributaries and enter Upper Fish Lake along the northern shore. The 6,490-‐acre watershed that feeds the lake chain originates in the north; water flows slowly south through large, healthy wetland complexes and into Upper Fish Lake on the northern shore. The Fish Lake watershed is within the headwaters of the Kankakee River. Row crops are the primary landuse, accounting for 2,444 acres, or 38% of the watershed. Woodlands and wetlands also cover a large portion of the watershed and account for 2,476 acres, or 38% of the watershed.

Based on summer 2012 aerial imagery, Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake includes 126 acres of open water and Lower Fish Lake includes 130 acres (Table 1). Based on 1952 bathymetry mapping, the maximum depth of Upper Fish Lake was 24 feet with an average depth of 7.5 feet. Lower Fish Lake is shallower, with a maximum depth of 16 feet and average depth of 6.5 feet. The open water area suitable for boating has decreased over time due to the accumulation of sediment, and the expansion of macrophytic vegetation in the lake. Table 1 outlines a comparison between 1952 conditions and more recent conditions.

Table 1 – Historical & Current Lake Coverage & Depth

Historical Conditions Current Conditions

Upper Fish Lake

Open water area without emergent vegetation 139 acres2 126 acres1

Maximum Depth 24 feet2 20 feet3

Lower Fish Lake

Open water area without emergent vegetation 134 acres2 130 acres1

Maximum Depth 16 feet2 15 feet3 1 – Calculated using 2012 spring aerial imagery 2 – 1952 Conditions 3 – Based on depth sounder recordings during 2014 reconnaissance

1.3 Project Purpose The FLCD received a grant from the IDNR through the LARE program to complete a Sediment Removal Plan for the lake system. The purpose of the plan is to provide detail on the extent and volume of existing sediment, and propose specific areas for potential dredging. The plan addresses the feasibility of the proposed dredging by evaluating sediment composition and structure, identifying and documenting a location(s) for sediment placement and dewatering, and summarizing regulatory requirements. The plan was completed under the guidance of the IDNR LARE Program staff and the FLCD. It addresses accumulated sediment within Upper and Lower Fish Lake. Sediment accumulation up to 1.8 inches/year has been estimated in some areas of the lake. Sedimentation is reducing the surface water area of the lake, degrading access for some residents and diminishing its recreational value. The objective of this plan is to address sedimentation and the negative effects associated with it through strategic removal and beneficial re-‐use.



2.0 Public Participation

The FLCD worked with Northwater Consulting to gather data on lake sediment and depths and to develop the Sediment Removal Plan. The FLCD arranged a series of public meetings where public input was solicited, and project progress was presented. Initial results of the field survey and project progress were presented and discussed at the first public meeting held on February 11, 2017. Sediment removal options, volumes, and initial cost estimates were the primary topics of discussion, along with preliminary options for the sediment dewatering area. Meeting participants were asked to establish dredging priorities based on volume and cost limitations.

The second meeting was held on August 12, 2017; eighteen people were in attendance including residents and FLCD Board members. Final results from the study were presented including removal volumes and locations, dewatering/disposal, cost estimates, permitting requirements, and a schedule. Discussion by participants focused on approaches to funding the sediment removal project.

3.0 Summary of Recent Work

A series of recent lake and watershed studies have been completed that have supported the development of this plan; these include:

1. Northwater Consulting, 2014. Sediment Sampling & Analysis Report, Fish Lake, Indiana.2. Northwater Consulting, 2015. Fish Lake Chain: Watershed Diagnostic Study, Fish Lake, Indiana.3. Northwater Consulting, 2016. Fish Lake Management Feasibility Study, Fish Lake, Indiana.

3.1 Sediment Chemistry Analysis (2014)

A sediment-‐sampling program was performed on January 21 and 22, 2014, using impact percussion-‐coring methods. Four locations were identified within the lake for sampling (Figure 3). At two of the stations (1 & 4), a single core was collected and discrete samples were collected at specific depth intervals. At the other stations (2 & 3), three cores were collected at each station and the sediment between 2 – 4 feet depth was composited to represent each area. A total of 8 samples were collected and submitted for laboratory testing to provide a representative chemical characterization of the Fish Lake sediment.

The sediment samples were analyzed at an accredited laboratory for pesticides, herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), total organic carbon, pH and metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc). Three of the samples were analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. Table 2 illustrates the results of the parameters that were analyzed (metals, % solids, pH and fractional organic carbon).

A relevant summary of the analytical results from the 8 sediment samples includes:

• PAHs/PNAs – No PAHs were detected in the lake sediment samples.• Pesticides/Herbicides – None were detected in the lake sediment samples.• Metals –All of the samples are below the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)

ceiling concentrations for the application of solid materials to adjacent land.



• Percent solids ranged from 22.3% -‐ 68.6% and Fractional Organic Carbon (FOC) ranged from 1.51% to11.5%. The sediment samples with lower percent solids are associated with higher FOC (organic richsediment).

• Fecal coliform bacteria were not detected in the three samples analyzed.

Table 2 – 2014 Sediment Analysis, Upper & Lower Fish Lake

Lower Fish Lake Upper Fish Lake

STN 1 STN 2 STN 3 STN 4

Parameter Units 1 -‐2 feet 4 feet 4.5 feet 2 -‐ 4 feet 2 -‐ 4 feet 2 feet 4 feet 6 feet pH pH units 7.6 7.8 8.1 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 Percent Solids % 58.0 68.6 66.8 22.3 33.7 28.6 26.1 23.1 Fractional Organic Carbon

% 1.94 1.88 1.51 10.3 5.96 9.34 10.5 11.5

Antimony ppm < 0.853 < 0.721 < 0.748 < 2.21 < 1.46 < 1.73 < 1.91 < 2.13 Arsenic ppm 6.21 2.90 4.54 20.7 8.91 17.2 14.0 19.8 Barium ppm 105 12.1 85.2 235 255 192 196 275 Beryllium ppm < 0.427 < 0.360 < 0.374 < 1.11 < 0.730 < 0.863 < 0.957 < 1.07 Cadmium ppm < 0.427 < 0.360 < 0.374 < 1.11 < 0.730 < 0.863 < 0.957 < 1.07 Chromium ppm 1.02 3.19 3.95 1.57 < 0.730 2.30 1.86 2.13 Copper ppm 9.09 1.71 6.95 25.4 10.5 9.76 10.0 12.7 Lead ppm 1.69 1.65 3.81 3.91 1.50 2.11 < 0.957 1.75 Manganese ppm 259 56.4 240 939 969 1040 979 1320 Mercury ppm < 0.171 < 0.144 < 0.150 < 0.442 < 0.292 < 0.345 < 0.383 < 0.427 Nickel ppm 0.992 2.63 4.05 2.23 1.16 2.15 1.64 2.15 Selenium ppm < 0.853 < 0.721 < 0.748 < 2.21 < 1.46 < 1.73 < 1.91 < 2.13 Silver ppm < 0.853 < 0.721 < 0.748 < 2.21 < 1.46 < 1.73 < 1.91 < 2.13 Thallium ppm < 0.853 < 0.721 < 0.748 < 2.21 < 1.46 < 1.73 < 1.91 < 2.13 Zinc ppm 6.41 11.3 16.3 19.3 5.23 10.5 6.47 7.99



Figure 3 -‐ Locations of Sediment Cores (2014)



3.2 Watershed Diagnostic Study (2015)

Sediment characterization was also performed as part of the 2015 diagnostic study. Four locations within Fish Lake were assessed by obtaining core samples for physical and visual analysis. A summary of results is as follows:

1. North Upper Fish Lake site near the mouth of Fish Creek is located within a shallow portion of the lakein approximately 4.0 ft of water depth and is dominated by aquatic plant growth. Sediment analyzed in2014 at the same location indicated that sediment within this area of the lake was organically enriched(9.3 to 10.5 percent) and very low in percent solids (26.1 to 28.6 percent). This low-‐density, high watercontent sediment is typically flowable and removal from small areas can result in sloughing andunwanted re-‐filling back into dredged areas. A 0.5 ft to 1.0 ft thick sediment-‐water interface waspresent that contained primarily water and low-‐density, highly saturated organic sediment. Beneath thesediment-‐water interface there was very little change in sediment density observed. However, a slightincrease in penetration resistance and relative density was observed once the uppermost two feet ofsediment was penetrated.

Photo A -‐ High density of invasive aquatic vegetation in the northern portion of Upper

Fish Lake

Photo B -‐ Plate of sediment sampling, Upper Fish Lake



2. Southwest end of Upper Fish Lake and the south end of Lower Fish Lake -‐ The fine-‐grained sedimentfrom these areas was denser and lower in organic content than north Upper Fish Lake and north LowerFish Lake sediment. The sediment in the southwest end of Upper Fish Lake generally ranged from 1.5 to2.0 ft in thickness, with water depths averaging two feet and extensive vegetation growth (primarilyAmerican lotus) covering much of the area. The underlying hard lake bottom generally ranged from 3.5to 4.0 ft at normal lake levels. Sediment density and the percent solids were greater than that observedat the north end of the Upper Fish Lake and organic content also was significantly lower, as noted in thelaboratory results. Deposition within the northwest end of Lower Fish Lake adjacent to the connectingchannel ranged from 2.0 feet to as much as 4.0 feet in the areas observed and appeared to be similar indensity and organic content as the sediment observed near the north end of Upper Fish Lake. Sedimentobserved near the outlet at the southern end of Lower Fish Lake exhibited higher density and percentsolids than the sediment observed in the other locations. Water depths were generally 2.0 ft with slightvariations, and the soft sediment thickness generally ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 ft before a harder densitylake bottom material was encountered. The laboratory results included in the February 2014 SedimentReport indicated that Station 1 (southern end of Lower Fish Lake at Outlet) ranged from 1.51 to 1.94percent organic content and 58.0 to 68.6 percent solids; and Station 2 (north end of Lower Fish Lakeadjacent to connecting channel) was found to have 10.3 percent organic content and 22.3 percentsolids, which indicates organic enrichment from aquatic plant and algae detritus and very low density.

3.3 Fish Lake Management Feasibility Study (2016)

This study was funded by the FLCD to address the concerns of local residents and other stakeholders regarding sedimentation and weed-‐bed expansion. The goal of the study was to determine the effectiveness of aeration technology and microbial augmentation at improving dissolved oxygen conditions and managing organic sediment accumulation.

A focused pilot study was designed and executed from September 2014 to October 2016. The study methodology was developed through a combination of research, consultation with industry specialists and findings from previous investigations on Fish Lake.

Three study zones were established to monitor dissolved oxygen and sediment conditions. Data loggers were installed to measure dissolved oxygen and water temperature in the fall of 2014, removed for the winter and reinstalled from April to October, 2015 and 2016. A SolarBee™ mechanical circulating aerator was installed in the spring of 2015 and again in 2016. Microbial augmentation treatment applied Environoc 301, a proprietary liquid blend of naturally occurring bacteria manufactured by Biodyne-‐Midwest.

