The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-06-15 Drainage Report 3961 Perry Boulevard Civil Engineering Drainage 3961 Perry Boulevard • Whitestown, IN 46075 • Phone: (317) 769 - 6922 eering • Land Planning • Development Consultants for Muehlenbein Home Site 126th Street West of Town Road Carmel, Indiana 46032 Prepared: January 14, 2015 Revised: March 10, 2015 Revised: June 15, 2015 Drainage Analysis Prepared for Karen Meuhlenbein 8616 Bay Colony Drive Indianapolis, IN 46324 6922 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 5 ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE RATE CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6 STORM WATER RETENTION ................................................................................................................................... 6 STORM WATER DISCHARGE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 7 APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 8 EXHIBIT A-1: EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE BASINS .................................................................................................................... 9 ADICPR EXISTING NODE DIAGRAM.................................................................................................................................. 11 ADICPR EXISTING MODEL INPUT DATA ............................................................................................................................ 13 ADICPR EXISTING BASIN MAXIMUM REPORT .................................................................................................................... 17 TR-55 REPORT FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 19 SOILS MAPPING ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX B – PROPOSED STORM WATER DETENTION ........................................................................................ 41 EXHIBIT B-1: PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS ....................................................................................................................... 42 ADICPR PROPOSED NODE DIAGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 44 ADICPR PROPOSED INPUT DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 46 ADICPR PROPOSED NODE MAXIMUM REPORT .................................................................................................................. 54 EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR ........................................................................................................................................ 56 TR-55 REPORT FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX C – WETLAND REPORT ........................................................................................................................ 61 Page 2 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Introduction The Meuhlenbein home site is proposed for an approximately 38 undeveloped parcel located west of Towne Road along the south side of 126th Street. It abuts Laurel Lakes Subdivision to the east, soccer fields to the west and West Park to the south. The southern 10 acres of the site is heavily wooded. The remainder of the site is farm field. A single family residence, storage barn and private pond are proposed to be constructed in the wooded area. Page 3 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Figure 1: Project vicinity map. Page 4 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Existing Conditions The site is currently heavily wooded and vacant. There are five onsite basins and two offsite basins for this site. The “Northwest” basin sheet flows to the northwest corner of the site and along the existing soccer fields adjacent to West Clay Elementary School. The “North Offsite” basin sheet flows east to the “West” basin which also sheet flows to the existing soccer fields along the west property line. The “Northeast” basin sheet flows to an existing beehive inlet located at the northwest corner of Lot 12 in the Laurel Lakes Subdivision, Section 1 where it is conveyed to an existing detention pond. The “South Offsite” basin sheet flows east to the “South” basin. The “South” basin sheet flows to the east and into an apparent storm inlet located at the southwest corner of Lot 8 in the Laurel Lakes Subdivision, Section 1 where it is conveyed to an existing detention pond. The “Southeast” basin sheet flows to the southeast corner of the site and into a heavily wooded area. Exhibit A-1 shows the limits of these areas and the apparent drainage patterns. Proposed Conditions Storm Water Retention Storm water retention will be provided by a private wet bottom detention pond to be constructed in the “Northeast” basin. The pond will outlet to an existing beehive inlet located at the northwest corner Lot 12 in the Laurel Lakes Subdivision, Section 1, which is the existing outlet point for basin “Northeast” and then through a series of storm pipes to the existing detention pond for Laurel Lakes, Section 1. The “Northeast” basin will sheet flow to the proposed pond. Runoff from the “West-B” basin will overtop a naturally occurring weir and into the “West-A” basin where it will sheet flow to the west as is does in its existing condition. The “South” basin will be reduced in size slightly but will continue to drain to the east as is does in its existing condition. The “Northwest” and Southeast” basins will remain unchanged. Storm Sewer Design No storm sewers are proposed as a part of this project. Water Quality The disturbed area of the site will be less than 5 acres. Therefore Water Quality is not required. Page 5 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Allowable discharge rate calculations City of Carmel Allowable Storm Water Discharge Rates 10 Year 24 Hour Storm Event 0.1 cubic feet per acre 100 Year 24 Hour Storm Event 0.3 cubic feet per acre Figure 2: City of Carmel allowable discharge rates. Discharge to existing storm sewer “Northeast” basin Ten Year Storm Event Allowable Discharge Rate Calculation 0.1 cfs/ac × 2.30 ac. = 0.23 cfs One Hundred Year Storm Event Allowable Discharge Rate Calculation 0.3 cfs/ac × 2.30 ac. = 0.69 cfs Storm Water Retention An AdICPR Model was developed to examine the effects of the proposed development. The model includes the proposed pond, outlet pipe and existing storm sewer at Lot 12 of Laurel Lakes Subdivision in basin “Northeast”. As demonstrated in the chart below the discharge from the pond exceeds the allowable release rate. The 12” outlet pipe from the pond will have a restrictor plate with a 6” diameter opening placed over the end of the pipe. A naturally occurring weir separates the proposed basins “West A” and West B”. The remaining basins were also modeled to demonstrate that the development will have little to no impact. There is a slight increase in runoff for the “South” basin. Due to the length the runoff must travel, and the terrain, it is unlikely that this increase will have an adverse effect on the adjoining properties. Page 6 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants The chart below summarizes the storm water runoff to each of the basins. Figure 3: Discharge Summary Storm Water Discharge Summary 10-Year Storm Event Basin Discharge Existing/Allowable Difference Northeast 0.33 cfs 2.49/0.23 cfs (Allowable) +0.10 cfs Northwest 1.37 cfs 1.37 cfs (Existing) 0 cfs West A (compare to existing West) 3.90 cfs 4.43 cfs (Existing) -0.53 cfs South (Includes offsite) 4.75 cfs 4.11 cfs (Existing) +0.64 cfs Southeast 0.61 cfs 0.61 cfs (Existing) 0 cfs 100 – Year Storm Event Discharge Existing/Allowable Difference Northeast 0.69 cfs 5.89/0.69 cfs (Allowable) 0 cfs Northwest 3.20 cfs 3.21 (Existing) -0.01 cfs West A (compare to existing West) 8.84 cfs 10.28 cfs (Existing) -1.44 cfs South (Includes offsite) 10.50 cfs 9.61 cfs (Existing) +0.89 cfs Southeast 1.44 cfs 1.44 cfs (Existing) 0 cfs Peak Pond Staging 10-Year Storm Event Basin Peak stage Northeast 901.51 100 – Year Storm Event Basin Peak stage Northeast 902.01 Page 7 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Appendix A – Existing Conditions Exhibit A-1: Existing Drainage Basins AdICPR Existing Node Diagram AdICPR Existing Conditions Model Input Data AdICPR Existing Conditions Basin Maximum Report TR-55 Report for Existing Conditions Soils Mapping Page 8 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Exhibit A-1: Existing Drainage Basins Page 9 of 111 A S H C R O F T P L A C E L O T 8 L O T 9 L O T 1 0 L O T 1 1 L O T 1 2 L A U R E L L A K E S S E C T I O N 1 I N S T . # 9 4 5 2 6 5 9 P . C . 1 , S L 5 1 6 L O T 2 3 L O T 2 2 C R O S S F I E L D S S U B D I V I S I O N I N S T # 8 8 0 5 1 3 5 P B 1 5 , P G 6 9 - 7 4 K A R E N M A R I E V A N D E R F L E E T M U E H L E N B E I N Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Board Instrument #9809801852 A S H C R O F T P L A C E L O T 8 L O T 9 L O T 1 0 L O T 1 1 L O T 1 2 L A U R E L L A K E S S E C T I O N 1 I N S T . # 9 4 5 2 6 5 9 P . C . 1 , S L 5 1 6 L O T 2 3 L O T 2 2 C R O S S F I E L D S S U B D I V I S I O N I N S T # 8 8 0 5 1 3 5 P B 1 5 , P G 6 9 - 7 4 K A R E N M A R I E V A N D E R F L E E T M U E H L E N B E I N Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Board Instrument #9809801852 P a g e 1 0 o f 1 1 1 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Existing Node Diagram Page 11 of 111 In t e r c o n n e c t e d C h a n n e l a n d P o n d R o u t i n g M o d e l ( I C P R ) © 2 0 0 2 S t r e a m l i n e T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . Mu e h l e n b e i n H o m e s i t e - E x i s t i n g No d e D i a g r a m 01 / 1 4 / 1 5 No d e s A S t a g e / A r e a V S t a g e / V o l u m e T T i m e / S t a g e M M a n h o l e Ba s i n s O O v e r l a n d F l o w U S C S U n i t C N S S B U H C N Y S C S U n i t G A Z S B U H G A Li n k s P P i p e W W e i r C C h a n n e l D D r o p S t r u c t u r e B B r i d g e R R a t i n g C u r v e H B r e a c h E P e r c o l a t i o n F F i l t e r X E x f i l T r e n c h A: We s t U: We s t U: No r t h O S A: So u t h e a s t U: So u t h e a s t A: So u t h U: So u t h U: So u t h O S A: No r t h w e s t U: No r t h w e s t A: No r t h e a s t U: No r t h e a s t Page 12 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Existing Conditions Model Input Data Page 13 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Existing Input Report 01/14/15 ========================================================================================== ==== Basins ============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: North OS Node: West Status: Offsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 0.300 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Northeast Node: Northeast Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 44.00 Area(ac): 2.300 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Northwest Node: Northwest Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 33.00 Area(ac): 1.050 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: South Node: South Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 43.00 Area(ac): 3.370 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: South OS Node: South Status: Offsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 0.150 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Southeast Node: Southeast Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 1 of 3Page 14 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Existing Input Report 01/14/15 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 59.00 Area(ac): 0.690 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: West Node: West Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 31.00 Area(ac): 2.690 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ========================================================================================== ==== Nodes =============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: Northeast Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Northwest Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: South Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Southeast Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: West Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ========================================================================================== ==== Hydrology Simulations =============================================================== Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 2 of 3Page 15 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Existing Input Report 01/14/15 ========================================================================================== Name: 100yr Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\100yr.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 6.46 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 30.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10yr Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\10yr.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 3.83 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 30.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 2yr Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\2yr.