Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210201_Gradison_DitchRoadCarmel_DelinReport_OPT Water Resources Delineation Report 71.5 Acres, Ditch Road Project, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana February 1, 2021 Prepared for: Gradison Land Development 6330 East 75th Street Indianapolis, IN 46250 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group, Inc. 5641 W 73rd Street Indianapolis, IN 46278 317-558-8545 Davey Resource Group i February 2021 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ii Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 2 Results.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Tables 1. Wetlands Delineated on the Site ................................................................................................ ii 2. Soil Types Mapped for the Site ................................................................................................. 1 3. Hydrology Indicators Identified in On-Site Wetlands ............................................................... 4 Appendices A1. Mapped Water Resources A2. Photopoint Locations within the Study Area B. Location of Study Area on Indiana County Map C. Location of Study Area on Highway Map D. Location of Study Area on Aerial Photograph E. Location of Study Area on USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map F. Location of Study Area on National Wetlands Inventory Map G. Location of Study Area on Hamilton County Soil Survey Map H. Photographs of Site I. Definition of Wetlands Vegetation Indicator Status (from Lichvar et al 2016) J. Vegetation, Hydrology, and Soils Data Sheets K. References Davey Resource Group ii February 2021 Executive Summary The ±71.5-acre study area is located southwest of the intersection of W County Road 144 and N Road 450 W near Bargersville in White River Township, Johnson County, Indiana within Section 34, Township 13 North, Range 3 East. A water resources delineation was performed by Tomás Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson on January 29th, 2021. The study area encompasses approximately 71.5 acres of privately owned land. The study area consists of golf course fairways, rough, and sand traps, open-water ponds, emergent wetland, and deciduous forest. A map of the location and size of the water resources identified on the property is shown in Appendix A. Four emergent wetlands totaling 0.553 acre are located within the study area (Table 1). Six open- water ponds totaling 2.285 acres are also located within the site. One intermittent stream totaling 487 linear feet (LF) flows through the northeastern corner of the site, and should be considered a “Water of the United States” under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Wetland A appears to by hydrologically connected to Stream 1, and should thus be considered “Waters of the United States” under the jurisdiction of USACE. All other wetlands (B, C, and D) appear to be isolated and not adjacent to any USACE-jurisdictional bodies of water. None of the open-water ponds are considered “Waters of the United States.” Table 1. Water Resources Delineated on Site ID Type Latitude Longitude Connectivity to Waters of the U.S.1 Total Area/Length (Acres/LF) Wetland A PEM 39.936647 N 86.186483 W Connected 0.269 Wetland B PEM 39.934396 N 86.184392 W Isolated 0.023 Wetland C PEM 39.936653 N 86.187373 W Isolated 0.048 Wetland D PEM 39.934728 N 86.191384 W Isolated 0.213 Pond 1 PUB 39.934378 N 86.184613 W Isolated 0.309 Pond 2 PUB 39.933648 N 86.184499 W Isolated 0.062 Pond 3 PUB 39.936672 N 86.187437 W Isolated 0.376 Pond 4 PUB 39.937376 N 86.189473 W Isolated 0.213 Pond 5 PUB 39.934703 N 86.191237 W Isolated 1.297 Pond 6 PUB 39.936735 N 86.185812 W Isolated 0.028 Stream 1 INT 39.936629 N 86.186472 W Jurisdictional 487 1 The final determination of a wetlands’ connectivity to Waters of the U.S. is made by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Davey Resource Group 1 February 2021 Introduction Study Area Description and Location The 71.5-acre study area is located in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana (Appendix B). The area is located southwest of the intersection of Ditch Road and 106th Street. The study area contains golf course fairways, rough, and sand traps, open-water ponds, emergent wetland, and deciduous forest. An aerial photograph of the study area is included in Appendix D. Surrounding land use is predominantly residential. Secondary Source Information The study area is shown on the Carmel Quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) map (Appendix E). The study area is approximately 836 to 866 feet above sea level. A National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showing nearby NWI wetlands is located in Appendix F. There are seven NWI wetland polygons located within the site. Table 2 indicates the ID number and Cowardin classification code of each NWI polygon. Table 2. NWI Polygons Located within the Site ID Number Cowardin Class Cowardin Class Description 313306 PEM1Ch Palustrine emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 313392 PEM1F Palustrine emergent, persistent, semi-permanently flooded 316319 PUBGh Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, diked/impounded 318130 PUBGx Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated 318144 PUBGx Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated 318148 PUBGx Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated 318174 PUBGx Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated A map from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey showing the soil types located on and adjacent to the site is found in Appendix G. The Hydric Soils of the United States (1991) was reviewed to determine potential hydric soils identified within the study area. Table 3 provides a list of soil types mapped for the site. Davey Resource Group 2 February 2021 Table 3. Soil Types Mapped for the Site Map Unit Soil Description Hydric Determination1 Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Hydric CrA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil 0 to 2 percent slopes Non-hydric with hydric inclusions MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Non-hydric