Monthly monitoring of water depth and sediment characteristics was performed from April through October, 2015 and 2016. Monitoring included collection of water depth and sediment density at 25-‐foot grid spacing in the three zones. In areas receiving microbial augmentation, a measured amount of Environoc 301 was injected into the top 12 inches of sediment at each node in the 25-‐foot grid. Dissolved oxygen and temperature from the data loggers was downloaded each month during the study. A series of sediment cores were collected each month for visual inspection of the sediment and calculation of characteristics such as density, water content and organic content. The study zones were decommissioned in October in both years prior to ice-‐over conditions on the lake.



3.3.1 Results

The two-‐year study characterized sediment accumulation and evaluated the most feasible and effective management options. The data and results from the study have been integral in guiding the development of the Sediment Removal Plan and will inform post-‐dredging lake management to maximize the benefit of lake investments. We believe this study will make the FLCD and Indiana dredging investment more cost-‐effective and extend the benefits for a longer duration.

The study attributed that a certain level of sediment accumulation was likely due to oxygen conditions at the sediment-‐water interface. As a result, organic matter is accumulating faster than it is decomposing because healthy benthic microbe communities are unable to establish in low oxygen conditions.

The study results indicate that aeration with biological augmentation is an effective method for managing and reducing organic sediment. However, this method should be viewed as a preventative or maintenance measure rather than a solution to restore areas that have already been severely affected. Aeration without biological augmentation also provides a benefit; however, sediment reduction was not as significant as a combined method. Some of the key conclusions and recommendations from this study are summarized below:

1. The aerator effectiveness is severely limited during peak vegetation growth due to disruption ofcirculation currents by the weed beds. Mechanical circulation aeration, like the SolarBeeTM, should beemployed only where sufficient free and open water columns exist. It is “too late” to cost-‐effectivelyapply such methods to locations that are already transitioned to dense weed beds.

2. Dredging along the shelf of Upper Fish Lake will serve as a unique opportunity to ‘kick-‐start’ a lakemanagement program. Dredging will free up the water column and allow aeration to affect a widerarea, thereby increasing the potential for organic sediment decomposition.

3. After dredging occurs, a minimum recommended strategy is to implement aeration and biologicalaugmentation in a newly created zone of open water near the mouth of Fish Creek. This is whereorganic content will remain highest and where the bulk of the oxygen demand will still occur. Webelieve this would extend the benefit of the dredging investment.

4. Future vegetation management would benefit from a harvesting approach that focuses on reducingthe amount of dead organic matter that accumulates on the lake bottom. The study indicates thatweed control may inadvertently contribute to an accumulation of organic sediment.

5. Currently, organic sedimentation appears to primarily be sourced from within the lake. However,organic and inorganic sediment loading to the lake from the watershed has historically been a majorsource of sediment, especially from the period between the 1950s to early 1990s. Sediment from thewatershed, while currently minimal, is still contributing to accumulation and should be targeted forreduction as part of a comprehensive management plan.

Overall, it was determined that aeration technology and microbial augmentation can be effective for improving dissolved oxygen conditions and managing organic sediment accumulation at Fish Lake. The results also provide a level of detail and understanding of the lake sediment to support the development of an informed and effective dredging plan, which may not have been possible without this effort.



4.0 Lake Sediment Reconnaissance (2016)

Sediment analysis was conducted at six locations within the lake (Figure 5) to support this Sediment Removal Plan. The lake was at normal pool elevation at the time of data collection which was performed in October of 2016. Five of the six locations expand on the areas identified in the 2015 Diagnostic Study; one additional location was added (Site # 6) on the south end of Mud Lake. Sampling at these locations was conducted by probing the substrate to measure depth of accumulated sediment and water depth. A handheld Trimble GeoXT GPS receiver was used to mark the location of each sample as it was collected using a boat. Three sediment samples were collected for laboratory analysis and to supplement soil chemistry data obtained in 2014 (Appendix C).

4.1 Existing Conditions

Sediment Accumulation / Water Depth: Figure 4 presents satellite imagery with historical water depths from 1952, 1991 (JF New) and 2014 (Northwater). An overall trend of shallowing is apparent between 1952 and 1991 of up to six feet, which suggests annual sediment accumulation up to 1.8 inches/year in some areas. A similar trend is present between 1992 and 2014, however, the rate of accumulation appears lower.

The area between the inlet of Fish Creek and Mill Creek saw the largest sediment accumulation and decreasing water depths between 1952 and the present. This area also corresponds to the growth of macrophytic vegetation. Much of the sediment was observed to be organic, with silt and clay, and partially decomposed detrital organic materials and shells. Based on observations, it is hypothesized that the sediment accumulation occurs due to the high density of aquatic vegetation combined with an ecosystem deficient in aerobic organisms to break down the organic sediment. This situation is compounded by low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the lake water column and near the sediment-‐water interface. Annual weed control activities also add additional organic matter to the lake bed.

It is believed that a large portion of the sedimentation in the Fish Lake Chain is generated from within the lake itself and are not a function of current excessive external loading. However, previous peat mining activities within the watershed may have historically resulted in higher organic sediment loads to the lake. The historical and current sediment accumulation is reducing the surface water area of the lake and degrading both the ecological quality and its recreational value for lake users.



Figure 4 -‐ Trends in Lake Sediment & Water Depth, Upper Fish Lake

4.2 Water Depths, Sediment Thickness, & Density

Data collected in the field at six areas was processed into map files representing water depth, sediment thickness, and sediment density. A total of 202 individual sample points were collected (See Figure 5). Each map file was used to guide sediment removal recommendations, generate removal volumes, and cross-‐sections.

1. Water Depth Contours: 0.5-‐foot contours were generated from point data using natural neighborinterpolation. Contours were “cleaned” manually to remove any irregularities generated throughinterpolation.

2. Sediment thickness polygons: A GIS polygon file was generated by performing a natural neighborinterpolation on sediment thickness data. The interpolated raster file was reclassified into 52 uniquedepth ranges for illustrative and analysis purposes.

3. Hard bottom depth: A GIS layer was generated by performing a natural neighbor interpolation on hardbottom depth data. The interpolated raster file was reclassified into 39 unique depth ranges forillustrative and analysis purposes.

4. Sediment strength (as proxy for density) polygons: A GIS layer was generated by performing a naturalneighbor interpolation on sediment strength as measured by a plated probe and depth to 0.6 psi of



resistance (used as a qualitative measure of relative sediment density). The interpolated raster file was reclassified into 27 unique depth ranges for illustrative and analysis purposes.

Average sediment thickness, density and water depths from the six study areas are summarized below. A more detailed, area specific analysis and supporting figures are presented in Section 5.0.

4. Average water depth of 2.7 feet, maximum water depth of 6.5 feet5. Average hard bottom depth of 5 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 13 feet.6. Average sediment density (expressed in depth to 0.6 psi resistance) of 3 feet, ranging from 0.1 – 8.6

feet.

Figure 5 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Areas & Measurements



4.3 Sediment Chemistry

Sediment samples using impact percussion-‐coring methods were collected on October 8, 2016, at six individual stations (Figure 6). The locations were composited into three samples and submitted to an accredited laboratory for analysis. These samples were utilized to supplement data collected in 2014 for each sediment removal area.

Following the same protocols from 2014, two six-‐foot vertical cores were advanced using a driving cap and two-‐inch polycarbonate tubes at each station. The sediment was mixed in a clean aluminum tray and composited into one sample to represent each location. The tubes were equipped with a core catcher at the bottom to restrict sediment from escaping during core retrieval. Sediment samples were immediately containerized in laboratory supplied 4 oz glass jars, labeled and placed in a cooler. A total of three composite samples were collected and submitted for laboratory testing to provide a representative chemical characterization.

The sampling results were compared against IDEM ceiling concentrations for the application of solid materials to adjacent land (Table 3).

Table 3 -‐ 2016 Inorganic Sediment Analysis, Upper & Lower Fish Lake

Parameter Unit STN 1a/1b STN 2a/2b STN 3a/3b pH 7.2 7.0 6.7 Percent Solids % 45.1 37.0 6.97 Fractional Organic Carbon % 2.05 3.14 47.9 Arsenic ppm 6.91 9.32 < 7.04 Barium ppm 315 268 32.7 Beryllium ppm < 0.554 < 0.645 < 3.52 Cadmium ppm < 0.554 < 0.645 < 3.52 Chromium ppm < 0.554 < 0.645 < 3.52 Copper ppm 8.39 7.33 22.8 Lead ppm 1.74 2.02 7.42 Manganese ppm 588 1380 202 Nickel ppm 0.627 0.796 < 3.52 Zinc ppm 4.12 5.51 20.4 Antimony ppm < 1.11 < 1.29 < 7.04 Mercury ppm < 0.221 < 0.258 < 1.41 Selenium ppm < 1.11 < 1.29 < 7.04 Silver ppm < 1.11 < 1.29 < 7.04 Thallium ppm < 1.11 < 1.29 < 7.04

Consistent with samples taken in 2014, no PAHs/PNAs were detected, no pesticides/herbicides were detected, and all of the samples are below the IDEM ceiling concentrations for the application of solid materials to adjacent land. See Appendix C for lab results and a copy of the 2014 Sediment Report.



Figure 6 – 2014 and 2016 Sediment Cores



5.0 Project Area Descriptions

5.1 Area 1 This area is located at the southern end of Lower Fish Lake, extending north from the lake spillway. The study area at this location is approximately 19 acres in size. Compared to other locations in the lake, sediment in this area is generally lower in organic content and has greater density (consolidated). A total of 15 cross-‐sections were established in Area 1. Other area characteristics include:

1. Average water depth of 2.2 feet, maximum water depth of 4 feet.

2. Average hard bottom depth of 3.5 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 9 feet.

3. Average sediment density (expressed in depth to 0.6 psi resistance) of 1.7 feet, ranging from 0.1 – 4.6 feet.

Figures 7 and 8 depict water depth, sediment depth, sampling points, and sediment density.

5.2 Area 2 Area 2 is the navigation channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lake, including an area immediately north and south of the channel. This study area is 17 acres in size. Sediment characteristics vary from low density/organic rich north and south of the navigation channel, and more consolidated and dense within the access channel. A total of 11 cross-‐sections were established in Area 2. Other area characteristics include:

1. Average water depth of 3.3 feet, maximum water depth of 6.5 feet.

2. Average hard bottom depth of 4.5 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 12 feet.



Photo C – Area 1, Lower Fish Lake

Photo D – Area 2, Boating Channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lake Looking Toward Lower Fish Lake



Figure 7 – Area 1 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom



Figure 8 – Area 1-‐ Sediment Density



Figure 10 – Area 2 -‐ Sediment Density



5.3 Area 3 Area 3 is the navigation channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake, including an area immediately north and south of the channel. This study area is 6 acres in size. Sediment characteristics vary from low density to more consolidated near the shore and away from the access channel. A total of 6 cross-‐sections were established in Area 3. Other area characteristics include:

1. Average water depth of 2 feet and maximum water depth of 3.5 feet

2. Average hard bottom depth of 5 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 12 feet.



5.4 Area 4 & 5 Areas 4 and 5 are located at the northern end of Upper Fish Lake at the mouth of Fish and Mill Creeks. Combined, these two areas encompass 14 acres (Area 4 is 8 acres and Area 5 is 6 acres). Sediment in these two areas is highly organic and poorly consolidated. The greatest sediment depths were observed in these two areas. A total of 6 cross-‐sections were established. Other area characteristics include:

1. Average water depth of 2.8 feet and maximum water depth of 6 feet. 2. Average hard bottom depth of 5.9 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 13 feet. 3. Average sediment density (expressed in depth to 0.6 psi resistance) of 3.8 feet, ranging from 0.1 – 8.6

feet.


