Water Resources Delineation ReportAsherwood South
NW of Ditch RD and
W 96th ST
Hamilton County, IN
± 22.4 acres
Water Resources
Delineation
Report
August 2nd, 2023
Prepared for:
Gradison Land
Development
Indianapolis, IN
Prepared by:
Meristem, LLC
Avon, Indiana
Meristem
Where New Growth Happens
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 General Land Use ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands ...................................................................... 1
1.2.3 Topography and Drainage ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2.4 Soil Associations and Series Types ......................................................................................... 2
1.2.5 Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregion .......................................................... 2
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 2
2.1 REGULATORY AGENCIES ............................................................................................................ 2
2.2 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 State ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.0 DETERMINATION OF WATERS OF THE U.S. ....................................................................... 5
3.1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1.2 Streams ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3 Ponds ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 DELINEATION RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2.2 Streams .................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.3 Ponds .................................................................................................................................... 10
4.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 11
5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 12
List of Tables
Table 1: NWI Polygons within the Study Area
Table 2: Soil Mapping Units within the Study Area
Table 3: Waterbodies Located within the Study Area
List of Appendices
Appendix A, Figure 1 Study Area Location Map
Appendix A, Figure 2 Topographic and NWI Map
Appendix A, Figure 3 Study Area on Elevation Map
Appendix A, Figure 4 Study Area on Hamilton County Soil Map
Appendix A, Figure 5 Study Area on Aerial Photograph (2022)
Appendix A, Figure 6 Water Resources Delineation Map
Appendix A, Figure 7 Photo and Data Point Locations Map
Appendix B Wetland Determination Data Forms (Midwest Region)
Appendix C Study Area Photographs
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The Study Area is located in Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 3 East, Clay Township,
Hamilton County, Indiana, within the City of Carmel (see Appendix A, Figure 1). The Study
Area was delineated by Meristem on July 25th, 2023. There were five (5) emergent
wetlands (totaling 0.303-acre) and two (2) open-water ponds (totaling 2.595 acres)
identified within the Study Area during the investigation. All water resources identified
appear to lack significant nexuses (SNEs) to traditionally navigable waters (TNWs) and
therefore should not be considered “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS), jurisdictional under the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
1.2 Project Area Description
1.2.1 General Land Use
The Study Area predominantly consists of mowed maintained lawn with two open-water
ponds and scattered trees throughout. The Study Area is bounded by Ditch Road to the
east, and a residential driveway to the north. Adjacent land use to the west and south is
predominantly residential. Adjacent land use to the north consists of land under
construction, residential properties, and forested patches. Land use to the east consists
of residential properties, agricultural fields, and forested patches.
1.2.2 National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map was
reviewed to determine the presence of any NWI polygons within or adjacent to the Study
Area. There were two (2) NWI wetland polygons identified within the Study Area (see
Appendix A, Figure 2).
Table 1: NWI Polygons within Study Area
NWI
Polygon Description
Number
within
Study Area
Associated Water
Resources
PUBGx Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom,
Intermittently Exposed, Excavated 2 Pond 1, Pond 2
NWI maps are published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to
identify potential wetlands and their characteristics. Wetlands published through this
service are not always confirmed through field sampling and are not always accurate in
identifying water resources.
1.2.3 Topography and Drainage
Topography varies significantly throughout the Study Area. Topographic relief within the
Study Area varies between 838 and 860 feet above sea level (ASL). The lowest points of
the Study Area are located within/ around Pond 1 and Pond 2. The highest points are
located near the south-central and eastern regions of the Study Area. Water appears to
drain predominantly into Ponds 1 and 2 and their littoral fringe wetlands, as well as into
Wetlands A and C (see Appendix A, Figure 3).
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 2
1.2.4 Soil Associations and Series Types
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) Web Soil Survey identifies six (6) Soil Mapping Unit types throughout the Study
Area. The Study Area is predominantly a mosaic of the of the non-hydric Crosby silt loam
(CrA) soil series and the non-hydric Miami silt loam (MnB2) soil series with one large
polygon of the hydric Brookston silty clay loam (Br) soil series running through the central
region of the Study Area (see Appendix A, Figure 4).
Hydric soils are soils that have formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper layer
of the soil. Table 2 below outlines the soil mapping unit types identified within the Study
Area.
Table 2: Soil Mapping Units Within the Study Area
Symbol Description Hydric
Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes YES
CrA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent
slopes NO
MnB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded NO
YbvA Brookston silty clay loam- Urban land complex,
0 to 2 percent slopes YES
YclA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil- Urban land
complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NO
YmsB2 Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6
percent slopes, eroded NO
1.2.5 Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregion
The Study Area is located within the Loamy High Lime Till Plains (55b) Level IV Ecoregion
as designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This ecoregion
historically contained nearly-level topography and soils developed from loamy, limey,
glacial deposits of Wisconsinan age, with higher fertility and better natural drainage than
surrounding Eastern Corn Belt Plains Level IV Ecoregions. Much of the original land use
has been converted to agriculture.
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Regulatory Agencies
Agencies that regulate impacts to the nation’s surface water resources within Indiana
include USACE and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are protected under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). USACE has the
primary regulatory authority for enforcing Section 404 requirements for waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) also requires
permits for impacts to wetlands and waterways within regulated floodways.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 3
2.2 Definitions
2.2.1 Federal
Waters of the U.S. are defined by the USACE, 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
328.3
•All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible
to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide;
•All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
•All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) which are or
could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
or (ii) from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or (iii) which are used or could be used for industrial purpose
by industries in interstate commerce;
•All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S. under the
definition;
•Tributaries of waters of the U.S. identified above;
•The territorial seas;
•Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified above. The term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring.
