HomeMy WebLinkAboutspp010.4
Regulated Waters
Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana
March 18, 2015
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
Document Information
Prepared for Logan Limited Development Corporation
Client Contact Roger Kessler
Project Name Hidden Creek
Project Number Cardno #J153616000
Project Manager Matt Kwiatkowski
Date March 19, 2015
Prepared for:
Logan Limited Development Corporation
10200 Lantern Road, Fishers, Indiana 46037
Prepared by:
Cardno
3901 Industrial Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana 46254
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2 Regulatory Definitions ..................................................................................................... 1
3 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5
4 Site Investigation and Description .................................................................................. 6
5 Jurisdictional Analysis .................................................................................................... 9
6 Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 10
7 References ...................................................................................................................... 11
Appendices
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Wetland Determination Data Sheets – Midwest Region
Tables
Table 3-1 Soil Types Within the Hidden Creek Study Area ................................................................ 6
Table 6-1 Features Identified within the Hidden Creek Study Area .................................................. 10
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
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno Introduction 1
1 Introduction
Cardno was contracted to perform a boundary delineation and assessment of regulated waters,
including wetlands and streams which are located at the Hidden Creek study area in Section 3,
Township 17N, Range 3E, in Hamilton County, Indiana on 3/18/2015. The total size of the
study area was approximately 10.8 acres. The study area was forested. Four streams and one
wetland were identified.
This report identifies the jurisdictional status of the project area based on Cardno’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.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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) did not identify any wetland complexes on site.
3.1.2 National Hydrography Dataset
The NHD map of the area (Figure 1) did not identify any surface water on site.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 6
3.1.3 Soil Survey
The NRCS Soil Survey of Hamilton County identified four 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 Hidden Creek Study Area
Symbol Description Hydric
Br Brookston silty clay loam Yes
CrA Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes No
MmA Miami silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes No
MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded No
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
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 7
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 west of Spring Mill Road and north of 106th Street (Figure 1). The area investigated
includes approximately 10.8 acres of forested land. The study area was forested.
Wetland 01 (0.21 Acre)
Wetland 01 was a forested wetland located abutting Stream 01. Stream 01 flowed into Williams
Creek, which flows into the White River, a traditional navigable water. Due to this connection,
Wetland 01 should be considered a jurisdictional ‘water of the United States.’
Wetland Data Point
Data Point (DP01)
Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of DP01 included Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum, FACU),
Ash-Leaf Maple (Acer negundo, FAC), Black Elder (Sambucus nigra, FACW), Northern
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin, FACW), American Elm (Ulmus americana, FACW), and River-
Bank Grape (Vitis riparia, FACW). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included
Black Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica, FAC). The soil from 0-16” had a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/2 with
concentrations in the matrix at 2%, and a texture of Silty Clay Loam. The soil at the data point
was mapped as Brookston silty clay loam (Br), and met the Depleted Matrix (F3) hydric soil
criteria. Primary indicators of hydrology included High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), and
secondary indicators of hydrology observed included Drainage Patterns (B10), and the FAC-
Neutral Test (D5). This data point qualified as a wetland.