Photo E – Area 3, Boating Channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake Looking Toward Lower Mud Lake

Photo F – Area 4 & 5, Upper Fish Lake



Figure 13 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom



Figure 14 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Sediment Density



5.5 Area 6 Area 6 is an access channel at the south end of Mud Lake, located near the proposed dewatering location. This area is 0.7 acres in size. Sediment is highly organic, thick, and poorly consolidated at the entrance to the channel, increasing in density and reducing in depth to hard bottom toward the shore. A total of 5 cross-‐sections were established. Other area characteristics include:

1. Average water depth of 2 feet and maximum water depth of 3.5 feet. 2. Average hard bottom depth of 5.6 feet, ranging from 0.08 feet – 13 feet. 3. Average sediment density (expressed in depth to 0.6 psi resistance) of 2.7 feet, ranging from 0.1 – 5.9

feet.


Figure 15 -‐ Area 6 -‐ Water Depth & Depth to Hard Bottom



6.0 Volume Determination & Extent of Sediment Removal The volume and extent of material to be removed for each of the six areas is detailed in this section. Total removal volume and extent was heavily influenced by dewatering and disposal limitations and by biological concerns and permit limits. Section 8 outlines that the disposal and dewatering location can only reasonably accommodate 61,960 cubic yards of dredged material. Biological considerations include littoral zone setbacks and emergent plant beds. Permit limitations include maximum dredging depths. Based on all of the study and the limiting factors, it is feasible for a total of 117,741 cubic yards of sediment to be removed with a cumulative average thickness of 3.73 feet (Table 4). Further details on the volume of sediment removal by each individual location within each area are provided in Appendix A.

Table 4 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Quantities

Sediment Removal Location Area (Acres) Removal Volume (Cubic

Yards) Average Sediment Removal

Thickness (Feet) Area 1 – Lower Fish Lake 6.86 26,933 2.54 Area 2 – Channel Upper/Lower Fish Lake 7.59 36,656 3.03 Area 3 – Access Channel to Mud Lake 1.5 8,325 3.44 Area 4 – North End Upper Fish Lake 2.7 18,644 4.28 Area 5 – North End Upper Fish Lake 2.9 25,078 5.36 Area 6 – Mud Lake 0.35 2,106 3.73 Total 21.9 117,741 3.73

6.1 Area 1 A total of 26,933 cubic yards of sediment removal is proposed for Area 1, encompassing an approximate surface area of 7 acres. Area 1 has seven sediment removal zones (A-‐1.1 through A-‐1.7). Sediment removal shall include a series of access channels between 50 and 150 feet in width with a larger area proposed near the lake spillway (A1.1). The cross-‐section for this larger area is provided in Figure 17, and all other cross-‐sections are provided in Appendix A. Dredging extent is presented in Figure 18. Special considerations for Area 1 include:

1. Maximize littoral area setbacks within channel in the Northwest section (A-‐1.7). 2. Maximum dredging depth of 6 feet.

Figure 17 -‐ Example Cross-‐Section Area 1



Figure 18 – Area 1 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent



6.2 Area 2 A total of 36,656 cubic yards of sediment removal is proposed for Area 2, encompassing an approximate surface area of 7.6 acres. Area 2 is comprised of four sediment removal zones (A-‐2.1 through A-‐2.4). Sediment removal shall focus on the boating channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lake. A series of connected access channels between 50 and 150 feet are also proposed; in the south end of Upper Fish Lake running both perpendicular and parallel to the shoreline (A-‐2.3 and A-‐2.4) and in the north end of Lower Fish Lake, perpendicular to the shoreline (A-‐2.1), connecting with the channel extending out of the boating channel (A-‐2.2). A cross-‐section is provided in Figure 19, and all other cross-‐sections are provided in Appendix A. Dredging extent is presented in Figure 20. Special considerations for Area 2 include:

1. Implement shoreline and littoral area setbacks. 2. Maximum dredging depth of 6.5 feet to account for sloughing of sediment.




Figure 20 -‐ Area 2 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent



6.3 Area 3 A total of 8,325 cubic yards of sediment removal is proposed for Area 3, encompassing an approximate surface area of 1.5 acres. Area 3 encompasses only one sediment removal zone, denoted as A-‐3.1. Sediment removal will consist of a boating access channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake. The channel will range in width from 50-‐100 feet with a maximum sediment removal depth of 6.5 feet as necessary to minimize sloughing of sediment. A typical cross-‐section is provided in Figure 21 and all other cross-‐sections are provided in Appendix A. Dredging extent is presented in Figure 22. Special considerations for Area 1 include:

1. Minimize disturbance and impact to emergent plant beds. 2. Implement shoreline setbacks of 15 feet in channel. 3. Maximum dredging depth of 6.5 feet to account for sloughing of sediment.




Figure 22 – Area 3 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent



6.4 Area 4 & 5 A total of 18,644 and 25,078 cubic yards of sediment removal is proposed for Area 4 and Area 5, respectively. The surface area of both areas encompasses six acres. These areas have one zone each (A-‐4.1 and A-‐5.1). Sediment removal shall consist of a large removal zone at the mouth of Fish Creek (A-‐5.1) to remove low density, high organic sediment. This zone is approximately 3 acres and will range in depth from 6 to 8 feet with 8-‐foot maximum dredge depths occurring to the south in deeper water. The dredging extent follows the natural water depth contours of the delta.

Also proposed for these areas are access channels extending out from the shoreline in the eastern section (A-‐4.1); these channels are located in higher density sediment and are approximately 150 feet in width, and encompass 2.7 acres. A typical cross-‐section is provided in figure 23; the other cross-‐section is provided in Appendix A. Dredging extent is presented in Figure 24. Special considerations for Area 4 and 5 include:

1. Minimize disturbance and impact to emergent plant beds to the east. The current configuration of access lanes (A-‐4.1) will avoid existing plant beds observed during a site reconnaissance performed in May of 2017.

2. Implement minimum littoral zone setbacks of 30 feet. 3. Maximum dredging depth of 8 feet focused on deeper water areas.




Figure 24 -‐ Area 4 & 5 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent



6.5 Area 6 A total of 2,106 cubic yards of sediment removal is proposed for Area 6, encompassing a surface area of 0.35 acres. Area 6 includes only one sediment removal zone, A-‐6.1. Sediment removal will consist of a boating access channel extending out into Mud Lake. The channel will be approximately 40 feet wide. A typical cross-‐section is provided in figure 25; the other area 6 cross-‐section is provided in Appendix A. Dredging extent and cross-‐sections are presented in Figure 26. Special considerations for Area 1 include:

1. Implement shoreline setbacks of 10 feet. 2. Maximum dredging depth of 6 feet.




Figure 26 -‐ Area 6 -‐ Sediment Removal Extent



7.0 Sediment Removal Methods Based on an analysis of site constraints, sediment characteristics and cost, a floating hydraulic auger or cutterhead type dredge (see example photos below) is recommended for Fish Lake. This dredging equipment can selectively remove the upper layer of flowable sediment over a large enough area to minimize sloughing into the targeted restoration area.

The estimated pumping distance for dredged material to the dewatering basins was estimated by measuring from various locations within each sediment removal location. Distance in feet was evaluated and is summarized in Table 5. Three possible routes were evaluated:

1. Directly through the lake. 2. From the Lake to State Route 4. 3. From the lake through residential property to S. 800 East Rd and North to State Route 4.

Based on logistical and cost concerns, the two routes along State Route 4 and 800 East Rd were eliminated as feasible options due to permitting and private property access concerns. These disposal options may be re-‐evaluated following selection of a contractor; however, for the purposes of this report, a route through the lake appears to be the most feasible option. Depending on the location of sediment removal, a booster pump is likely required for distances greater than 5,000 ft. The elevation difference between the lake and the highest dewatering basin is only 18 feet and, therefore, only one booster pump is anticipated.

Table 5 -‐ Estimated Pumping Distance

Area # Max Distance to Upper Cell (ft) Max Distance to Lower Cell (ft)

1 11,314 11,948

2 6,980 7,614

3 2,185 2,818

4 4,047 4,680

5 3,715 4,348

6 638 1,271

Photo G – Small Hydraulic Dredges Suitable for Fish Lake



8.0 Disposal/Dewatering Following a thorough analysis of potential disposal and dewatering areas, a site immediately to the south of Mud Lake was selected. The site is of sufficient size to manage the volume of dredged material, it is in close proximity to the lake, and there is cooperation and interest from the landowner.

The site is 12 acres and consists of permeable soils exceptionally well suited for dewatering. The site is currently being farmed and the soils are Tracy sandy loams (TcB -‐ 2-‐6% slopes and TcC2 -‐ 6-‐12% slopes). The Tracy series consists of very deep, well-‐drained soils formed in outwash on outwash plains. The potential for surface runoff is low or medium. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high in the solum and high or very high in the underlying material. Permeability is moderate in the solum and rapid in the underlying material (USDA, 2012). An evaluation of 2014 National Wetlands Inventory data accessed online through the State of Indiana indicates that there are no existing wetlands within the dewatering area.

Two options for sediment disposal and dewatering were evaluated. Geotextile tubes were evaluated as an option, but eliminated due to site constraints (land slope and area). The second option, a series of constructed dewatering basins was selected as the most feasible option based on site constraints and cost. The proposed earthen dewatering pond layout is presented in Figure 27. Upper pond storage area within the perimeter dike is approximately 2.5 acres and 2.3 acres for lower pond. Once sediment is dewatered, soil can be excavated from the upper pond and placed, shaped, stockpiled, or graded elsewhere on site to provide additional sediment storage and dewatering space.

Photo H – Dewatering/Disposal Location Looking East



Figure 27 -‐ Dewatering/Disposal Area

A top of dike elevation of 706 is proposed for the upper pond and 702 for lower pond. The minimum freeboard shall be two feet and an average sediment height for each pond is 8 feet (10 feet total pond depth). Estimated storage capacity is 32,260 cubic yards for upper pond and 29,700 cubic yards for lower pond. Since the underlying on-‐site soils are primarily sandy soils with high permeability, it is anticipated that rapid dewatering will occur while dredging and sediment consolidation will occur until fine-‐grained sediment reduces the infiltration rate as each pond fills up. Since dredging quantities are measured and paid for based on in-‐situ (in-‐lake) measurements, this internal pond dewatering process will allow additional dredged sediment to be stored in each pond prior to cleanout(s). It is anticipated that an 8-‐10 inch dredge and discharge pipe will be used that pumps sediment and water at a rate of 2,500 to 4,000 GPM. Due to the presence of mapped wetlands surrounding the site, it is recommended that dewatering rely on infiltration rather than surface discharge. However, if it is determined that sediment and water inputs exceed infiltration rates, clean, excess water will be routed via an overflow pipe, directly to Mud Lake. Soil tests should be performed prior to dredging to determine infiltration rates; pumping rates can be adjusted to accommodate the rate of infiltration and ability to clean dewatered material from each basin. Furthermore, dredging activities can be staggered to allow for basin cleanouts and better manage sediment and water volume. Figure 28 depicts initial basin design, cut and fill extents.