Wetlands separated from other waters of the U.S. by manmade dikes or barriers,
natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are “adjacent wetlands.”
Wetlands are a category of waters of the U.S. and are defined by the USACE as “areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3, USACE;
Section 8b). Typical wetlands include bogs, marshes, swamps, and other similar areas.
However, temporarily or seasonally flooded depressions that receive overland storm water
runoff or overbank floodwaters can meet the criteria for wetlands. This is often due to the
prevalence of clay soils that hold water or have a high water table that causes soils to
remain saturated for long periods.
Based upon current guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only those
wetlands that are adjacent to traditional navigable waters or wetlands that directly abut to
non-navigable tributaries having a seasonal (3-month minimum) flow are now considered
jurisdictional under the CWA (June 5, 2007 EPA Memo regarding Clean Water Act
Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States &
Carabell v. United States) Following are key points from the EPA memo and are at times
referred to as “Rapanos Guidance”.
“The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
•Traditional navigable waters
•Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters
•Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent
where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least
seasonally (e.g., typically three months)
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 4
•Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries
The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific
analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable
water:
•Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent
•Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent
•Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-
navigable tributary
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
•Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low
volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)
•Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands
and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
•A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the
tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary
to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of downstream traditional navigable waters
•Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors”
The EPA finalized a New Rule to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) on
December 30th, 2022. This new definition, as it specifically relates to jurisdiction, became
effective March 20th, 2023. A federal judge in North Dakota blocked implementation of the
New Rule in 24 states, including Ohio, as of April 12th, 2023. Local Corps Districts and
USACE Project Manager’s interpretation may differ from the professional opinion stated
within this document.
2.2.2 State
“Waters” within the State of Indiana are defined as surface and underground waterbodies;
natural and artificial; public or private, which are partially or wholly within, flow through or
border upon Indiana. The term includes all waters of the United States, as defined in
Section 502(7) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)), that are located in
Indiana. (As added by P.L.1-1996, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.183-2002, SEC.1; P.L.282-
2003, SEC.31; P.L.52-2004, SEC.4.) Although not specifically mentioned within the
Indiana Code’s definition of state “waters”, Indiana “waters” do include and are not limited
to streams and wetlands (both isolated and non-isolated). State of Indiana “waters” do not
include exempt isolated wetlands, private ponds, or off-stream ponds, reservoirs,
wetlands, or other facilities built for reduction or control of pollution or cooling of water
before discharge. (IC 13-11-2-265). The State of Indiana also excludes isolated ephemeral
streams from their jurisdiction (SEA No. 389: Sect. 7. IC 13-18-22-1, as amended by
P.L.166-2020).
The State of Indiana relies on the Corps’ (USACE) decision regarding wetland
determinations and delineations including whether or not a wetland is isolated or non-
isolated.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 5
3.0 DETERMINATION OF WATERS OF THE U.S.
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Wetlands
The water resources delineation was conducted in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the
appropriate regional supplement. The presence of potentially jurisdictional wetlands is
determined by the positive indication of three criteria: the dominance of hydrophytic
(wetland) vegetation, one positive hydric soil indicator, and a minimum of one primary or
two secondary indicators for hydrology. A “Wetland Determination Form” was completed
for each survey point to record the presence or absence of each criterion.
Wetlands were delineated using a Trimble TDC-600 and/or Trimble R1, and mapped using
ArcMap 10.8.2. The final determination on the presence of and jurisdiction of wetlands
and “waters of the U.S.” is determined by the USACE.
3.2.3.3 Hydrophytic Vegetation
Areal coverage of individual herb, shrub, tree, and vine species were assessed and
recorded at each survey point to determine dominance. Plant species are assigned an
indicator status based on probability of occurring in wetland conditions regionally. The
indicator status of each plant is determined by USACE and is published on the National
Wetland Plant List (2020). Definitions of the five primary indicator statuses are:
Obligate (OBL): Occur almost always under natural conditions in wetlands (estimated >
99% probability of occurrence).
Facultative Wetland (FACW): Usually occur in wetlands but occasionally found in non-
wetlands (estimated 67% - 99% probability of occurrence).
Facultative (FAC): Equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (estimated 34% - 66% probability of occurrence).
Facultative Upland (FACU): Occasionally occur in wetlands, but usually occur in non-
wetlands (estimated 1% - 33% probability of occurrence).
Upland (UPL): Occur almost always under natural conditions in non-wetlands in the
region specified. (estimated < 1% probability of occurrence).
3.1.1.2 Hydric Soil
Soil samples were taken in areas believed to be potential wetlands such as areas that
are indicated as wetlands on the National Wetland Inventory maps; areas that
exhibited wetland flora or had signs of hydrology. These soil samples were taken to
determine the presence of hydric soils by examining the hue, value, and chroma of
the soil using a Munsell color chart. An upland soil sample was also taken near the
edge of the wetlands to determine the boundary and surrounding conditions for the
wetland.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 6
3.1.1.3 Wetland Hydrology
Evidence of hydrology can often be associated when the soil sample is dug. Saturated
soils within the upper 12 inches is documented in addition to the presence of the water
table within 12 inches of the surface. Other signs of hydrology may include but are not
limited to drainage patterns, surface water, rafted debris, and crayfish chimneys.
