The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWetland Delineation Report 6-30-20Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 1 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT AMBLESIDE POINT Hamilton County, Indiana prepared for: Platinum Properties Management Co, LLC prepared by: Randy Jones AquaTerra Consulting, Inc. June, 2020 Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS AquaTerra Consulting, Inc. .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose & Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Results/Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Description of Site .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Conditions: ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. 19 TABLE OF PHOTOS Photo 1 Dominant site conditions ............................................................................................................................... 5 Photo 6 Henley Drain and existing crossing structure ............................................................................................... 15 Photo 7 Henley drain in central portion of site ......................................................................................................... 16 Photo 8 Wetland A. Facing north .............................................................................................................................. 18 Photo 9 Wetland A; facing east .................................................................................................................................. 18 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Map ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Topo/NWI/DFIRM/NHD Map .......................................................................................................................... 7 Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 3 Figure 3 Soil Map- 2016 Aerial ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 Hamilton County GIS- Legal Drain Map ......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 1998 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 2003 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7 2008 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8 2010 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9 2012 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10 2014 NAIP .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 11 Site Map ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 12 In-stream detention pond.......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 13 Borrow Pond .............................................................................................................................................. 17 EXECUTIVE SUMMA RY Waterbodies Identified Type Size Jurisdiction Permit Required (404/401/Isolated Wetland) Wetland A (ISOLATED) PEM-Class I 0.2 acres EXEMPT NONE OF Henley Drain Intermittent 2,100 LF NONE NONE Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 4 Borrow Pond PUB 0.25 acres NONE NONE In-Stream Detention PUB 1,25 acres NONE NONE Figure 1 Site Map INTRODUCTION DELINEATION REQUESTED BY: Company Name: Platinum Properties Mgmt. Co., LLC Contact Person: Mr. Timothy Walter Address: 9757 Westpoint Drive Suite 600 Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 5 City: Indianapolis State: IN Zip: 46256 Phone: 317/ 590-8817 Email: twalter@platinum-properties.com Project Name: Ambleside Point PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES To determine if any wetlands or any other “waters of the US” are present within an approximately 55 acre Subject Area, according to the criteria of the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Midwest Regional Supplement), and the applicable provisions of the US Army Corps of Engineer Regulatory Program regulations at 33 CFR 320-332, and the state of Indiana isolated wetland law (IC 13- 18-22), (327 IAC 14). The owners are considering construction of a residential at the site. Photo 1 Dominant site conditions Site Location: County: Hamilton Civil Township: Clay Section: 21 Township: 18 North Range: 3 East Quad: Carmel, IN Directions: South side of 146th St, approx. ¼ mile east of Towne Road, in Carmel. Watershed: Upper White River; 8-Digit HUC#: 05120201 Lat/Long: -86.1955 39.9964 decimal degrees Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 6 Field Review Dates: June 25, 2020 Executed by: Randy Jones 151 North Home Avenue AquaTerra Consulting, Inc. Franklin, IN 46131 (317) 502-7897 (phone) (866) 827-5608 (fax) Signed: METHODS A wetland delineation of existing conditions, according to the procedures of the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Midwest Regional Supplement), was conducted in October, 2017. Sample points were chosen to represent predominant features of the project area. Existing mapping resources, including USGS topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory maps, aerial photographs, and the Hamilton County Soil Survey were also used to provide frame of reference. NOTE: Although this report collaborates evidence from on-site conditions, available site maps, aerial photography and other sources, and asserts a jurisdictional claim based on this evidence, final jurisdictional status and corresponding permit requirements remains with the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. RESULTS/DISCUSSION DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1. Topography: The topography at the site is fairly flat, generally slopes to the south. Slopes range from 0-5%. Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 7 Figure 2 Topo/NWI/DFIRM/NHD Map 2. Existing Land-Use: The existing land use at the site is primarily agricultural, with a recently harvested crop of soybeans. An approximately 6 acres forested area is present on the northwest side. 3. Plant Communities: Vegetation in the forested area of the site is dominated by Sugar Maple, Basswood, Green Ash, and Bur Oak. 4. Soils: Soils mapped in the project area according to the Hamilton County Soil Survey include Crosby Silt Loam (CrA), and Brookston Silty Clay Loam (Bs). Brookston is listed as a hydric soil, according to NRCS. See full soil descriptions in the appendices. Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 8 Figure 3 Soil Map- 2016 Aerial 5. Hydrology: Site drainage is to the south, toward the an existing residential stormwater retention pond. No flowing waterways are mapped on, or in close proximity to the site. Drainage appears to eventually enter the intermittent Henley Creek, and subsequently, the perennial channel of Williams Creek. Henley Creek is a legal drain maintained by Hamilton County, and was re-constructed in approximately 2018. Sub-surface drainage tiles, to support cropping, are likely present. Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 9 Figure 4 Hamilton County GIS- Legal Drain Map Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 10 6. Existing Wetland Mapping: An open water pond area (PUBGx), is indicated in the wooded area on the west side, according to the US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map. 7. Watershed: Upper White River; 8-Digit HUC#: 05120201. SITE CONDITIONS : According to www.weather.com , the Carmel, IN area experienced approximately 0.1 inches of precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry for this time of year. BACKGROUND The project site consists of approximately 55 acres of property proposed for residential development. Agricultural, forest, stormwater control, and homestead land use is currently present. Recent aerial photography1 shows fairly static conditions at the site. Historical aerial imagery2 depicts agricultural use across the majority of the site. Henley Drain, and the associated in-stream detention basin, is present (on current alignment) on the 2018 aerial. The isolated wetland area identified on the eastern side is visible as surface saturation/missing crops, in most years. 1 National Agricultural Imagery Program. USDA 2 https://igws.indiana.edu/ihapi/map/ Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 11 Figure 5 1998 NAIP Figure 6 2003 NAIP Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 12 Figure 7 2008 NAIP Figure 8 2010 NAIP Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 13 Figure 9 2012 NAIP Figure 10 2014 NAIP Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 14 FINDINGS Seven Sample Points, representative of dominant conditions, were chosen along three north/south transects to represent conditions at the site. Sample points were mapped using a GPS unit and exported to ArcGIS. The majority of the site appears to be regularly farmed. Soybean crops were present in most of these areas. Drainage tiles are present. The wooded area on the western portion of the site did not display wetland features. The woods appears to be sufficiently drained by Henley Drain. Figure 11 Site Map Henley Drain Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 15 The channel of the OF Henley Regulated Drain begins on the site from a 146th Street culvert inlet. The channel flows for approximately 2,100 linear feet on the site, before exiting to a stormwater retention pond to the south. An Ordinary High Water Mark is present, averaging approximately 3 feet in width. According to US Army Corps of Engineer records, an approved jurisdictional determination for the Henley Drain was conducted for the Hamilton County Highway Department in 2016 (LRL-2016-55-SAM), which indicated that no Ordinary High Water Mark was present, and the subject drain was, therefore, not regulated as a water of the United States. Subsequent to this determination, the highway department conducted work with the drain, including installation of an in-line detention basin, excavation of a flowline to create an open channel, and installation of several box culvert crossings. No Section 404 Permit was required to conduct this work. The channel of Henley Drain appears to be a constructed stormwater drain, and does not appear to be regulated as a “water of the US”. Photo 2 Henley Drain and existing crossing structure Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 16 Photo 3 Henley drain in central portion of site In-Stream detention Pond In the northwest corner of the site, an approximately 1.25 acre open water pond is present. The pond appears to have been excavated within the channel of the OF Henley Drain to provide regional floodwater/stormwater detention. This area also does not appear to be regulated as a “water of the US”. Figure 12 In-stream detention pond Borrow Pond Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 17 An approximately 0.25 acre open water pond is present near the northwest corner. The pond appears to have been excavated for borrow. An outlet culvert to the receiving