Figure 28 -‐ Proposed Dewatering Basin Cut/Fill



9.0 Permitting The dredging project requires a Lakes Preservation Act permit from IDNR, Division of Water in accordance with 312 IAC 11 for disturbance to the lake bed beneath the legal lake level. Application materials and instructions are available on the IDNR website at the following address: http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/4945.htm. The permit application and public notice forms are in Appendix F. Staff from IDNR will coordinate as necessary with any other agencies, such as the IDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife and, therefore, the Lake Preservation Act Permit is the only anticipated permit required for this project. A field visit was performed with Doug Nusbaum and Nate Thomas with the IDNR to view proposed dredging areas and discuss limitations such as impacts to emergent plant beds. IDNR comments from this field visit have been incorporated into this plan. The FLCD may complete the application or hire a contractor to do so. Information contained in this plan can be used to complete the permit application. The construction of the dewatering basins will require an Indiana Administrative Code 327 15-‐5, Rule 5 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in according to IDEM specifications and submitted to the La Porte County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) for review. Details about the program are located on the IDEM website at the following address: http://www.in.gov/idem/4902.htm. The dredging contractor or another entity can complete and submit the SWPPP. Approximately 30 days should be allotted to receive approval of the SWPPP after it is submitted to the SWCD for review. The SWPPP will also require a public notice. The SWCD approval notice and proof of public notice must then be submitted to IDEM. Work may commence 48 hours after these materials are submitted to IDEM (Davey Resource Group, 2015). There are no regulated waters above the legal lake level around Fish Lake that will be impacted by this project as proposed and, therefore, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit is not anticipated to be required. The recommended dredging and dewatering approach is intended to eliminate any surface water discharge to mapped wetland areas surrounding the site. If, following the appropriate soil tests and recommended pumping rates, it is determined that excess water cannot be infiltrated on-‐site, it will be treated and piped directly back to Mud Lake and the appropriate permits will be secured.

9.1 IDNR Review A review of the draft Sediment Removal Plan was conducted by staff at the IDNR. Comments received on 7/20/2017 are as follows:

Area 1: Area 1 is located along the south end of Lower Fish Lake towards the outlet and water control structure. Sediment is primarily characterized by sand and organic fines -‐ has accumulated within the area likely over a number of years and water generally flows south. Vegetation decomposition, boating, wind, and waves have also likely contributed to its accumulation.



Though approximately 19ac were identified for dredging, this area has been scaled back to allow for dredging that will remove sediment near the south end of the lake near the outlet and within selected areas that will aid in navigation for nearby homeowners that have seen decreases in water depth over recent years. This “access channel’ methodology is employed throughout various identified dredging area that will allow for improved navigation while minimizing lakebed disturbance and lower overall dredging areas.

Natural Resource Commission (NRC) Information Bulletin #60 provides non-‐rule policy guidance for dredging on Indiana’s Public Freshwater Lakes. As such, it states various reasons for dredging that may be approvable via permitting through the Lakes Preservation Act. The removal of accumulated sediment with the purpose to restore an area to its original condition (as is proposed in Area 1) should be considered approvable. Additionally, the removal of accumulated sediment is areas as to improve navigation should also be considered an approvable activity and is being proposed in a manner that will minimize impacts to the lakebed and surrounding fish and wildlife habitat.

Overall, the Division of Fish and Wildlife clears Area 1 for environmental review. Please note this is not an explicit approval as additional information may be required during the permit application process.

Area 2: Area 2 is characterized primarily by a navigation channel between Upper and Lower Fish Lakes with other portions identified near residentially developed areas to aid in navigation to the main lake bodies. Sediment has been characterized as both low-‐density organic material (north and south) and consolidated/sand (channel). Emergent vegetation was identified in both the north and south portions of the project area and, as such, the scope of dredging was limited in these areas as to only serve to aid in navigation by nearby homeowners. This has resulted in significant scaling-‐down of the dredging areas outside of the navigation channel as requested during an on-‐site meeting.

Similar to Area 1, the proposal to improve navigation within the channel between the lakes and for nearby home owners appears to be approvable via NRC Information Bulletin #60 and is cleared for environmental review. Please note this is not an explicit approval as additional information may be required during the permit application process.

Area 3: Area 3 is the navigation channel between Upper Fish Lake and Mud Lake, including adjacent areas for improving navigation for nearby homeowners. Sediment in the area has been characterized as organic and low-‐density, though areas with sand and higher-‐density sediment are present near shore. Areas within and adjacent to the project site area are characterized by large beds of spatterdock and water lily. Currently, a very narrow channel is being kept open via infrequent boating, resulting in a narrow, nearly unusable channel with very shallow depth. As with other areas, the scope of dredging in Area 3 was significantly diminished per Fish and Wildlife comments. As such, the proposal is now limited to a single boating lane connecting the two lakes. Though disturbance to emergent vegetation is likely to occur, the amount removed should be relatively small compared to the amount present resulting in minor impacts to habitat. Overall, Area 3 is cleared for environmental review for permitting but additional information may be required.

Areas 4 and 5: Areas 4 and 5 are located along the north end of Upper Fish Lake at the inlet deltas of Mill Creek and Fish Creek. The watershed of these tributaries is characterized by highly organic material that has accumulated along this north portion of the lake for decades. Though this has resulted in the establishment of significant beds of emergent vegetation -‐ primarily spatterdock -‐ it has also resulted in significant deposits of



nutrient-‐rich sediment that, if disturbed during rain events, boating, etc., can result in suspension of nitrogen and phosphorus, resulting in algal blooms, nuisance vegetation growth, etc.

NRC Information Bulletin #60 allows for the removal of sediment associated with inlet deltas and generally, dredging in Areas 4 and 5 appears to be approvable. Still, scope of dredging was significant lowered to allow for the minimization of disturbance to emergent vegetation beds. The current proposal to dredge primarily open-‐water areas will result in less removal of fish and wildlife habitat while removing nutrient-‐rich sediment. Overall, Areas 4 and 5 are cleared for environmental review for permitting but additional information may be required.

Area 6: Area 6 is characterized as a dead-‐end, manmade channel on the south end of Mud Lake. Emergent vegetation is common throughout and consisted primarily of spatterdock and white water lily. It contains relatively natural shoreline with herbaceous and woody vegetation. Water depth ranges from 1-‐2.5 ft and sediment depths of up to 9 ft.

NRC Information Bulletin #60 states that dredging may approvable if it aims to, “… Restore original depth in, or conduct incidental dredging associated with the expansion of, a lawful man-‐made channel…” and, as such, the proposal to dredge Area 6 is approvable. In addition, the area to be dredged was modified after consulting with Fish and Wildlife at an onsite meeting to better protect fish and wildlife habitat. Overall, Area 6 is cleared for environmental review for permitting but additional information may be required.

Miscellaneous Comments: The proposed dredged areas were inspected by Division of Fish and Wildlife staff with the LARE project manager, applicant, and consultant on May 25, 2017. Areas proposed to be dredged were recommended to be modified to better protect fish and wildlife habitat. It appears those modification were incorporated into the draft Sediment Removal Plan. Other concerns may arise if state-‐listed flora or fauna have been identified within ½-‐mi of the lake and may result in modified conditions or plans.

10.0 Contractor Selection The FLCD can approach contractor selection and oversight in one of two ways. A member or members of the FLCD or community can oversee the dredging or the FLCD can hire a firm to administer the bidding process, monitor progress, ensure timely completion, complete permitting, and map post-‐dredging contours. Upon completion of sediment removal, a report should be generated that documents post-‐dredge contours and project performance measures.

It is recommended that an invitation to bidders be issued (See Appendix B) that includes specific information regarding dredging locations and volumes, disposal location, permits, and bid return deadlines. It is anticipated that the FLCD will manage minor permitting elements. In order to reduce costs, the FLCD has selected a local contractor to construct the dewatering basins and manage the disposal of dewatered sediment; the contractor will rent the needed heavy equipment and oversee all aspects of dewatering and disposal. The remainder of associated tasks will be performed by the dredging contractor and an independent consultant.



11.0 Construction Schedule The final schedule and sequence of work is largely dependent on funding availability and deadlines. The FLCD intends to apply for LARE funding to supplement the costs of sediment removal. The deadline to submit LARE grant applications is January 31st each year. Awards are typically announced in March. Dredging projects are limited by IDNR during the fish spawning season between April 1st and June 30th and it is recommended that dredging activities avoid major holidays where residents and visitors are likely to use the lake in large numbers.

If a LARE grant is awarded in March, the FLCD will need to finalize contract agreements immediately to ensure sufficient time for planning and mobilization. The application for a Lake Preservation Act permit should be submitted as soon as possible, ideally by April of 2018. If a Lake Preservation Act permit application is submitted in April 2018, it is realistic to expect that sediment removal can commence as early as October 2018. Based on the volume of sediment to be removed and the capacity of the dewatering basins, a two-‐year dredging timeline is proposed. If dredging commences in October of 2018, it is anticipated that it can be finalized by 2020. A timeline is presented in Table 6.

Table 6 -‐ Project Tasks & Timeline

Period Task Responsible Party January 31 Apply for LARE funding FLCD

March/April Solicit bids from contractors FLCD

April/May Select contractor(s) FLCD

March/April Apply for Lakes Preservation Act Permit (4-‐6 months for permit approval) and SWPP

FLCD/Contractor

May-‐August Prepare dewatering site (Year 1) FLCD

September – December Conduct Dredging and Disposal (2 years) Contractor

Year 3 (spring) Conduct post-‐dredging evaluation Contractor



12.0 Cost Estimates Cost estimates presented on this section are based on a combination of unit costs obtained by potential contractors and professional judgment from similar projects. Costs include multiple elements such as: project management, reporting and oversight, survey, design and data collection, permitting, construction of the dewatering structures, dewatered sediment disposal and grading, permit compliance, erosion control, and hydraulic dredging. A 10% contingency is also applied. The total estimated cost for all dredging and associated components is $2,300,698.95.

Table 7 -‐ Fish Lake Sediment Removal Estimated Costs

Item Unit cost Unit Amount Total cost

Land Rental/Dewatering area $140.00 Acres 20 ac $5,600.00

Dewatering Basin Berm Construction $6.00 CY 31,200 CY $187,200.00 Equipment Rental $1,500.00 Month 12 months $18,000.00

Fuel $3.50 gallon 1,000 gal $3,500.00 Dredge & Pipeline Mobilization N/A Lump Sum $100,000 $100,000.00

Dredging (Over 2 years) $12.00 CY 117,741 CY $1,412,892.00 Excavation, Stockpiling, & Grading $5.00 CY 58,871 CY $294,352.50

Site Erosion Control N/A Lump Sum $10,000 $10,000.00 Permitting, Consulting, & Project Management

N/A Lump Sum $60,000 $60,000.00

Contingency (10%) N/A Lump Sum N/A $209,154.45

Total $2,300,698.95

Cost estimates are also broken down by location as shown in Table 8. Estimated costs per site were calculated by dividing the total estimated cost by the proposed dredging extent.