3.1.2 Streams
Potential boundaries for streams were delineated in the field at the ordinary high-water
mark (OHWM). The OHWM is the line on the shore or bank established by flowing and/or
standing water, marked by characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the
bank, erosion shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial
vegetation, presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas [(33 CFR Part 328.3 €].
All waterways with an OHWM were identified as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral.
Determination was made based off field observations, the antecedent precipitation tool
(APT) developed by USACE, National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and other available
resources.
3.1.3 Ponds
Water bodies such as lakes, ponds, dammed streams, retention ponds, borrow pits, and
similar open water systems are defined by the OHWM near the shoreline or the edge of
its littoral fringe.
Ponds lacking vegetation were considered open water systems during the delineation.
Ponds that are human made are not considered jurisdictional by USACE.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 7
3.2 Delineation Results
Table 3 below summarizes the characteristics of the water resources delineated.
Table 3: Waterbodies Located Within the Study Area
1 PEM = Emergent; PSS = Scrub-Shrub; PFO = Forested; PUB = Unconsolidated Bottom
3.2.1 Wetlands
A 2022 aerial image of the Study Area is included in Appendix A, Figure 5. There were
five (5) emergent wetlands identified within the Study Area. Multiple representative data
points were taken in areas most likely to contain wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation
(see Appendix B).
Field Name
Water
Resource
Type1
Acreage
within Study
Area
USACE-
Jurisdictional IDEM-Jurisdictional
Wetland A PEM 0.035 NO NO
Wetland B PEM 0.057 NO NO
Wetland C PEM 0.039 NO NO
Wetland D PEM 0.013 NO NO
Wetland E PEM 0.159 NO NO
Pond 1 PUB 0.156 NO NO
Pond 2 PUB 2.439 NO NO
Totals: 2.898 --
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 8
Wetland A
Wetland A is a 0.035-acre emergent wetland located within the northwestern region of the
Study Area. Wetland A appears to be isolated and lacks a significant nexus (SNE) with
traditionally navigable waterways (TNWs), and therefore should not be considered a
“Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Wetland A also appears to be an incidental feature and should be
considered exempt from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s (IDEM)
jurisdiction.
•Vegetation: Wetland A contained dominant shrub/ sapling species consisting of
Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana, UPL) and white mulberry (Morus alba, FAC).
Dominant herbaceous species included narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia,
OBL) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans, FAC).
Upland areas adjacent to Wetland A contained dominant tree species consisting
of red maple (Acer rubrum, FAC). Dominant herbaceous species included
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC), hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis,
FACU), and white clover (Trifolium repens, FACU).
•Soils: Wetland A met the Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric soil criterion.
•Hydrology: The primary hydrology source for this wetland system appeared to be
ground water inputs and precipitation, with the potential for input from overland
sheet flow from the surrounding maintained lawn areas. Primary hydrology
indicators observed included High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). No
secondary hydrology indicators were observed.
Wetland B
Wetland B is a 0.057-acre emergent wetland located around the edge of Pond 1 in the
northeast region of the Study Area. Wetland B appears to be isolated and lacks a SNE
with TNWs, and therefore should not be considered a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the
USACE. Wetland B is the littoral fringe of a private pond (Pond 1) and should be
considered exempt from the IDEM’s jurisdiction.
•Vegetation: Wetland B contained dominant herbaceous species consisting of rice
cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides, OBL), devil’s beggarticks (Bidens frondosa, FACW),
and blunt spike rush (Eleocharis obtusa, OBL).
Upland areas adjacent to Wetland B contained dominant shrub/ sapling species
consisting of Callery pear (UPL). Dominant herbaceous species included Kentucky
bluegrass (FAC), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale, FACU), and creeping
thistle (Cirsium arvense, FACU).
•Soils: Wetland B met the Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11), Depleted Matrix
(F3), and Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydric soil criterion.
•Hydrology: The primary hydrology source for this wetland system appeared to be
ground water inputs and flooding from Pond 1, with the potential for input from
precipitation. Primary hydrology indicators observed included Saturation (A3).
Secondary hydrology indicators observed included the FAC-Neutral Test (D5).
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 9
Wetland C
Wetland C is a 0.039-acre emergent wetland located within the northeastern region of the
Study Area. Wetland C appears to be isolated and lacks a SNE with TNWs, and therefore
should not be considered a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the USACE. Wetland C appears
to be an incidental feature and should be considered exempt from the IDEM’s jurisdiction.
•Vegetation: Wetland C contained dominant herbaceous species consisting of blunt
spike rush (OBL).
Upland areas adjacent to Wetland C contained dominant shrub/ sapling species
consisting of Callery pear (UPL). Dominant herbaceous species included Kentucky
bluegrass (FAC), common dandelion (FACU), and creeping thistle (FACU).
•Soils: Wetland C met the Depleted Matrix (F3) hydric soil criterion.
•Hydrology: The primary hydrology source for this wetland system appeared to be
precipitation and overland flow from surrounding maintained lawn areas. Primary
hydrology indicators observed included High Water Table (A2) and Saturation
(A3). Secondary hydrology indicators observed included Geomorphic Position
(D2) and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5).
Wetland D
Wetland D is a 0.013-acre emergent wetland located within the north-central region of the
Study Area. Wetland D appears to be isolated and lacks a SNE with TNWs, and therefore
should not be considered a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the USACE. Wetland D appears
to be an incidental feature and should be considered exempt from the jurisdiction of the
IDEM.
•Vegetation: Wetland D contained dominant herbaceous vegetation including
devil’s beggarticks (FACW) and rusty flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus, FACW).