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 2.66 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 30.000 5.00 ========================================================================================== ==== Routing Simulations ================================================================= ========================================================================================== Name: Hydrology Sim: Filename: Execute: No Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 0.00 Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows: Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 999.000 15.000 Group Run --------------- ----- BASE Yes Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 3 of 3Page 16 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Existing Conditions Basin Maximum Report Page 17 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Existing Basin Max Report 01/14/15 Simulation Basin Group Time Max Flow Max Volume Volume hrs cfs in ft3 100yr North OS BASE 12.02 1.68 4.193 4566 100yr Northeast BASE 12.33 5.89 3.880 32390 100yr Northwest BASE 12.25 3.21 3.878 14780 100yr South BASE 12.33 8.77 3.885 47520 100yr South OS BASE 12.02 0.84 4.193 2283 100yr Southeast BASE 12.50 1.44 3.883 9725 100yr West BASE 12.19 8.60 3.877 37861 10yr North OS BASE 12.02 0.78 1.899 2069 10yr Northeast BASE 12.33 2.49 1.678 14012 10yr Northwest BASE 12.25 1.37 1.677 6393 10yr South BASE 12.33 3.72 1.680 20557 10yr South OS BASE 12.02 0.39 1.899 1034 10yr Southeast BASE 12.50 0.61 1.680 4207 10yr West BASE 12.19 3.65 1.677 16378 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 1 of 1Page 18 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants TR-55 Report for Existing Conditions Page 19 of 111 GJD 14108 Existing Muehlenbein Homesite Hamilton NOAA_A County, Indiana Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time (ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West SHEET 72 0.0305 0.800 0.429 SHALLOW 73 0.0136 0.050 0.011 SHALLOW 363 0.0055 0.050 0.084 Time of Concentration .524 ======== South SHEET 100 0.0224 0.800 0.631 SHALLOW 136 0.0224 0.050 0.016 SHALLOW 422 0.0070 0.050 0.087 Time of Concentration .734 ======== Northwest SHEET 68 0.0176 0.800 0.510 SHALLOW 130 0.0307 0.050 0.013 SHALLOW 134 0.0059 0.050 0.030 Time of Concentration .553 ======== Southeast SHEET 100 0.0098 0.800 0.878 SHALLOW 34 0.0098 0.050 0.006 SHALLOW 313 0.0022 0.050 0.115 Time of Concentration .999 ======== Northeast SHEET 100 0.0200 0.800 0.660 SHALLOW 466 0.0092 0.050 0.084 Time of Concentration .744 ======== North OS SHEET 100 0.0200 0.240 0.252 Time of Concentration .252 ======== South OS SHEET 70 0.0285 0.240 0.164 Time of Concentration .164 ======== WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 1/14/2015 8:33:03 AM Page 20 of 111 GJD 14108 Existing Muehlenbein Homesite Hamilton NOAA_A County, Indiana Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number Group (ac) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West Woods (good) D 2.69 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 2.69 77 ==== == South Woods (good) D 3.37 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 3.37 77 ==== == Northwest Woods (good) D 1.05 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 1.05 77 ==== == Southeast Woods (good) D .69 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .69 77 === == Northeast Woods (good) D 2.52 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 2.52 77 ==== == North OS Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .3 80 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .3 80 == == South OS Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .15 80 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .15 80 === == WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 1/14/2015 8:33:03 AM Page 21 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Soils Mapping Page 22 of 111 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Hamilton County, IndianaNatural Resources Conservation Service December 2, 2014Page 23 of 111 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 Page 24 of 111 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Page 25 of 111 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................7 Soil Map................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................10 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Hamilton County, Indiana................................................................................12 Br—Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes..................................12 CrA—Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes...............13 MmB2—Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded..............................14 References............................................................................................................17 4 Page 26 of 111 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Page 27 of 111 individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 6 Page 28 of 111 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Page 29 of 111 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 2 3 9 0 0 44 2 4 0 0 0 44 2 4 1 0 0 44 2 4 2 0 0 44 2 4 3 0 0 44 2 4 4 0 0 44 2 4 5 0 0 44 2 4 6 0 0 44 2 4 7 0 0 44 2 4 8 0 0 44 2 3 9 0 0 44 2 4 0 0 0 44 2 4 1 0 0 44 2 4 2 0 0 44 2 4 3 0 0 44 2 4 4 0 0 44 2 4 5 0 0 44 2 4 6 0 0 44 2 4 7 0 0 44 2 4 8 0 0 567300 567400 567500 567600 567700 567800 567900 567300 567400 567500 567600 567700 567800 567900 39° 58' 14'' N 86 ° 1 2 ' 4 5 ' ' W 39° 58' 14'' N 86 ° 1 2 ' 1 5 ' ' W 39° 57' 43'' N 86 ° 1 2 ' 4 5 ' ' W 39° 57' 43'' N 86 ° 1 2 ' 1 5 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200Feet 0 50 100 200 300Meters Map Scale: 1:4,690 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Page 30 of 111 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 9, 2014 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 27, 2014—Aug 28, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 9 Page 31 of 111 Map Unit Legend Hamilton County, Indiana (IN057) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 15.7 34.1% CrA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes 29.1 63.1% MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 1.3 2.9% Totals for Area of Interest 46.1 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Page 32 of 111 on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Page 33 of 111 Hamilton County, Indiana Br—Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2t98n Elevation: 600 to 1,260 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Brookston and similar soils: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Brookston Setting Landform: Till plains, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Linear, concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Loess over loamy till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 16 inches: silty clay loam Btg1 - 16 to 32 inches: silty clay loam Btg2 - 32 to 44 inches: loam C - 44 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 40 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Minor Components Crosby Percent of map unit: 5 percent Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Page 34 of 111 Landform: Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear CrA—Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2thy4 Elevation: 600 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 44 inches Mean annual air temperature: 49 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained Map Unit Composition Crosby and similar soils: 93 percent Minor components: 7 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Crosby Setting Landform: Water-lain moraines, ground moraines, recessionial moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, rise Down-slope shape: Linear, convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Silty material or loess over loamy till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Btg - 10 to 17 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt - 17 to 29 inches: clay loam 2BCt - 29 to 36 inches: loam 2Cd - 36 to 79 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately high (0.01 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 55 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Page 35 of 111 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Minor Components Williamstown, eroded Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Water-lain moraines, ground moraines, recessionial moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Nose slope, side slope, crest, head slope, rise Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Linear, convex Treaty, drained Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Water-lain moraines, swales, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, dip Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave MmB2—Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2rkb2 Elevation: 180 to 370 feet Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 180 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Miami, eroded, and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Miami, Eroded Setting Landform: Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Loess over loamy till Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Page 36 of 111 Typical profile Ap - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam Bt - 8 to 13 inches: silty clay loam 2Bt - 13 to 31 inches: clay loam 2BCt - 31 to 36 inches: loam 2Cd - 36 to 79 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately high (0.01 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 45 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Minor Components Williamstown Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Treaty Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification: Mixed/Transitional (Mixed Native Vegetation) Crosby Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Till plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Other vegetative classification: Trees/Timber (Woody Vegetation) Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Page 37 of 111 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Page 38 of 111 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 Page 39 of 111 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Page 40 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Appendix B – Proposed Storm Water Detention Exhibit B-1: Proposed Drainage Basins AdICPR Proposed Node Diagram AdICPR Proposed Input Data AdICPR Proposed Node Maximum Report Emergency Overflow Weir TR-55 Report for Proposed Conditions Page 41 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Exhibit B-1: Proposed Drainage Basins Page 42 of 111 D U R B I N D R I V E W W W A S H C R O F T P L A C E L O T 8 L O T 9 L O T 1 0 L O T 1 1 L O T 1 2 L A U R E L L A K E S S E C T I O N 1 I N S T . # 9 4 5 2 6 5 9 P . C . 1 , S L 5 1 6 L O T 2 3 L O T 2 2 C R O S S F I E L D S S U B D I V I S I O N I N S T # 8 8 0 5 1 3 5 P B 1 5 , P G 6 9 - 7 4 K A R E N M A R I E V A N D E R F L E E T M U E H L E N B E I N Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Board Instrument #9809801852 D U R B I N D R I V E W W W A S H C R O F T P L A C E L O T 8 L O T 9 L O T 1 0 L O T 1 1 L O T 1 2 L A U R E L L A K E S S E C T I O N 1 I N S T . # 9 4 5 2 6 5 9 P . C . 1 , S L 5 1 6 L O T 2 3 L O T 2 2 C R O S S F I E L D S S U B D I V I S I O N I N S T # 8 8 0 5 1 3 5 P B 1 5 , P G 6 9 - 7 4 K A R E N M A R I E V A N D E R F L E E T M U E H L E N B E I N Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Board Instrument #9809801852 P a g e 4 3 o f 1 1 1 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Proposed Node Diagram Page 44 of 111 In t e r c o n n e c t e d C h a n n e l a n d P o n d R o u t i n g M o d e l ( I C P R ) © 2 0 0 2 S t r e a m l i n e T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . Mu e h l e n b e i n H o m e s i t e - P r o p o s e d No d e D i a g r a m 06 / 1 5 / 1 5 No d e s A S t a g e / A r e a V S t a g e / V o l u m e T T i m e / S t a g e M M a n h o l e Ba s i n s O O v e r l a n d F l o w U S C S U n i t C N S S B U H C N Y S C S U n i t G A Z S B U H G A Li n k s P P i p e W W e i r C C h a n n e l D D r o p S t r u c t u r e B B r i d g e R R a t i n g C u r v e H B r e a c h E P e r c o l a t i o n F F i l t e r X E x f i l T r e n c h A: We s t B U: We s t B T: We s t A U: No r t h O S U: We s t A A: So u t h e a s t U: So u t h e a s t A: So u t h U: So u t h U: So u t h O S A: No r t h w e s t U: No r t h w e s t A: No r t h e a s t U: No r t h e a s t M: MA N H O L E 1 0 2 M: Ma n h o l e 1 0 1 T: EX B E E H I V E W: we i r D: PO N D O L P: MH 1 0 2 - E X P: MH 1 0 1 - M H 1 0 2 Page 45 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Proposed Input Data Page 46 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 ========================================================================================== ==== Basins ============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: North OS Node: West A Status: Offsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 0.300 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Northeast Node: Northeast Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 5.00 Area(ac): 2.530 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 88.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Northwest Node: Northwest Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 33.00 Area(ac): 1.050 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: South Node: South Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 36.00 Area(ac): 3.270 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: South OS Node: South Status: Offsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 10.00 Area(ac): 0.150 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 80.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 1 of 7Page 47 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Southeast Node: Southeast Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 59.00 Area(ac): 0.690 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 77.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: West A Node: West A Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 30.00 Area(ac): 0.690 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 79.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: West B Node: West B Status: Onsite Group: BASE Type: SCS Unit Hydrograph CN Unit Hydrograph: Uh484 Peaking Factor: 484.0 Rainfall File: Storm Duration(hrs): 0.00 Rainfall Amount(in): 0.000 Time of Conc(min): 32.00 Area(ac): 1.880 Time Shift(hrs): 0.00 Curve Number: 79.00 Max Allowable Q(cfs): 999999.000 DCIA(%): 0.00 ========================================================================================== ==== Nodes =============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: EX BEEHIVE Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 896.710 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 899.210 Type: Time/Stage Time(hrs) Stage(ft) --------------- --------------- 0.00 896.210 12.00 896.210 24.00 896.210 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Manhole 101 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 899.760 Group: BASE Plunge Factor: 1.00 Warn Stage(ft): 904.600 Type: Manhole, Flat Floor Stage(ft) Area(ac) Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 2 of 7Page 48 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: MANHOLE 102 Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 897.000 Group: BASE Plunge Factor: 1.00 Warn Stage(ft): 902.400 Type: Manhole, Flat Floor Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Northeast Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 901.