Table 8 -‐ Sediment Removal Area Cost Breakdown

Area Area Description Amount (CY) Cost 1 Lower Fish Lake 26,933 $720,675.56 2 Channel Upper/Lower Fish Lake 36,656 $797,365.53 3 Access Channel to Mud Lake 8,325 $157,582.12 4 North End Upper Fish Lake 18,644 $283,647.82 5 North End Upper Fish Lake 25,078 $304,658.77 6 South End Mud Lake 2,106 $36,769.16

Total 117,741 $2,300,698.95



References

Ball, Timothy H. 1900. Northwestern Indiana from 1800 to 1900 or A View of Our Region Through the Nineteenth Century. Chicago, Illinois: Donohue and Henneberry

Crisman, Thomas. 1990. A Final Feasibility Report Submitted to Fish Lake Property Owners Association.

Davey Resource Group, 2015. Lakes James Sediment Removal Plan

J.F. New & Associates, Inc. 1992. Fish Lake Feasibility Study. Walkerton, Indiana

United States Department of Agriculture, 2012. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Accessed online at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TRACY.html

Northwater Consulting, 2014. Sediment Sampling & Analysis Report, Fish Lake, Indiana.

Northwater Consulting, 2015. Fish Lake Watershed Diagnostic Study.

Northwater Consulting, 2016. Fish Lake Management Feasibility Study.

APPENDIX A:

Sediment Removal Cross-‐Sections & Expanded Sediment Removal Volumes

Fish Lake

Sediment Removal Cross-Sections

Area 1

A-1.1 – South End

A-1.1 – North End

A-1.2/A-1.3

A-1.4

A-1.5

A-1.6

A-1.7

Area 2

A-2.1 (West Access Channel) & A-2.2 (South End Channel Connecting Upper & Lower Fish Lake)

A 2.2 – Center Channel Connecting Upper & Lower Fish Lake

A 2.2 – North End Channel Connecting Upper & Lower Fish Lake

A-2.3

A-2.4

Area 3

A-3.1 – North End of Channel Connecting Upper Fish Lake & Mud Lake

A-3.1 – Center of Channel Connecting Upper Fish Lake & Mud Lake

A-3.1 – South End of Channel Connecting Upper Fish Lake & Mud Lake

Areas 4 & 5

A-4.1 – Access Channel

A-5.1

Area 6

A-6.1 – North End; Entrance to Channel

A-6.1 – In Channel

Fish Lake

Expanded Volume Estimates

Lake Dredging Location Area in Acres Average Sediment Removal

Thickness (ft.) Estimated Dredging Volume

(CY)

Area 1

A-1.7 0.69 2.87 3,194.9 A-1.6 0.62 2.29 2,290.6 A-1.5 0.68 2.84 3,115.7 A-1.4 0.68 2.54 2,786.5 A-1.3 0.74 2.00 2,387.7 A-1.2 0.65 3.07 3,219.4 A-1.1 2.80 2.20 9,938.1

Subtotal 26,932.9

Area 2

A-2.4 0.79 2.33 2,969.7 A-2.3 1.90 3.83 11,740.2 A-2.2 3.80 2.61 16,001.0 A-2.1 1.10 3.35 5,945.1

Subtotal 36,656.0

Area 3

A-3.1 1.50 3.44 8,324.8 Subtotal 8,324.8

Area 4 A-4.1 2.70 4.28 18,643.6

Subtotal 18,643.6

Area 5

A-5.1 2.90 5.36 25,077.6 Subtotal 25,077.6

Area 6

A-6.1 0.35 3.73 2,106.2 Subtotal 2,106.2 Total Dredging Volume - All Areas 117,741.1

APPENDIX B:

Example Bid Specifications, Landowner Agreement, & Permitting Documents

INVITATION TO BID

Fish Lake Sediment Removal Project

Lincoln Township, LaPorte County, Indiana

Fish Lake Conservancy District (Owner) will receive bid packages until ______ a.m. / p.m. on ________________________________ for the Lake James Sediment Removal Project, as described herein.

Bids shall be submitted on bid documents supplied with the Invitation to Bid. The Owner will open and review bids received after the bid submission deadline. The Sediment Removal Project will be awarded to the responsive and competent bidder with the lowest bid.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following factors will be considered to determine whether a bidder has sufficient competency to complete the project:

1.) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid that conforms in all material respects to the specifications.

2.) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid that complies specifically with the invitation to bid and the instructions to the bidders.

3.) The ability and capacity of the bidder to perform the work. 4.) The integrity, character, and reputation of the bidder. 5.) The competency and relevant experience of the bidder.

RESERVATIONS

1.) The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids. 2.) The Owner reserves the right to waive any formalities or irregularities in the bid process

and the selection process. 3.) The Owner reserves the right to make an award to any firm, which their sole discretion

will provide the best professional services required herein regardless of costs. However, the cost of services will likely be a significant factor in any decision.

Bids will remain unopened until after the submission deadline.

INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS



PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: The plans and specifications to be used in this project are included with the Invitation to Bid. The Owner does not warrant any material estimates provided. Bidders are responsible for visiting the site as necessary to determine material estimates, machinery, and labor needed to complete the project in a timely manner for a fixed bid price.

PRE-BID MEETING: A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held at the project site at ___:___ a.m. / p.m. on __________________, 2015. Bidders are to meet at the public boat ramp at the channel connecting Upper Fish Lake to Lower Fish Lake.

PROPOSALS: Bids are to be submitted on the forms provided.

INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: It is fully the responsibility of bidders to carefully examine and interpret the true meaning of the entirety of the plans and specifications. Any person intending to submit a bid may request clarification to details in the plans and specifications by submitting a written request to the Owner. The Owner reserves the right to not respond to questions.

SUBMITTING QUESTIONS: Questions will be accepted after the pre-bid meeting, but not after __________________. Questions will only be answered during the bidding period. Responses will be made as an addendum and shared with all bidders.

ADDENDA: Any addenda issued during the time of bidding, or forming part of the contract documents given to the bidder for the preparation of a proposal, shall be covered in the proposal and shall be made a part of the proposal. Receipt of each addendum shall be acknowledged and attached to the proposal. No addenda will be issued after _____________________.

CONTRACT AWARD: The Owner will award a contract to the first successful and qualified bidder after ________________; and the contractor will announce the name of the awardee to all bidders within 1 week thereafter.

TIMING OF WORK: After the Owner and contractor enter into a valid contract agreement, the contractor will commence according to the timeline specified in the plans and specifications, or as modified in the contract agreement. Failure to adhere to the project timeline may result in termination of contract without compensation for work conducted up to the time of contract termination.

INSURANCE: The selected contractor(s) shall be required to provide a certificate of insurance to the Owner naming the Owner as the insured. The amount of insurance coverage shall be at least $1,000,000 per incident.

Bidder Form – Page 1 of 3

BIDDER FIXED, LUMP SUM PROPOSAL



Instructions to Bidders: All bidders shall use the Bidder Form and not attach additional material. Inaccurate information or an incomplete Bidder Form may result in rejection of the bid. Completed bids may be submitted by U.S. Mail, FedEx, UPS, or e-mail to: Fish Lake Conservancy District c/o Richard Mangus 1508 Shore Dr. Walkerton, Indiana 46574 Phone: 574-520-0530 E-mail: [email protected] 1.0 BIDDER INFORMATION:

(Type or Print) 1.1 Bidder Name: _____________________________________________________

1.2 Bidder’s Address: __________________________________________________

City: ________________________ State: ______ ZIP: ___________________

1.3 Bidder’s Business Structure (choose one): _____ Individual _____ Partnership _____ Corporation _____ Joint Venture _____ Other: ____________________________

1.4 Bidder’s Federal Tax ID No. or EIN: ___________________________




2.0 BID The undersigned contractor proposes to furnish all necessary labor, equipment, tools, apparatuses, materials, equipment, services, and other necessary supplies, and to perform and fulfill all obligations in strict accordance with and with the time(s) provided in the terms and conditions of Contract Documents for the work selected on the plans and specifications for the Sediment Removal Project including any and all addenda issued for the total sum of: $_______________.00 The Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addenda (if any):

Addendum Number Date

________________ ________________

________________ ________________

________________ ________________

Signed this ________ day of ____________________________, 2015. __________________________________ Bidder/Contractor (Signature) __________________________________ Bidder Name (Print)


Fish Lake

Sediment Removal Project


3.0 BID WORKSHEET AND SPECIFICATIONS – Dredging Contractor

Project Task Description Amount

Task 1 Sediment Removal

Operations

Includes all labor, machinery, and expenses associated with delivery and pickup of machinery necessary to hydraulically or mechanically dredge sediment from the project sites as specified; attending project meetings; utility location coordination; and installation and maintenance of erosion control measures as specified in SWPPP.

4.0 BID WORKSHEET AND SPECIFICATIONS – Consultant

Project Task Description Amount Task 1

Soil analysis & Dewatering Site Survey

& Design

Conduct soil boring and analysis to determine infiltration rates. Conduct site survey and submit designs for dewatering basins.

Task 2 Obtain necessary IDEM

and IDEM permits if required

If required a Section 404 RGP and Individual 401 WQC to be obtained through USACE and IDEM

Task 3 Obtain IDNR Lake

Preservation Act Permit

A Lake Preservation Act Permit shall be obtained through IDNR Division of Water in accordance with 312 IAC 11 for disturbance to a lake bed beneath the legal lake level.

Task 4 “Rule 5” Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP)

Develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit per 327 IAC 15-5.

Task 5 Project Management, Oversight, and Post-Dredging Reporting

Monitor dredging activities. Ensure compliance with permits and SWPP. Oversee disposal and dewatering. Prepare post-dredging report.

AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF

A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT DEWATERING STRUCTURE

This Agreement is made and entered into on this _____ day of _______________, 2017 by and between _________________________ (OWNER) and the Fish Lake Conservancy District (FLCD), a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Indiana. WITNESSETH:

OWNER, in consideration of the rents and covenants contained herein, does hereby enter in this Agreement for the use and maintenance of real property located in _________________ Township, LaPorte County, Indiana, Section 16 & 21, Township 36N , Range 1W; and, more particularly described on the attached plan sheet, attached as Attachment A (herein after referred to as the Property) and does grant FLCD access to said Property for construction and maintenance of a temporary sediment dewatering structure.

WHEREAS, FLCD is a not-for-profit Indiana Corporation which is dedicated to improving the water quality of Fish Lake located in Lincoln Township, LaPorte County, Indiana; and

WHEREAS, FLCD wishes to undertake activities including construction and maintenance

on the Property as part of its dredging project to improve the navigability on Upper and Lower Fish Lake, and the general water quality of the lake; and

WHEREAS, OWNER is in Agreement with FLCD’s desire to conduct the dredging project.