Upland areas adjacent to Wetland D contained dominant shrub/ sapling species
consisting of Callery pear (UPL). Dominant herbaceous species included Kentucky
bluegrass (FAC), common dandelion (FACU), and creeping thistle (FACU).
•Soils: Wetland D met the Depleted Matrix (F3) hydric soil criterion.
•Hydrology: The primary hydrology source for this wetland system appeared to be
precipitation, with the potential for input from overland sheet flow from the
surrounding maintained lawn areas. Primary hydrology indicators observed
included Saturation (A3). Secondary hydrology indicators observed included
Geomorphic position (D2) and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5).
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 10
Wetland E
Wetland E is a 0.159-acre emergent wetland located around the edge of Pond 2 in the
central region of the Study Area. Wetland E appears to be isolated and lacks a SNE with
TNWs, and therefore should not be considered a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the
USACE. Wetland E is the littoral fringe of a private pond (Pond 2) and should be
considered exempt from the jurisdiction of the IDEM.
•Vegetation: Wetland E contained dominant tree species consisting of black willow
(Salix nigra, OBL). Dominant shrub/ sapling species included green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica, FACW) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides, FAC).
Dominant herbaceous species included narrowleaf cattail (OBL), devil’s
beggarticks (FACW), wetland sedge (Carex sp., FACW), and hairy willowherb
(Epilobium hirsutum, FACW).
Upland areas adjacent to Wetland E contained dominant tree species including
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana, UPL). Dominant shrub/ sapling species included
white mulberry (FAC). Dominant herbaceous species consisted of common
dandelion (FACU), Kentucky bluegrass (FAC), white clover (Trifolium repens,
FACU), white mulberry (FAC), and hairy crabgrass (FACU).
•Soils: Wetland E met the Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) and the Depleted
Matrix (F3) hydric soil criterion.
•Hydrology: The primary hydrology source for this wetland system appeared to be
ground water inputs and flooding from Pond 2, with the potential for inputs from
precipitation and overland sheet flow from the surrounding maintained lawn areas.
Primary hydrology indicators observed included Saturation (A3) and Water-
Stained Leaves (B9). Secondary hydrology indicators observed included the FAC-
Neutral Test (D5).
3.2.2 Streams
No streams were identified within the Study Area during the investigation.
3.2.3 Ponds
Two (2) open-water ponds were identified within the Study Area during the investigation.
Pond 1 is a palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) pond totaling 0.156-acre located
within the Study Area’s northeastern region. Pond 1 corresponds with the NWI polygon
PUBGx, indicating it is a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed,
excavated pond. Pond 1 appears to lack a SNE with TNWs, and therefore should not be
considered a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the USACE. Pond 1 is a private pond that
was excavated in dry land and therefore should be exempt from IDEM's jurisdiction.
Pond 2 is a palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) pond totaling 2.439 acres located
within the Study Area’s central region. Pond 2 corresponds with the NWI polygon PUBGx,
indicating it is a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, intermittently exposed, excavated
pond. Pond 2 appears to lack a SNE with TNWs, and therefore should not be considered
a WOTUS, jurisdictional under the USACE. Pond 2 is a private pond that was excavated
in dry land and therefore should be exempt from IDEM's jurisdiction.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 11
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 Conclusion
The Study Area is located in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, within the City of
Carmel. The Study Area was delineated by Meristem on July 25th, 2023. There were five
(5) emergent wetlands (totaling 0.303-acre) and two (2) open-water ponds (totaling 2.595
acres) identified within the Study Area during the investigation. All water resources
identified appear to lack SNEs to TNWs and therefore should not be considered WOTUS,
jurisdictional under the USACE.
This report is based on Meristem’s best professional opinion and is limited to the time
frame when fieldwork was conducted. Meristem is not responsible for the interpretation or
use by others of conclusions described in this report. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) have final
determination of wetland boundaries and connectivity to WOTUS.
August 2023
Water Resources Delineation Report
NW of Ditch RD and W 96th ST, Hamilton Co. 12
5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
33 CFR 328.3, Definition of Waters of the United States.
Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions
of the United States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and
edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe 1985. Classification of Wetlands and the
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
Deam, Charles C. 1940. Flora of Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation.
Deam, Charles C. 1929. Grasses of Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation.
Deam, Charles C. 1932. Shrubs of Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation.
Deam, Charles C. 1921. Trees of Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station.
Gleason, Henry A., A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United
States and Adjacent Canada, Second Edition. The New York Botanical Press.
Holmgren, Noel H., P. K. Holmgren, A. Cronquist. 1998. Illustrated Companion to Gleason
and Cronquist's Manual: Illustrations of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States
and Adjacent Canada, Second Edition. The New York Botanical Press.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. April 24, 2007. Letter to James Townsend
Regarding 2007 Reissuance of Nationwide Permits and Renewal of Regional General
Permit for Indiana.
Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 389.
IndianaMap Map Viewer. Available online at the following link: https://maps.indiana.edu/.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation
with Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, and other local
agencies.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department
of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the
following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. National Wetland Plant List Version 3.5.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Reissuance of Nationwide Permits and Final Regional Conditions
in Indiana; Public Notice. March 12, 2007. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No 47, Part II.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Implementation of Waters of the United States.
January 4, 2023. Accessed via internet at https://www.epa.gov/wotus/current-
implementation-waters-united-states.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Woods, A.J, Omernik, J.M., Brockman, C.S., Gerber, T.D., Hosteter, W.D., Azevedo,
S.H. "Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio (Poster)", US Geological Survey (1998) Web.