Upland Data Point
Data Point (DP02)
Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of DP02 included Sugar Maple (FACU), Eastern Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides, FAC), Black Elder (FACW), Northern Spicebush (FACW), Amur
honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, UPL), Spring Avens (Geum vernum, FACU), and Tall False Rye
Grass (Schedonorus arundinaceus, FACU). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed
included Ash-Leaf Maple (FAC), and American Beech (Fagus grandifolia, FACU). The soil from
0-8” had a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/2 with a texture of Silty Clay Loam. The soil from 8-16” had
a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/4 with a texture of Silty Clay Loam. The soil at the data point was
mapped as Crosby silt loam, 0 to 2 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 (DP03)
Dominant vegetation in the vicinity of DP03 included Black Cherry (Prunus serotina, FACU),
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, FACW), Smooth Blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium, FACU),
Amur honeysuckle (UPL), Spring Avens (FACU), and Asian Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus,
UPL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Sugar Maple (FACU), Downy
Hawthorn (Crataegus mollis, FAC), American Elm (FACW), American Strawberry-Bush
(Euonymus americanus, FAC), and Rambler Rose (Rosa multiflora, FACU). The soil from 0-16”
had a matrix soil color of 10yr 4/3 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.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 8
Stream 01 (Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek) (750 Linear Feet)
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek was an ephemeral stream that flowed south through
the project study area. Stream 01 was a natural channel; no modifications were observed within
the survey reach. Both banks had a wide (greater than ten meters) riparian corridor, with the
floodplain land use predominantly immature forest, shrub-scrub, or old field. The stream had
moderate sinuosity, with two S-curves observed within the two hundred foot survey reach. The
stream had a flat to moderate gradient, with a drop between a half a foot and two feet every
hundred feet. This stream was at base flow conditions at the time of the stream survey. The
turbidity levels were not elevated at the time of survey. The dominant substrates were silt, and
leaf pack / woody debris. Ordinary High Water Mark width was two feet and depth was 0.1 foot.
Bank Full width was three feet and depth was 0.3 foot. Top of Bank width was five feet and
depth was 0.5 foot. The maximum pool depth observed was between five and ten centimeters.
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek flows into the White River, a Traditional Navigable
Water. Due to this connection, this stream should be considered a jurisdictional water of the
United States.
Stream 02 (Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek) (124 Linear Feet)
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek was an ephemeral stream that flowed west through
the project study area. Stream 02 was a natural channel; no modifications were observed within
the survey reach. Both banks had a wide (greater than ten meters) riparian corridor, with the
floodplain land use predominantly immature forest, shrub-scrub, or old field. The stream had
moderate sinuosity, with two S-curves observed within the two hundred foot survey reach. The
stream had a flat to moderate gradient, with a drop between a half a foot and two feet every
hundred feet. This stream was at base flow conditions at the time of the stream survey. The
turbidity levels were not elevated at the time of survey. The dominant substrates were silt, and
leaf pack / woody debris. Ordinary High Water Mark width was two feet and depth was 0.1 foot.
Bank Full width was three feet and depth was 0.3 foot. Top of Bank width was five feet and
depth was 0.5 foot. The maximum pool depth observed was between five and ten centimeters.
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek flows into the White River, a Traditional Navigable
Water. Due to this connection, this stream should be considered a jurisdictional water of the
United States.
Stream 03 (Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek) (386 Linear Feet)
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek was an ephemeral stream that flowed east through
the project study area. Stream 03 was a natural channel; no modifications were observed within
the survey reach. Both banks had a wide (greater than ten meters) riparian corridor, with the
floodplain land use predominantly immature forest, shrub-scrub, or old field. The stream had
moderate sinuosity, with two S-curves observed within the two hundred foot survey reach. The
stream had a flat to moderate gradient, with a drop between a half a foot and two feet every
hundred feet. This stream was at base flow conditions at the time of the stream survey. The
turbidity levels were not elevated at the time of survey. The dominant substrates were silt, and
leaf pack / woody debris. Ordinary High Water Mark width was two feet and depth was 0.2 foot.
Bank Full width was four feet and depth was 0.4 foot. Top of Bank width was six feet and depth
was 0.5 foot. The maximum pool depth observed was between ten and 22.5 centimeters. The
Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek flows into the White River, a Traditional Navigable Water.
Due to this connection, this stream should be considered a jurisdictional water of the United
States.
Stream 04 (Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek) (275 Linear Feet)
The Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek was an ephemeral stream that flowed west through
the project study area. Stream 04 was a natural channel; no modifications were observed within
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 9
the survey reach. Both banks had a wide (greater than ten meters) riparian corridor, with the
floodplain land use predominantly immature forest, shrub-scrub, or old field. The stream had
moderate sinuosity, with two S-curves observed within the two hundred foot survey reach. The
stream had a flat to moderate gradient, with a drop between a half a foot and two feet every
hundred feet. This stream was at base flow conditions at the time of the stream survey. The
turbidity levels were not elevated at the time of survey. The dominant substrates were silt, and
leaf pack / woody debris. Ordinary High Water Mark width was one foot and depth was 0.1 foot.