with hydric inclusions MoD3 Miami clay loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded Non-hydric YbvA Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Hydric YclA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Non-hydric with hydric inclusions YmsB2 Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded Non-hydric with hydric inclusions 1As determined by The Hydric Soils of the United States (1991). Methodology The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (US Army Corps of Engineers 2012) were used in delineating wetlands within the study area. Water resources were delineated and surveyed on January 29th, 2021. The water resources delineation fieldwork, boundary mapping, and data analysis were performed by Tomás Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson. Preparation of the vegetation, soils, and wetlands maps was conducted using ArcGIS™ v.10.7. Streams are identified as linear, flowing water features with a defined bed and bank. Streams are classified as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial based upon flow regime. Ephemeral streams have flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events. Intermittent streams have flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater and rainfall provide water for stream flow. During dry periods intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Perennial streams have flowing water year-round, receiving water from groundwater and rainfall runoff. Wetlands are identified based on three criteria: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. An area must meet all three criteria to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. Sampling points were established in the field to determine wetlands boundaries. Data sheets reporting the results of soils, vegetation, and hydrology analyses were completed for each sample station and are located in Appendix J. Soil samples were obtained to determine the extent of hydric soils on the site. A standard Munsell soil color chart was used to determine the hue, value, and chroma of each soil sample. Soil samples were taken to a depth to adequately make a hydric soil determination. Criteria established by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (1991) were used to determine hydric soils. Wetland hydrology was characterized during this water resources delineation. Inundation and/or soil saturation were noted for each sample point. Other hydrological indicators, including watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, wetlands drainage patterns, blackened leaves, morphological indicators, iron/manganese concretions, and oxidized root zones within the upper soil layers, were Davey Resource Group 3 February 2021 documented, if observed. Quantitative vegetation data were collected at each sampling point. Dominance was estimated by percent areal cover. Four strata were considered for each sample point—trees, saplings/shrubs, herbs, and woody vines. Trees were defined as any woody plant having a diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than 3.0 inches. Saplings and shrubs were those woody plants with a DBH of less than 3.0 inches and greater than 3.2 feet in height. For each stratum, plant species within a plot were identified and percent areal cover was estimated for each species. Thirty-foot-radius plots were used for trees and vines; 15-foot-radius plots were used for saplings and shrubs; and 5-foot-radius plots were used for herbs. Any species within a stratum comprising 20% or more of the total plot areal cover was considered to be dominant. Dominant species within all strata were then added to determine the percentage of wetlands vegetation for each sample point. The wetlands vegetation criterion was met if greater than 50% of the dominant vegetation was indicative of wetlands conditions. Species identifications are based on Chadde (1998 and 2011), Rothrock (2009), Voss (2012), Weeks et al. (2005 and 2012), and Yatskievych (2000). Lichvar et al (2016) was used to assign indicator statuses to each identified species. Plants with an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC) were considered to be indicative of wetlands conditions. Plants with an indicator status of facultative upland (FACU) or upland (UPL) were considered to be indicative of upland conditions. Plants that could only be identified to genus were sometimes assigned an indicator status based on the professional judgment of Davey Resource Group. These plants were classified as wetlands indicator species (WIS) or upland indicator species (UIS). See Appendix I for a more detailed explanation of wetlands vegetation indicator statuses. A Trimble® R1 device was used to collect data point locations and delineate wetland boundaries. Wetlands that are hydrologically connected to traditional navigable waters of the United States are considered non-isolated and fall under the federal jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Results WETLANDS Vegetation The site contains agricultural fields, deciduous forest, forested wetland, and emergent wetlands. Photograph locations are shown in Appendix A. Photographs showing water resources identified on the site are included in Appendix H. Wetland assessment data forms are included in Appendix J. Wetland A (0.269 acre) coincided with NWI polygon 313306 (Cowardin class PEM1Ch). It contained dominant vegetation consisting of Narrowleaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Swamp Thistle (Cirsium muticum, FACW), Butterweed (Packera glabella, FACW), and Pinkweed (Persicaria pensylvanica, FACW). Adjacent upland vegetation consisted of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon, FACU) Wetland B (0.023 acre) was a littoral fringe wetland along Pond 1. It contained dominant vegetation consisting of Narrowleaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum, FAC). Adjacent upland vegetation consisted of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon, FACU) Davey Resource Group 4 February 2021 Wetland C (0.019 acre) was a littoral fringe wetland along Pond 3. It contained dominant vegetation consisting of Narrowleaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum, FAC). Adjacent