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 903.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- 901.000 0.7000 902.000 0.7000 903.000 0.7000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Northwest Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: South Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: Southeast Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 0.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 0.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: West A Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 902.300 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 903.000 Type: Time/Stage Time(hrs) Stage(ft) --------------- --------------- 0.00 902.300 24.00 902.300 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 3 of 7Page 49 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: West B Base Flow(cfs): 0.000 Init Stage(ft): 902.000 Group: BASE Warn Stage(ft): 903.000 Type: Stage/Area Stage(ft) Area(ac) --------------- --------------- 902.000 0.0000 902.300 0.1000 ========================================================================================== ==== Pipes =============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: MH 101 - MH 102 From Node: Manhole 101 Length(ft): 149.00 Group: BASE To Node: MANHOLE 102 Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 12.00 12.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.00 Rise(in): 12.00 12.00 Exit Loss Coef: 1.00 Invert(ft): 899.760 897.000 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.013000 0.013000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: MH 102 - EX From Node: MANHOLE 102 Length(ft): 43.00 Group: BASE To Node: EX BEEHIVE Count: 1 Friction Equation: Automatic UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Geometry: Circular Circular Flow: Both Span(in): 12.00 12.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.00 Rise(in): 12.00 12.00 Exit Loss Coef: 1.00 Invert(ft): 897.000 896.200 Bend Loss Coef: 0.00 Manning's N: 0.013000 0.013000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Stabilizer Option: None Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall ========================================================================================== ==== Drop Structures ===================================================================== ========================================================================================== Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 4 of 7Page 50 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 Name: POND OL From Node: Northeast Length(ft): 108.00 Group: BASE To Node: Manhole 101 Count: 1 UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM Friction Equation: Automatic Geometry: Circular Circular Solution Algorithm: Most Restrictive Span(in): 12.00 12.00 Flow: Both Rise(in): 12.00 12.00 Entrance Loss Coef: 0.000 Invert(ft): 901.000 899.760 Exit Loss Coef: 1.000 Manning's N: 0.013000 0.013000 Outlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc or tw Top Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Inlet Ctrl Spec: Use dc Bot Clip(in): 0.000 0.000 Solution Incs: 10 Upstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall Downstream FHWA Inlet Edge Description: Circular Concrete: Square edge w/ headwall *** Weir 1 of 1 for Drop Structure POND OL *** TABLE Count: 1 Bottom Clip(in): 0.000 Type: Vertical: Mavis Top Clip(in): 0.000 Flow: Both Weir Disc Coef: 3.200 Geometry: Circular Orifice Disc Coef: 0.600 Span(in): 6.00 Invert(ft): 901.000 Rise(in): 6.00 Control Elev(ft): 901.000 ========================================================================================== ==== Weirs =============================================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: weir From Node: West B Group: BASE To Node: West A Flow: Both Count: 1 Type: Vertical: Mavis Geometry: Trapezoidal Bottom Width(ft): 26.00 Left Side Slope(h/v): 50.00 Right Side Slope(h/v): 25.00 Invert(ft): 902.300 Control Elevation(ft): 902.300 Struct Opening Dim(ft): 9999.00 TABLE Bottom Clip(ft): 0.000 Top Clip(ft): 0.000 Weir Discharge Coef: 3.200 Orifice Discharge Coef: 0.600 ========================================================================================== ==== Hydrology Simulations =============================================================== ========================================================================================== Name: 100yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\100yr-Prop.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 6.46 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 5 of 7Page 51 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 48.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\10yr-Prop.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 3.83 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 48.000 5.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 2yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\2yr-Prop.R32 Override Defaults: Yes Storm Duration(hrs): 24.00 Rainfall File: Scsii-24 Rainfall Amount(in): 2.66 Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 48.000 5.00 ========================================================================================== ==== Routing Simulations ================================================================= ========================================================================================== Name: 100yr-Prop Hydrology Sim: 100yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\100yr-Prop.I32 Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 48.00 Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows: Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 999.000 15.000 Group Run --------------- ----- BASE Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 10yr-Prop Hydrology Sim: 10yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\10yr-Prop.I32 Execute: Yes Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 6 of 7Page 52 of 111 Muehlenbein Homesite - Proposed Input Report 06/15/15 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 48.00 Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows: Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 999.000 15.000 Group Run --------------- ----- BASE Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: 2yr-Prop Hydrology Sim: 2yr-Prop Filename: I:\Jobs\2014\14108_Muehlenbein Homesite\Drainage\2yr-Prop.I32 Execute: No Restart: No Patch: No Alternative: No Max Delta Z(ft): 1.00 Delta Z Factor: 0.00500 Time Step Optimizer: 10.000 Start Time(hrs): 0.000 End Time(hrs): 48.00 Min Calc Time(sec): 0.5000 Max Calc Time(sec): 60.0000 Boundary Stages: Boundary Flows: Time(hrs) Print Inc(min) --------------- --------------- 999.000 15.000 Group Run --------------- ----- BASE Yes Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (ICPR) ©2002 Streamline Technologies, Inc.Page 7 of 7Page 53 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants AdICPR Proposed Node Maximum Report Page 54 of 111 Mu e h l e n b e i n H o m e s i t e - P r o p o s e d No d e M a x i m u m R e p o r t 06 / 1 5 / 1 5 M a x T i m e M a x W a r n i n g M a x D e l t a M a x S u r f M a x T i m e M a x M a x T i m e M a x N a m e G r o u p S i m u l a t i o n S t a g e S t a g e S t a g e S t a g e A r e a I n f l o w I n f l o w O u t f l o w O u t f l o w h r s f t f t f t f t 2 h r s c f s h r s c f s E X B E E H I V E B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 0 . 0 0 8 9 6 . 2 1 8 9 9 . 2 1 - 0 . 5 0 0 0 3 1 3 . 7 3 0 . 6 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 E X B E E H I V E B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 0 . 0 0 8 9 6 . 2 1 8 9 9 . 2 1 - 0 . 5 0 0 0 3 1 4 . 0 7 0 . 3 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a n h o l e 1 0 1 B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 1 3 . 8 1 9 0 0 . 2 6 9 0 4 . 6 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 5 1 8 5 1 3 . 8 0 0 . 6 9 1 3 . 7 7 0 . 6 9 M a n h o l e 1 0 1 B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 1 4 . 0 3 9 0 0 . 0 9 9 0 4 . 6 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 3 1 8 0 1 4 . 0 5 0 . 3 3 1 4 . 0 3 0 . 3 3 M A N H O L E 1 0 2 B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 1 3 . 7 9 8 9 7 . 5 0 9 0 2 . 4 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 1 3 . 7 7 0 . 6 9 1 3 . 7 3 0 . 6 9 M A N H O L E 1 0 2 B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 1 4 . 0 7 8 9 7 . 3 3 9 0 2 . 4 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 3 1 9 2 1 4 . 0 3 0 . 3 3 1 4 . 0 7 0 . 3 3 N o r t h e a s t B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 1 3 . 8 0 9 0 2 . 0 1 9 0 3 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 8 3 0 4 9 2 1 2 . 0 0 1 7 . 4 3 1 3 . 8 0 0 . 6 9 N o r t h e a s t B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 1 4 . 0 5 9 0 1 . 5 1 9 0 3 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 4 3 0 4 9 2 1 2 . 0 0 9 . 3 3 1 4 . 0 5 0 . 3 3 N o r t h w e s t B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 2 5 . 6 8 1 3 0 . 9 5 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 2 5 3 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 N o r t h w e s t B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 2 5 . 6 7 5 6 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 2 5 1 . 3 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 S o u t h B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 2 5 . 8 4 4 6 0 . 8 5 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 2 5 1 0 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 S o u t h B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 2 5 . 8 3 2 0 8 . 7 5 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 2 5 4 . 7 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 S o u t h e a s t B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 2 6 . 9 3 8 6 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 5 0 1 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 S o u t h e a s t B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 2 6 . 9 2 3 7 . 2 3 0 . 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3 1 2 . 5 0 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 W e s t A B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 0 . 0 0 9 0 2 . 3 0 9 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 . 2 0 8 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 W e s t A B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 0 . 0 0 9 0 2 . 3 0 9 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 . 2 3 3 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 W e s t B B A S E 1 0 0 y r - P r o p 1 2 . 2 5 9 0 2 . 4 6 9 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 9 6 6 2 2 1 2 . 2 5 6 . 0 6 1 2 . 2 5 6 . 0 4 W e s t B B A S E 1 0 y r - P r o p 1 2 . 2 6 9 0 2 . 3 9 9 0 3 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 9 5 7 2 7 1 2 . 2 5 2 . 7 1 1 2 . 2 6 2 . 6 8 In t e r c o n n e c t e d C h a n n e l a n d P o n d R o u t i n g M o d e l ( I C P R ) © 2 0 0 2 S t r e a m l i n e T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . Page 1 of 1 Page 55 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Emergency Overflow Weir Page 56 of 111 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Wednesday, Feb 18 2015 <Name> Trapezoidal Weir Crest = Sharp Bottom Length (ft) = 221.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.30 Compute by:Q vs Depth No. Increments = 10 Highlighted Depth (ft)= 0.10 Q (cfs)= 23.10 Area (sqft)= 22.14 Velocity (ft/s)= 1.04 Top Width (ft)= 221.80 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Depth (ft)Depth (ft)<Name> -0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 Length (ft)Weir W.S.Page 57 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants TR-55 Report for Proposed Conditions Page 58 of 111 GJD 14108 Proposed Muehlenbein Homesite Hamilton NOAA_A County, Indiana Sub-Area Time of Concentration Details Sub-Area Flow Mannings's End Wetted Travel Identifier/ Length Slope n Area Perimeter Velocity Time (ft) (ft/ft) (sq ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West A SHEET 100 0.0357 0.800 0.524 SHALLOW 40 0.0357 0.050 0.004 SHALLOW 55 0.0160 0.050 0.007 Time of Concentration .535 ======== South SHEET 88 0.0397 0.800 0.453 SHALLOW 71 0.0140 0.050 0.010 SHALLOW 604 0.0049 0.050 0.149 Time of Concentration .612 ======== Northwest SHEET 68 0.0176 0.800 0.510 SHALLOW 130 0.0307 0.050 0.013 SHALLOW 134 0.0059 0.050 0.030 Time of Concentration .553 ======== Southeast SHEET 100 0.0098 0.800 0.878 SHALLOW 34 0.0098 0.050 0.006 SHALLOW 313 0.0022 0.050 0.115 Time of Concentration .999 ======== West-B SHEET 72 0.0190 0.800 0.518 SHALLOW 200 0.0153 0.050 0.028 Time of Concentration .546 ======== Northeast Time of Concentration <undef> ======== South OS SHEET 70 0.0285 0.240 0.164 Time of Concentration .164 ======== North OS SHEET 100 0.0200 0.240 0.252 Time of Concentration .252 ======== WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 1/14/2015 8:34:27 AM Page 59 of 111 GJD 14108 Proposed Muehlenbein Homesite Hamilton NOAA_A County, Indiana Sub-Area Land Use and Curve Number Details Sub-Area Hydrologic Sub-Area Curve Identifier Land Use Soil Area Number Group (ac) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West A Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D 1.09 80 Woods (good) D .69 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 1.78 79 ==== == South Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .55 80 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways D .45 98 Woods (good) D 2.27 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 3.27 80 ==== == Northwest Woods (good) D 1.05 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 1.05 77 ==== == Southeast Woods (good) D .69 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .69 77 === == West-B Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .3 80 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways D .13 98 Woods (good) D 1.45 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 1.88 79 ==== == Northeast Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .61 80 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways D 1.18 98 Woods (good) D .74 77 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number 2.53 88 ==== == South OS Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .15 80 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .15 80 === == North OS Open space; grass cover > 75% (good) D .3 80 Total Area / Weighted Curve Number .3 80 == == WinTR-55, Version 1.00.10 Page 1 1/14/2015 8:34:27 AM Page 60 of 111 Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Development Consultants Appendix C – Wetland Report Page 61 of 111 1 126th and Towne Road Supplemental Information PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the construction of a pond, driveway, a home, and a barn for a single-family residence. Two forested wetlands were delineated on the property (Appendix B). Wetland 1 is 0.99 acre and Wetland 2 is 0.38 acre. The construction of the home and landscape grading and installation of riprap and concrete end sections at pipe inlets/outlets would fill 0.08 ac of Wetland 1. Wetland 1 (0.58 ac) would also be impacted by constructing a wall around the impacted area and excavating to convert the forested wetland into a pond. The only equipment access to the wetland will be from the driveway and into the impacted area. The dredging of the wetland will most likely be performed with a track hoe and a dump truck. The fine grading will be performed by either a small bulldozer or skidsteer. There will be a keystone block type wall constructed around the entire pond, which will minimize over excavation. The creation of the pond is not anticipated to impact the remaining area of Wetland 1. Wetland 2 would be minimally be impacted by a ditch that will be dug within the boundary of the wetland (0.013 acre). A pipe, which is outside the wetland will draw water away from the wetland during overflow events. The amount of water diverted should not impact the water level of the wetland. Currently, there is a natural weir to the west of this wetland that will only allow the water to reach a certain level. The plan is to re-direct some of the excess, that would normally overtop the weir, into the newly constructed pond. The spoil will be temporarily stored onsite and will be surrounded by silt fence (see attached erosion control plans). The anticipated duration of construction for the entire project would be 8 months. The following table summarizes the proposed impacts for the project. Minimization/Avoidance The applicant has avoided impacting 0.33 acre of Wetland by reducing the size of the proposed pond. They have also avoided impacts to Wetland 2 by modifying their original plan to construct a pipe within Wetland 2 to provide water to the pond. The current plan will involve the excavation of a ditch, which will only draw water away from the wetland during periods of overflow. Impacts to these wetlands will be minimized by the installation of best management practices (BMPs) as specified in the attached erosion control plans (Appendix A). Mitigation To compensate for Palustrine Forested Wetland impacts resulting from construction activities, the applicant proposes to purchase credits from the Central Indiana Mitigation Bank. The purchase agreement is included in Appendix C of this application. The following table summarizes the proposed mitigation for the construction of the project. Feature Area Delineated Proposed Impact Cubic Yards Fill Cubic Yards Excavation Impact Type Wetland 1 0.99 acres 0.58 acres None 75,794 CY Pond Construction 0.08 acres 770 CY None Grading for Pond and Foundation for House Wetland 2 0.38 acres 0.01 acre 90 CY Ditch TOTAL IMPACT 0.67 acres Feature Impact (acres) Wetland Class Impact Type Ratio Location Wetland 1 0.66 PFO Permanent 1:1 Central Indiana Mitigation Bank Wetland 2 0.01 PFO Permanent 1:1 Central Indiana Mitigation Bank Total Credits Purchased 0.67 Page 62 of 111 2 126th and Towne Road Supplemental Information Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Controls The erosion control plan is included in Appendix A of this application. The applicant will submit a notice of intent to in order to comply with Construction/Land Disturbance Storm Water Permitting (327 IAC 15-5, Rule 5). Best management practices will be maintained in accordance with State rules and regulations. Equipment All construction equipment shall be refueled and maintained on an upland site away from existing streams, drainage ways and wetland areas. Heavy equipment working in wetlands will be placed on mats. Endangered Species No listed species were identified during routine site inspections. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) will be contacted during the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) public notice period to determine if the project will impact endangered or rare species or habitat. The Federally-listed Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) is known to occur in Hamilton County. A qualitative investigation for potential roost trees within the project area was conducted and one potential roost tree was identified within the Study Area (Appendix A, Figure 2). The most important factors considered were whether the tree was dead, stage of decay, presence of peeling bark under which bats might roost, and diameter of trunk. The clearing of trees will occur prior to the start of bat roosting season (March 1, 2015). Historic Properties No cultural resources investigation was conducted at the Project Site. The IDNR, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology will be contacted during the IDEM public notice period to ensure that no known historic properties are located on the Project Site. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archaeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by the RGP, work must be immediately stopped and the Corps immediately notified. The District will initiate the Federal, tribal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Suitable Materials Fill material will consist of clean earthen fill from the excavation of the wetland, concrete, and riprap. Temporary Impacts The construction of the pond and the house will not involve temporary fills. Photo 1. View of potential bat roost tree within the Study Area Page 63 of 111 126th and Towne Road APPENDIX A FIGURES AND DESIGN PLANS Page 64 of 111 L o n g B r a n c h W e l l R u n S p r i n g M i l l R u n C l a y C r e e k E l l i o t C r e e k C e n t e r C r e e k W i l l C r e e k L i o n C r e e k TO W N E R D W 116TH ST DI T C H R D W 136TH ST W 126TH ST HO O V E R R D W MAIN ST W 121ST ST W 131ST ST DOLAN WA Y WE S T O N D R BR O A D S T WINDY KNOLL LN TR A D D S T DU R B I N D R SH E L B O R N E R D FINCHLEY RD BE C K W I T H D R O N Y X D R ST A N D R E W S L N SEDG E M O O R C I R MILANO DR HOMESTRETCH DR HINTOCKS CIR HORSE F E R R Y R D KNI G H T D R CASTLE ROCK DR TRA M L N R O M A B N D M E R C E R S T HALIFAX ST AM U N D S O N D R P R E S T O N T R L STANHOPE ST GWY N M E R E R U N FAIRMOUNT ST DI A M O N D D R HO R B E C K S T ME A R S D R HAYNE ST STEFFEE DR PRESTWICK LN VERDURE LN MILFORD ST DERRY LN C R O S S F I E L D S D R PU T N A M P L BU R K E D R CU P P E R T I N O L N GA T M A N C T SUTTON AVE TH U N D E R B I R D D R PE T T I G R U D R P O N T E L L P L HOPWOOD DR L A R K S P U R L N HA S K E L L P L W L E T T S L N CO P P E R F I E L D D R TA M O S H A N T E R D R LAUREL LAKES BLVD R O Y A L C T PATR I O T C T REG I N A C T ROWLETT PL TO W N E R D DI T C H R D W 116TH ST SH E L B O R N E R D 17 N 3 E 417 N 3 E 5 18 N 3 E 29 18 N 3 E 33 18 N 3 E 32 18 N 3 E 31 18 N 3 E 30 17 N 3 E 6 17 N 3 E 3 18 N 3 E 2 7 18 N 3 E 3 4 18 N 3 E 2118 N 3 E 19 B o o n e C r e e k C l a y C r e e k 18 N 3 E 28 18 N 3 E 20 18 N 3 E 22 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982 www.cardnojfnew.com 126th and Towne RoadSection 401/404 Permit Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc.Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 1: Project Location T h i s m a p a n d a l l d a t a c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a r e s u p p l i e d a s i s w i t h n o w a r r a n t y . C a r d n o , I n c . e x p r e s s l y d i s c l a i m s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d a m a g e s o r l i a b i l i t y f r o m a n y c l a i m s t h a t m a y a r i s e o u t o f t h e u s e o r m i s u s e o f t h i s m a p . I t i s t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e u s e r t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d a t a o n t h i s m a p m e e t s t h e u s e r s n e e d s . T h i s m a p w a s n o t c r e a t e d a s s u r v e y d a t a , n o r s h o u l d i t b e u s e d a s s u c h . I t i s t h e u s e r s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o o b t a i n p r o p e r s u r v e y d a t a , p r e p a r e d b y a l i c e n s e d s u r v e y o r , w h e r e r e q u i r e d b y l a w . ² Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32 Project No.J14z4973.00 N H D W a t e r w a y A r e a o f I n t e r e s t L a n d S u r v e y S e c t i o n s F i l e P a t h : R : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 4 \ 1 4 Z \ 1 4 Z 4 9 7 3 0 0 _ I E & C _ C i t y o f C a r m e l W e t l a n d D e l i n a t i o n \ G I S \ M X D \ P e r m i t \ F 1 _ L o c a t i o n _ N W I . m x d D a t e R e v i s e d : 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 B a s e m a p : S o u r c e s : E s r i , D e L o r m e , N A V T E Q , U S G S , I n t e r m a p , i P C , N R C A N , E s r i J a p a n , M E T I , E s r i C h i n a ( H o n g K o n g ) , E s r i ( T h a i l a n d ) , T o m T o m , 2 0 1 3 , C o p y r i g h t : © 2 0 1 3 N a t i o n a l G e o g r a p h i c S o c i e t y , i - c u b e d D a t e C r e a t e d : 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 5 S a v e d B y : t a m a r a . m i l l e r H A M I L T O N T I P T O N M A R I O N B O O N E M A D I S O N H A N C O C K C L I N T O N Area ofInterest 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet 0 200 400 600 Meters Page 65 of 111 ") wl01 0.988 ac wl02 0.38 ac 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982 www.cardnojfnew.com 126th and Towne Road Section 404/401 PermitInnovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 2: Existing Conditions - Aerial View T h i s m a p a n d a l l d a t a c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a r e s u p p l i e d a s i s w i t h n o w a r r a n t y . C a r d n o , I n c . e x p r e s s l y d i s c l a i m s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d a m a g e s o r l i a b i l i t y f r o m a n y c l a i m s t h a t m a y a r i s e o u t o f t h e u s e o r m i s u s e o f t h i s m a p . I t i s t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e u s e r t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d a t a o n t h i s m a p m e e t s t h e u s e r s n e e d s . T h i s m a p w a s n o t c r e a t e d a s s u r v e y d a t a , n o r s h o u l d i t b e u s e d a s s u c h . I t i s t h e u s e r s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o o b t a i n p r o p e r s u r v e y d a t a , p r e p a r e d b y a l i c e n s e d s u r v e y o r , w h e r e r e q u i r e d b y l a w . ² Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32 Project No.J14z4973.00 ") P o t e n t i a l B a t R o o s t T r e e A r e a o f I n t e r e s t D e l i n e a t e d W e t l a n d F i l e P a t h : R : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 4 \ 1 4 Z \ 1 4 Z 4 9 7 3 0 0 _ I E & C _ C i t y o f C a r m e l W e t l a n d D e l i n a t i o n \ G I S \ M X D \ P e r m i t \ F 4 _ D e l i n e a t i o n . m x d D a t e R e v i s e d : 2 / 2 / 2 0 1 5 B a s e m a p : S o u r c e : E s r i , D i g i t a l G l o b e , G e o E y e , i - c u b e d , E a r t h s t a r G e o g r a p h i c s , C N E S / A i r b u s D S , U S D A , U S G S , A E X , G e t m a p p i n g , A e r o g r i d , I G N , I G P , s w i s s t o p o , a n d t h e G I S U s e r C o m m u n i t y , E s r i , H E R E , D e L o r m e , M a p m y I n d i a , © O p e n S t r e e t M a p c o n t r i b u t o r s D a t e C r e a t e d : 2 / 2 / 2 0 1 5 S a v e d B y : t a m a r a . m i l l e r 0 50 100 150 200 25025 Feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Meters Page 66 of 111 ² Data Sources: Date Created: 1/26/2015 Date Revised: 1/26/2015 File Path: R:\Projects\14\14Z\14Z497300_IE&C_CityofCarmelWetlandDelination\CAD\14108_BS_modified.dwg CAD Analyst: Alex.salmins This map and all data contained within aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc.expressly disclaims responsibility for damages orliability from any claims that may arise out of theuse or misuse of this map. It is the soleresponsibility of the user to determine if the data onthis map meets the XVHU¶V needs. This map wasnot created as survey data, nor should it be usedas such. It is the XVHU¶V responsibility to obtainproper survey data, prepared by a licensedsurveyor, where required by law. Figure 3: Proposed Impacts 126th & Towne Road Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Hamilton County, IN 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardnojfnew.com Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32Project No. J14Z497300 0 75 150 Feet Wetland 1: 0.66 Acre Impact Wetland 2: 0.01 Acre Impact Page 67 of 111 Page 68 of 111 Page 69 of 111 Page 70 of 111 Page 71 of 111 Page 72 of 111 Page 73 of 111 126th and Towne Road APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM AND REGULATED WATERS REPORT Page 74 of 111 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): Date B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: Tammy Miller Cardno 3901 Industrial Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46254 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: Indiana County: Hamilton City: Carmel Center coordinates of site: Latitude and Longitude (NAD 83): Latitude: 39.963871 North, Longitude: 86.208500 West Authority: Section 404 Section 10 Name of nearest waterbody: Long Branch Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 0 linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Cowardin Class: Stream Flow: Wetlands: 1.37 acres. Cowardin Class: Palustrine Forested Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters: Tidal: N/A Non-Tidal: N/A E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Date Field Determination. Date(s): December 11, 2014 Page 75 of 111 -2- 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time. 2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre- construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. §331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This preliminary JD finds that there “may be” waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: Page 76 of 111 -3- SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply) - checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Cardno JFNew, June 2014 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Click here to enter text. Corps navigable waters’ study: Click here to enter text. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: Click here to enter text. USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 - Carmel USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Hamilton County National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: same as USGS State/Local wetland inventory map(s): Click here to enter text. FEMA/FIRM maps: Click here to enter text. 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: Click here to enter text. (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ESRI World imagery, 10/4/2011 or Other (Name & Date): See attached site photographs Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Click here to enter text. Applicable/supporting case law: Click here to enter text. Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Click here to enter text. Other information (please specify): Click here to enter text. IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations. Signature and date of Regulatory Project Manager (REQUIRED) Signature and date of person requesting preliminary JD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable) Page 77 of 111 -4- Site Number Latitude/ Northing Longitude/ Easting Cowardin Class/ Stream Flow Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource Wetland 1 39.964392 -86.207948 PFO 0.99 acre Section 404 Wetland 2 39.963772 -86.209092 PFO 0.38 acre Section 404 Page 78 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana December 15, 2014 Page 79 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Document Information Prepared for Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Client Contact Greg Dempsey Project Name City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Project Number Cardno JFNew #J14Z497300 Project Manager Marc Woernle Date December 15, 2014 Prepared for: Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc. 755 West Carmel Drive, Suite 207, Carmel, IN 46032 Prepared by: Cardno JFNew 3901 Industrial Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46254 Page 80 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew i Table of Contents 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Regulatory Definitions..................................................................................................... 1 3 Background Information.................................................................................................. 5 4 Site Investigation and Description.................................................................................. 6 5 Jurisdictional Analysis .................................................................................................... 8 6 Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................... 9 7 References......................................................................................................................11 Appendices Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Wetland Determination Data Sheets – Midwest Region Tables Table 3-1 Soil Types Within the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Study Area.............................. 5 Table 6-1 Features Identified within the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation study area................... 9 Figures Figure 1 Project Location and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Figure 2 NWI Key Figure 3 Soil Survey Figure 4 Delineation Acronyms BF Bank Full CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DBH Diameter at Breast Height DNR Department of Natural Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAC Facultative Plant FACU Facultative Upland Plant FACW Facultative Wetland Plant Page 81 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew ii Acronyms (continued) FWS Fish and Wildlife Service IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management NHD National Hydrography Dataset NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service NWP Nationwide Permit NWPL National Wetland Plant List OBL Obligate Wetland Plant OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark RGP Regional General Permit SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County TNW Traditional Navigable Water TOB Top of Bank UPL Upland Plant USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WQC Water Quality Certification Page 82 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew Introduction 1 1 Introduction Cardno JFNew was contracted to perform a boundary delineation and assessment of regulated waters, including wetlands and streams which are located at the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation study area in Section 32, Township 18N, Range 3E, in Hamilton County, Indiana. The total size of the study area was approximately 11.0 acres. The study area was forested. Two wetlands were identified within the project study area. This report identifies the jurisdictional status of the project area based on Cardno JFNew’s best professional understanding and interpretation of the Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) guidance documents and regulations. Jurisdictional determinations for other “waters of the U.S.” were made based on definitions and guidance found in 33 CFR 328.3, USACE Regulatory Guidance Letters, and the wetland delineation manual. The USACE administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates the discharge of fill or dredged material into all “waters of the U.S.,” and is the regulatory authority that must make the final determination as to the jurisdictional status of the study area. 2 Regulatory Definitions 2.1 Waters of the United States “Waters of the U.S.” are within the jurisdiction of the USACE under the CWA. “Waters of the U.S.” is a broad term, which includes waters that are used or could be used for interstate commerce. This includes wetlands, ponds, lakes, territorial seas, rivers, tributary streams including any definable intermittent waterways, and some ditches below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Also included are manmade water bodies such as quarries and ponds, which are no longer actively being mined or constructed and are connected to other “waters”. Wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, riffle and pool complexes, coral reefs, sanctuaries, and refuges are all considered special aquatic sites which involve more rigorous regulatory permitting requirements. A specific, detailed definition of “waters of the U.S.” can be found in the Federal Register (33 CFR 328.3). On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 99-1178). The decision reduced the regulation of isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA, which assigned the USACE authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill material into "waters of the U.S.". Prior to the SWANCC decision, the USACE had adopted a regulatory definition of "waters of the U.S." that afforded federal protection for almost all of the nation's wetlands. The Supreme Court decision interpreted that the USACE’s jurisdiction was restricted to navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands that are adjacent to these navigable waterways and tributaries. The decision leaves the majority of "isolated" wetlands unregulated by the CWA. Therefore, most wetlands that are not adjacent to, or contiguous with, any other “waters of the U.S.” via a surface drain such as a swale, ditch, or stream are considered isolated and thus no longer jurisdictional by the USACE. Page 83 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 2 On June 19, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in regards to John A. Rapanos v. United States (No. 04-1034) and June Carabell v. United States (04-1384), et al. The plurality decision created two ‘tests’ for determining CWA jurisdiction: the permanent flow of water test (set out by Justice Scalia) and the “significant nexus” test (set out by Justice Kennedy). On June 5, 2007 the USACE and EPA issued joint guidance on how to interpret and apply the Court’s ruling. According to this guidance, the USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditionally navigable waters, adjacent wetlands, and non-navigable tributaries of traditionally navigable waters that have “relatively permanent” flow, and wetlands that border these waters, regardless of whether or not they are separated by roads, berms, and similar barriers. In addition, the USACE will use a case-by-case “significant nexus” analysis to determine whether waters and their adjacent wetlands are jurisdictional. A “significant nexus” can be found where waters, including adjacent wetlands, alter the physical, biological, or chemical integrity of the traditionally navigable water based on consideration of several factors. 2.2 Waters of the State “Waters of the state” are within the jurisdiction of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). They are generally defined as surface and underground water bodies, which extend through or exist wholly in the State, which includes, but is not limited to, streams and both isolated and non-isolated wetlands. Private ponds, or any pond, reservoir, or facility built for reduction of pollutants prior to discharge are not included in this definition. In addition to “waters of the U.S.”, the IDEM also regulates and issues permits for isolated wetland impacts. The State relies on the USACE decision regarding wetland determinations and delineations including whether or not a wetland is isolated or non-isolated. 2.3 Wetlands Wetlands are a category of “waters of the U.S.” for which a specific identification methodology has been developed. As described in detail in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland boundaries are delineated using three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. In addition to the criteria defined in the 1987 Manual, the procedures described in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Environmental Laboratory, 2010) were used to evaluate the project area for the presence of wetlands. 2.3.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation. On June 1, 2012, the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL), formerly called the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988), went into effect after being released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of an interagency effort with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Lichvar and Kartesz, 2009). The NWPL, along with the information implied by its wetland plant species status ratings, provides general botanical information about wetland plants and is used extensively in wetland delineation, restoration, and mitigation efforts. The NWPL consists of a comprehensive list of wetland plant species that occur within the United States along with their respective wetland indicator statuses by region. An indicator status reflects the likelihood that a Page 84 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 3 particular plant species occurs in a wetland or upland (Lichvar et al. 2012). Definitions of the five indicator categories are presented below. OBL (Obligate Wetland Plants): almost always occur in wetlands. With few exceptions, these plants (herbaceous or woody) are found in standing water or seasonally saturated soils (14 or more consecutive days) near the surface. These plants are of four types: submerged, floating, floating-leaved, and emergent. FACW (Facultative Wetland Plants): usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. These plants predominately occur with hydric soils, often in geomorphic settings where water saturates the soils or floods the soil surface at least seasonally. FAC (Facultative Plants): occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. These plants can grow in hydric, mesic, or xeric habitats. The occurrence of these plants in different habitats represents responses to a variety of environmental variables other than just hydrology, such as shade tolerance, soil pH, and elevation, and they have a wide tolerance of soil moisture conditions. FACU (Facultative Upland Plants): usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. These plants predominately occur on drier or more mesic sites in geomorphic settings where water rarely saturates the soils or floods the soil surface seasonally. UPL (Upland Plants): almost never occur in wetlands. These plants occupy mesic to xeric non-wetland habitats. They almost never occur in standing water or saturated soils. Typical growth forms include herbaceous, shrubs, woody vines, and trees. According to the USACE’s Midwest Regional Supplement, plants that are rated as FAC, FACW, or OBL are classified as wetland plant species. The percentage of dominant wetland species in each of the four vegetation strata (tree, shrub/sapling, herbaceous, and woody vine) in the sample area determines the hydrophytic (wetland) status of the plant community. Dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. In general, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. For the purposes of determining dominant plant species, the four vegetation strata are defined. Trees consist of woody species 3 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH). Shrubs and saplings are woody species that are over 1 meter in height and less than 3 inches DBH. Herbaceous species consist of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 1 meter tall. Woody vines consist of vine species greater than 1 meter in height, such as wild grapes. 