NOW, THEREFORE, OWNER, for themselves, their successors and assigns, and their

administrators, in consideration of the covenants, undertakings, and Agreements hereinafter set forth, and in consideration of the sum of _____________________ and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants FLCD reasonable access to the Property described hereinabove under the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENT PART 1 – ACCESS 1.) REFERENCE. Agreement Part 1 shall refer to the access unto the Property as designated on Attachment A. 2.) TERM. The term shall commence on the day this Agreement is signed by the parties hereto and shall continue until . It is further agreed that this Agreement, or as modified at that time by the parties, shall be renewable by either party upon mutual

Agreement, or as modified at that time by the parties, shall be renewable by either party upon mutual Agreement 60 days prior to the expiration of said Agreement. 3.) USE AND PURPOSE.

a. OWNER grants to FLCD, their agents, and assigns the right to do specific acts on the Property as set out herein, and OWNER retains all rights to the Property, with consideration of those rights granted to FLCD. b. OWNER grants FLCD reasonable right to access the Property for the purpose of construction, maintenance, inspections, and reconstruction of a temporary sediment dewatering structure. c. OWNER grants FLCD access, as delineated specifically on Attachment A, for ingress to and egress from the Property as well as reasonable access on, over, and along the said access easements for the purpose of the construction, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the sediment dewatering structure, provided that FLCD shall give prior notice of their intentions before entering upon the Property. OWNER, for themselves, their heirs, assigns, and administrators, agree that reasonable access shall be maintained, and in the event of construction or building upon the existing access during the term of this Agreement, FLCD shall be so advised of changes and setting out of the alternate access to the Property.

AGREEMENT PART 2 – GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.) MANAGEMENT.

a. OWNER agrees that FLCD and its agents shall be permitted to enter onto the Property with such machinery, materials, and equipment and the personnel and works to operate said machinery and equipment to carry out the intended use of the Property by FLCD, including, the construction, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the temporary sediment dewatering structure. It is agreed that all improvements shall stay with the land. b. OWNER agrees that FLCD shall have the right to take such tests and borings on the Property as FLCD deems necessary to carry out its intended use, and to take photographs of the Property, provided the OWNER is advised of such borings, tests, and photographs, and the necessity of such. c. OWNER limits the rights granted to FLCD as contained herein, and that FLCD may enter onto the Property for the intended use as described, and not for any other use by FLCD and/or its agents, or the general public. d. Rights to the Property shall be retained by the OWNER. Further, OWNER agrees that those activities agreed between the parties will not be interfered with, provided that FLCD has not deviated from said Agreement of intended use without first securing the permission or Agreement from the OWNER.

e. FLCD shall give notice to the OWNER of its intention to enter onto the Property for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, and repair of the temporary sediment dewatering structure, and the eventual decommissioning of the structure. FLCD shall not enter the Property without permission from the OWNER, which permission will not be unreasonably withheld. f. Upon completion of the project, FLCD will retain maintenance rights to the temporary sediment dewatering structure area for the period of the Agreement, although the OWNER may manage and control plant and animal life on the property.

2.) TAXES. Taxes shall be borne by the OWNER, or their successors and/or assigns of the said real estate, and any assessments shall be borne by the same. 3.) CONDEMNATION.

a. The OWNER agrees that if the Property, or any part thereof, shall be taken or condemned for public or quasi-public use or purpose by any competent authority, FLCD shall have the right to defend against such attempted condemnation of the Property or any part thereof. If, in the opinion of LJA, the Property becomes unmanageable or unsuitable for its intended use and purpose as a result of such condemnation, this Agreement may be terminated by FLCD upon 60 days written notice to the OWNER.

4.) LIABILITY/INSURANCE. a. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as imposing any additional liability on the OWNER. FLCD and any contractor employed to complete the work shall name the OWNER as additional insured on FLCD’s liability policy. Prior to the start of construction and throughout the term of the Agreement thereafter, FLCD shall carry a policy of public liability insurance covering all of its activities on the Property. At the request of the OWNER, FLCD and the contractor shall provide the OWNER with a certificate or other evidence that such insurance is in effect. b. FLCD shall be responsible for and shall indemnify and hold the OWNER harmless from any and all costs, including the expense of defending any claim of legal action related to any injury or damage to the project area caused by or resulting from FLCD activities on the Property.

5.) DAMAGES. a. FLCD shall restore all road surfaces owned by the OWNER to their original condition if said surfaces are damaged by equipment and/or machinery used by FLCD and its agents during ingress to and egress from the property. b. Before final completion of the work on said premises, FLCD and its agents shall adequately clean up, replace any structures, and replant the construction site to the original condition or satisfaction of the OWNER, whichever is less. c. This commitment pertains to construction, repair, and maintenance completed by FLCD and its agents on the Property.

6.) EXPENSES. FLCD shall be responsible for all expenses incurred in the construction, repair, inspection, and maintenance of the intended use of the Property by FLCD as set out in Part I of this Agreement. 7.) NO LIEN AGREEMENT. In consideration of the rents and covenants herein contained, FLCD, for itself and for all contractors, laborers, or persons performing labor upon or furnishing materials or machinery for the intended use of the Property set out herein, agree that:

a. No lien shall attach to the Property or the OWNER’s property, or to any structure or other improvement to be constructed on the Property; and b. Any recording of the Agreement is intended solely for the purpose of giving proper notice as provided under IC 32-8-3-1 et seq.; and no lien whatsoever is created against the real estate as the result of the execution or recordation of this Agreement.

8.) TRESPASS. The OWNER grants to FLCD and its contractor(s) permission to enter onto the Property during the normal working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with proper notice, to carry out its intended use as set out herein. All others shall be considered trespassers on the Property unless the party has permission of the OWNER to be on the Property. 9.) DEFAULT.

a. Breach of any covenant herein shall constitute a default under this Agreement. In the event of a default, the defaulting party shall be entitled to 30 days written notice specifying the nature of the default and giving the defaulting party an opportunity to cure the default. If the default is not corrected within 30 days after written notice is received, the injured party may elect to terminate the Agreement. b. If the use intended for the Property is not approved by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the project, FLCD and the OWNER shall each have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the other party. Within 60 days from the date the notice is received by the OWNER, the Agreement shall be null and void.

10.) NOTICE. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be served upon the other party by mail at the address set forth below or at such other address as the parties may hereinafter designate: ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 11.) AGENTS. Where in this instrument rights are given to FLCD or the OWNER, such rights shall also extend to the agents, officers, or employees of the parties. 12.) BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall become effective at the time construction on the Property begins and shall be binding upon the OWNER, their heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, and upon FLCD and any successor organizations.

13.) TITLE. The OWNER hereby represents and warrants that they are owners of the Property covered by this Agreement and that they have the right to enter into this Agreement and to bind themselves and their heirs, successors, assigns, and personal representatives. 14.) This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of Indiana. 15.) Headings are for reference only and do not affect the provisions of this Agreement. 16.) Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural. 17.) This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the parties, all prior negotiations, understandings, and agreements having been merged into it. Amendments to this Agreement shall not be effective unless made in writing and signed by the parties. 18.) In the event FLCD should cease to exist, the Agreement shall be binding up the organization that succeeds the said FLCD, provided that the succeeding organization’s membership consists of property owners of real estate on Fish Lake located in LaPorte County, Indiana. 19.) This Agreement or a Memorandum thereof shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of LaPorte County, Indiana. FLCD shall pay the recording fee. 20.) Any person signing this Agreement in a representative capacity for a party affirms under the penalties for perjury that he or she has the actual authority to sign. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, _________________________, THE OWNER(S), and _________________________, current president of FLCD, have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year above first written with the following signatures. _________________________ OWNER _________________________ Witness: BY: _________________________ President, Fish Lake Conservancy District ________________ Witness:

PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION State Form 42946 (R6 / 2-05)

Approved by the State Board of Accounts, 2005

Mail To: Department of Natural Resources Division of Water 402 West Washington Street, Room W264

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2641

Telephone Number: (317) 232-4160

Toll Free: 1-877-928-3755

Fax Number: (317) 233-4579

www.IN.gov/dnr/water

PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT

1. APPLICANT INFORMATION

Name of Applicant Name of Contact Person

Applicant Mailing Address

Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route City State ZIP Code

Contact Information: Daytime Tele. # ( ) Fax # ( ) E-mail Address

2. AGENT INFORMATION

Name of Agent Name of Contact Person Person

Agent Mailing Address


Contact Information: Daytime Tele. # ( ) Fax # ( ) E-mail Address

3. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION

Name of Property Owner Name of Contact Person Person

Property Owner Mailing Address


Contact Information: Daytime Tele. # ( ) Fax # ( ) E-mail Address . Relationship of applicant to property: Owner Purchaser Lessee Other

4. PUBLIC NOTICE (See Permit Application Assistance Manual) Complete and submit SF # 52086 titled “Adjacent Property Owners Listing - Form N-4: Affirmation of personal service, 1

st class mail service, or certified mail service

5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5.1 Description Narrative: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

Based on the “Permit Application Assistance Manual”, I am submitting this application to perform work under:

Permit Type Application

Fee Permit Type Application Fee

IC 14-26-2 Lake Preservation Act $ 100.00 IC 14-29-3 Sand and Gravel Permits Act $ 50.00

IC 14-26-5 Lowering of the Ten Acre Lake Act $ 25.00 IC 14-29-4 Construction of Channels Act $ 100.00

IC 14-29-1 Navigable Waterways Act No Fee

$ 200.00

$ 50.00

IC 14-28-1 Flood Control Act, (select one of the following:) Excavation, fill, or non-residential construction in a floodway

Residential reconstruction in a floodway, other than the Ohio River floodway

Residential construction, or reconstruction, in the Ohio River floodway $ 10.00

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. PROJECT LOCATION

6-1 Location Narrative: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual) Stream/Lake Name:

6-2 Driving Directions: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

6-3 Special Information: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

6-4 Project Location Map: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

6-5 Project Site Map: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

7. DISTURBED AREA DRAWING

7-1 Drawing Requirements: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

8. PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

8-1 Images: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

8-2 Photo Orientation Map: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

8-3 Photo Documentation: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

9. RELATED PROJECT INFORMATION

Department of Natural Resources

Administrative Cause # Related Application(s) # Early Coordination #

Floodplain Analysis/Regulatory Assessment # Violation # Exemption #

Department of Environmental Management

Section 401 #

Corps of Engineers

Public Notice # Section 404 Application # Section 10 Application #

10. STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATION

I hereby swear or affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the information submitted herewith is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and

complete. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the project. I hereby grant to the Department of Natural Resources, the right to enter the

above-described location to inspect the work.

Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent (REQUIRED) Date (month, day, year)

11. REGULATORY FEES

11-1 Regulatory Fees Submitted: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

11-3 Payment Method: (See Permit Application Assistance Manual)

REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND PERMITS

Application made to and approval granted by the Department of Natural Resources does not in any way relieve the applicant of the necessity of securing easements or

other property rights, permits and approvals from affected property owners and other local, state, and federal agencies.

4. PUBLIC NOTICE IN CONFORMANCE WITH IC 14-11-4 AND 312 IAC 2-3-3

Property Owner (if not applicant or adjacent landowner)

Address

City State ZIP Code

Personal service was provided on: (date)

1st Class Mail service was provided on: (date). I affirm that 21 days have passed without the mailing returned as undelivered or undeliverable. Attached is PS Form 3817 as proof of mailing.

Certified Mail service was provided on: (date). Attached is PS Form 3811 (green card) as proof of mailing.

Adjacent Property Owner

Address

City State ZIP Code





Address

City State ZIP Code





Address

City State ZIP Code





Address

City State ZIP Code




I hereby swear or affirm, under the penalties of perjury, that the aforementioned statements submitted herewith are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete, and that the property owner(s), and adjoining landowners have been notified of the activity in conformance with the provisions of 312 IAC 2-3-3.