Yatskievych, Kay. 2000. Field Guide to Indiana Wildflowers. Indiana University Press.
August 2023
July 2023
0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet
1 in = 2,500 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Legend
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri
(Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the
GIS User Community
Appendix A, Figure 1:Study Area Location Map
HAMILTON
MADISON
MARION
BOONE
TIPTON
HANCOCK
CLINTON
HENDRICKS
!.STUDY AREA
LOCATION
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1F
R4SBC
PUBGx
R2UBH
PUBGx
PUBFh
PUBGx
PEM1F
July 2023
0 350 700175Feet
1 in = 350 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Appendix A, Figure 2:Study Area Topographic & NWI Map
Legend
Study Area (22.4 acres)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Polygons
National Geographic Society, i-cubed. 2013.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. National Wetlands Inventory website.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
839838
840
847848 84384484584
6
842841
849
837836835850
8518528538348
3
385483
1
83
0832
8
2
9
828
8
2
7
82682
5855
8
2
4
856857
823858859860844851849842844
8
5
0
856854
846
85
3
851833850854
851
8
3
9
846833853839851848
848
823
843
843825850
852843
84
8
8
5
3
856845855
84
8
857
84
4855854
847
847846
853
846
848852848851
855
849
84
8
833845852
845
851833842838850853
84684
1
848
847852842844
852 840847845838846842
841
840854 855851840830
851840849
84
6847
839
852
8
3
1
851844
842851
8
4
7 845852
8518558
4
7
840846844
854
843
856
853
854
851
84
7
852
850
833
84085
4
84
2
8
4
5
84
9
850
84684783284
1
838
848850843
847851845844
844
8
5
2
844852
8518528
4
0 849849852
849854855849 846855 841853849 847849
841
833
853
85
4
85
1 841855841847
844842
83
6853852
846 844834852
849
85
4
841844847
851 848852844854
850843
851848849845851849847 841854853
845
8
4
2
852853
843845850
840856845846
8
5
3
840846
841
855
848 84385383785
5
845844855839
854846847
851
853
8528498
3
7
849
841
846
84
9
85
5
85
3
848856849
848
848853839847846
842
85485
5
846850 8388
5
2 854849844854
855
840 843857851
856
850
830846847850 834
850847 853
8
4
7 8488428488
4
7
855
852 847848
851
849
842
849
848842
853
855855
849850
845847
839842854
841840847
85384183384483585784085284585
3853
848850846
841851846
842 84085084085185
4 845845854849 848
846848 82
6
8518
5
6
85585
5
84984885
1
84
9
847854 8418448
5
6
830
841
851854848840838849
843
841832
July 2023
0 250 500125Feet
1 in = 250 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Appendix A, Figure 3: Study Area on Elevation Map
Legend
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Imagery Date: 2022
YclA
CrA
YmsB2
YclA Br
WYmsB2
YmsB2
MnB2
CrA
MnB2
YmsB2
YclA
YclA
YbvA
MnB2
YclA
MnB2
YshAH
July 2023
0 250 500125Feet
1 in = 250 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Appendix A, Figure 4: Study Area on Hamilton County Soils Map
Legend
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Non-Hydric Soils
Hydric Soils
Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey.
Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Imagery Date: 2022
Deerfield Circle
July 2023
0 250 500125Feet
1 in = 250 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Appendix A, Figure 5: Study Area on Aerial Photograph (2022)
Legend
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Imagery Date: 2022
Deerfield Circle Ditch RDRoyalton DR
Culpepper DR
July 2023
0 250 500125Feet
1 in = 250 feet
Meristem
´Appendix A, Figure 6: Water Resources Delineation Map
Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Legend
Island
Open-Water Ponds
Emergent Wetlands
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Imagery Date: 2022
Wetland A (PEM):
0.035-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Deerfield Circle Ditch RDRoyalton DR
Culpepper DRWetland B (PEM):
0.057-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Wetland C (PEM):
0.039-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Wetland D (PEM):
0.013-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Pond 1 (PUB):
0.156-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Wetland E (PEM):
0.159-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Wetland E (PEM):
0.159-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Wetland E (PEM):
0.159-acre
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
Pond 2 (PUB):
2.439 acres (excludes island)
USACE- and IDEM-
Non- Jurisdictional
9
87
6
5 4
321
1513
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
15
14
13
12
11
10
July 2023
0 250 500125Feet
1 in = 250 feet
Meristem
´Asherwood
NW of Ditch Road and W 96th Street
Clay Township
Hamilton County, IN
Appendix A, Figure 7: Photo and Data Point Locations Map
Legend
Data Points
Photo Points
Island
Open-Water Ponds
Emergent Wetlands
Study Area (22.4 acres)
Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Imagery Date: 2022
Deerfield Circle Ditch RDRoyalton DR
Culpepper DR15 14
15
87
5
3
216
5 3
APPENDIX B: Wetland Determination Data Forms (Midwest Region)
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 =
1.20%x2 =
2.20%x3 =
3.5%x4 =
4.2%x5 =
5.10%(B)
6.15%
7.10%
8.8%
9.7%
10.3%
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%
)
No FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
1.00
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):pond edge- slope
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
1
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933439 Long:-86.184612 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:30%
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
Digitaria sanguinalis
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Leersia oryzoides Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Bidens frondosa FACWYes
Column Totals: Cyperus odoratus No FACW
Eleocharis obtusa OBL
Setaria viridis
OBL
No UPL
Apocynum cannabinum
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Yes
Prevalence Index = B/A =Typha angustifolia
Persicaria pensylvanica
= Total Cover
3 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No FACW
No
OBL species
8%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
45%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
FACUNoCirsium arvense
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B)
2%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
0.24
0.32
37%
8%
Multiply by:
0.45
0.74
FACU species
0.1
1.85
1.85
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
1
%Type1
5 C
40 C
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X
X
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)
0-5"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
PL Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam60
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
5-18"10YR 5/2
95 7.5YR 5/6
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 5/6 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?