2.3.2 Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. In general, hydric soils are flooded, ponded, or saturated for a week or more during the growing season when soil Page 85 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 4 temperatures are above 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The anaerobic conditions created by repeated or prolonged saturation or flooding result in permanent changes in soil color and chemistry, which are used to differentiate hydric from non-hydric soils. In this report, soil colors are described using the Munsell notation system. This method of describing soil color consists of separate notations for hue, value, and chroma that are combined in that order to form the color designation. The hue notation of a color indicates its relation to red, yellow, green, blue, and purple; the value notation indicates its lightness, and the chroma notation indicates its strength or departure from a neutral of the same lightness. The symbol for hue consists of a number from 1 to 10, followed by the letter abbreviation of the color. Within each letter range, the hue becomes more yellow and less red as the numbers increase. The notation for value consists of numbers from 0 for absolute black, to 10 for absolute white. The notation for chroma consists of numbers beginning with /0 for neutral grays and increasing at equal intervals. A soil described as 10YR 3/1 soil is more gray than a soil designated 10YR 3/6. 2.3.3 Wetland Hydrology. Wetland hydrology is defined as the presence of water for a significant period of time at or near the surface (within the root zone) during the growing season. Wetland hydrology is present only seasonally in many cases, and is often inferred by indirect evidence. Hydrology is controlled by such factors as seasonal and long-term rainfall patterns, local geology and topography, soil type, local water table conditions, and drainage. Primary indicators of hydrology are inundation, soil saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil, watermarks, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Secondary indicators such as oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches of the soil, water-stained leaves, local soil survey data, and the FAC-neutral vegetation test are sometimes used to identify hydrology. A primary indicator or two or more secondary indicators are required to establish a positive indication of hydrology. 2.3.4 Wetland Definition Summary. In general, an area must meet all three criteria to be classified as a wetland. In certain problem areas such as seasonal wetlands, which are not wet at all times, or in recently disturbed (atypical) situations, areas may be considered a wetland if only two criteria are met. In special situations, an area that meets the wetland definition may not be within the USACE’s jurisdiction due to a specific regulatory exemption. 2.4 Streams, Rivers, Watercourses & Jurisdictional Ditches With non-tidal waters, in the absence of adjacent wetlands, the extent of the USACE’s jurisdiction is defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). USACE regulations define the term “ordinary high water mark” for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Page 86 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 5 Streams, rivers, watercourse, and ditches within the study area were evaluated using the above definition and documented. Waterways that did exhibit an OHWM were recorded and evaluated using the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation (HHEI) methodology. The results of the HHEI are presented in Section 3.2, Technical Descriptions. 3 Background Information 3.1 Existing Maps Several sources of information were consulted to identify potential wetlands and wetland soil units on the site. These include the USFWS's National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the USGS’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD),and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Soil Survey for this county. These maps identify potential wetlands and wetland soil units on the site. The NHD maps are used to portray surface water. The NWI maps were prepared from high altitude photography and in most cases were not field checked. Because of this, wetlands are sometimes erroneously identified, missed, or misidentified. Additionally, the criteria used in identifying these wetlands were different from those currently used by the USACE. The county soil maps, on the other hand, were developed from actual field investigations. However, they address only one of the three required wetland criteria and may reflect historical conditions rather than current site conditions. The resolution of the soil maps limits their accuracy as well. The mapping units are often generalized based on topography and many mapping units contain inclusions of other soil types for up to 15 percent of the area of the unit. The USACE does not accept the use of either of these maps to make wetland determinations. 3.1.1 National Wetland Inventory The NWI map of the area (Figure 1) identified one wetland complex on site. 3.1.2 National Hydrography Dataset The NHD map of the area (Figure 1) did not identify any surface water on site. 3.1.3 Soil Survey The NRCS Soil Survey of Hamilton County identified two soil series on the site (Figure 3). The following table identifies the soil unit symbol, soil unit name, and whether or not the soil type contains components that meet the hydric soil criteria. Table 3-1 Soil Types Within the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Study Area Symbol Description Hydric Br Brookston silty clay loam Yes CrA Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes No Page 87 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 6 4 Site Investigation and Description 4.1 Investigation Methodology The delineation of regulated waters within the study area was based on the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Environmental Laboratory, 2010) as required by current USACE policy. Prior to the field work, the background information was reviewed to establish the probability and potential location of wetlands on the site. Next, a general reconnaissance of the project area was conducted to determine site conditions. The site was then walked with the specific intent of determining wetland boundaries. Data stations were established at locations within and near the wetland areas to document soil characteristics, evidence of hydrology and dominant vegetation. Note that no attempt was made to examine a full soil profile to confirm any soil series designations. However, when possible, soils were examined to a depth of at least 16 inches to assess soil characteristics and site hydrology. Complete descriptions of typical soil series can be found in the soil survey for this county. 4.1.1 Site Photographs. Photographs of the site are located in Appendix A. These photographs are the visual documentation of site conditions at the time of inspection. The photographs are intended to provide representative visual samples of any wetlands or other special features found on the site. 4.1.2 Delineation Data Sheets. Where stations represent a wetland boundary point they are presented as paired data points, one each documenting the wetland and upland sides of the wetland boundary. The routine wetland delineation data sheets used in the jurisdictional delineation process are located in Appendix B. These forms are the written documentation of how representative sample stations met or did not meet each of the wetland criteria. For plant species included on the National Wetlands Plant List, nomenclature will follow their lead. For all other plants not listed in the NWPL, nomenclature will follow the USDA’s Plants Database. 4.2 Technical Descriptions Complete field data sheets from the site investigation are located in Appendix B. The site is located south of 126th Street and west of Towne Road (Figure 1). The area investigated includes approximately 11.0 acres of forest. The study area was forested. Wetland 01 (0.99 Acre) Wetland 01 was an isolated, forested wetland located in a depression in the northeast corner of the woodlot. No connection with any ‘water of the United States’ was observed. This wetland should be considered an isolated ‘water of the State’. Page 88 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 7 Wetland Data Point Data Point 1 (dp01) Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of dp01 included Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum, FACW), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, FACW) in multiple strata, Pin Oak (Quercus palustris, FACW), and Common Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis, OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included American Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis, FACW), and Pin Oak (FACW). The soil from 0-8"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 3/1 with concentrations in the matrix at 5%, and a texture of Silty clay loam. The soil from 8-16"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/1 with concentrations in the matrix at 5%, and a texture of Clay Loam. The soil at the data point was mapped as Brookston silty clay loam (Br), and met the Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11), Depleted Matrix (F3), Redox Dark Surface (F6), and Redox Depressions (F8) hydric soil criteria. Primary indicators of hydrology included Water Marks (B1), Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8), Water-Stained Leaves (B9), and secondary indicators of hydrology observed included Geomorphic Position (D2), and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5). This data point qualified as a wetland. Upland Data Point Data Point 2 (dp02) Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of dp02 included Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum, FACU) in multiple strata, Northern Spicebush (Lindera benzoin, FACW) in multiple strata, James' sedge (Carex jamesii, UPL), and Richweed (Collinsonia canadensis, FAC). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Green Ash (FACW), American Elm (Ulmus americana, FACW), Rambler Rose (Rosa multiflora, FACU), and Cut-Leaf Grape Fern (Sceptridium dissectum, FAC). The soil from 0-4"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 3/1 with a texture of Silty clay loam. The soil from 4-16"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/2 with a texture of Silty clay loam. The soil at the data point was mapped as Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CrA), and did not meet any hydric soil criteria. No indicators of hydrology were observed. This data point did not meet wetland criteria. Upland Data Point Data Point 3 (dp03) Data Point 3 was located in a depression near the mapped NWI polygon, and is representative of that area. Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of dp03 included Silver Maple (FACW), Green Ash (FACW), Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis, FAC), Northern Spicebush (FACW), Sweet Wood-Reed (Cinna arundinacea, FACW), Clustered Black-Snakeroot (Sanicula odorata, FAC), Aniseroot (Osmorhiza longistylis, FACU), and Smooth Blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium, FACU). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa, FAC), Green Ash (FACW), Eastern Woodland Sedge (Carex blanda, FAC), James' sedge (UPL), Canadian Wood-Nettle (Laportea canadensis, FACW), Pinkweed (Persicaria pensylvanica, FACW), and Spring Avens (Geum vernum, FACU). The soil from 0-4"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 3/1 with a texture of Silty clay loam. The soil from 8-16"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 3/1 with concentrations in the matrix at 1%, and a texture of Silty clay loam. The soil at the data point was mapped as Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CrA), and did not meet any hydric soil criteria. Secondary indicators of hydrology observed included Page 89 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 8 Geomorphic Position (D2), and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5). This data point did not meet wetland criteria. Wetland 02 (0.38 Acre) Wetland 02 was an isolated, forested wetland located in a depression on the western side of the woodlot. No connection with any ‘water of the United States’ was observed. This wetland should be considered an isolated ‘water of the State’. Wetland Data Point Data Point 4 (dp04) Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of dp04 included Pin Oak (FACW), Green Ash (FACW), American Sycamore (FACW), and Common Buttonbush (OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Northern Spicebush (FACW), Green Ash (FACW), and Silver Maple (FACW). The soil from 0-16"" had a matrix soil color of 10yr 3/1 with concentrations in the matrix at 5%, and a texture of Loam. The soil at the data point was mapped as Brookston silty clay loam (Br), and met the Redox Dark Surface (F6), and Redox Depressions (F8) hydric soil criteria. Primary indicators of hydrology included Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8), and secondary indicators of hydrology observed included Geomorphic Position (D2), and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5). This data point qualified as a wetland. 5 Jurisdictional Analysis 5.1 Corps of Engineers and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management The USACE has authority over the discharge of fill or dredged material into “waters of the U.S.”. This includes authority over any filling, mechanical land clearing, or construction activities that occur within the boundaries of any “waters of the U.S.”