channel to the east is present. Due to excavated nature of the pond, and the hydrologic connection to receiving waters only via an artificial structure, the pond is likely not regulated as a “water of the US”. Private ponds are not regulated by IDEM under the isolated wetland permitting authority. Figure 13 Borrow Pond WETLAND A An approximately 0.2 acre wetland area (Wetland A) was identified in the eastern portion of the agricultural area on the site. The wetland area is situated within a slight depressional topography, with no evident outlet to receiving waters. This area is dominated by volunteer weeds; no crops were present. Soil properties observed in the sample pits included a depleted matrix with redoximorphic features in the upper extent, consistent with mapped Brookston units in the area. No inundation or saturation was present, due to recent dry conditions, however, wetland hydrology was documented as surface saturation visible on aerials in the majority of years, missing crops due to wetness/inability to plant in spring, and as depressional topography. as saturation and inundation to approximately 2 inches in some areas. The wetland does not appear to maintain any surface water connection to downstream receiving waters, and appears to be “isolated”. Due to its farmed setting, lack of significant vegetation or function, the wetland appears to be a Class I isolated wetland. Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 18 Photo 4 Wetland A. Facing north Photo 5 Wetland A; facing east All other areas of the site appear to be continually farmed. No wetlands were identified. No other steam channels or waterbodies were observed at the site. Wetland Delineation Report Ambleside Point 19 CONCLU SIONS The approximately 2,100 linear feet of the open channel of Henley Creek appears to have been constructed for use as a stormwater conveyance and detention system. The existing channel configuration currently supports the stormwater management use for which it was constructed, and therefore, does not appear to be a “water of the US”. Since the in-stream pond and the borrow pit both appear to have been excavated from dry ground, and do not outlet directly to a “Water of the US”, these area also do not appear to be subject to Section 404 permit requirements. The approximately 0.2 acre Wetland A is “isolated”, and is not a “water of the US”. Based on this available information, it appears that no Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, and no Section 401 Water Quality Certification from IDEM will be required prior to the discharge of fill material to these areas. Since Wetland A is a Class I isolated wetland, less than 0.5 acres in size, it is an EXEMPT isolated wetland according to 327 IAC 17-2. No permit from IDEM is required to work and an exempt isolated wetland. APPENDICES  Location Map  USGS Topographic/National Wetland Inventory Map  Site Map (2018 USDA Aerial)  Site Map (2017 IndianaMap Aerial)  USDA Soil Descriptions  Data Forms §¨¦465 §¨¦I-69 D §¨¦69 £¤31 ¬«32 £¤421 £¤31 ¬«431 ¬«37 ¬«334 TOWNE146TH C a r m e l C a r m e l L a w r e n c e L a w r e n c e F i s h e r s F i s h e r s N o b l e s v i l l e N o b l e s v i l l eW e s t f i e l d W e s t f i e l d Z i o n s v i l l e Z i o n s v i l l e M c C o r d s v i l l e M c C o r d s v i l l e N o b l e s v i l l e N o b l e s v i l l e M e r i d i a n H i l l s M e r i d i a n H i l l s C i c e r o C i c e r o L a w e r n c e L a w e r n c e W i l l i a m s C r e e k W i l l i a m s C r e e k Source: USDA 0 105Miles4 Legend S I T E S I T E I n t e r s t a t e s I n t e r s t a t e s H i g h w a y s H i g h w a y s S t r e e t s S t r e e t s To w n s To w n s L o c a t i o n M a pL o c a t i o n M a p AquaTerraJune, 2020 Ambleside Point SITE PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGh PUBGx PUBGx PFO1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PEM1C PUBGx PFO1APFO1A PUBGx PUBGx PFO1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PFO1A PEM1F PUBGx PEM1C PUBGx PFO1A PUBGx PEM1F PEM1F Source: IndianaMap 0 0.750.375 Miles4 Legend S I T E S I T E S t r e a m s - N H D S t r e a m s - N H D N W I N W I DFIRM F R I N G E F R I N G E F L O O D W AY F L O O D W AY To p o / N W I / D F I R M / N H D M a pTo p o / N W I / D F I R M / N H D M a p AquaTerraJune, 2020 Ambleside Point +U +U +U +U+U +U +U A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 AUTUMN WOODESPRIT ME G A NCHARIOTS WHISPERSource: USDA 0 1,200600Feet 4 Legend S I T E S I T E +U D a t a P o i n t s D a t a P o i n t s H e n l e y D r a i n H e n l e y D r a i n I n - S t r e a m D e t e n t i o n I n - S t r e a m D e t e n t i o n P o n d P o n d I s o l a t e d W e t l a n d A I s o l a t e d W e t l a n d A S t r e e t s S t r e e t s S i t e M a p - 2 0 1 8 A e r i a lS i t e M a p - 2 0 1 8 A e r i a l AquaTerraJune, 2020 Ambleside Point +U +U +U +U+U +U +U A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 AUTUMN WOODESPRIT ME G A NCHARIOTS WHISPERSource: IndianaMap 0 1,200600Feet 4 Legend S I T E S I T E +U D a t a P o i n t s D a t a P o i n t s H e n l e y D r a i n H e n l e y D r a i n I n - S t r e a m D e t e n t i o n I n - S t r e a m D e t e n t i o n P o n d P o n d I s o l a t e d W e t l a n d A I s o l a t e d W e t l a n d A S t r e e t s S t r e e t s S i t e M a p - 2 0 1 7 A e r i a lS i t e M a p - 2 0 1 7 A e r i a l AquaTerraJune, 