Bank Full width was two feet and depth was 0.2 foot. Top of Bank width was four feet and
depth was 0.4 foot. The maximum pool depth observed was less than five centimeters. The
Unnamed Tributary to Williams Creek flows into the White River, a Traditional Navigable Water.
Due to this connection, this stream should be considered a jurisdictional water of the United
States.
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.
Proposed wetland impacts must be less than 1 acre and meet specific criteria in order to qualif y
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 f or 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.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 10
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 inspected the Hidden Creek study area on 3/18/2015. Four streams and one wetland
were identified.
Table 6-1 Features Identified within the Hidden Creek study area
Feature Name Feature Class
Area (Acres) /
Linear Feet (LF) Regulatory Status
Wetland 01 PFO 0.21 Jurisdictional
Stream 01 EPH 750’ Jurisdictional
Stream 02 EPH 124’ Jurisdictional
Stream 03 EPH 386’ Jurisdictional
Stream 04 EPH 275’ Jurisdictional
TOTAL 0.21 / 1535’
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
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.
Regulated Waters Delineation Report
Hidden Creek
March 2015 Cardno 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.
Hidden Creek
FIGURES
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PFO1A
PFO1A
PSS1/EM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx PFO1A
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PFO1Ah
PFO1C
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1F
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1F
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PSS1/EM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGh
PUBG
PUBGx
PEM1F
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGh
PEM1F
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1Ch
PUBGx
PUBGxPUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1F
PEM1F
PUBGx
PUBGxPFO1C
PUBGh
PUBGx
PUBGPUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1C
PUBGx
3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardno.com
Hidden Creek Regulated Waters Delineation ReportLogan Limited Development CorporationHamilton County, Indiana
Figure 1: Project Location andNational Wetland Inventory (NWI)Th is m a p a nd a ll da ta conta ine d with in a resupplie d a s is with no wa rra nty. Ca rdno,Inc. e xpre ssly discla im s re sponsib ility forda m a g e s or lia b ility from a ny cla im s th a tm a y a rise out of th e use or m isuse of th ism a p. It is th e sole re sponsib ility of th euse r to de te rm ine if th e da ta on th is m a pm e e ts th e use r s ne e ds. Th is m a p wa s notcre a te d a s surve y da ta , nor sh ould it b euse d a s such . It is th e use r s re sponsib ilityto ob ta in prope r surve y da ta , pre pa re d b ya lice nse d surve yor, wh e re re quire d b yla w.