X
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.
2.
3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.
5.
1.5%
2.
3.
4.
5.
5%
x1 =
1.15%x2 =
2.10%x3 =
3.10%x4 =
4.12%x5 =
5.7%(B)
6.20%
7.2%
8.8%
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.
84%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
5%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
0.45
2.76
15%
Multiply by:
FACU species
0.25
3.46
3.89
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:25%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =Oxalis stricta
= Total Cover
4 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No
OBL species
69%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals: Erigeron canadensis No FACU
Cirsium arvense FACU
Taraxacum officinale
FACU
Yes FACU
Euphorbia maculata
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Yes
= Total Cover
Digitaria sanguinalis
Pyrus calleryana Yes UPL
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Poa pratensis Yes FAC
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Symphyotrichum pilosum FACUNo
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
2
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933417 Long:86.184548 Datum:Lat:Slope (%): 1%
Soil Map Unit Name:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.89
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
No FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
2
%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
X
X 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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
0-18"10YR 4/3
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silt Loam
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 =
1.65%x2 =
2.10%x3 =
3.5%x4 =
4.15%x5 =
5.5%(B)
6.2%
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.
102%
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
1.02
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
3
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933372 Long:-86.184381 Datum:Lat:Slope (%): 1%
Soil Map Unit Name:
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
Lindernia dubia
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Eleocharis obtusa Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No OBL
Carex vulpinoidea FACWNo
Column Totals: Typha angustifolia No OBL
Oxalis stricta FACU
Populus deltoides No FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
1 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
2%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
75%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
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
0.45
0.08
10%
15%
Multiply by:
0.75
0.2
FACU species
1.48
1.45
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
3
%Type1
30 C
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
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)
0-4"10YR 4/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Sandy Loam
Clay Loam70
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 5/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 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 =
1.10%x2 =
2.15%x3 =
3.8%x4 =
4.7%x5 =
5.2%(B)
6.1%
7.5%
8.20%
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.
68%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2
0.39
0.4
35%
13%
Multiply by:
0.1
0.7
FACU species
1.59
2.34
10%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =Poa pratensis
= Total Cover
2 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No
OBL species
10%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals: Taraxacum officinale No FACU
Solanum ptychanthum FACU
Euphorbia maculata
FAC
No FACU
Cyperus odoratus
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
= Total Cover
Populus deltoides
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Leersia oryzoides No OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FAC
Bidens frondosa FACWYes
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
4
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933233 Long:-86.184797 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:2%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
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
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.68
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
Yes FACW
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
4
%Type1
30 C
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes X No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
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
X
X Surface Yes X No
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
3-18"10YR 5/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 4/6 PL
0-3"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Clay Loam70
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.
1.3%
2.5%
3.
4.
5.
8%
x1 =
1.40%x2 =
2.10%x3 =
3.15%x4 =
4.7%x5 =
5.3%(B)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.X
14.X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
15.4-Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
18.
19. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
75%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
Yes FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.83
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):hillslope
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Morus alba
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
5
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil- Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933204 Long:-86.185234 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:10%
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
Toxicodendron radicans
Pyrus calleryana Yes UPL
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Typha angustifolia Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
Yes FAC
Bidens frondosa FACWNo
Column Totals: Oxalis stricta No FACU
Dipsacus fullonum No FACU
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
4 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
10%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
40%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:75%(A/B)
3%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
0.6
0.4
10%
20%
Multiply by:
0.4
0.2
FACU species
0.15
1.75
2.11
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
5
%Type1
5 C
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)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X
X 1"
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)
0-2"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silty Clay Loam
Silty Clay Loam95
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
2-20"10YR 2/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 5/6 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)
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?
X
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
1.15%
2.
3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.
5.
15%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
x1 =
1.30%x2 =
2.30%x3 =
3.10%x4 =
4.20%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.
90%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2
1.35
2.4
45%
Multiply by:
FACU species
3.75
3.57
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
4 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
60%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals:
Digitaria sanguinalis Yes FACU
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
= Total Cover
Taraxacum officinale
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Poa pratensis Yes FAC
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Trifolium repens FACUYes
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
6
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil- Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.933258 Long:-86.185237 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
FACAcer rubrum Yes
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
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
X
X 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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
0-20"10YR 5/4
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silty Clay Loam
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
1.5%
2.
3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.
5.
5%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
x1 =
1.35%x2 =
2.15%x3 =
3.5%x4 =
4.3%x5 =
5.7%(B)
6.5%
7.8%
8.3%
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.
81%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
0.48
0.32
15%
16%
Multiply by:
0.47
0.3
FACU species
1.57
1.83
47%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =Poa pratensis
= Total Cover
3 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No
OBL species
8%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals: Lycopus americanus No OBL
Rumex crispus FAC
Symphyotrichum pilosum
FAC
No FACU
Apocynum cannabinum
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
= Total Cover
Cirsium arvense
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Typha angustifolia Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Bidens frondosa FACWYes
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
7
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.932387 Long:-86.184488 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:15%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):pond edge- slope
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
OBLSalix nigra Yes
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.86
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
No FAC
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
7
%Type1
5 C
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes X No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X
X
X Surface Yes X No
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 5/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 5/6 PL
0-3"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Clay Loam
Clay Loam95
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 X 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 =
1.15%x2 =
2.35%x3 =
3.10%x4 =
4.5%x5 =
5.15%(B)
6.10%
7.10%
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:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
X
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
8
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.932379 Long:-86.184423 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
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?