. A permit must be obtained from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) before any of these activities occur. Permits can be divided into three general categories: Individual Permits, Nationwide Permits, and the Regional General Permits for Indiana. Individual Permits are required for projects that do not fall into one of the specific Nationwide Permits (NWP) or the Regional General Permit (RGP) or are deemed to have significant environmental impacts. These permits are much more difficult to obtain and receive a much higher level of regulatory agency and public scrutiny and may require several months to more than a year for processing. Nationwide Permits have been developed for projects which meet specific criteria and are deemed to have minimal impact on the aquatic environment. In Indiana, however, most NWP's have been rescinded and replaced by the Regional General Permit. The Regional General Permit (RGP) for Indiana authorizes activities associated with the construction or installation of new facilities or structures as well as for agriculture or mining. Page 90 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 9 Proposed wetland impacts must be less than 1 acre and meet specific criteria in order to qualify for these permits. Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) must be obtained from the IDEM before the USACE will perform their permit review. The IDEM is responsible for issuing CWA Section 401 WQCs in conjunction with the USACE Section 404 permits. The IDEM requires notification for all non-isolated wetland impacts less than 0.10 acre, which entails a brief notification form that must be signed by the applicant. However, for non-isolated wetland impacts greater than 0.10 acre, an application for WQC must be submitted concurrently with a wetland mitigation plan. The IDEM will not initiate their review process until both the application and wetland mitigation plan have been submitted. Applicants proposing an impact to an “isolated wetland,” which is a wetland that the USACE has determined to be a non-federally jurisdictional wetland, are required to apply for and obtain Isolated Wetland Permits from IDEM. Isolated wetland permits are required under Indiana’s State Isolated Wetland Law (Indiana Code 13-18-22 and 327 Indiana Administrative Code 17). 5.2 Other Agencies The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Indiana DNR) has jurisdiction over the floodway of ditches and streams with a watershed greater than one (1) square mile. If impacts are proposed to jurisdictional floodways, a Construction-In-A-Floodway Permit may be required from the Indiana DNR. There are no streams on-site that fall under the jurisdiction of the Indiana DNR. 6 Summary and Conclusion 6.1 Wetland and Stream Summary Cardno JFNew inspected the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation study area on December 11, 2014. Two wetlands were identified within the project study area. Table 6-1 Features Identified within the City of Carmel Wetland Delineation study area Feature Name Feature Class Area (Acres) Regulatory Status Wetland 01 Class II Forested 0.99 Isolated Wetland 02 Class II Forested 0.38 Isolated TOTAL 1.37 6.2 Conclusion A permit must be obtained from the USACE and the IDEM prior to any filling, dredging, or mechanical land clearing that occurs within the boundaries of any ‘waters of the U.S.’ or ‘waters of the State’. While this report represents our best professional judgment based on our knowledge and experience, it is important to note that the Louisville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Page 91 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 10 has final discretionary authority over all jurisdictional determinations of ‘waters of the U.S.’ including wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA in this region. It is therefore, recommended that a copy of this report be furnished to the Louisville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to confirm the results of our findings. Page 92 of 111 Regulated Waters Delineation Report City of Carmel Wetland Delineation December 2014 Cardno JFNew 11 7 References Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region, ERDC/EL TR-10-16, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd Edition. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241. Published July 17, 2013. ISSN 2153 733X. Lichvar, R.W., and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Lichvar, R., Melvin, N.C., Butterwick, M.L. and Kirchner, W.N. 2012. National Wetland Plant List Indicator Rating Definitions.ERDC/CRREL TN-12-1. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/National-Wetland-Plant-List- Indicator-Rating-Definitions.pdf Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey of Hamilton County, IN. Page 93 of 111 City of Carmel Wetland Delineation FIGURES Page 94 of 111 TO W N E R D W 116TH ST DIT C H R D W 136TH ST W 126TH ST HO O V E R R D W MAIN ST W 121ST ST W 131ST ST DOLAN WA Y WE S T O N D R BR O A D S T WINDY KNOLL LN TR A D D S T DU R B I N D R SH E L B O R N E R D FINCHLEY RD BE C K W I T H D R O N Y X D R ST A N D R E W S L N SEDG E M O O R C I R MILANO DR HINTOCKS CIR KN I G H T D R CASTLE ROCK DR TRA M L N R O M A B N D M E R C E R S T HALIFAX ST AM U N D S O N D R P R E S T O N T R L STANHOPE ST GWY N M E R E R U N DI A M O N D D R HO R B E C K S T ME A R S D R HAYNE ST STEFFEE DR PRESTWICK LN VERDURE LN MILFORD ST DERRY LN PU T N A M P L GA T M A N C T SUTTON AVE TELFAIR ST TH U N D E R B I R D D R PE T T I G R U D R BEAUFAI N S T P O N T E L L P L HOPWOOD DR L A R K S P U R L N HA S K E L L P L TA M O S H A N T E R D R LAUREL LAKES BLVD R O Y A L C T E L E T T S L N SH E L B O R N E R D TO W N E R D W MAIN ST DI T C H R D W 116TH ST L1UBHx PFO1Ad PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PFO1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PEM1C PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PEM1A PUBGh PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PSS1C PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PEM1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGh PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGh PEM1A PUBGh PUBGh PUBGx PEM1C PUBGx PUBGh PEM1C PUBGx PUBGx PEM1F PUBGx PEM1CPUBGh PUBGh PEM1C PUBGx 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardnojfnew.com City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Regulated Waters Delineation Report Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc.Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 1: Project Location and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law. ² Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32 Project No.J14z4973.00 Area of Interest NWI Wetland File Path: R:\Projects\14\14Z\14Z497300_IE&C_CityofCarmelWetlandDelination\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F1_Location_NWI.mxdDate Revised: 12/16/2014 Basemap: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Date Created: 12/16/2014 Saved By: Ben.Hess HAMILTON TIPTON MARION BO O N E MA D I S O N HAN C O C K CL I N T O N Area ofInterest 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Meters Page 95 of 111 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardnojfnew.com This map and all data containedwithin are supplied as is with nowarranty. Cardno, Inc. expresslydisclaims responsibility for damagesor liability from any claims that mayarise out of the use or misuse of thismap. It is the sole responsibility ofthe user to determine if the data onthis map meets the user’s needs.This map was not created as survey File Path: R:\Projects\14\14Z\14Z497300_IE&C_CityofCarmelWetlandDelination\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F2_NWI_Key.mxdDate Revised: 12/16/2014 Data Sources: Date Created: 12/16/2014 Saved By:: Ben.Hess FRESHWATER WETLAND CLASSIFICATION AB AQUATIC BED 1) Algal 2) Aquatic Moss 3) Rooted Vascular 4) Floating Vascular 5) UNK Submergent 6) UNK Surface US UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE 1) Cobble/Gravel 2) Sand 3) Mud 4) Organic 5) Vegetated ML MOSS- LICHEN 1) Mosses 2) Lichen EM EMERGENT 1) Persistent 2) Nonpersistent SS SHRUB SCRUB 1) Broad Leaf Decid. 2) Needle Leaf Decid. 3) Broad Leav Evergr. 4) Needle Leaf Evergr. 5) Dead 6) Deciduous 7) Evergreen FO FORESTED 1) Broad Leaf Decid. 2) Needle Leaf Decid. 3) Broad Leav Evergr. 4) Needle Leaf Evergr. 5) Dead 6) Deciduous 7) Evergreen OW OPEN WATER Unknown Bottom MODIFYING T ERMS In order to more adequately describe wetland and aquatic habitats water regime, water chemistry, soil of special modifiers may be applied. WATER REGIME WATER CHEMISTRY SOIL SPECIAL MODIFIERS NON-TIDAL INLAND SALINITY pH MODIFIERS FOR FRESHWATER A Temporarily Flooded J Intermittently Flooded 7 Hypersaline a Acid g Organic b Beaver B Saturated K Artificially Flooded 8 Eusaline t Circumneutral n Mineral d Partially Drained/Ditched C Seasonally Flooded W Intermittently Flooded/ Temporary 9 Mixosaline i Alkaline f Farmed D Seasonally Flooded/ Well-Drained Y Saturated/Semipermanent/ Seasonal 0 Fresh h Diked/Impounded E Seasonally Flooded/Saturated Z Intermittently Exposed/ Permanent r Artificial Substrate F Semipermanently Flooded U Unknown s Spoil G Intermittently Exposed x Excavated H Permanently Flooded Dominance types must be added by users.Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the U.S. Cowardin et. al. 1979 as modified for national wetland inventory mapping conventions. R—RIVERINE 1 TIDAL 2 LOWER PERENNIAL 4 INTERMITTENT 5 UNKNOWN PERENNIAL 3 UPPER PERENNIAL UB UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM 1 Cobble/Gravel 2 Sand 3 Mud 4 Organic AB AQUATIC BED 1 Algal 2 Aquatic Moss 3 Rooted Vascular 4 Floating Vascular 5 UNK Submergent 6 UNK Surface US UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE 1 Cobble/Gravel 2 Sand 3 Mud 4 Organic 5 Vegetated EM EMERGENT ** 1 Persistent 2 Non-persistent SB STREAMBED * 1 Bedrock 2 Rubble 3 Cobble-Gravel 4 Sand 5 Mud 6 Organic 7 Vegetated RS ROCKY SHORE 1 Bedrock 2 Rubble OW OPEN WATER Unknown Bottom RB ROCK BOTTOM 1 Bedrock 2 Rubble P—PALUSTRINE UB UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM 1) Cobble/Gravel 2) Sand 3) Mud 4) Organic RB ROCK BOTTOM 1) Bedrock 2) Rubble Project No.J14z4973.00 City of Carmel Wetland DelineationRegulated Waters Delineation Report Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 2: NWI Key Page 96 of 111 TO W N E R D W 116TH ST W 126TH ST SH E L B O R N E R D DU R B I N D R FINCHLEY RD HOM E S T R E T C H D R TU S C A N Y B L V D RHETTS B U R Y S T ME E T I N G H O U S E R D TRA M L N TR A D D S T STANHOPE ST TR E A T Y L I N E S T B R A N F O R D S T HAYNE ST STEFFEE DR BUCKLAND ST MO N T C A L M S T A S H C R O F T P L LE I G H T O N C T MANIGUALT ST DEREK DR WINFIELD DR C R O S S F I E L D S D R ST A N D R E W S L N B R A N D E N B U R G D R HOPWOOD DR W I L D M A N L N GRAFTON ST L A R K S P U R L N GLEBE ST KILKENNY CIR WESTB U R Y P L A C E D R WIN N E R S C I R SH E L B O R N E L N BLISLAND ST DUR B I N C T TO W N E R D Br CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA CrA Br CrA Cr A CrA CrA C r A C r A CrAW CrA CrA Mm B 2 C r A CrA CrA Cr A MmC 2 CrA MmB2 C r A CrACrA C r A Mm B 2 CrA CrABr W C r A Br Cr A CrA MoC3 Mm B 2 CrA M m B 2 MmC2 MmC2 CrA CrA CrA CrA MmC2 CrA MmB2 CrA MmB2 CrA CrAMmB2 CrA MmC2 CrACrA CrA MmC2 CrA CrA CrA 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardnojfnew.com City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Regulated Waters Delineation Report Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc.Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 3: Soil Survey This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law. ² Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32 Project No.J14z4973.00 Soil Unit Soil Unit - Hydric Area of Interest File Path: R:\Projects\14\14Z\14Z497300_IE&C_CityofCarmelWetlandDelination\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F3_Soil_Survey.mxdDate Revised: 12/16/2014 Basemap: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Date Created: 12/16/2014 Saved By: Ben.Hess 01,000500Feet 0 100 200 300 Meters Symbol Description Hydric Br Brookston silty clay loam Y CrA Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes N Page 97 of 111 !(!( !( !( wl01 wl02 dp04 dp03 dp02 dp01 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardnojfnew.com City of Carmel Wetland Delineation Regulated Waters Delineation Report Innovative Engineering & Consulting, Inc.Hamilton County, Indiana Figure 4: Delineation This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law. ² Township: 18 NRange: 3 ESection: 32 Project No.J14z4973.00 !(Data Point Area of Interest Delineated Wetland File Path: R:\Projects\14\14Z\14Z497300_IE&C_CityofCarmelWetlandDelination\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F4_Delineation.mxdDate Revised: 12/16/2014 Basemap: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Date Created: 12/16/2014 Saved By: Ben.Hess 05010025Feet 0 102030Meters Page 98 of 111 City of Carmel Wetland Delineation APPENDIX A SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 99 of 111 DP 0 1 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g No r t h DP 0 1 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g So u t h DP 0 2 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g No r t h DP 0 2 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g So u t h Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pr o j e c t N o . 1 2 0 8 0 0 4 . 0 1 Pr o j e c t N a m e Cl i e n t N a m e Co u n t y , S t a t e Ci t y o f C a r m e l W e t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n In n o v a t i v e E n g i n e e r i n g & C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . Ha m i l t o n C o u n t y , I n d i a n a Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pro j e c t N u m b e r : J1 4 z 4 9 7 3 0 0 Page 100 of 111 DP 0 3 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g No r t h DP 0 3 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g So u t h DP 0 4 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g No r t h DP 0 4 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g So u t h Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pr o j e c t N o . 1 2 0 8 0 0 4 . 