upland vegetation consisted of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon, FACU) Wetland D (0.162 acre) was a littoral fringe wetland along Pond 5. It contained dominant vegetation consisting of Narrowleaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included American Water-Horehound (Lycopus americanus, OBL). Adjacent upland vegetation consisted of Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon, FACU). In addition, non-dominant vegetation observed included Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua, FACU) and White Clover (Trifolium repens, FACU). PONDS Pond 1 (0.309 acre) coincided with the NWI polygon 318144. According to the NWI data, the pond has an unconsolidated bottom, has an intermittently exposed water regime, and was excavated. Wetland B is located in a littoral shelf along the eastern shore of the pond. Pond 2 (0.062 acre within site) coincided with the NWI polygon 318130. According to the NWI data, the pond has an unconsolidated bottom, has an intermittently exposed water regime, and was excavated. Pond 2 only extends partially into the site, and has an overall acreage of 0.193 acre. Pond 3 (0.376 acre) coincided with the NWI polygon 316319. According to the NWI data, the pond has an unconsolidated bottom, has an intermittently exposed water regime, and was diked/impounded. Wetland C is located in a littoral shelf along the southern, eastern, and western shores of the pond. Pond 4 (0.841 acre) coincided with the NWI polygon 318174. According to the NWI data, the pond has an unconsolidated bottom, has an intermittently exposed water regime, and was excavated. Pond 5 (1.297 acres) coincided with the NWI polygon 318148. According to the NWI data, the pond has an unconsolidated bottom, has an intermittently exposed water regime, and was diked/impounded. Wetland D is located in a littoral shelf along the entire shore of the pond. Pond 6 (0.028 acre within site) coincided with the NWI polygon 313392. According to the NWI data, the pond is actually a palustrine emergent wetland that is persistent and semi-permanently flooded. The wetland seemed to exhibit characteristics more typical of an open-water pond when observed during the January 2021 site visit. The pond only extends partially into the site, and has an overall acreage of 0.178 acre. STREAMS Stream 1 (487 linear feet) was identified as an unnamed tributary (UNT) to Pond 6, and drains water through Wetland A. The predominant substrate is silt and organic litter. The average OHWM width within Stream1 is 4 feet, and the average OHWM depth is 1 foot. Land cover on both sides of the stream reach is golf course green, deciduous forest, and emergent wetland. Davey Resource Group 5 February 2021 Soils All wetlands delineated on site contained hydric soils. Hydric soil indicators met on site included Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) and Depleted Matrix (F3) in all four wetlands, and Redox Depressions (F8) in Wetlands A, B, and C. Hydrology Hydrology present in the study area derives primarily from precipitation and groundwater. Hydrologic indicators identified on site include High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), Drainage Patterns (B10), Geomorphic Position (D2), and FAC-Neutral Test (D5). Table 3 lists the primary and secondary hydrology indicators observed in each of the on-site wetlands. Table 4. Hydrology Indicators Identified in On-Site Wetlands Wetland Primary Indicator Number Primary Indicator Description Secondary Indicator Number Secondary Indicator Description A N/A N/A B10, D2, D5 Drainage Patterns, Geomorphic Position, FAC- Neutral Test B A2, A3 High Water Table (6”) Saturation (at 4”) D2, D5 Geomorphic Position, FAC- Neutral Test C A2, A3 High Water Table (6”), Saturation (at 4”) D2, D5 Geomorphic Position, FAC- Neutral Test D A2, A3 High Water Table (5”), Saturation (to Surface) D2, D5 Geomorphic Position, FAC- Neutral Test Conclusions A map of the location and size of the water resources identified on the property is shown in Appendix A. Four emergent wetlands totaling 0.553 acre are located within the study area (Table 1). Six open- water ponds totaling 2.285 acres are also located within the site. One intermittent stream totaling 487 linear feet (LF) flows through the northeastern corner of the site, and should be considered a “Water of the United States” under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Wetland A appears to by hydrologically connected to Stream 1, and should thus be considered “Waters of the United States” under the jurisdiction of USACE. All other wetlands (B, C, and D) appear to be isolated and not adjacent to any USACE-jurisdictional bodies of water. None of the open-water ponds are considered “Waters of the United States.” DRG is confident that all jurisdictional wetlands and drainageways were identified on this site. All water resource studies conducted by Davey Resource Group are objective and based strictly on professional judgment. Davey Resource Group and its employees have no vested interest in this property or the proposed project. Appendix K contains references used in the creation of this report. All wetlands delineations must be verified by the US Army Corps of Engineers to be considered official. This wetlands delineation is reflective of environmental conditions at the time the fieldwork was performed. Wetlands are dynamic natural systems; therefore, boundaries may change slightly over time. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 19 8 7 6 5 4 32 1 15 14 13 12 11 10 February 2021 0 400 800200Feet 1 in = 400 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road ProjectClay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Indiana Office of Information Technology, 2018 Appendix A: Mapped Water Resources Davey Resource Group ´ Legend Data Points Photopoints Intermittent Streams Study Area (~71.5 acres) Emergent Wetlands Open-Water Ponds 3 2 2 1 4 3 57 Pond 1 (PUB): 0.309 acre Pond 2 (PUB): 0.062 acre within site Pond 4 (PUB): 0.841 acre Pond 3 (PUB): 0.376 acre 1 Pond 6 (PUB): 0.028 acre within site Pond 5 (PUB): 1.297 acres Wetland A (PEM): 0.269 acre Wetland B (PEM): 0.023 acre Wetland C (PEM): 0.048 acre Wetland D (PEM): 0.213 acre Stream 1 (Intermittent): 487 linear feet Ditch Road Davey Resource Group February 2021 Allen Jay Knox Lake Vigo White Jasper Rush Cass LaPorte Parke Clay Greene Pike Grant Gibson Noble Porter Ripley Putnam Perry Elkhart Posey Clark Henry Boone Jackson Wells Dubois Shelby Owen Wayne Marion Pulaski Clinton Benton Sullivan Harrison Carroll Fulton Orange Morgan Marshall Monroe Warrick Randolph Lawrence Warren Franklin Hamilton Brown Starke Decatur DeKalb Whitley Jefferson Lagrange Howard Steuben Tipton Crawford Miami Kosciusko Madison Daviess Newton Martin Wabash Adams Spencer Washington Fountain Tippecanoe Delaware St. Joseph Montgomery Hendricks Jennings Johnson Hancock Dearborn Scott Huntington Bartholomew Fayette UnionVermillion Floyd Switzerland VanderburghBlackford Ohio Lake Michigan !. !.= Study Area Location 20 0 20 4010 Miles Appendix B: Location of Study Area on Indiana County Map ´Clay Township Source: Esri, Redlands CA Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Hamilton County, Indiana 1 in = 40 miles February 2021 0 4,000 8,0002,000 Feet 1 in = 4,000 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Clay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Esri, Redlands CA Appendix C: Project Location on Highway Map Davey Resource Group ´ Legend Study Area (~71.5 acres) February 2021 0 500 1,000250Feet 1 in = 500 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Clay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Esri, Redlands CA Appendix D: Project Location on Aerial Photograph (2016) Davey Resource Group ´ Legend Study Area (~71.5 acres) February 2021 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet 1 in = 2,000 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Clay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Esri, Redlands CA National Geographic Society, 2013 Appendix E: Project Location on USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map(Carmel Quadrangle) Davey Resource Group ´ Legend Study Area (~71.5 acres) PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PEM1F PUBGx PUBGx PEM1Ch PUBGx PEM1F PEM1F February 2021 0 500 1,000250Feet 1 in = 500 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Clay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Esri, Redlands CA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014 Appendix F: Project Location on National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map Davey Resource Group ´ Legend NWI Wetlands Study Area (~71.5 acres) CrA YclA Sh Br YbvA YclA YclA YclA Br YmsB2 YclA W MmB2 Br YbvA W YmsB2W MoD3 MmC2 W CrA YmsB2 YclA YbvA MmB2 YmsB2 YbvA YclA MmB2 CrA YmsB2 YclA YclA YmsB2 YbvA MmB2 CrA YmsB2 YbvA YbvA YhnF YmsB2 MmD2 YmsB2 MmB2 MmB2 MmB2 YmdC3 YmsB2 YclA YclA February 2021 0 400 800200Feet 1 in = 400 feet Site Location: Gradison, Ditch Road Project Clay TownshipHamilton County, Indiana Source: Esri, Redlands CA U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Appendix G: Project Location on Hamilton County Soil Survey Map Davey Resource Group ´ Legend Study Area (~71.5 acres) Soils Hydric Soils DP01, View looking north Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Site Photographs DP01, View looking east DP01, View looking south DP02, View looking north DP02, View looking east DP01, View looking west DP02, View looking south Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued DP02, View looking west DP03, View looking north DP03, View looking south DP03, View looking west DP03, View looking east DP04, View looking north Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued DP04, View looking east DP04, View looking south DP05, View looking north DP05, View looking east DP04, View looking west DP05, View looking west Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued DP06, View looking north DP06, View looking east DP06, View looking west DP07, View looking north DP06, View looking south DP07, View looking east Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued DP07, View looking south DP07, View looking west DP08, View looking east DP08, View looking south DP08, View looking north DP08, View looking west Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP01, Stream 1 looking upstream PP01, Stream 1 looking downstream PP03, 12-inch culvert looking upstream PP04, View looking north PP02, 12-inch culvert looking downstream PP04, View looking east Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP04, View looking south PP04, View looking west PP06, Pond 2 looking southeast PP07, View looking north PP05, Pond 1 looking northeast PP07, View looking east Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP07, View looking south PP07, View looking west PP09, View looking north PP09, View looking east PP08, Pond 4 looking northwest PP09, View looking south Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP09, View looking west PP10, View looking north PP10, View looking south PP10, View looking west PP10, View looking east PP11, View looking north Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP11, View looking east PP11, View looking south PP12, Pond 5 looking northeast PP13, View looking north PP11, View looking west PP13, View looking east Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP13, View looking south PP13, View looking west PP14, View looking east PP14, View looking south PP14, View looking north PP14, View looking west Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix H Continued PP15, View looking north PP15, View looking east PP15, View looking west PP15, View looking south Davey Resource Group February 2021 Appendix I Definition of Wetlands Vegetation Indicator Status (from Lichvar et al 2016) Obligate Wetlands (OBL). Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands. Facultative Wetlands (FACW). Usually is a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands. Facultative (FAC). Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte. Facultative Upland (FACU). Occasionally is a hydrophyte but usually occurs in uplands. Obligate Upland (UPL). Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands. Species for which little or no information was available to base an indicator status were assigned a no indicator (NI) status. An asterisk (*) after the indicator status indicates that the indicator status was based on limited ecological information. The wetlands indicator categories should not be equated to degrees of wetness. Many obligate wetlands species occur in permanently or semipermanently flooded wetlands, but a number of obligates also occur, and some are restricted to wetlands that are only temporarily or seasonally flooded. The facultative upland species include a diverse collection of plants that range from weedy species adapted to exist in a number of environmentally stressful or disturbed sites (including wetlands), to species in which a portion of the gene pool (an ecotype) always occurs in wetlands. Both the weedy and ecotype representatives of the facultative upland category occur in seasonally and semipermanently flooded wetlands. Davey Resource Group has added two additional indicators for situations when plants can only be identified to genus. A Wetlands Indicator Species (WIS) is a plant that is most likely obligate wetlands, facultative wetlands, or facultative. An Upland Indicator Species (UIS) is a plant that is most likely indicative of upland or facultative upland conditions. These additional indicators are used when species identification is not possible. A variety of factors are part of the UIS and WIS assignments. Indicator statuses of all locally occurring members of the genus in question are considered, as are the health and size of the population and the indicator status of nearby plants. Davey Resource Group 2 February 2021 Appendix J Vegetation, Hydrology, and Soils Data Sheets State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.60%x2 = 2.20%x3 = 3.20%x4 = 4.15%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. 115% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 55% Multiply by: 0.6 1.1 FACU species 1.7 1.48 60% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species Column Totals: Persicaria pensylvanica No FACW 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL = Total Cover Packera glabella No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Typha angustifolia Yes OBL Herb Stratum (Plot size: No FACW Cirsium muticum FACWNo 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology X XWetland Hydrology Present? 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 1 Section, Township, Range: Crosby Silt Loam (CrA) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 UPLNo Vegetation Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.15 Total % Cover of: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 1 %Type1 15 C X Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) X 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 n/a x n/a x n/a Yes X No 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? 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): 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Texture Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 1-20"10YR 4/1 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 5YR 3/4 PL 0-1"10YR 3/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam85 Remarks: 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes X Yes No Yes X Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.100%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. 100% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.00 Total % Cover of: UPLNo Vegetation Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 X Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 2 Section, Township, Range: Miami clay loam (MoD3) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Present? 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? 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. = Total Cover No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Cynodon dactylon Yes FACU Herb Stratum (Plot size: Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species 100% FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0%(A/B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 4 Multiply by: FACU species 4 4.00 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 2 %Type1 10 C X 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) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) x n/a x n/a x n/a Yes No X 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 0-4"10YR 3/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam90 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: Depth (inches): Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 4-20"10YR 4/1 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 4/6 PL Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 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) Texture 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) 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): 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) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.100%x2 = 2.5%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. 105% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 0.155% Multiply by: 1 FACU species 1.15 1.10 100% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL = Total Cover No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Typha angustifolia Yes OBL Herb Stratum (Plot size: Apocynum cannabinum FACNo 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology X XWetland Hydrology Present? 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 3 Section, Township, Range: Crosby silt loam (CrA) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 UPLNo Vegetation Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.05 Total % Cover of: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 3 %Type1 10 C X Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) X Drainage Patterns (B10) X 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 n/a X 6" X 4"Yes X No 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? 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): 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Texture Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 1-20"10YR 5/2 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 5/8 PL 0-1"10YR 2/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam90 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes X Yes No Yes X Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.100%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. 100% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 4 Multiply by: FACU species 4 4.00 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0%(A/B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species 100% FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL = Total Cover No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Cynodon dactylon Yes FACU Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Present? 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 4 Section, Township, Range: Crosby silt loam (CrA) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 UPLNo Vegetation Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.00 Total % Cover of: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 4 %Type1 10 C X 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) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) x n/a x n/a x n/a Yes No X 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): 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Texture Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 4-20"10YR 4/1 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 4/6 PL 0-4"10YR 3/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam90 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.100%x2 = 2.5%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. 105% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.05 Total % Cover of: UPLNo Vegetation Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 5 Section, Township, Range: Miami silt loam (MmB2) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology X XWetland Hydrology Present? 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 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. = Total Cover No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Typha angustifolia Yes OBL Herb Stratum (Plot size: Apocynum cannabinum FACNo Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species 100% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 0.155% Multiply by: 1 FACU species 1.15 1.10 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 5 %Type1 10 C X Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) X Drainage Patterns (B10) X 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 n/a X 6" X 4"Yes X No 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 0-1"10YR 2/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam90 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: Depth (inches): Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 1-20"10YR 5/2 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 5/8 PL Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 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) Texture 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) 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): 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? 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) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes X Yes X No Yes X Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1.40% 2.10% 3.10% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4.10% 5.10% 80% 1.80% 2. 3. 4. 5. 80% x1 = 1.30%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. 30% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 110% Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 0.9 2 30% Multiply by: FACU species 5.5 8.4 4.42 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0%(A/B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 3 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species 50% FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Vitis riparia FACW = Total Cover Lonicera mackii Yes UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Euonymus fortunei Yes UPL Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic?, Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Present? 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 6 Section, Township, Range: Miami silt loam (MmB2) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 Juglans nigra Ulmus rubra Cornus racemosa No FAC FAC No No No Aesculus glabra FACU FACU Prunus serotina FAC Yes Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.90 Total % Cover of: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 6 %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 n/a x n/a Yes No X 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): 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Texture Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 5-20"10YR 5/3 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 0-5"10YR 3/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks silty clay loam w/ gravel silty clay loam100 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes Yes No Yes Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.85%x2 = 2.15%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. 100% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.00 Total % Cover of: No vegetation Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 7 Section, Township, Range: Crosby silt loam (CrA) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology X XWetland Hydrology Present? 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 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. = Total Cover No vegetation 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Typha angustifolia Yes OBL Herb Stratum (Plot size: Lycopus americanus OBLNo Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No vegetaiton Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species 100% WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Multiply by: 1 FACU species 1 1.00 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 7 %Type1 10 C X Type: Depth (inches):Yes X No Surface Soil Cracks (B6) X Drainage Patterns (B10) X 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 n/a X 5" X Surface Yes X No 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 0-1"10YR 2/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Clay loam Clay Loam90 disturbed with large rocks at 5" Remarks: Depth (inches): Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 1-20"10YR 5/2 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 5/8 PL Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 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) Texture 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) 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): 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) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 State: Yes No N N Yes No N N Yes X Yes No Yes X Remarks: Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover 1. 2. 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. x1 = 1.85%x2 = 2.10%x3 = 3.5%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. 100% 1. 2.No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 4 Multiply by: FACU species 4 4.00 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region (If no, explain in Remarks.) Sampling Date:1/29/2021 Sampling Point: Total Number of Dominant Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0%(A/B) Prevalence Index = B/A = = Total Cover 1 Species Across All Strata:(B) OBL species 100% FACW species XYes Present? Vegetation Hydrophytic UPL species Column Totals: 30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: No Vegetation UPL = Total Cover Trifolium repens No Vegetation UPL 15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:) 5' radius ) Cynodon dactylon Yes FACU Herb Stratum (Plot size: No FACU Poa annua FACUNo 30' radius Dominant Species?) Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. X significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? X , Soil Is the Sampled Area X, or Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Present? 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 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Gradison Land Development 10110 Ditch RD, Carmel, IN City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County Tomas Fuentes-Rohwer and Kayla Simpson IN S9 T17N R3E 8 Section, Township, Range: Crosby silt loam (CrA) Non-hydric NWI classification:none Long:Datum:Slope (%): Soil Map Unit Name: Lat:2% Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):terrace = 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 No Vegetation Percent of Dominant Species (A) FAC species 1.00 Total % Cover of: 1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2-Dominance Test is >50% ) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 8 %Type1 10 C X 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) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) x n/a x n/a x n/a Yes No X 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): 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) Other (Explain in Remarks) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Dark Surface (S7) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Texture Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Sampling Point:SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 3-20"10YR 4/1 100 Color (moist)Loc2(inches) 10YR 4/6 PL 0-3"10YR 3/2 Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Color (moist)%Remarks Sandy loam w/ gravel Sandy loam90 w/gravel, soil distrubed at 10" Remarks: 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) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0 Davey Resource Group 3 February 2021 Appendix K References Chadde, W. Steve. (1998). A Great Lakes Wetland Flora: A Complete, Illustrated Guide to the Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Upper Midwest. Pocketflora Press, Calumet, Michigan. 569 pp. Chadde, W. Steve. (2011). Wetland Plants of Indiana: A Complete Guide to the Wetland and Aquatic Plants of the Hoosier State. Steve W. Chadde, United States of America. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Rothrock, E. Paul. (2009). Sedges of Indiana and the Adjacent States: The Non-Carex Species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 270 pp. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/>. Accessed December 2019. US Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. National Wetlands Inventory Map: Carmel Quadrangle. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey. Carmel Quadrangle, Indiana [map]. Revised 1992. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. United States Department of the Interior. Reston Virginia. Voss, G. Edward and Anton A. Reznicek. (2012). Field Manual of Michigan Flora. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 990 pp. Weeks, S. Sally, Harmon P. Weeks Jr., and George R. Parker. (2005). Native Trees of the Midwest. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana. 325 pp. Weeks, S. Sally and Harmon P. Weeks Jr. (2012). Shrubs and Woody Vines of Indiana and the Midwest. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana. 463 pp. Yatskievych, Kay. 2000. Field Guide to Indiana Wildflowers. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 357 pp. Davey Resource Group January 2021 Appendix L Davey Resource Group Personnel Profiles Heather Bobich, PWS, MLA, is a certified Professional Wetland Scientist and Landscape Designer with a focus on native landscape and restoration design. She serves as the coordinator of ecological services for Davey Resource Group’s Indiana Natural Resource Consulting group; responsible for overseeing all ecological surveys and environmental planning studies, as well as the specialized management of ecological and wetlands permitting projects, mitigation and monitoring projects, and natural resource restoration design projects. Ms. Bobich has over 15 years of experience in the natural resources and environmental planning fields, and is knowledgeable of state and federal stream and wetlands regulations, all aspects of Section 401 and 404 permitting, isolated wetlands regulations, the federal mitigation rule for compensatory mitigation, floodplain regulations, and federal and state endangered species protocols. Ms. Bobich has managed multiple Section 401 and 404 permitting projects along with numerous natural resource inventories and planning projects. In addition, Ms. Bobich has provided