²
Township: 17 NRange: 3 ESection: 3 Project No.J153616000
Proje ct Loca tion
NWI We tla nd
File Pa th : R :\Proje cts\15\153\153616000_Log a nLim ite d_Ca rm e lPrope rty\GIS\MXD\De line a tion\F1_Loca tion_NWI.m xdDa te R e vise d: 3/19/2015Ba se m a p: Source s: Esri, HER E, De Lorm e , USGS, Inte rm a p, incre m e nt P Corp., NR CAN, Esri Ja pa n, METI, Esri Ch ina (Hong Kong ), Esri (Th a ila nd), Tom Tom , Ma pm yIndia , ' Ope nStre e tMa p contrib utors, a nd th e GIS Use r Com m unity, Copyrig h t:' 2013 Na tiona l Ge og ra ph ic Socie ty, i-cub e d
Da te Cre a te d: 3/19/2015 Sa ve d By: Ste ph e n.La Fon
HAMILTON
TIPTON
MAR IONBOONE MADISONHANCOCKCLINTONArea ofInterest
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Meters
3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardno.com
This m ap and all data containedwithin are supplied as is with nowarranty. Cardno, Inc. expresslydisclaim s responsibility for dam agesor liability from any claim s that m ayarise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole responsibility ofthe user to determ ine if the data onthis m ap m eets the user s needs.This m ap was not created as survey
File Path: R:\Projects\15\153\153616000_LoganLimited_CarmelProperty\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F2_NWI_Key.mxdDate Revised: 3/19/2015
Data Sources:
Date Created: 3/19/2015 Saved By:: Stephen.LaFon
FRESHW ATER W ETLAND 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 TERMS
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 LOW ER PERENNIAL 4 INTERMITTENT 5 UNKNOW N 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. J153616000
Hidden Creek Regulated W aters Delineation ReportLogan Lim ited Developm ent CorporationHam ilton County, Indiana
Figure 2: NW I Key
Br
Sh
CrA
Br
CrA
CrA
Br
CrA
CrA
CrA
CrA
MmB2
CrA CrACrAC
r
A
CrACrACrA
MmB2
MmB2H
e
F
Cr
A
CrABrM
m
B
2
CrA
CrABr CrA
CrA
MmA
CrA
Br
Br
MmB2
CrA
CrACrAMoC3CrA
CrA
Mm
B
2CrA
Br MmB2CrACrA
Br
CrAC
r
A
CrA
CrAMmB2
M
m
C
2
Br
CrA
WMmACrABr
Br
BrMmB
2
W
MmC2
CrACrA
M
m
B
2 CrAMmB2Br
MmC2
HeFMmB2
MmA
MoC3 PnCrA MmB2Mm
C
2
FnB2
MmC2
MmC2MmA
N MERIDIAN STSPRINGMILL RDW 116TH ST
PENNSYLVANIA STILLINOIS STESTANCIA WAYW 106TH ST
HUSSEY LNSPRINGMILL LNDELAWARE STE 116TH ST
W 111TH ST
ROYAL DRTOTTENHAM DRJUMPER LNBURLINGTON LN
E 106TH STW 107TH STSANNER CT
SPRINGWOOD DR
W 116TH ST W 116TH ST
W 106TH ST N MERIDIAN STILLINOIS STPENNSYLVANIA STILLINOIS STSPRINGMILL RDILLINOIS STW 111TH ST
HeF
HeF
MmD2
MmD2
Br
Br
MmB2
HeF
Wh
Br
MmB2
MmB2
MmC2
Br MmB2MoD3
MmB2
MmC2
Br
MmB2
Br
CrA
CrA
MmC2
CrA
MoC3
CrA
MmC2
MmD2 CrA CrA
MmB2
MmB2
MmB2
MoC3
3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardno.com
Hidden Creek Regulated Waters Delineation ReportLogan Limited Development CorporationHamilton County, Indiana
Figure 3: Soil SurveyThis m ap and all data contained within aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno,Inc. ex pressly disclaim s responsibility fordam ages or liability from any claim s thatm ay arise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole responsibility of theuser to determ ine if the data on this m apm eets the user s needs. This m ap was notcreated as survey data, nor should it beused as such. It is the user s responsibilityto obtain proper survey data, prepared bya licensed surveyor, where required bylaw.