Application Number Signature Date (month, day, year)

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LISTING — Form N4 State Form 52086 (3-05)

Approved by the State Board of Accounts, 2005

Mail To: Department of Natural Resources Division of Water

402 West Washington Street, Room W264

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2641

Telephone Number: (317) 232-4160

Toll Free: 1-877-928-3755

Fax Number: (317) 233-4579

www.IN.gov/dnr/water

APPENDIX C:

Lab Report & 2013 Sediment Report

Friday, October 21, 2016


RE: Fish Lake Dredging Study

Springfield, IL 62704

960 ClocktowerDrive, Suite F

Jeff Boeckler

Christina E. Pierce

Project Manager

Prairie Analytical Systems, Inc. received 3 sample(s) on 10/10/2016 for the analyses presented in

the following report.

All applicable quality control procedures met method specific acceptance criteria unless otherwise

noted.

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior written consent of Prairie

Analytical Systems, Inc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (224) 253-1348.

Respectfully submitted,

TEL: (217) 725-3181

FAX: NA

16J0183PAS WO:

1210 Capital Airport Drive

Certifications: NELAP/NELAC - IL #100323

9114 Virginia Road Suite #112

1.217.753.1152 Fax*1.217.753.1148Springfield, IL 62707 **

1.847.458.0538 Fax1.847.651.2604Lake in the Hills, IL 60156 ***

Page 1 of 10

Prairie Analytical Systems, Inc. 10/21/2016

Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:

Fish Lake Dredging Study

LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183

Date AnalyzedQual DFUnits

STN 1a/1b Lab ID:Client Sample ID:

Collection Date: Matrix:10/8/16 10:15 Solid

LimitResultAnalyses Date Prepared Method Analyst

16J0183-01

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by GC-MS

µg/Kg dry 11860 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Acenaphthene

µg/Kg dry 11020 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Acenaphthylene

µg/Kg dry 11020 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Anthracene

µg/Kg dry 136.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 136.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(b)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 136.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(k)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 179.0 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

µg/Kg dry 136.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)pyrene

µg/Kg dry 1155 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Chrysene

µg/Kg dry 136.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 11020 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 1217 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Fluorene

µg/Kg dry 144.9 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

µg/Kg dry 11020 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Naphthalene

µg/Kg dry 11020 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Phenanthrene

µg/Kg dry 1279 10/11/16 15:20U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Pyrene

Organochlorine Pesticides by GC-ECD

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Aldrin

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-BHC

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*beta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*delta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-BHC

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 1108 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Chlordane (total)

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDD

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDE

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDT

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Dieldrin

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan I

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan II

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan sulfate

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin aldehyde

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin ketone

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor epoxide

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Methoxychlor

µg/Kg dry 171.9 10/20/16 1:05U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Toxaphene

Herbicides by HPLC-MS

µg/Kg dry 188.5 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-D

µg/Kg dry 188.5 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-DB

µg/Kg dry 188.5 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKADalapon

µg/Kg dry 166.4 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 166.4 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dinoseb

µg/Kg dry 188.5 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPA

µg/Kg dry 166.4 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPP

µg/Kg dry 1133 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAPicloram

µg/Kg dry 166.4 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-T

Page 2 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183





16J0183-01

µg/Kg dry 166.4 10/14/16 14:32U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS

mg/Kg dry 21.11 10/12/16 17:00U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6020A CCD*Antimony

mg/Kg dry 20.221 10/12/16 17:00U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6020A CCD*Mercury

mg/Kg dry 21.11 10/12/16 17:00U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6020A CCD*Selenium

mg/Kg dry 21.11 10/12/16 17:00U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6020A CCD*Silver

mg/Kg dry 21.11 10/12/16 17:00U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6020A CCD*Thallium

Metals by ICP

mg/Kg dry 11.11 10/11/16 14:356.91 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Arsenic

mg/Kg dry 105.54 10/11/16 16:08315 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Barium

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:35U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Beryllium

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:35U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Cadmium

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:35U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Chromium

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:358.39 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Copper

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:351.74 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Lead

mg/Kg dry 105.54 10/11/16 16:08588 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Manganese

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:350.627 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Nickel

mg/Kg dry 10.554 10/11/16 14:354.12 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Zinc

Conventional Chemistry Parameters

% 10.100 10/12/16 12:292.05 10/12/16 9:45 ASTM D2974 DMSFractional Organic Carbon

pH Units 10.010 10/11/16 12:507.2 10/11/16 10:03 SW9045C DMS*pH

% 10.100 10/12/16 8:5845.1 10/11/16 10:26 ASTM D2974 DMSPercent Solids

Page 3 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183





16J0183-02





µg/Kg dry 144.6 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 144.6 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(b)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 144.6 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(k)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 195.5 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

µg/Kg dry 144.6 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)pyrene


µg/Kg dry 144.6 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Dibenz(a,h)anthracene



µg/Kg dry 154.3 10/11/16 15:54U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene





µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Aldrin

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-BHC

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*beta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*delta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-BHC

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-Chlordane


µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDD

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDE

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDT

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Dieldrin

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan I

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan II

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan sulfate

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin aldehyde

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin ketone

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor epoxide

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Methoxychlor

µg/Kg dry 188.1 10/20/16 1:27U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Toxaphene


µg/Kg dry 1107 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-D

µg/Kg dry 1107 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-DB

µg/Kg dry 1107 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKADalapon

µg/Kg dry 180.2 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 180.2 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dinoseb

µg/Kg dry 1107 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPA

µg/Kg dry 180.2 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPP


µg/Kg dry 180.2 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-T

Page 4 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183





16J0183-02

µg/Kg dry 180.2 10/18/16 10:48U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP

mg/Kg dry 11.29 10/11/16 14:409.32 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Arsenic

mg/Kg dry 2012.9 10/11/16 16:25268 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Barium







mg/Kg dry 10.645 10/11/16 14:400.796 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Nickel






Page 5 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183





16J0183-03





µg/Kg dry 1238 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 1238 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(b)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 1238 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(k)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 1510 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

µg/Kg dry 1238 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Benzo(a)pyrene


µg/Kg dry 1238 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Dibenz(a,h)anthracene



µg/Kg dry 1290 10/11/16 16:28U 10/10/16 14:38 SW8270C JKA*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene





µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Aldrin

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-BHC

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*beta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*delta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-BHC

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*alpha-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*gamma-Chlordane


µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDD

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDE

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*4,4'-DDT

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Dieldrin

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan I

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan II

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endosulfan sulfate

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin aldehyde

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Endrin ketone

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Heptachlor epoxide

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Methoxychlor

µg/Kg dry 1472 10/20/16 1:48U 10/10/16 14:36 SW8081A AJD*Toxaphene


µg/Kg dry 1569 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-D

µg/Kg dry 1569 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4-DB

µg/Kg dry 1569 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKADalapon

µg/Kg dry 1426 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 1426 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*Dinoseb

µg/Kg dry 1569 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPA

µg/Kg dry 1426 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKAMCPP


µg/Kg dry 1426 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-T

Page 6 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183





16J0183-03

µg/Kg dry 1426 10/14/16 15:41U 10/13/16 10:29 SW8321B JKA*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP

mg/Kg dry 17.04 10/11/16 14:46U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Arsenic

mg/Kg dry 13.52 10/11/16 14:4632.7 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Barium







mg/Kg dry 13.52 10/11/16 14:46U 10/10/16 11:30 SW6010B JTC*Nickel






Page 7 of 10


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

16J0183

Notes and Definitions

S Spike recovery outside acceptance limits.

I Matrix interference.

E Result above quantitation range.

C1 Analyte result confirmed by second analysis.

* NELAC certified compound.

U Analyte not detected (i.e. less than RL or MDL).

Page 8 of 10

960 Clocktower, Dr., Suite F Springfield, IL, 62704 (217) 725‐3181 www.northwaterco.com

February 24, 2014 Richard Mangus Governing Board Member Fish Lake Conservancy District Re: Sediment Sampling & Analysis Results, Fish Lake, Indiana Dear Mr. Mangus: Enclosed, please find the results and analysis of the sediment sampling undertaken by Northwater Consulting at Fish Lake on January 21 and 22, 2014. We trust the provided information services your needs at this time. Please contact us at (217) 725-3181 with any comments or questions once you have had an opportunity to review and consider our findings.

Attachments: Figure 1- Sediment Sampling Locations Appendix A – Laboratory Sampling Results JKA\JB NW File

Sincerely, NORTHWATER CONSULTING

Jeff Boeckler, Principal

Fish Lake Sediment Sampling Report, 2/24/2014 Fish Lake Conservancy District Page 2

Sediment Sampling and Analysis Results for Fish Lake, Indiana

INTRODUCTION Northwater was retained by the Fish Lake Conservancy District to provide professional services to assess whether chemicals of concern are present in the sediment of Fish Lake. Sediment sampling was performed on January 21 and 22 using impact percussion-coring methods. Four locations were identified within the lake for sampling; the locations were chosen by the Conservancy District and discussions with Northwater. At two of the stations (stations 1 & 4), a single core was collected and discrete samples collected at specific depth intervals. At the other stations (2 & 3), three cores were collected at each station and the sediment between 2 – 4 feet depth was mixed together in a clean aluminum tray and composited into one sample to represent each location. Coring was performed during ice-over conditions on the lake; an ice auger was used to core a hole in the ice to access the lake bottom sediments. At each location, two-inch polycarbonate tubes were positioned vertically and pushed into the sediment and driven up to 6-feet into the sediment using a driving cap. The tubes were equipped with a core catcher at the bottom to restrict sediment from escaping during core retrieval. Cores were retrieved either manually or using a winching system. Sediment samples were immediately containerized in laboratory supplied 4 oz glass jars, labeled and placed in a cooler. A total of eight (8) samples were collected and submitted for laboratory testing to provide a representative chemical characterization of the Fish Lake sediment. The sediment samples were analyzed at an accredited laboratory for pesticides, herbicides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), total organic carbon, pH and metals (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Zinc). Three of the samples were analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria. The sampling results were compared against the residential direct contact screening standards of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Risk Integrated System of Closure (RISC). The purpose of the comparison to RISC screening standards is to provide a reference; they are not regulatory standards for lake sediment but would be applicable if the sediment were used for topsoil in a residential development. Below is a summary of the analytical results from the eight (8) sediment samples:

PAHs/PNAs – No PAH’s were detected in the lake sediment samples. Pesticides/Herbicides – None were detected in the lake sediment samples. Metals – Arsenic was the only inorganic compound that exceeded IDEM RISC

objectives. o 6 of 8 samples exceeded Residential Direct Contact Screening Levels o 3 of 8 samples exceeded Construction Worker Direct Contact Screening Levels

Percentage solids ranged from 22.3 - 68.6% and Fractional Organic Carbon (FOC) ranged from 1.51% to 11.5%. The sediment samples with greater organic material have lower percentage solids and higher FOC.