assistance with grant writing and managing grant-funded projects through the EPA’s Section 319 program. Ms. Bobich has coordinated and facilitated public meetings and hearings and has assisted in the development of various planning documents including watershed planning and site development plans. With a background in landscape architecture, she is well versed in working with planning commissions, steering committees, and local stakeholder groups. Ms. Bobich graduated from Indiana University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Policy and Environmental Affairs and a minor in Geological Sciences. She also holds a Master of Landscape Architecture from Ball State’s College of Architecture and Planning. Tomás Fuentes-Rohwer, M.S.E.S., M.P.A., is an environmental scientist with Davey Resource Group. Mr. Fuentes-Rohwer assists with a variety of ecological projects, including wetland delineations and water resource impact assessments, wetland mitigation plan development, permit application preparation for USACE, IDEM, and IDNR, categorical exclusion (CE) documentation and red flag investigation (RFI) preparation for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, invasive species management, and wetland mitigation monitoring. Mr. Fuentes-Rohwer regularly treats invasive vegetation species in wetland, and upland habitats, and has a working knowledge of multiple ecological and biological assessment tools. Prior to joining Davey Resource Group, Mr. Fuentes-Rohwer performed water quality parameter and plankton sampling with the Indiana Clean Lakes Program and worked as a curatorial assistant and amateur botanist at the Indiana University Herbarium. He is also experienced with multiple assessment and analytical procedures for wetlands and aquatic resources, including wetland delineations, floristic quality assessments (FQAs), hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessments, qualitative habitat evaluation indices (QHEIs), macroinvertebrate surveys, and indices of biotic integrity (IBIs). He also has extensive experience in teaching environmental science and aquatic habitat-related sampling and assessment techniques, from his time as a teaching assistant in graduate school. During his graduate studies, Mr. Fuentes-Rohwer also performed field research to assess the response of macroinvertebrate functional feeding group assemblages to the impacts of high flow events in small-order agricultural streams. Mr. Fuentes-Rohwer is certified for NEPA and CE document preparation by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). He has a master’s in public affairs and a master’s of science in environmental science from the Indiana University O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and a bachelor’s of science in Biology from Indiana University. Kayla Simpson, M.S.E.S., M.PA., is a is an environmental scientist with Davey Resource Group. Ms. Simpson assists with a variety of ecological projects, including invasive species management, wetland mitigation monitoring, and wetland delineations. She also assists with various permitting projects, such as NEPA Categorial Exclusion documentation. Prior to joining Davey Resource Group, Ms. Simpson performed a gypsy moth survey and provided educational services as a Seasonal Interpretive Naturalist with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). She assisted with fishery habitat monitoring in Idaho as an AmeriCorps Intern with the U.S. Forest Service. She has over two years of lab experience performing water quality sampling and analysis and has performed field research on tropical rainforest Davey Resource Group January 2021 reforestation methods with the School for Field Studies. Ms. Simpson has a master’s degree in environmental science with a concentration in Ecology and Conservation and a master’s degree in public affairs from Indiana University. She also has a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Cincinnati. Marc Woernle, LEED AP, PWS, is a principal consultant, senior botanist, and mitigation banking specialist for Davey Resource Group. He provides natural resource permitting expertise to local municipalities, energy companies (coal, gas, petroleum, solar, and wind), state and county highway departments, manufacturing operations, universities, distribution entities (retail, industrial, residential), and the agricultural community. Services provided include threatened and endangered species habitat assessments and protocol surveys, wetland assessments and delineations, riparian studies, stream studies, and mitigation design, establishment, monitoring, and maintenance. Mr. Woernle is also responsible for business development, mentoring younger staff, and project management. Mr. Woernle is a native plant taxonomist by training and has 25 years of experience in the fields of native plant identification, wetlands ecology, restoration, design, and management. He has provided botanical and stream expertise in the Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacifica Coastal regions, including Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. He has worked on various projects requiring wetland and stream (wash) riparian studies within both the Sonoran Desert and Sky Islands in Arizona, and the Appalachian Mountains in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. From 1994–1995, Mr. Woernle served as a wetlands and upland monitoring biologist for the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. From 1995–2000, Mr. Woernle provided a number of services, including wetland delineations, permitting, mitigation design, installation, monitoring, maintenance, wildlife monitoring, presence/absence surveys, trapping, relocation, Phase I ESAs, lake diagnostic studies, and macroinvertebrate sampling for various entities throughout the state of Florida. He also opened and staffed an environmental office within Central Florida for his previous firm during this time period. From 2000–2020, Mr. Woernle worked for two companies within Indiana completing similar tasks. He joined Davey Resource Group in 2020. Mr. Woernle has a bachelor of science degree, with a major in botany, from The University of South Florida.