0 1 Pr o j e c t N a m e Cl i e n t N a m e Co u n t y , S t a t e Ci t y o f C a r m e l W e t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n In n o v a t i v e E n g i n e e r i n g & C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . Ha m i l t o n C o u n t y , I n d i a n a Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pro j e c t N u m b e r : J1 4 z 4 9 7 3 0 0 Page 101 of 111 We t l a n d 01 , Wa t e r Ma r k s on Tr e e s We t l a n d 01 , Wa t e r Ma r k s on Tr e e s B0 1 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g So u t h B0 1 , Vi e w Lo o k i n g We s t Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pr o j e c t N o . 1 2 0 8 0 0 4 . 0 1 Pr o j e c t N a m e Cl i e n t N a m e Co u n t y , S t a t e Ci t y o f C a r m e l W e t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n In n o v a t i v e E n g i n e e r i n g & C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . Ha m i l t o n C o u n t y , I n d i a n a Si t e P h o t o g r a p h s Pro j e c t N u m b e r : J1 4 z 4 9 7 3 0 0 Page 102 of 111 APPENDIX B WETLAND DELINEATION DATA SHEETS – MIDWEST REGION Page 103 of 111 Yes No NN Yes No NN Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 30% 2.25% 3.15% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4.25% 5. 95% 1.15% 2.15% 3.5% 4. 5. 35% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: x1 = 1.x2 = 2.x3 = 3.x4 = 4.x5 = 5.(B) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.X 13.X 14.X 3-Prevalence Index is 3.01 15.4-Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting 16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 18. 19.1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 115% Multiply by: 0.15 2.3 FACU species FAC species Column Totals: (A)1.30 100% (A/B) X 5' radius ) A/B 15% 5 Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species Total % Cover of: That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30' radius Dominant OBL species WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date: 12/11/2014 Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.45 1.88 FACW species Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover = Total Cover FACW Acer saccharinum Yes No OBL FACW FACW Yes Fraxinus pennsylvanica Yes FACW 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) Quercus palustris FACW Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Towne and 126th City/County: Carmel/Hamilton BRH S32, T18N, R3ESection, Township, Range: State:City of Carmel IN Sampling Point:dp01 Brookston silty clay loam (Br)NWI classification: none 39.96454 Long:-86.207776 Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:0% Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.), or Hydrology N Hydric Soil Present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X XWetland Hydrology Present? X, or Hydrology Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): = Total Cover = Total Cover No No No Yes NAD83 UTM16N Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation N Fraxinus pennsylvanica Platanus occidentalis Quercus palustris Cephalanthus occidentalis Yes No Yes FACW XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic till plain 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 104 of 111 %Type1 5C 5C X Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) X Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) X Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X XN/A X>18" X>18"Yes X No dp01Sampling Point:SOIL High Water Table (A2) Redox Depressions (F8) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) HYDROLOGY X 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Hydric Soil Present? X Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No Remarks: Yes No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Iron Deposits (B5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 8-16"10yr 4/1 95 10yr 3/4 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10yr 4/4 M 0-8"10yr 3/1 Color (moist) %Remarks M Silty clay loam Clay Loam95 Texture Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Remarks: Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Field Observations: Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1)X Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 105 of 111 Yes No NN Yes No NN Yes X Yes X No Yes X Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 80% 2.20% 3.15% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 115% 1.15% 2.5% 3. 4. 5. 20% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: x1 = 1.2%x2 = 2.4%x3 = 3.4%x4 = 4.2%x5 = 5.5%(B) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.3-Prevalence Index is 3.01 15.4-Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting 16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 18. 19.1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 17% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) till plain 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) No No FACU XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): = Total Cover = Total Cover No No No Yes NAD83 UTM16N Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation N Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana Acer saccharum Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.), or Hydrology N Hydric Soil Present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X Wetland Hydrology Present? X, or Hydrology Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CrA)NWI classification: none 39.96456 Long:-86.208247 Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:0% Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Towne and 126th City/County: Carmel/Hamilton BRH S32, T18N, R3ESection, Township, Range: State:City of Carmel IN Sampling Point:dp02 Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Yes Lindera benzoin Rosa multiflora FACW Acer saccharum Yes FACU Yes Lindera benzoin Yes FACW 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) FACW No FAC 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover = Total Cover Sceptridium dissectum 87% FACW species Collinsonia canadensis Yes FAC No FACU Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species Yes FACW Carex jamesii OBL species 4% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date: 12/11/2014 Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic?, Soil Is the Sampled Area Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.97 3.27 UPL 5' radius ) A/B 6 Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species Total % Cover of: That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30' radius Dominant Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 3 0.21 3.48 54% 7% Multiply by: 1.08 FACU species 0.2 FAC species Column Totals: (A)1.52 50% (A/B) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 106 of 111 %Type1 Type: Depth (inches):Yes No X Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) XN/A X >18" X >18"Yes No X Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Field Observations: Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Remarks: Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Color (moist) %Remarks Silty clay loam Silty clay loam100 Texture Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 4-16"10yr 4/2 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 0-4" 10yr 3/1 Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Iron Deposits (B5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No Remarks: Yes No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) HYDROLOGY 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Hydric Soil Present? Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) High Water Table (A2) dp02Sampling Point:SOIL US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 107 of 111 Yes No NN Yes No NN Yes Yes X No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1.20% 2.20% 3.15% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 55% 1.75% 2.5% 3.5% 4. 5. 85% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: x1 = 1.3%x2 = 2.2%x3 = 3.2%x4 = 4.4%x5 = 5.2%(B) 6.3% 7.7% 8.5% 9.4% 10. 11. 12. 13.X 14.X 3-Prevalence Index is 3.01 15.4-Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting 16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 18. 19.1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 32% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 6 0.9 0.48 128% 30% Multiply by: 2.56 FACU species 0.1 FAC species Column Totals: (A)1.72 75% (A/B) X 5' radius ) A/B 8 Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species Total % Cover of: That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30' radius Dominant Yes OBL species 2% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date: 12/11/2014 Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic?, Soil Is the Sampled Area Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.04 2.35 UPL 12% FACW species Persicaria pensylvanica No Sanicula odorata Viburnum prunifolium FACW No FAC Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species No FACW Carex jamesii Yes FACW Osmorhiza longistylis 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No = Total Cover = Total Cover Geum vernum FACU Cinna arundinacea FAC Yes FACU No Laportea canadensis Carex blanda FACW Acer saccharinum No No FAC FACW Yes Lindera benzoin Yes FACW 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) Fraxinus pennsylvanica FAC Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Towne and 126th City/County: Carmel/Hamilton BRH S32, T18N, R3ESection, Township, Range: State:City of Carmel IN Sampling Point:dp03 Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CrA)NWI classification: none 39.963451 Long:-86.207729 Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:0% Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.), or Hydrology N Hydric Soil Present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X XWetland Hydrology Present? X, or Hydrology Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): = Total Cover = Total Cover No No No Yes NAD83 UTM16N Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation N Fraxinus pennsylvanica Celtis occidentalis Cornus racemosa Yes Yes FACW XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic till plain 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) Yes FACU US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0Page 108 of 111 %Type1 1C Type: Depth (inches):Yes No X Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) X Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) XN/A X >18" X >18"Yes X No dp03Sampling Point:SOIL High Water Table (A2) Redox Depressions (F8) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) HYDROLOGY 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Hydric Soil Present? Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No Remarks: Yes No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Iron Deposits (B5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 8-16"10yr 3/1 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10yr 3/3 M 0-4"10yr 3/1 Color (moist) %Remarks Silty clay loam Silty clay loam99 Texture Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Remarks: Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Field Observations: Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 109 of 111 Yes No NN Yes No NN Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 30% 2.20% 3.20% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 70% 1.10% 2.60% 3.2% 4.3% 5. 75% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: x1 = 1.x2 = 2.x3 = 3.x4 = 4.x5 = 5.(B) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.X 13.X 14.X 3-Prevalence Index is 3.01 15.4-Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting 16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 18. 19.1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 4 85% Multiply by: 0.6 1.7 FACU species FAC species Column Totals: (A)1.45 100% (A/B) X 5' radius ) A/B 60% 4 Species Across All Strata:(B) Percent of Dominant Species Total % Cover of: That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30' radius Dominant OBL species WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date: 12/11/2014 Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.3 1.59 FACW species Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover = Total Cover FACW Quercus palustris Yes No No OBL FACW Yes Lindera benzoin No FACW 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer saccharinum FACW Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Towne and 126th City/County: Carmel/Hamilton BRH S32, T18N, R3ESection, Township, Range: State:City of Carmel IN Sampling Point:dp04 Brookston silty clay loam (Br)NWI classification: none 39.963791 Long:-86.209115 Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:0% Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.), or Hydrology N Hydric Soil Present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. within a Wetland? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? X XWetland Hydrology Present? X, or Hydrology Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): = Total Cover = Total Cover No No No Yes NAD83 UTM16N Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation , Soil Are Vegetation N Fraxinus pennsylvanica Platanus occidentalis Cephalanthus occidentalis FACW Yes Yes FACW XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic till plain 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 110 of 111 %Type1 5C Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) X Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) X XN/A X>18" X>18"Yes X No dp04Sampling Point:SOIL High Water Table (A2) Redox Depressions (F8) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) HYDROLOGY X 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, Hydric Soil Present? X Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: No Remarks: Yes No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Iron Deposits (B5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 95 10yr 4/3 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 0-16" 10yr 3/1 Color (moist) %Remarks M Loam Texture Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Remarks: Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Field Observations: Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Page 111 of 111