Fecal Coliform bacteria was not detected in the three samples analyzed. The lake sediment shows no signs of environmental impact from anthropogenic sources. The lake sediment is clean when compared to other Indiana lakes in the area. It is very common for PAHs to be present in lake sediment, especially in lakes with urban development in the watershed; Fish Lake is an exception. The detection of some metals, including the Arsenic


exceedences of screening levels is believed to be naturally occurring and consistent with background concentrations in Indiana. Illinois has accounted for background concentrations in their screening levels; none of the samples exceed the comparable Illinois standards. The arsenic would need to be addressed should the sediment be used as residential soil however; a background-related comparison would likely suffice to support the sediments use in a residential situation. The coring results for Fish Lake indicate the lake has an unhealthy benthos ecosystem; with significant organic sediment accumulation. Based on our observations, we hypothesize the accumulation occurs due to the high density of aquatic vegetation combined with an insufficient ecosystem of aerobic organisms to break down the organic sediment. This type of situation is most commonly attributed to oxygen issues in the lake water column, especially at night when plants uptake oxygen and deplete the oxygen reserves needed for a healthy benthic environment with aerobic organisms. It is important to note that this is solely a hypothesis and we did not perform a study to develop this opinion. Dredging is not a solution to address the issue. The unconsolidated nature of organic lake sediment (muck) makes dredging ineffective because newly created voids are quickly filled in by the muck which is largely viscous with up to 80% of its mass as water (20% is solid material) in this Lake. Dredging is typically effective for inorganic lake sediment with less than 50% water percentage by mass. Such an issue is potentially addressed by aeration and the possible introduction of aerobic organisms into the sediment (much like in a wastewater treatment facility). Northwater has recommendations to execute a pilot study, which will be discussed directly with the Conservancy District. ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY Detected contaminate concentrations were compared to the IDEM RISC Soil Screening Standards for Residential, Direct Contact: 2014. The following summary of analytical results focuses on the four (4) stations that were assessed on Fish Lake (Figure 1). Station 1-(sample prefix STN1; southern portion of Lower Fish Lake)

Sediment samples collected at 2, 4 and 4.5-foot depth intervals of core; the core hit

refusal at 4.5 feet: hard gray glacio-lacustrine deposits (paleo-glacial lake deposits).

There was less than 2-feet of organic sediment (muck), which was underlain by Fish Lake deposited sediment, mostly deposited by waves. At the 3.5-foot depth, it appeared to be the original soil/wetland horizon before the lake was created. Beneath this layer at 4.5-feet was native glacio-lacustrine deposits; this location was formerly a glacial lake when the Wisconsin glaciation was retreating.

PAHs/PNAs were not detected at any depth interval. Pesticides and herbicides were not detected at any depth interval.

Arsenic was the only metal that was detected which exceeded IDEM RISC screening

for residential direct contact (6.21 mg/kg detected at 2-feet: 5.5 mg/kg RISC level). This exceedence did not occur at 4 and 4.5 feet.


Figure 1 – Fish Lake Sample Locations


Station 2-(sample prefix STN2; northern portion of Lower Fish Lake) Three cores collected and sediment from 2 – 4’ at each core composited together into

one sample.

The entire core was predominantly organic sediment (muck), with very thin lenses of sediment and sand spaced every 4 - 7 centimeters. Due to the regular spacing of the sediment/sand, we believe these layers represent the annual spring runoff season. As a result, it appears that recently there have been 4 - 7 centimeters of organic accumulation per year.

PAHs/PNAs were not detected. Pesticides and herbicides were not detected.


for residential direct contact (20.7 mg/kg detected at 2-4 feet: 5.5 mg/kg RISC level).

Fecal Coliform bacteria were not detected in the sediment. Station 3-(sample prefix STN3; In Upper Fish Lake at Mud Lake)

Three cores collected and sediment from 2 – 4’ at each core composited together into

one sample.

The entire core was predominantly organic sediment (muck) up to 6-feet in depth.



for residential direct contact (8.91 mg/kg detected at 2-4 feet: 5.5 mg/kg RISC level).

Fecal Coliform bacteria were not detected in the sediment. Station 4-(sample prefix STN4; at mouth of Spring Creek in Fish Lake)

Sediment samples collected at 2, 4 and 6-foot depth intervals of core.

The entire core was organic sediment (muck), with thin layers of sediment and sand

spaced every 1 - 3 centimeters. Due to the regular spacing of the sediment/sand, we believe these layers represent the annual spring runoff season. As a result, it appears that recently there have been 1 - 3 centimeters of organic muck accumulation per year.



for residential direct contact (5.5 mg/kg RISC level).


o 17.2 mg/kg at 2-feet o 14.0 mg/kg at 4-feet o 19.8 mg/kg at 6-feet


APPENDIX A Sample Results

Wednesday, February 5, 2014


RE: Fish Lake Sediment / Fish Lake, IN

Springfield, IL 62704

2921 Greenbriar, Suite E

Jeff Boeckler

Michael D. Brophy

Project Manager

Prairie Analytical Systems, Inc. received 8 sample(s) on 1/22/2014 for the analyses presented in

the following report.

All applicable quality control procedures met method specific acceptance criteria unless

otherwise noted.

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the prior written consent of Prairie

Analytical Systems, Inc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (217) 753-1148.

Respectfully submitted,

TEL: (217) 725-3181

FAX: NA

14A0307PAS WO:

1210 Capital Airport Drive

Certifications: NELAP/NELAC - IL #100323

9114 Virginia Road Suite #112

1.217.753.1152 Fax*1.217.753.1148Springfield, IL 62707 **

1.847.458.0538 Fax1.847.651.2604Lake in the Hills, IL 60156* * *

Page 1 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:

Fish Lake Sediment / Fish Lake, IN

LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307


STN 1 2' Lab ID:Client Sample ID:



14A0307-01


µg/Kg dry 11440 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Acenaphthene

µg/Kg dry 1794 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Acenaphthylene

µg/Kg dry 1794 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Anthracene

µg/Kg dry 128.6 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(a)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 128.6 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(b)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 128.6 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(k)fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 161.3 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

µg/Kg dry 128.6 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(a)pyrene

µg/Kg dry 1120 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Chrysene

µg/Kg dry 128.6 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

µg/Kg dry 1794 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Fluoranthene

µg/Kg dry 1168 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Fluorene

µg/Kg dry 134.9 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

µg/Kg dry 1794 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Naphthalene

µg/Kg dry 1794 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Phenanthrene

µg/Kg dry 1216 1/24/14 19:41U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Pyrene


µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Aldrin

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*alpha-BHC

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*beta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*delta-BHC

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*gamma-BHC

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*alpha-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*gamma-Chlordane

µg/Kg dry 5422 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Chlordane (total)

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*4,4'-DDD

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*4,4'-DDE

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*4,4'-DDT

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Dieldrin

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endosulfan I

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endosulfan II

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endosulfan sulfate

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endrin

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endrin aldehyde

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Endrin ketone

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Heptachlor

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Heptachlor epoxide

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Methoxychlor

µg/Kg dry 5281 1/27/14 12:34U 1/22/14 15:18 SW 8081A AJD*Toxaphene


µg/Kg dry 2134 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4-D

µg/Kg dry 2134 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4-DB

µg/Kg dry 2134 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEDalapon

µg/Kg dry 2101 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 2101 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dinoseb

µg/Kg dry 2134 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEMCPA

Page 2 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-01

µg/Kg dry 2101 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEMCPP

µg/Kg dry 2201 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEPicloram

µg/Kg dry 2101 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-T

µg/Kg dry 2101 2/1/14 2:45U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS

mg/Kg dry 20.853 1/27/14 9:20U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6020A JTC*Antimony

mg/Kg dry 20.171 1/27/14 9:20U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6020A JTC*Mercury

mg/Kg dry 20.853 1/27/14 9:20U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6020A JTC*Selenium

mg/Kg dry 20.853 1/27/14 9:20U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6020A JTC*Silver

mg/Kg dry 20.853 1/27/14 9:20U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6020A JTC*Thallium

Metals by ICP

mg/Kg dry 10.853 1/23/14 18:046.21 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Arsenic

mg/Kg dry 104.27 1/23/14 20:16105 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Barium

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:04U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Beryllium

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:04U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Cadmium

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:041.02 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Chromium

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:049.09 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Copper

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:041.69 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Lead

mg/Kg dry 104.27 1/23/14 20:16259 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Manganese

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:040.992 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Nickel

mg/Kg dry 10.427 1/23/14 18:046.41 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Zinc


% 10.100 1/24/14 15:411.94 1/24/14 11:19 ASTM D2974 CCDFractional Organic Carbon

pH Units 10.010 1/24/14 15:257.6 1/24/14 9:20 SW 9045C JLS*pH

% 10.100 1/27/14 15:0058.0 1/27/14 10:20 ASTM D2974 JLSPercent Solids

Page 3 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-02













































µg/Kg dry 286.7 2/1/14 3:19U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 286.7 2/1/14 3:19U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dinoseb


Page 4 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-02

µg/Kg dry 286.7 2/1/14 3:19U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEMCPP


µg/Kg dry 286.7 2/1/14 3:19U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-T

µg/Kg dry 286.7 2/1/14 3:19U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP


mg/Kg dry 10.360 1/23/14 18:0912.1 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Barium






mg/Kg dry 10.360 1/23/14 18:0956.4 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Manganese







Page 5 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307


STN 1 4.5' Lab ID:Client Sample ID:



14A0307-03













































µg/Kg dry 288.7 2/1/14 5:01U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dicamba

µg/Kg dry 288.7 2/1/14 5:01U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*Dinoseb


Page 6 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307


STN 1 4.5' Lab ID:Client Sample ID:



14A0307-03

µg/Kg dry 288.7 2/1/14 5:01U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTEMCPP


µg/Kg dry 288.7 2/1/14 5:01U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-T

µg/Kg dry 288.7 2/1/14 5:01U 1/23/14 13:27 SW 8321B SYSTE*2,4,5-TP

Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP


mg/Kg dry 103.74 1/23/14 20:2685.2 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Barium













Page 7 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307


STN2 2-4' Lab ID:Client Sample ID:



14A0307-04








µg/Kg dry 1159 1/24/14 21:15U 1/22/14 15:07 SW 8270C JKA*Benzo(g,h,i)perylene








































Page 8 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-04





Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP















Microbiological Parameters

CFU/g dry 100448 1/23/14 15:45U 1/22/14 15:00 SM 9222D (M) JLS*Fecal Coliform

Page 9 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-05
















































Page 10 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-05





Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP





mg/Kg dry 10.730 1/23/14 18:24U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Chromium












Page 11 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307


STN4 2' Lab ID:Client Sample ID:



14A0307-06
















































Page 12 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-06





Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP

















Page 13 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-07
















































Page 14 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-07





Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP







mg/Kg dry 10.957 1/23/14 18:40U 1/23/14 12:57 SW 6010B JHN*Lead








Page 15 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-08
















































Page 16 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307





14A0307-08





Metals by ICP-MS






Metals by ICP















Page 17 of 19


Client:

Project: Lab Order:


Date:


LABORATORY RESULTS

14A0307

Notes and Definitions

S1 Analyte exceeds the laboratory control sample acceptance criteria, but there is no observable concentration in the sample.

S Spike recovery outside acceptance limits.

R RPD outside acceptance limits.

I Matrix interference.

E Result above quantitation range.

C1 Analyte result confirmed by second analysis.

* NELAC certified compound.

U Analyte not detected (i.e. less than RL or MDL).

Page 18 of 19