2020 Ambleside Point Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 1 of 34427300442740044275004427600442770044278004427900442800044273004427400442750044276004427700442780044279004428000568400568500568600568700568800568900 568400 568500 568600 568700 568800 568900 39° 59' 59'' N 86° 11' 56'' W39° 59' 59'' N86° 11' 30'' W39° 59' 33'' N 86° 11' 56'' W39° 59' 33'' N 86° 11' 30'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 16, 2019 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 1, 2018—Sep 30, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 36.9 45.2% CrA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes 24.5 30.0% W Water 2.8 3.4% YbvA Brookston silty clay loam- Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 9.6 11.7% YclA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 7.9 9.7% Totals for Area of Interest 81.7 100.0% Soil Map—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 3 of 3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 1 of 54427300442740044275004427600442770044278004427900442800044273004427400442750044276004427700442780044279004428000568400568500568600568700568800568900 568400 568500 568600 568700 568800 568900 39° 59' 59'' N 86° 11' 56'' W39° 59' 59'' N86° 11' 30'' W39° 59' 33'' N 86° 11' 56'' W39° 59' 33'' N 86° 11' 30'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,900 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 16, 2019 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 1, 2018—Sep 30, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 95 36.9 45.2% CrA Crosby silt loam, fine- loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2 24.5 30.0% W Water 0 2.8 3.4% YbvA Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 65 9.6 11.7% YclA Crosby silt loam, fine- loamy subsoil-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 5 7.9 9.7% Totals for Area of Interest 81.7 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/3/2020 Page 3 of 5 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP A1 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1977 39.9978 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston clay loam (Br) *USDA listed hydric soil* NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Quercas macrocarpa 40 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Juglans nigra 35 Yes FACU 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: 75% Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Yes FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species 20 X2= 40 4. FAC species 75 X3= 225 5. FACU species 65 X4= 260 Total Cover: 20% UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: 160 (A) 525 (B) 1. Seteria glauca 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.28 2. Allaria petiolata 15 Yes FAC 3. Schedonorus pratensis 15 Yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Sanicula marilandica 10 No FACU Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Solidago canadensis 5 No FACU Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 65% Prevalence Index is greater than 3.0. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Mesic forested area. SOIL Sampling Point: A1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-5 10 YR 4/3 99 Silt loam 5-15 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: Resembles neighboring mapped Crosby unit. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Area appears to naturally drain to pond and Henley Ditch to the east. Sample Point A1 Photos Sample Point A1. Soil Pit. Sample Point A1. Facing south. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP A2 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1976 39.9958 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston clay loam (Br) *USDA listed hydric soil* NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Tilia americana 40 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Acer saccharum 35 Yes FACU 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: 75% Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Tilia americana 20 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: 20% UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Sanicula canadensis 40 Yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 40 Yes FACU 3. Allaria petiolata 10 No FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 90% Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Mesic forested area. SOIL Sampling Point: A2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-15 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Area appears to naturally drain to pond and Henley Ditch to the east. Sample Point A2 Photos Sample Point A2. Soil Pit. Sample Point A2. Facing north. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP A3 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1973 39.9944 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Crosby silt loam (CrA) NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: % Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: % UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Glycine max 30 Yes UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 90% Soybean field. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Continually cropped area. SOIL Sampling Point: A3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-15 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Likely drained by ag tiles. Sample Point A3 Photos Sample Point A3. Soil Pit. Sample Point A3. Facing northeast. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP B1 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1948 39.9946 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston clay loam (Br) *USDA listed hydric soil* NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: % Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: % UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Glycine max 30 Yes UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 90% Soybean field. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Continually cropped area. SOIL Sampling Point: B1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-8 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam 8-16 10 YR 5/2 95 10 YR 5/6 5 C M SiClLm Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: Consistent with mapped Brookston unit. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Likely drained by ag tiles. Sample Point B1 Photos Sample Point B1. Soil Pit. Sample Point B1. Facing south. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP B2 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1948 39.9946 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston clay loam (Br) *USDA listed hydric soil* NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: % Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: % UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Glycine max 30 Yes UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 90% Soybean field. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Continually cropped area. SOIL Sampling Point: B2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-10 10 YR 4/3 99 Silt Loam 10-16 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt Loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Likely drained by ag tiles. Sample Point B2 Photos Sample Point B2. Soil Pit. Sample Point B2. Facing south. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP C1 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1935 39.9986 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Crosby silt loam (CrA) NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: % Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: % UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Glycine max 30 Yes UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 90% Soybean field. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Continually cropped area. SOIL Sampling Point: C1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-15 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology. Likely drained by ag tiles. Sample Point C1 Photos Sample Point C1. Soil Pit. Sample Point C1. Facing east. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: Ambleside Point City/County: Carmel/Hamilton, IN Sampling Date: 6/25/20 Applicant/Owner: Platinum Properties State: Indiana Sampling Point: SP C2 Investigator(s): Randy Jones Section, Township, Range: Sect 21 18N, 3E Carmel, IN Quad Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope %: 0-2% Lat/Long: -86.1936 39.9956 decimal degrees Datum: 1983 Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston clay loam (Br) *USDA listed hydric soil* NWI Classification: none Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal circumstances” present? Yes No (see remarks) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? YES NO Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: According to www.weather.com, the Carmel area experienced approx. 0.1 inches precipitation in the week previous to the site inspection. Temperature was in the low 80's. Site conditions were typical to dry, for this time of year. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status? Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 5. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 6. Total Cover: % Sapling/Shrub Stratum plot size: 30’ radius Prevalence Index Worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species X1= 3. FACW species X2= 4. FAC species X3= 5. FACU species X4= Total Cover: % UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Amaranthus tuberculatus 10 Yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Seteria glauca 5 Yes FAC 3. Portulaca oleracea 2 No FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. Rapid Test for Hydropytic Vegetation 5. Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is < 3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES NO Total Cover: 17% Volunteer/remnant vegetation present. Woody Vine Stratum plot size: 30’ radius 1. 2. 3. Total Cover: 0% Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Too wet to support spring planting of crops. SOIL Sampling Point: C2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (in.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 0-8 10 YR 5/3 99 Silt loam 8-16 10 YR 5/2 95 10 YR 5/6 5 C M SiClLm Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. 2 cm Muck (A10) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present? YES NO Type: Depth (in.): Remarks: Consistent with mapped Brookston unit. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) X Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No x Depth (in.): 0 Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Missing crops. Saturation visible on aerials in most years. Sample Point C2 Photos Sample Point C2. Soil Pit. Sample Point C2. Missing crops