30' radius
Dominant
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
= Total Cover
Oxalis stricta
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Poa pratensis FACYes
Column Totals: Digitaria sanguinalis Yes FACU
Trifolium repens FACU
Symphyotrichum pilosum
FACU
No FACU
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
Prevalence Index = B/A =Cirsium arvense
= Total Cover
3 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No
OBL species
65%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33%(A/B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
1.05
2.6
35%
Multiply by:
FACU species
3.65
3.65
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
8
%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
X
X 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)
0-20"10YR 4/4
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silty Clay Loam
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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
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)
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.
1.8%
2.5%
3.3%
4.
5.
16%
x1 =
1.30%x2 =
2.15%x3 =
3.5%x4 =
4.3%x5 =
5.10%(B)
6.3%
7.2%
8.10%
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.X
14.X 3-Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
15.4-Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
16. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
17. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
18.
19. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
20. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
78%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
4
0.63
0.32
23%
21%
Multiply by:
0.4
0.46
FACU species
0.1
1.91
2.03
40%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =Daucus carota
= Total Cover
4 Species Across All Strata:(B)
No
OBL species
8%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals: Lycopus americanus No OBL
Acer rubrum FAC
Morus alba
UPL
No FAC
Poa pratensis
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
= Total Cover
Cirsium arvense
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Yes FACW
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
Juglans nigra
5' radius )
Typha angustifolia Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Carex sp.FACWYes
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
9
Section, Township, Range:
Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.930983 Long:-86.184818 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:15%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):pond edge- slope
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Populus deltoides Yes
No
FAC
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.94
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
No FAC
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
9
%Type1
5 C
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes X No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X
X
X Surface Yes X No
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 5/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 5/6 PL
0-3"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Clay Loam
Clay Loam95
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)X 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 X No
Yes X
Remarks:
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover
1.15%
2.2%
3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.
5.
17%
1.10%
2.
3.
4.
5.
10%
x1 =
1.15%x2 =
2.20%x3 =
3.5%x4 =
4.8%x5 =
5.8%(B)
6.10%
7.10%
8.5%
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.
81%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
23%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
1.26
1.72
42%
Multiply by:
FACU species
1.15
4.13
3.82
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =Morus alba
= Total Cover
6 Species Across All Strata:(B)
Yes
OBL species
43%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals: Daucus carota No UPL
Trifolium repens FACU
Trifolium pratense
FAC
No FACU
Lonicera morrowii
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Yes
= Total Cover
Oxalis stricta
Morus alba Yes FAC
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Poa pratensis FACYes
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
10
Section, Township, Range:
Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.930905 Long:-86.184922 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Acer rubrum No
UPL
FAC
Pinus virginiana Yes
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
1.08
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
No FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
10
%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
X
X 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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
0-20"10YR 4/3
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silty Clay Loam
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 X 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 =
1.30%x2 =
2.20%x3 =
3.10%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.
60%
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
0.60
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
X
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
11
Section, Township, Range:
Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.929264 Long:-86.184455 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
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?
30' radius
Dominant
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
= Total Cover
Euphorbia maculata
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Erigeron canadensis FACUYes
Column Totals:
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
2 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
60%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
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
2.4
Multiply by:
FACU species
2.4
4.00
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
11
%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
X
X 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)
0-20"10YR 5/4
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Sand
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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
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)
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 X No
Yes X
Remarks:
Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size:% Cover
1.30%
2.10%
3.2% That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A)
4.2%
5.
44%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
x1 =
1.15%x2 =
2.5%x3 =
3.10%x4 =
4.30%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.
60%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
5%
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2
1.86
1.4
2%
62%
Multiply by:
0.04
FACU species
0.25
3.55
3.41
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
4 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
35%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals:
Poa pratensis Yes FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
= Total Cover
Trifolium repens
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Lonicera maackii UPLNo
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
12
Section, Township, Range:
Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification:None
39.930444 Long:-86.185265 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Juglans nigra
Liquidambar styraciflua
Aesculus glabra
FACW
Yes
No
No
FAC
FACU
Celtis occidentalis
FAC
Yes
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
1.04
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
12
%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
X
X 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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
0-20"10YR 4/3
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silt Loam
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 X 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 =
1.15%x2 =
2.7%x3 =
3.15%x4 =
4.35%x5 =
5.20%(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.
92%
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
0.92
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
X
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
13
Section, Township, Range:
Brookston silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification:None
39.932508 Long:-86.186515 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
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?
30' radius
Dominant
Species?)
Indicator
Status Dominance Test worksheet:
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
= Total Cover
Trifolium repens
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale No FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Cirsium arvense FACUNo
Column Totals: Digitaria sanguinalis Yes FACU
Poa pratensis Yes FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
2 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
57%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
1.05
2.28
35%
Multiply by:
FACU species
3.33
3.62
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
13
%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
X
X 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)
0-20"10YR 4/3
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silt Loam
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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
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)
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.
1.8%
2.5%
3.3%
4.
5.
16%
x1 =
1.30%x2 =
2.15%x3 =
3.10%x4 =
4.15%x5 =
5.10%(B)
6.3%
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.