²
Township: 17 NRange: 3 ESection: 3 Project No.J153616000
Soil Survey
Soil Unit - Hydric
Project Location
File Path: \\jfnew.com \Projects\Projects\15\153\153616000_LoganLim ited_Carm elProperty\GIS\MXD\Delineation\F3_SoilSurvey.m x dDate Revised: 3/19/2015Basem ap: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getm apping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Com m unity
Date Created: 3/19/2015 Saved By: Stephen.LaFon
0 1,000500 Feet
0 100 200 300 Meters
Symbol Description Hydric
Br Brookston silty clay loam Y esCrACrosby silt loam , 0 to 3 percent slopes NoMmAMiam i silt loam , 0 to 2 percent slopes NoMmB2Miam i silt loam , 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded No
!(
!(
!(
wl01
s0
3
s04
s02
dp03
dp02 SPRINGMILL RDMCLAREN LN
W 111TH ST
SPRING RIDGE DRs01dp01
3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254 USAPhone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1982www.cardno.com
Hidden Creek Regulated Waters Delineation ReportLogan Limited Development CorporationHamilton County, Indiana
Figure 4: DelineationThis map an d all data co n tain ed within aresupplied as is with n o warran ty. Cardn o ,In c. expressly disclaims respo n sibility fo rdamages o r liability fro m an y claims thatmay arise o ut o f the use o r misuse o f thismap. It is the so le respo n sibility o f theuser to determin e if the data o n this mapmeets the user s n eeds. This map was n o tcreated as survey data, n o r sho uld it beused as such. It is the user s respo n sibilityto o btain pro per survey data, prepared bya licen sed surveyo r, where required bylaw.
²
Township: 17 NRange: 3 ESection: 3 Project No.J153616000
!(Data Po in t
Delin eated Stream
Delin eated Wetlan d
Pro ject Lo catio n
File Path: \\jfn ew.co m\Pro jects\Pro jects\15\153\153616000_Lo gan Limited_CarmelPro perty\GIS\MXD\Delin eatio n \F4_Delin eatio n .mxdDate Revised: 3/19/2015Basemap: So urce: Esri, DigitalGlo be, Geo Eye, Earthstar Geo graphics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmappin g, Aero grid, IGN, IGP, swissto po , an d the GIS User Co mmun ity
Date Created: 3/19/2015 Saved By: Stephen .LaFo n
0 100 20050 Feet
0 20 40 60 Meters
Hidden Creek
APPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DP01,View Looking North
DP01,View Looking South
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
Hidden Creek
DP03,View Looking North
DP03,View Looking South
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
S01,View Looking Downstream
S01,View LookingUpstream
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
S02,View Looking Downstream
S02,View LookingUpstream
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
S03,View Looking Downstream
S03,View LookingUpstream
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
S04,View Looking Downstream
S04,View LookingUpstream
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
Adjacent property to the west
Representave upland area
Site PhotographsProject No. 1208004.01
Project Name
Client Name
County, State
Hidden Creek
Logan Limited
Hamilton County, Indiana
Project Number:
J1536160.00 Site Photographs
APPENDIX B
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA
SHEETS – MIDWEST REGION
Yes No
NN Yes No
NN
Yes
Yes No
Yes
Remarks:
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover
1.10%
2.20%
3.5% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.
5.
35%
1.5%
2.10%
3.5%
4.
5.
20%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
x1 =
1.x2 =
2.x3 =
3.x4 =
4.x5 =
5.(B)
6.
7.
8.
9.
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.
1. 5%
2.No
5%
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
till plain
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
Yes
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): concave
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Acer negundo
Nyssa sylvatica
Lindera benzoin
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
Brookston silty clay loam (Br) NWI classification: none
39.947502 Long: -86.166791 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:4%
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Hidden Creek City/County: Carmel/Hamilton
BRH & KGH S3, T17N, R3ESection, Township, Range:
State:Logan LTD IN Sampling Point: DP01
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
FAC
Acer saccharum
Yes
Yes
FACW
FACW
Yes
Sambucus nigra Yes FACW
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
Ulmus americana
FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Vitis riparia Yes FACW
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
10%
FACW species
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
UPL species
OBL species
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 3/18/2015
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
X
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
X
, Soil
Is the Sampled Area
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1.65
2.75
X
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:
5
0.75
0.4
25%
25%
Multiply by:
0.5
FACU species
FAC species
Column Totals: (A)0.60
83% (A/B)
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
%Type1
2C
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes X No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
X X Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X N/A
X Surface
X Surface Yes X No
SOIL
TextureColor (moist) %Remarks
M0-16" 10yr 4/2
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) Iron Deposits (B5)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Field Observations:
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
98 10yr 4/4
Color (moist) Loc
2(inches)
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)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Silty Clay Loam
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)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8)
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):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Remarks:
High Water Table (A2)
HYDROLOGY
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Hydric Soil Present?
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
DP01
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Sampling Point:
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
Yes No
NN Yes No
NN
Yes X
Yes X No
Yes X
Remarks:
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover
1.40%
2.5%
3.20% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.10%
5.
75%
1.5%
2.10%
3.5%
4.
5.
20%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
x1 =
1.2%x2 =
2.4%x3 =
3.x4 =
4.x5 =
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.
6%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
0.75
2.24
15%
25%
Multiply by:
0.3
FACU species
0.25
FAC species
Column Totals: (A)1.01
43% (A/B)
5' radius )
A/B
7 Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
Total % Cover of:
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
30' radius
Dominant
OBL species
5%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 3/18/2015
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
X
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?, Soil
Is the Sampled Area
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.54
3.50
FACU
56%
FACW speciesYes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
UPL species
Schedonorus arundinaceus
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Yes
Geum vernum
FAC
Acer saccharum
Yes
Yes
FACW
UPL
FACU
Yes
Sambucus nigra Yes FACW
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
Lonicera maackii
FAC
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Hidden Creek City/County: Carmel/Hamilton
BRH & KGH S3, T17N, R3ESection, Township, Range:
State:Logan LTD IN Sampling Point: DP02
Crosby silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (CrA) NWI classification: none
39.947427 Long: -86.166663 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:10%
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
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83 UTM16N
Local relief (concave, convex, none): none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Acer negundo
Populus deltoides
Fagus grandifolia
Lindera benzoin
No
Yes
No
FACU
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
%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)
X N/A
X >16"
X >16"Yes No X
DP02
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Sampling Point:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Remarks:
High Water Table (A2)
HYDROLOGY
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Hydric Soil Present?
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8)
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):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam
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)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Field Observations:
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
8-16" 10yr 4/4
100
Color (moist) Loc
2(inches)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) Iron Deposits (B5)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Drift Deposits (B3)
SOIL
100
TextureColor (moist) %Remarks
0-8" 10yr 4/2
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
Yes No
NN Yes No
NN
Yes X
Yes X No
Yes X
Remarks:
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover
1.5%
2.40%
3.5% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.20%
5.10%
80%
1.5%
2.35%
3.15%
4.10%
5.
65%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
x1 =
1.5%x2 =
2.x3 =
3.x4 =
4.x5 =
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.
5%
1. 10%
2.No
10%
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
till plain
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
FACW
Yes
No
Yes
Ulmus americana
FACU
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83 UTM16N
Local relief (concave, convex, none): none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Prunus serotina
Crataegus mollis
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Viburnum prunifolium
FACU
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
39.947145 Long: -86.16801 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Hidden Creek City/County: Carmel/Hamilton
BRH & KGH S3, T17N, R3ESection, Township, Range:
State:Logan LTD IN Sampling Point: DP03
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
Geum vernum
FACU
Acer saccharum
Yes
Yes
No
FACU
UPL
FACW
No
Euonymus americanus No FAC
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
Lonicera maackii
Rosa multiflora
No
FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Celastrus orbiculatus Yes UPL
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
95%
FACW speciesYes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
UPL species
OBL species
25%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date: 3/18/2015
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
X
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?, Soil
Is the Sampled Area
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.95
3.72
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:
1
0.3
3.8
30%
10%
Multiply by:
0.6
FACU species
1.25
FAC species
Column Totals: (A)1.60
17% (A/B)
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
%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)
X N/A
X >16"
X >16"Yes No X
SOIL
TextureColor (moist) %Remarks
0-16" 10yr 4/3
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) Iron Deposits (B5)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Field Observations:
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
100
Color (moist) Loc
2(inches)
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)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Silty Clay Loam
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)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8)
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):
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Saturation (A3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Remarks:
High Water Table (A2)
HYDROLOGY
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Hydric Soil Present?
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
DP03
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Sampling Point:
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0