83%
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
0.83
Total % Cover of:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):pond edge- slope
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
Gradison Land Development
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
14
Section, Township, Range:
Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification:None
39.932523 Long:-86.185521 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:5%
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
Cirsium arvense
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Typha angustifolia Yes OBL
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Carex sp.FACWYes
Column Totals: Bidens frondosa No FACW
Phytolacca americana FACU
Epilobium hirsutum Yes FACW
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
No
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
3 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
13%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
30%
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
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:
3
0.52
40%
Multiply by:
0.3
0.8
FACU species
1.62
1.95
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
14
%Type1
5 C
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Yes X No
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X
X
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)
0-3"10YR 3/2
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Clay Loam
Clay Loam95
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
3-20"10YR 5/1
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
7.5YR 5/6 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 X
Yes X 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 =
1.20%x2 =
2.5%x3 =
3.3%x4 =
4.35%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.
63%
1.
2.No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
1.05
1.12
35%
Multiply by:
FACU species
2.17
3.44
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Midwest Region
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Sampling Date:7/25/2023
Sampling Point:
Total Number of Dominant
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50%(A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
2 Species Across All Strata:(B)
OBL species
28%
FACW species
XYes Present?
Vegetation
Hydrophytic
UPL species
Column Totals:
Poa pratensis Yes FAC
30' radiusWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
= Total Cover
Trifolium repens
15' radiusSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
5' radius )
Taraxacum officinale Yes FACU
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
No FACU
Cirsium arvense FACUNo
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
Asherwood South City/County:Carmel, Hamilton County
Kat Pain, Tim Douglas
IN
S9, T17N, R3E
15
Section, Township, Range:
Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded NWI classification:None
39.932548 Long:-86.185567 Datum:Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name:
Lat:1%
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):flat
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
No
No
No
Yes
NAD83
Local relief (concave, convex, none):none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation , Soil
Are Vegetation
N
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
FAC species
0.63
Total % Cover of:
1-Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2-Dominance Test is >50%
)
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region version 2.0
15
%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
X
X 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
100
Color (moist)Loc2(inches)
0-20"10YR 4/3
Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?
Color (moist)%Remarks
Silt Loam
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
APPENDIX C: Study Area Photographs
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP1, Looking north (7/25/23) DP1, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP1, Looking south (7/25/23)
DP2, Looking north (7/25/23) DP2, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP1, Looking west (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP2, Looking south (7/25/23) DP2, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP3, Looking north (7/25/23)
DP3, Looking south (7/25/23) DP3, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP3, Looking east (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP4, Looking north (7/25/23) DP4, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP4, Looking south (7/25/23)
DP5, Looking north (7/25/23) DP5, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP4, Looking west (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP5, Looking south (7/25/23) DP5, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP6, Looking north (7/25/23)
DP6, Looking south (7/25/23) DP6, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP6, Looking east (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP7, Looking north (7/25/23) DP7, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP7, Looking south (7/25/23)
DP8, Looking north (7/25/23) DP8, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP7, Looking west (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP8, Looking south (7/25/23) DP8, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP9, Looking north (7/25/23)
DP9, Looking south (7/25/23) DP9, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP9, Looking east (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP10, Looking north (7/25/23) DP10, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP10, Looking south (7/25/23)
DP11, Looking north (7/25/23) DP11, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP10, Looking west (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP11, Looking south (7/25/23) DP11, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP12, Looking north (7/25/23)
DP12, Looking south (7/25/23) DP12, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP12, Looking east (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP13, Looking north (7/25/23) DP13, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP13, Looking south (7/25/23)
DP14, Looking north (7/25/23) DP14, Looking east (7/25/23)
DP13, Looking west (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
DP14, Looking south (7/25/23) DP14, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP15, Looking north (7/25/23)
DP15, Looking south (7/25/23) DP15, Looking west (7/25/23)
DP15, Looking east (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP1, Looking at Pond 1 (7/25/23) PP2, Looking at culvert from Pond 1 (7/25/23)
PP3, Looking at culvert from Pond 1 (7/25/23)
PP4, Looking east (7/25/23) PP4, Looking south (7/25/23)
PP4, Looking north (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP4, Looking west (7/25/23) PP5, Looking at pipe into Pond 2 (7/25/23)
PP5, Looking at Pond 2 culvert (7/25/23)
PP6, Looking east at Pond 2 (7/25/23) PP6, Looking north at Pond 2 (7/25/23)
PP5, Looking Pond 2 culvert (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP7, Looking southeast at Pond 2 (7/25/23) PP7, Looking southwest at Pond 2 (7/25/23)
PP8, Looking north at Pond 2 (7/25/23)
PP9, Looking north (7/25/23) PP9, Looking east (7/25/23)
PP8, Looking at Pond 2 culvert (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP9, Looking south (7/25/23) PP9, Looking west (7/25/23)
PP10, Looking at offsite culvert (7/25/23)
PP11, Looking east (7/25/23) PP11, Looking south (7/25/23)
PP11, Looking north (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP11, Looking west (7/25/23) PP12, Looking north (7/25/23)
PP12, Looking east (7/25/23)
PP12, Looking west (7/25/23) PP13, Looking at pipe into Pond 2 (7/25/23)
PP12, Looking south (7/25/23)
Asherwood South July 2023
Appendix C:
Study Area Photographs
PP14, Looking north (7/25/23) PP14, Looking east (7/25/23)
PP14, Looking south (7/25/23)
PP15, Looking at Pond 2 culvert (7/25/23)
PP14, Looking west (7/25/23)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank