HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200325_V3_Schmidt_FlowingWellPark_NRA_20131FLOWING WELL PARK
NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
5100 E 116th Street
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana
PREPARED FOR:
Schmidt Associates, Inc.
415 Massachusetts Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
PREPARED BY:
V3 Companies, Ltd.
619 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 423-0690
March 2020
FLOWING WELL PARK
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iii
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 Jurisdictional Resources ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Regional Supplement Manuals .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Indiana Department of Environmental Management ................................................................... 6
2.4 Indiana Department of Natural Resources .................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 IDNR In-Lieu Fee Program ................................................................................................. 7
2.5 Soil and Water Conservation District ............................................................................................ 7
2.6 Hamilton County Drainage Board ................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 3 Desktop Review ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Project location map ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 National Wetlands Inventory Map ................................................................................................ 8
3.3 United States Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map ..................................................... 8
3.4 Flood Zone Map ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.5 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey ................................................................... 9
3.6 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Evaluation ................................................................ 9
Chapter 4 Site Reconnaissance ............................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 SITE and Adjacent Property Land Use ......................................................................................... 10
4.3 Wetland Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10
4.3.1 Wetland A– (±0.06 acre off-SITE, PFO) ............................................................................ 10
4.4 Data Point Summary ................................................................................................................... 11
4.5 Drainage Features, Streams, and Other Potential “Waters of the U.S.” ..................................... 12
Chapter 5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 13
FLOWING WELL PARK
ii
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP
FIGURE 3: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 4: FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
FIGURE 5: FLOOD ZONES OF HAMILTON COUNTY MAP
FIGURE 6: SOIL SURVEY OF HAMILTON COUNTY MAP
FIGURE 7: WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
TABLES
Table 1: Typical Mitigation Ratios for Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................ 3
Table 2: Summary of Replacement Sections in the 1987 Manual for the Midwest Supplement ............ 5
Table 3: Mitigation Ratios for Isolated Wetlands .................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Soil Units On-SITE ...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5: Aquatic Features On-SITE ........................................................................................................ 13
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ETR SPECIES CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C DATA FORMS
FLOWING WELL PARK
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
V3 Companies, Ltd. (V3) performed a natural resource assessment (NRA) and wetland delineation for
a proposed development located at 5100 E 116th Street, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana (SITE) on 11
March 2020.
V3 reached the following conclusions based on review of available and reasonably ascertainable
federal, state, and local resources, and a SITE inspection conducted on the date referenced above.
• No wetlands were identified on the SITE at the time of the SITE reconnaissance. One wetland
was observed directly adjacent to the project boundary.
• Two streams, Cool Creek and Tributary 1, were identified on-SITE. Both streams are likely to be
considered “Waters of the U.S.” and subject to regulation by the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Analysis of the
Hamilton County General Viewer online GIS resource indicated that an aquifer is situated in
the eastern portion of the site. The online GIS resource also indicated that there are no county
regulated drains are situated on-SITE.
• One open water source was observed on-SITE. The open water source displayed connectivity
to Tributary 1 and Cool Creek and is likely to be considered a “Waters of the U.S.” and subject
to regulation by the IDEM and USACE.
• Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) website, the USFWS indicated that the SITE is within the range of the federally
threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the federally endangered
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). V3 observed potential bat habitat trees on-SITE at the time of the
SITE reconnaissance. The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center indicated the presence of
American badger (Taxidea taxus), a state species of special concern, within 0.5 miles of the
SITE.
A Regional General Permit (RGP) and Water Quality Certification (WQC) will likely be required for
impacts to Cool Creek, Tributary 1, and the open water source if proposed cumulative impacts are over
0.1 acres and below 1.0 acres or up to 300 linear feet (lf) of stream. If anticipated impacts exceed 1.0
acre or 300 lf of stream, then an Individual Permit (IP) from both the IDEM and USACE may be
necessary. Mitigation for impacts is typically required at a 1:1 ratio for drainage features, 2:1 for
emergent wetlands, 3:1 for scrub-shrub wetlands, and 4:1 for forested wetlands.
A review of the digital FIRM data from the FEMA Flood Map Service Center indicated that the SITE is
situated within the floodway of Cool Creek. The upstream watershed of Cool Creek drains more than
one square mile; therefore, any work performed with the floodplain would likely require a
Construction-in-a-Floodway permit through the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).
If proposed development activities will disturb one or more acres of land, then a Rule 5 Stormwater
Run-off Permit may be required.
FLOWING WELL PARK
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared solely in accordance with an agreement between Schmidt Associates,
Inc. (“CLIENT”), and V3 Companies, Ltd (“V3”).
The services performed by V3 have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of quality
and skill generally exercised by members of its profession and consulting practices relating to this type
of engagement.
This report is solely for the use of CLIENT, and was prepared based upon an understanding of CLIENT’s
specific objective(s), and based upon information obtained by V3 in furtherance of CLIENT’s specific
objective(s). Any reliance of this report by third parties shall be at such third party's sole risk as this
report may not contain, or be based upon, sufficient information for purposes of other parties, for their
objectives, or for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support
any other objectives than those for CLIENT as set out in the report, except where written approval and
consent are expressly provided by CLIENT and V3.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this investigation was to conduct an NRA and wetland delineation of the SITE to evaluate
potential land development permitting requirements regarding natural resources. In this report, V3
provides a detailed description of the information reviewed and collected as part of the scope of work
for this project. V3 summarizes the jurisdictional framework applicable to this project, provides a
desktop review of relevant and publicly available documents, and details information collected during
the SITE reconnaissance including a wetlands determination, an evaluation of the potential presence
of other natural resources within the SITE boundary, and a discussion of endangered, threatened, and
rare (ETR) species and habitat. The Conclusions section summarizes V3’s findings, addresses potential
areas of concern and permitting, regulatory, and other relevant issues.
The SITE is located at 5100 E 116th Street, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana (Figure 1).
FLOWING WELL PARK
2
CHAPTER 2 JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES
2.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Through the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, Section 404, USACE maintains authority over "Waters of
the U.S." as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 328.3). The limit of jurisdiction described
in 33 CFR 328.4 for non-tidal waters is the "ordinary high water mark" if no adjacent wetlands are
present. If wetlands are present, the limit of jurisdiction applies to the boundary of the adjacent
wetland. Any wetland that has a hydrological connection to a “Waters of the U.S.” is also included.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) also serves as a base of federal
authority over certain waters. Definitions and permitting requirements for jurisdictional waters under
Section 10 can be found in 33 CFR Parts 322 and 329.
A Section 404 permit must be obtained from USACE before any fill or dredging activities are conducted
within the boundary of a “Waters of the U.S.” including federal jurisdictional wetlands. USACE uses
three (3) types of permits: nationwide permits, regional general permits for Indiana, and individual
permits. Furthermore, a Section 401 WQC must be filed with IDEM concurrently with the Section 404
permit(s). Each permit is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Nationwide Permits have been developed for projects that meet a specific criterion and are
deemed to have minimal impacts to the aquatic environment. There are 52 Nationwide Permits
created to streamline the permit process for smaller, repetitive, low impact projects including, but
not limited to Aids to Navigation, Fish and Wildlife Harvesting, Outfall Structures and Maintenance,
Utility Line Activities, Stream and Wetland Restoration, Maintenance Dredging of Existing Basins,
Agriculture Activities, and Mining Activities.
Regional General Permits (RGP) for Indiana authorizes proposed impacts associated with any
construction activities including agriculture and mining activities. Wetland impacts must be less
than one (1) acre to qualify for this type of permit.
RGP Notification to IDEM may be used for impacts that are less than 0.1 acre of wetland or 300
linear feet of stream, and are deemed to have minimal impacts to the aquatic environment.
Individual Permits (IP) are required for proposed wetland impacts of one (1) acre and greater. The
review process for this type of permit may take up to one (1) year due to the higher level of scrutiny
by the regulatory agencies.
The Louisville District of USACE developed mitigation guidelines in September 2004 for the federal
jurisdictional wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” The guidelines require stream and wetland
characterizations for all drainage features and wetlands proposed to be impacted. The document
required for permitting must contain extensive detail of the proposed impact sites, the proposed
mitigation sites, and information regarding the construction and monitoring of the mitigation sites.
Impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands or other “Waters of the U.S.” will require in-kind mitigation.
The 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule states three (3) mechanisms for mitigation and order of
preference: mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation. The typical
mitigation ratios for impacts to federally jurisdictional wetlands and other “Waters of the U.S.” are as
follows:
FLOWING WELL PARK
3
Table 1: Typical Mitigation Ratios for Jurisdictional Wetlands
Impact Type Replacement
Emergent Wetland 2:1 Acres
Scrub-Shrub Wetland 3:1 Acres
Forested Wetland 4:1 Acres
Stream/Drainage Ways 1:1 Linear feet
Open Water 1:1 Acres
2.1.1 Waters of the U.S.
A “Waters of the U.S.” can be described as any waterway that appears to have a “clear, natural line
impressed on the bank”1 that is caused by variations in water levels over a period of time. USACE is the
final authority on the determination of whether a waterway qualifies for jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act, but jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.” can include ephemeral streams and drainage ditches,
as well as large rivers. Several indicators that may be considered in determining an OHWM include, but
are not limited to, changes in soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, historical or recorded
data, presence of litter and/or debris, scour, and water staining.
2.1.2 Wetlands
Wetlands offer a variety of functions and values that may include, but are not limited to, groundwater
recharge/discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment/toxicant retention, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Because of the perceived functions and values of wetlands, USACE developed the Wetlands Delineation
Manual, (1987 Manual)2 to identify wetlands.
Wetlands are defined in the 1987 Manual as, “Those 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.”2 The 1987 Manual outlines the protocol for distinguishing wetland areas from "upland"
areas. Wetland areas are delineated according to three (3) primary criteria: vegetation, soil, and
hydrology. An area is determined to qualify as a wetland if it meets the following “general diagnostic
environmental characteristics:”
• Hydrophytic vegetation
• Hydrology
• Hydric Soil
Hydrophytic Vegetation
The 1987 Manual defines hydrophytic vegetation as, “…the sum total of macrophytic plant life that
occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently
or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species
present…”
The USFWS and the National Wetland Plant List Panel developed the following categories to establish
the relative probability of species occurring within the ranges between upland and wetland. The list
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification.
Accessed January 2018. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/app_h_rgl05-05.pdf
2 USACE. Waterways Experiment Station. Wetlands Research Program. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.”
Vicksburg, MS: Environmental Laboratory, 1987
FLOWING WELL PARK
4
was updated by USACE with cooperation with other federal agencies in 2016. The following list is the
categories for plant species:
• Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL) – Probability of >99% occurrence in wetlands with a 1%
probability of occurrence in upland areas.
• Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW) – Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in wetlands with a
1% - 33% probability of occurrence in upland areas.
• Facultative Plants (FAC) - Probability of 34% - 66% occurrence in either wetlands or upland
areas.
• Facultative Upland Plants (FACU) - Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in upland areas with a
1% - 33% probability of occurrence in wetland areas.
• Obligate Upland Plants (UPL) - Probability of >99% occurrence in upland areas with a 1%
probability of occurrence in wetland areas.
The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met if greater than 50% of dominant species are FAC, FACW, or
OBL.
Hydrology
Areas which are inundated or saturated to the surface for a significant time during the growing season
will typically exhibit characteristics of wetland hydrology. Careful examination of the site conditions is
needed to adequately identify wetland areas. The anaerobic and reducing conditions in inundated or
saturated soils influence the plant community and may favor a dominance of hydrophytic species. It
should be noted that the 1987 Manual further defines the growing season and methodology for
determining evidence of hydrology.
There are two types of hydrologic indicators: primary and secondary. Primary indicators of hydrology
are discussed in the 1987 Manual and include, but are not limited to, inundation, and saturation within
the upper 12 inches of soil, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns.
Secondary indicators include, but are not limited to, oxidized root channels, water stained leaves, local
soil survey data, FAC-Neutral test, etc. One primary or two secondary indicators are required to meet
this criterion.
Hydric Soil
"A hydric soil is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." 3 All organic soils (except Folists)
are considered hydric, while mineral soils must be carefully examined to qualify as hydric. There are
several indicators that suggest a soil is hydric. An inspection of the soil profile to a minimum depth of
16 inches below ground surface is required in order to make this determination. The soil data used is
the horizon of soil immediately below the A-horizon, or at 10 inches below the soil surface. Hydric soils
may be present in an upland position; however, there may be insufficient evidence of hydrology or
vegetation for the area to qualify as wetland.
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Hydric Soils Technical Note 1. Proper
Useof Hydric Soil Terminology. Accessed January 2018. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/
FLOWING WELL PARK
5
2.1.3 Regional Supplement Manuals
A series of regional supplements4 to the 1987 manual are developed by the Army Engineer Research
and Development Center (ERDC) to be more specific to regionally geographical conditions. Each
supplement manual is developed to account for regional differences in climate, geology, soils,
hydrology, plant and animal communities, etc. The intent of the regional supplements is to update the
1987 Manual with current information and technology rather than change the definition or manner
that wetlands were delineated. The procedures for completing a wetland delineation is to use a
combination of the 1987 Manual and the correct regional supplement manual.
Table 2: Summary of Replacement Sections in the 1987 Manual for the Midwest Supplement
Item Replaced Portions of the 1987 Manual Replacement Guidance
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Indicators
Paragraph 35, all subparts, and all
reference to specific indicators in Part IV. Chapter 2
Hydric Soil Indicators Paragraphs 44 and 45, all subparts, and all
references to specific indicators in Park IV. Chapter 3
Wetland Hydrology
Indicators
Paragraph 49(b), all subparts, and all
references to specific indicators in Part IV. Chapter 4
Growing Season Definition Glossary Chapter 4, Growing Season;
Glossary
Hydrology Standard for
Highly Disturbed or
Problematic Wetland
Situations
Paragraph 48, including Table 5 and the
accompanying User note in the online
version of the Manual.
Chapter 5, Wetlands that
Periodically Lack Indicators of
Wetland Hydrology,
Procedure item 3(f).
Regional Supplement Manuals will continue to be developed and revised electronically with the
improvement of technology and procedures.
2.2 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 intends to conserve the habitats of federally endangered or
threatened species and to assist in the recovery of species listed. The USFWS is the regulating authority
for this act and works with the states to provide additional conservation measures. The USFWS5 defines
two classifications of protected species, endangered and threatened. An endangered species is an
organism that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened
species is an organism that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. All species of plants and animals are eligible for listing.
Any activity that may incidentally harm federally threatened or endangered species is prohibited by the
ESA. For proposed development areas that contain listed species, private landowners may create a
Habitat Conservation Plan to minimize the impact on the listed species. This plan should include the
protection of breeding, foraging, and shelter requirements for the listed species. The USFWS may then
grant an Incidental Take Permit for the project. In the event that any person knowingly violates any
provision of the Act or Permit, the person may be assessed penalties.
4 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Midwest Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-27. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center
5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered Species Program. ESA Basics. Arlington, VA: USFWS, 2004. Accessed
January 2018. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf
FLOWING WELL PARK
6
Projects that involve federal funding or permitting on a site where endangered or threatened species
are known to occur or where significant habitat is present will require an alternatives analysis and
extensive documentation of agency coordination.
2.3 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IDEM is the State agency that reviews and issues permits regarding isolated wetlands (IAC 13-18). The
law recognizes three types of wetlands: Class I, Class II, and Class III. Class I isolated wetlands occur in
areas that have been disturbed by human activity/development, have low species diversity or greater
than 50% nonnative species, do not provide critical habitat for the support of significant wildlife or
aquatic vegetation, or do not possess significant hydrologic function. Class III isolated wetlands are
located in areas that are undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human activity/development, are
composed of rare or important ecological types, and support more than minimal wildlife or aquatic
habitat and hydrologic function. Class II isolated wetlands are those that do not fit the criteria set for
either Class I or Class III isolated wetlands.
Exemptions are in place to allow impacts to Class I and Class II wetlands without requiring permitting
and mitigation. Class I wetlands qualify for the exemption if the entire wetland does not exceed 0.5
acre. Any Class I wetland exceeding 0.5 acre will require mitigation. Class II wetlands qualify for the
exemption if the entire wetland acreage does not exceed 0.25 acre. Any Class II wetland exceeding 0.25
acre will require mitigation. Any proposed impacts to Class III or nonexempt Class I or Class II wetlands
will require an isolated wetlands and/or “Waters of the State” permit through IDEM. Such isolated
wetland permit applications will be submitted concurrently with any USACE Section 404 jurisdictional
wetland permits and IDEM Section 401 WQC if necessary.
According to IAC 13-18, impacts to isolated wetlands will require some form of compensatory
mitigation. The law specifically states the amount of mitigation that must be created to offset impacts
to isolated wetlands. These mitigation ratios do not apply to USACE jurisdictional wetlands. The
mitigation ratios for impacts to state regulated wetlands (isolated) are as follows:
Table 3: Mitigation Ratios for Isolated Wetlands
Impact Type Replacement On Site Ratio Off -Site Ratio
Class I Class I 1.5:1 Acres 1.5:1 Acres
Class I Class II or III 1:1 Acres 1:1 Acres
Class II Class II or III
Non-forested Non-forested
1.5:1 Acres 2:1 Acres
Forested Forested
2:1 Acres 2.5:1 Acres
Class III Class III
Non-forested Non-forested
2:1 Acres 2.5:1 Acres
Forested Forested
2.5:1 Acres 3:1 Acres
2.4 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The IDNR Division of Water has authority over the floodways of waterways that have a watershed
greater than one square mile. If construction activities are proposed in a regulated floodway then a
Construction in a Floodway permit would be required. A watershed analysis would be required to
determine the actual drainage for each waterway proposed to be impacted. In addition, trees cleared
within a regulated floodway will require compensatory mitigation.
FLOWING WELL PARK
7
The IDNR Division of Nature Preserves provides a Natural Heritage Data center for the documentation
of state and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare species and high quality natural
communities. The IDNR serves to identify, protect, and manage significant natural areas and ETR
species through coordination with the land owner. Currently over 23,000 acres of dedicated Nature
Preserves are located throughout the state. The preservation of natural communities supports species
diversity and provides examples of historic conditions for recreational, educational, and scientific
opportunities.
2.4.1 IDNR In-Lieu Fee Program
Effective 3 May 2018, USACE Louisville, Chicago, and Detroit Districts approved the IDNR In-Lieu Fee
(ILF) program. The Indiana Stream and Wetland Mitigation Program (IN SWMP) was approved to sell
wetland and stream mitigation credits consistent with 33 CFR Part 332, “Compensatory Mitigation for
Losses of Aquatic Resources.” The ILF program allows the DNR to sell stream and wetland mitigation
credits that can be used for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to isolated wetlands in
the State of Indiana and “Waters of the U.S.” Permits are required from USACE in accordance with
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and by IDEM under Section 401 Water Quality Certification
of the CWA and Indiana Isolated Wetlands Law (IAC 13-18-22).
2.5 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
A Rule 5 Stormwater Run-off Permit is required for construction related activities that will disturb one
or more acres of land that is not within a designated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
entity or is in a MS4 entity that does not have a stormwater ordinance established. The purpose of Rule
5 is to reduce pollutants, mainly sediment from soil erosion, in stormwater discharges into surface
waters of the State for the protection of public health, existing water uses, and aquatic biota.
A Construction Plan, including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, must be reviewed and
approved by the Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) as part of the Rule 5
permit process. A public notice of the intent to operate under Rule 5 must be submitted in a newspaper
of general circulation. A Notice of Intent (NOI) letter must then be submitted to IDEM including a $100
application fee, proof of the public notice, and the Construction Plan Review Approval Verification Form
as received from the SWCD. A Rule 5 Stormwater Run-off Permit will be issued by IDEM if all materials
are approved.
2.6 HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD
The Hamilton County Drainage Board has authority over designated regulated drains. Drains could
include subdivision drains, field tiles, or open ditches and creeks, within Hamilton County. Authorization
from Hamilton County would be required for any work conducted within the easement of a regulated
drain. Any construction affecting a regulated drain in Hamilton County, and/or the corresponding
easement on either side of such a drain, must be reviewed and approved by the Hamilton Drainage
Board prior to disturbance.
FLOWING WELL PARK
8
CHAPTER 3 DESKTOP REVIEW
V3 reviewed applicable, readily available and accessible historical information for the potential
presence of wetlands, “Waters of the U.S.”, and other natural resources. The findings are presented
below.
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP
The project is located at 5100 E 116th Street, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. The SITE location is
shown on the ESRI World Street Map in Figure 1.
3.2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were developed to meet a USFWS mandate to map the
wetland and deepwater habitats of the U.S. These maps were developed using high altitude aerial
photographs and USGS Quadrangle maps as a topographic base. Indicators that exhibited pre-
determined wetland characteristics, visible in the photographs, were identified according to a detailed
classification system. The NWI map retains some of the detail of the Quadrangle map; however, it is
used primarily for demonstration of wetland areas identified by the agency. The maps are accurate to
a scale of 1:24,000. In general, the NWI information requires field verification.
NWI data is shown projected over the USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map in Figure 2. One riverine lower
perennial unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded (R2UBH) NWI wetland polyline appears on-
SITE. The presence of NWI wetlands indicates a probability of wetlands appearing on-SITE.
3.3 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP
A USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle map displays contour lines to portray the shape and elevation of the
land surface. Quadrangle maps render the three-dimensional changes in elevation of the terrain on a
two-dimensional surface. The maps usually portray both manmade and natural topographic features.
Although they show lakes, rivers, various surface water drainage trends, vegetation, etc., they typically
do not provide the level of detail needed for accurate evaluation of wetlands. However, the existence
of these features may suggest the potential presence of wetlands.
The SITE is located in the Fishers, Indiana USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map, Section 33, Township 18
North, and Range 4 East. V3 evaluated the topography and concluded that the SITE elevation ranges
from approximately 750 to 760 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). One aquatic feature, Cool Creek,
appears on the USGS topographic map (Figure 3).
3.4 FLOOD ZONE MAP
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was developed in 1979 to reform disaster relief
and recovery, civil defense, and to prepare and mitigate for natural hazards. The Mitigation Division of
FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program which provides guidance on how to lessen the
impact of disasters on communities through flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard
mapping. Proper floodplain management has the ability to minimize the extent of flooding and flood
damage and improve stormwater quality by reducing stormwater velocities and erosion. The one
percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) boundary must be kept free of encroachment as the
national standard for the program.
V3 reviewed National Flood Hazard Zone data for Hamilton County, Indiana. The SITE is within a
regulated floodway and flood zone (Figure 4 and 5).
FLOWING WELL PARK
9
3.5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL SURVEY
V3 reviewed the soils mapped on-SITE in the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) digital soil
survey data for Hamilton County, Indiana. This data is projected over aerial photography, illustrating
distinct soil map unit boundaries (Figure 6).
Three soil units are classified on-SITE.
Table 4: Soil Units On-SITE
Soil Map Unit Description Hydric within
Hamilton County
Ge Gessie silt loam No
YshAH Shoals silt loam – Urban land complex No
YwqA Westland silty clay loam – Urban land complex Yes
Soils are considered hydric if more than 50 percent of the soil contains hydric components according
to the NRCS Web Soil Survey. One soil unit situated within the SITE is considered hydric within Hamilton
County. The presence of hydric soil units within the SITE area indicate a higher probability of wetlands
appearing on-SITE.
3.6 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE SPECIES EVALUATION
V3 filed a request with the USFWS and IDNR for documentation of any ETR species on-SITE. Based on
the USFWS IPaC website, the SITE is within the range of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis) and the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
Correspondence with the IDNR indicated the presence of American badger (Taxidea taxus), a state
species of special concern, within 0.5 miles of the SITE based on data collected in 1985. Please refer to
Appendix A for copies of the ETR correspondence
Based on the correspondence referenced above, additional correspondence with the agencies does
not appear to be warranted at this time. If federal permitting or federal financing will be used in future
development, additional coordination may be necessary.
FLOWING WELL PARK
10
CHAPTER 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
4.1 METHODOLOGY
V3 conducted a field investigation at the SITE on 11 March 2020. During this investigation, V3 noted
the presumed land use of the SITE and surrounding area, and evaluated the SITE for the potential
presence of wetlands, “Waters of the U.S.,” and natural resources using the findings of the desktop
review and field observations. Photographs were taken during the field investigation and are provided
in Appendix B.
V3 used the Routine Determination Method (RDM) with an established baseline and transects as
described in the 1987 Manual for typical sites over five acres. V3 recorded data from a number of data
points (DP) along the transect as a function of diversity of vegetation, property size, soil types, habitat
variability, and other SITE features as deemed appropriate by V3. Where evidence of a wetland was
suspected, three wetland criteria were applied to determine if the area in question was representative
of a wetland using the methodology set forth by USACE. More specifically, V3 visually examined and
recorded the dominant vegetation, recorded soil properties such as texture and color using the Munsell
Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color Chart), excavated soil pits, and evaluated the primary and secondary
hydrologic indicators as discussed in Section 2.1.2.
If all three criteria were met, i.e. vegetation, soil properties, and hydrologic indicators, a second DP was
established adjacent to the wetland DP in an area outside of the presumed wetland boundary for the
purpose of delineating between the wetland and non-wetland areas. Once delineated, V3 continued
the RDM to evaluate the remainder of the SITE.
4.2 SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY LAND USE
The SITE is approximately 3.57 acres and consists of a forested park with a perennial stream bisecting
the SITE. Adjacent land use consists of forested land and residential properties.
4.3 WETLAND SUMMARY
One wetland feature was identified during this investigation based upon methodology set forth in the
1987 Manual and the Midwest Regional Supplement. Information collected at each DP on 11 March
2020 by V3 is described in the following section. This information is summarized on the forms provided
in Appendix C. The DP locations are depicted on Figure 7.
4.3.1 Wetland A– (±0.06 acre off-SITE, PFO)
Wetland A is located southwest of the SITE. Wetland A is approximately 0.06 acre and is classified as a
palustrine, forested wetland (PFO).
DP A1
This DP was collected in the northern portion of Wetland A. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis, FACW), boxelder (Acer negundo, FAC), and silver maple
(Acer saccharinum, FACW), meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil
profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 with 10YR 4/6 redox
concentrations to a depth of 18 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion with the redox dark surface
(F6) indicator. Evidence of hydrologic features observed included surface water (A1), geomorphic
position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5), meeting the hydrology criterion. Since all three criteria were
met, this area qualified as a wetland.
FLOWING WELL PARK
11
DP A2
This DP was collected north of Wetland A. The dominant vegetation present consisted of boxelder (FAC)
and American sycamore (FACW), meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil
profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 with 10YR 4/6 redox
concentrations from 0 to 18 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion with the redox dark surface (F6)
indicator. No evidence of hydrologic features were observed during the investigation. Since all three
criteria were not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
4.4 DATA POINT SUMMARY
Below is a description of the information collected at each additional DP during the 11 March 2020
field investigations that was not associated with an identified wetland area. The purpose of collecting
these DPs was to describe the remaining characteristics of the SITE. Information that was collected at
each DP is summarized on the forms provided in Appendix C. Their locations are depicted on Figure 7.
DP 1
This DP was collected in the central portion of the wooded area on-SITE. The dominant vegetation
present consisted of boxelder (FAC) and American sycamore (FACW), meeting the hydrophytic
vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix
color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 18 inches, which did not meet the hydric soil criterion. No evidence of
hydrologic features were observed during the investigation. Since all three criteria were not met, this
area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 2
This DP was collected in the western portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides, FAC), boxelder (FAC), wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei,
UPL), and kidney-leaf buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus, FACW), meeting the hydrophytic vegetation
criterion. Examination of the soil profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR
3/2 to a depth of 3 inches and 10YR 4/3 from 3 to 18 inches, which did not meet the hydric soil criterion.
No evidence of hydrologic features were observed during the investigation. Since all three criteria were
not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 3
This DP was collected in the northwestern portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present
consisted of silver maple (Acer saccharinum, FACW), American elm (Ulmus Americana, FACW), winged
wahoo (Euonymus alatus, UPL), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora, FACU), kidney-leaf buttercup (FACW),
and harbinger-of-spring (Erigenia bulbosa, UPL), meeting the hydrophytic vegetation criterion.
Examination of the soil profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a
depth of 3 inches and 10YR 3/2 and 10YR 4/3 from 3 to 18 inches, which did not meet the hydric soil
criterion. No evidence of hydrologic features were observed during the investigation. Since all three
criteria were not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 4
This DP was collected in the southeastern portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present
consisted eastern cottonwood (FAC), boxelder (FAC), and American sycamore (FACW), meeting the
hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed
a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 to a depth of 18 inches, which did not meet the hydric soil criterion. No
evidence of hydrologic features were observed during the investigation. Since all three criteria were
not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
FLOWING WELL PARK
12
4.5 DRAINAGE FEATURES, STREAMS, AND OTHER POTENTIAL “WATERS OF THE U.S.”
Two streams, Cool Creek and Tributary 1, were observed on-SITE. Both streams are likely to be
considered “Waters of the U.S.” and subject to regulation by the IDEM and USACE.
Analysis of the Hamilton County General Viewer online GIS resource indicated that an aquifer is situated
in the eastern portion of the site. The online GIS resource also indicated that there are no county
regulated drains are situated on-SITE.
One open waterbody was observed in the southeastern portion of the SITE. The open water source
displayed connectivity to Tributary 1 and Cool Creek and is likely to be considered a “Waters of the
U.S.” and subject to regulation by the IDEM and USACE.
No additional drainage features, streams, or other potential “Waters of the U.S.” were observed on-
SITE.
FLOWING WELL PARK
13
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
On 11 March 2020, V3 performed a wetland delineation of the SITE located in the Fishers, Indiana USGS
7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map, Section 33, Township 18 North, and Range 4 East.
Two streams and one open water source were observed on-SITE. One wetland was observed adjacent
to the SITE. The following table shows the features identified, type, and size of the features, and the
anticipated regulatory authority.
Table 5: Aquatic Features
Aquatic Feature Aquatic Type Size (On-Site) Anticipated Regulatory
Authority
Cool Creek Perennial Stream ±230 lf USACE/IDEM/IDNR
Tributary 1 Intermittent Stream ±54 lf USACE/IDEM
Open Water Open water ±0.06 ac USACE/IDEM
Wetland A Forested Wetland Off-SITE USACE/IDEM
Cool Creek, Tributary 1, and the open water source are likely to be considered “Waters of the U.S.” and
would be subject to regulation by IDEM and USACE. Approximately 284 lf of stream and 0.06 acre of
open water are on-SITE. If proposed cumulative impacts are over 0.1 acres and below 1.0 acres or up
to 300 linear feet (lf) of stream, a RGP and WQC will likely be required. If anticipated impacts exceed
1.0 acre or 300 lf of stream, then an IP from both the IDEM and USACE may be necessary.
A review of the digital FIRM data from the FEMA Flood Map Service Center indicated that the SITE is
situated within the floodway of Cool Creek. The upstream watershed of Cool Creek drains more than
one square mile; therefore, any work performed with the regulated floodway would likely require a
Construction-in-a-Floodway permit through the IDNR Division of Water.
Analysis of the Hamilton County General Viewer online GIS resource indicated that an aquifer is situated
in the eastern portion of the site. The online GIS resource also indicated that there are no county
regulated drains are situated on-SITE.
Based on the USFWS IPaC website, the SITE is within the range of the federally-endangered Indiana bat
and the federally-threatened northern long-eared bat. Correspondence with the IDNR indicated there
has not been a documented occurrence of either bat species within 0.5 miles of the SITE. During the
SITE visit, V3 noted that several potential bat habitat trees on-SITE. If the proposed project includes
removing these trees, it is recommended that they be removed between 15 October and 31 March to
avoid incidental harming of these species.
Correspondence with the IDNR indicated the presence of American badger (Taxidea taxus), a state
species of special concern, within 0.5 miles of the SITE. If federal permitting or federal financing will be
used in future development, additional coordination may be necessary.
If proposed development activities will disturb one or more acres of land, then a Rule 5 Stormwater
Run-off Permit may be required.
Figures
600 0 600 1,200Feet
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\Wetland\FIG1loc20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/08/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
ESRI World Street Map
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 1FIGURE:
L1UBHx
L1UBHx
L1UBHx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGh
R2UBH
PUBGh
PUBGh
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
R2UBH
PUBGx
500 0 500 1,000Feet
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\Wetland\FIG2nwi20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/09/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
USGS Topographic MapFishers, IN Quadrangle(2013)
NATIONAL WETLANDSINVENTORY MAP
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 2FIGURE:
1,000 0 1,000 2,000Feet
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\Wetland\FIG3topo20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/09/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
USGS Topographic MapFishers, IN Quadrangle(2013)
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 3FIGURE:
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\FIG4fema20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/24/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
FEMA FIRM Panel 18957C0229G
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCERATE MAP (FIRM)
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 4FIGURE:
200 0 200 400Feet
GRAY RD116TH ST
WOOD CREEK DR TARRYNOT LNREGENCY LN PEBBLEPOINTE PASSWI
NDPOI
NTE PASSC R EEKSID E LN
S
OME
RSET
WAY
E
BURKWOOD DR
W I N D R I F T W A Y
PENDULA DR
W A T E R S T O N E W A YINV ST 5GREENSPIRE DR WOODSIDE CTSTONE BAY CIRWHISPER BAY CTB U C K IN G H A M C T
ROCKY CAY CT
SHADOW ROCK CIR
UNDERWOOD CTK E R R IA C T
250 0 250 500Feet
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\FIG5nfhl20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/24/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
Aerial Imagery(2017)
FLOOD ZONES OF HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA (2019)
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 5FIGURE:
Legend
Zone A
Zone AE
Zone AE,Floodway
Zone AH
Zone AO
Open Water
Zone X, 0.2%AnnualChance FloodHazard
Zone X, 0.2%AnnualChance FloodHazardContained InChannel
Zone X,Protected ByLevee
Zone X
Area NotIncluded
GRAY RD116TH ST
WOOD CREEK DR TARRYNOT LNREGENCY LN PEBBLEPOINTE PASSWI
NDPOI
NTE PASSC R EEKSID E LN
S
OME
RSET
WAY
E
BURKWOOD DR
W I N D R I F T W A Y
PENDULA DR
W A T E R S T O N E W A YINV ST 5GREENSPIRE DR WOODSIDE CTSTONE BAY CIRWHISPER BAY CTB U C K IN G H A M C T
ROCKY CAY CT
SHADOW ROCK CIR
UNDERWOOD CTK E R R IA C T
YoxA
YshAH
OcA
YwqA
YflA
YmsA
YwqA
Ge
W
YmsB2
YwqA
W
Sh
YflA
Sh
YflB2
YmsA
MmA YsnA
YmdC3
YfpD3
YflA
FnA
YmdC3
YflB2
W
St
OcB2
YsnA
YmsD2
YhnF
YflB2
YsnA
YmsA
YflB2
YfpD3
YflA
YfpD3
YmsA
YmdD3YmsA
250 0 250 500Feet
³
ProjectLocation
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\FIG6soils20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/24/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
Aerial Imagery(2017)
SOIL SURVEY OF HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA (2019)
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 6FIGURE:
Legend
Hydric Soils ofIndiana
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(Wetland A±0.06 acres(off-site)
Open Water±0.06 acres
Stream 1±230 linear feet(on-site)
Tributary 1±54 linear feetE 116TH STREET
WOODCREEK DRIVEPEBBLEPOINTE PASSCOO
L
C
R
E
E
K
DP4
DP3
DP2
DP1DPA2DPA1
100 0 100 200Feet
³
N:\2020\20131\Drawings\ArcGIS\NR\FIG6delin20131.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute... "The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania StreetIndianapolis, IN 46204317.423.0690 phonewww.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:20131
ODS
03/18/2020
See Scale Bar
Schmidt Associates, Inc415 Massachusetts AveIndianapolis, IN 46204
Aerial Imagery(2017)
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
Flowing Well Park5100 E 116th StreetCarmel, Indiana 7
FIGURE:
Legend
Project LocationCool CreekTributary
Open WaterPFO
!(Data Point
ETR Species Correspondence Letters
Appendix A
March 09, 2020
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Indiana Ecological Services Field Office
620 South Walker Street
Bloomington, IN 47403-2121
Phone: (812) 334-4261 Fax: (812) 334-4273
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/section7/s7process/step1.html
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 03E12000-2020-SLI-1012
Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-04561
Project Name: Flowing Well Park 20131
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached species list identifies any federally threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate
species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project or may be affected by your
proposed project. The list also includes designated critical habitat if present within your proposed
project area or affected by your project. This list is provided to you as the initial step of the
consultation process required under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, also referred to
as Section 7 Consultation.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or
carried out by Federal agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered species or
adversely modify designated critical habitat. To fulfill this mandate, Federal agencies (or their
designated non-federal representative) must consult with the Service if they determine their
project “may affect” listed species or critical habitat.
Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) (the regulations that implement Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act) the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally. You may verify the list by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ at regular intervals during project planning and implementation and
completing the same process you used to receive the attached list. As an alternative, you may
contact this Ecological Services Field Office for updates.
Please use the species list provided and visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Region 3
Section 7 Technical Assistance website at - http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/
s7process/index.html. This website contains step-by-step instructions which will help you
03/09/2020 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-04561 2
▪
determine if your project will have an adverse effect on listed species and will help lead you
through the Section 7 process.
For all wind energy projects and projects that include installing towers that use guy wires or
are over 200 feet in height, please contact this field office directly for assistance, even if no
federally listed plants, animals or critical habitat are present within your proposed project or may
be affected by your proposed project.
Although no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, be aware that bald eagles are
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) and Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq), as are golden eagles. Projects affecting these species may
require measures to avoid harming eagles or may require a permit. If your project is near an
eagle nest or winter roost area, see our Eagle Permits website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/
midwestbird/EaglePermits/index.html to help you determine if you can avoid impacting eagles or
if a permit may be necessary.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please include the
Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or
correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
03/09/2020 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-04561 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Indiana Ecological Services Field Office
620 South Walker Street
Bloomington, IN 47403-2121
(812) 334-4261
03/09/2020 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-04561 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code:03E12000-2020-SLI-1012
Event Code:03E12000-2020-E-04561
Project Name:Flowing Well Park 20131
Project Type:RECREATION CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE
Project Description:Schmidt Associates, Inc on behalf of Carmel Parks is proposing a project
at Flowing Well Park located at 5100 E 116th Street, Carmel, Hamilton
County, Indiana.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/39.95747239294556N86.08508312208565W
Counties:Hamilton, IN
03/09/2020 Event Code: 03E12000-2020-E-04561 3
1.
▪
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species should be
considered only under certain conditions.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949
Species survey guidelines:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1/office/31440.pdf
Endangered
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions:
Incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited here. Federal agencies may consult using the
4(d) rule streamlined process. Transportation projects may consult using the programmatic
process. See www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/index.html
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Threatened
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
1
Eric Holcomb, Governor
Cameron F. Clark, Director
The DNR mission: Protect, enhance, preserve and wisely use natural,
cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of Indiana’s citizens
through professional leadership, management and education.
www.DNR.IN.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Division of Nature Preserves
402 W. Washington St., Rm W267
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2739
March 13, 2020
Olivia Speckman
V3 Companies
619 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Olivia Speckman:
I am responding to your request for information on the endangered, threatened, or rare (ETR) species, high
quality natural communities, and natural areas for the Flowing Well Park Project located in Hamilton County,
Indiana. The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center has been checked and included you will find a datasheet
with information on the ETR species documented within 0.5 mile of the project area.
For more information on the animal species mentioned, please contact Christie Stanifer, Environmental
Coordinator, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 402 W. Washington Room W273, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204,
(317)232-8163.
The information I am providing does not preclude the requirement for further consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. If you have
concerns about potential Endangered Species Act issues you should contact the Service at their
Bloomington, Indiana office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
620 South Walker St.
Bloomington, Indiana 47403-2121
812-334-4261
At some point, you may need to contact the Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Review
Coordinator so that other divisions within the department have the opportunity to review your proposal.
For more information, please contact:
Department of Natural Resources
Attn: Christie Stanifer
Environmental Coordinator
Division of Fish and Wildlife
402 W. Washington Street, Room W273
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317)232-8163
Olivia Speckman 2 March 13, 2020
Please note that the Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center relies on the observations of many individuals for
our data. In most cases, the information is not the result of comprehensive field surveys conducted at
particular sites. Therefore, our statement that there are no documented significant natural features at a site
should not be interpreted to mean that the site does not support special plants or animals.
Due to the dynamic nature and sensitivity of the data, this information should not be used for any project
other than that for which it was originally intended. It may be necessary for you to request updated material
from us in order to base your planning decisions on the most current information.
Thank you for contacting the Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center. You may reach me at (317)233-2558 if
you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Taylor Davis
Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center
Enclosure: datasheet
Mammal
Taxidea taxus American Badger SSC 1985 Residential property
Sci. Name Com. Name State DateFed.Site
INDIANA HERITAGE DATA WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF:
March 13, 2020
Carmel Parks - Flowing Well Park Project, Hamilton County
Page 1 of 1
State: SE = State endangered; ST= State threatened; SR = State rare; SSC = State species of special concern; SG = State
significant; WL = watch list; no rank - not ranked but tracked to monitor status
Fed: LE= Listed Federal endangered; C = Federal candidate species
SITE Photographs
Appendix B
Photo: 1
Cool Creek
Direction of View:
North
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 2
Tributary 1
Direction of View:
Southeast
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 3
Open Water
Direction of View:
North
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 4
Data Point 1
Direction of View:
East
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 5
Data Point 2
Direction of View:
Northwest
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 6
Data Point 3
Direction of View:
South
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 7
Data Point 4
Direction of View:
Northwest
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 6
Wetland A
Data Point A1
Direction of View:
Southeast
Date:
11 March 2020
Photo: 7
Upland
Data Point A2
Direction of View:
South
Date:
11 March 2020
Data Forms
Appendix C
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP A1Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesxNo Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes x No Yes x No
Plot size:30'
1.FACW 22.FAC 33.FACW 24.5.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.Prevalence Index Worksheet2.3.0 x 1 04.25 x 2 505.10 x 3 30Total Cover 0 x 4 0Plot size:5'0 x 5 01.35 802.2.293.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5.x Dominance Test is >50%6.x Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-18 10YR 2/1 M
x
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
x
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)xThin Muck Surface (C7)xGuage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes x No Depth (inches) 1Water Table Present?Yes No x Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No x Depth (inches)Yes Nox
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN
Soil Map Unit Name:Shoals silt loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI Class:PFOConcaveO. Speckman and R. Collins Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 E
Vegetation or HydrologyYesNo
VEGETATION
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?Vegetation or Hydrology
Investigator(s):Slope (%):39.957108 -86.087201 NAD 83Flood Plains Local Relief
significantly disturbednaturally problematic
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
SUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
10 Y
Remarks:Meets all wetland criteria
Platanus occidentalis 15 Y Dominance Test WorksheetAcer negundo 10 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Acer saccharinum
3 35 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
FAC species0FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
0 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
93 10YR 4/6 7 C CL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Histosol (A1)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)2 cm Muck (A10)
5cm Mucky Peat or PeatSandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Redox Depressions (F8)Depleted Dark Surface (F7)Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)
Remarks:HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary Indicators
Hydric Soil Present?x
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Other
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface
Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Sediment Deposits (B2)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots
Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP A2Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesxNo Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes No x Yes No
Plot size:30'
1.FAC 32.FACW 23.4.5.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.Prevalence Index Worksheet2.3.0 x 1 04.15 x 2 305.40 x 3 120Total Cover 0 x 4 0Plot size:5'0 x 5 01.FACW 2 55 1502.2.733.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5.x Dominance Test is >50%6.x Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-18 10YR 2/1 M
x
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes No x
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:No hydric indicators
Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary IndicatorsSurface Water (A1)Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present?xRemarks:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)Thick Dark Surface (A12)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)Coast Prairie Redox (A16)2 cm Muck (A10)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixHydric Soil Indicators:Histosol (A1)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Histic Epipedon (A2)5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
93 10YR 4/6 7 C CL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
5 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL speciesRanunculus abortivus 5 N Total
FAC species0FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
2 50 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Acer negundo 40 Y Dominance Test WorksheetPlatanus occidentalis 10 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
xRemarks:Does not meet all wetland criteriaVEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
Soil Map Unit Name:Shoals silt loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopesClimatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%):39.957141 -86.087232 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 EInvestigator(s):O. Speckman and R. Collins Flood Plains Local Relief Convex
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP 1Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesNo x Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes No x Yes No
Plot size:30'
1.FACW 22.FAC 33.4.5.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.FAC 3 Prevalence Index Worksheet2.3.0 x 1 04.35 x 2 705.25 x 3 75Total Cover 0 x 4 0Plot size:5'0 x 5 01.FACW 2 60 1452.2.423.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5.x Dominance Test is >50%6.x Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-16 10YR 3/216-18 10YR 3/2
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes No x
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:No hydric indicators
Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary IndicatorsSurface Water (A1)Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present?xRemarks:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)Thick Dark Surface (A12)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)Coast Prairie Redox (A16)2 cm Muck (A10)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixHydric Soil Indicators:Histosol (A1)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Histic Epipedon (A2)5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
100 CL100SaL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
5 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL speciesRanunculus abortivus 5 N Total
FAC species5FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
Celtis occidentalis 5 N
2 50 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Platanus occidentalis 30 Y Dominance Test WorksheetAcer negundo 20 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
xRemarks:Does not meet all wetland criteriaVEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
Soil Map Unit Name:Shoals silt loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopesClimatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%):39.957236 -86.086750 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 EInvestigator(s):O. Speckman and R. Collins Flood Plains Local Relief Convex
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP 2Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesNo x Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes No x Yes No
Plot size:30'
1.FAC 32.FAC 33.FACW 24.FAC 35.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.Prevalence Index Worksheet2.3.0 x 1 04.10 x 2 205.50 x 3 150Total Cover 0 x 4 0Plot size:5'10 x 5 501.UPL 70 2202.FACW 2 3.143.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5.x Dominance Test is >50%6. Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-3 10YR 3/23-18 10YR 4/3
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes No x
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:No hydric indicators
Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary IndicatorsSurface Water (A1)Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present?xRemarks:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)Thick Dark Surface (A12)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)Coast Prairie Redox (A16)2 cm Muck (A10)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixHydric Soil Indicators:Histosol (A1)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Histic Epipedon (A2)5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
100 SaL100SaL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
15 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Ranunculus abortivus 5 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL speciesEuonymus fortunei 10 Y Total
FAC species0FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
4 55 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:75.00Shrub Stratum
5 NCeltis occidentalis 5 N Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Populus deltoides 25 Y Dominance Test WorksheetAcer negundo 20 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Acer saccharinum
xRemarks:Does not meet all wetland criteriaVEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
Soil Map Unit Name:Gessie silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief durationClimatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%):39.357569 -86.087280 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 EInvestigator(s):O. Speckman and R. Collins Flood Plains Local Relief Convex
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP 3Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesNo x Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes No x Yes No
Plot size:30'
1.FACW 22.FACW 23.4.5.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.UPL Prevalence Index Worksheet2.FACU 43.0 x 1 04.50 x 2 1005.0 x 3 0Total Cover 10 x 4 40Plot size:5'18 x 5 901.FACW 78 2302.UPL 2 2.953.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5. Dominance Test is >50%6.x Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-3 10YR 3/23-18 10YR 4/33-18 10YR 3/2
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes No x
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:No hydric indicators
Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary IndicatorsSurface Water (A1)Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present?xRemarks:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)Thick Dark Surface (A12)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)Coast Prairie Redox (A16)2 cm Muck (A10)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixHydric Soil Indicators:Histosol (A1)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Histic Epipedon (A2)5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
40 SaL60SaL100SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
8 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Ranunculus abortivus 3 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species5YTotalErigenia bulbosa
FAC species25FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
Euonymus alatus 15 YRosa multiflora 10 Y
6 45 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50.00Shrub Stratum
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Acer saccharinum 30 Y Dominance Test WorksheetUlmus americana 15 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3
xRemarks:Does not meet all wetland criteriaVEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
Soil Map Unit Name:Gessie silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief durationClimatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%):39.957794 -86.087784 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 EInvestigator(s):O. Speckman and R. Collins Flood Plains Local Relief Convex
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site:City/County:Date:Data Point:DP 4Client:State:Section, Township, Range:Landform0-1 Lat.Long.Datum
Y/N Y, Soil, SoilAre Normal Circumstances Present?x
Yes x NoYesNo x Is the DP within a Wetland?Yes No x Yes No
Plot size:30'
1.FAC 32.FAC 33.FACW 24.5.Total CoverPlot size:15'1.FAC 3 Prevalence Index Worksheet2.3.0 x 1 04.20 x 2 405.50 x 3 150Total Cover 0 x 4 0Plot size:5'0 x 5 01.FACW 2 70 1902.2.713.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.5.x Dominance Test is >50%6.x Prevalence Index is <3.0*7.Morphological Adaptations*8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*Total CoverWoody Vine Stratum Plot size:30'1.2.Total Cover Yes NoSOIL
Depth(inches)Color Loc**0-18 10YR 3/2
OtherRestrictive Layer (if observed):Type:Depth (Inches):Yes No
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Water Table Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Hydroloy Indicators Present?Saturation Present?Yes No X Depth (inches)Yes No x
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:No hydric indicators
Drift Deposits (B3)Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil (C6)Geomorphic Position (D2)Iron Deposits (B5)FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water Marks (B1)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2)Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
High Water Table (A2)Aquatic Fauna (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10)Saturation (A3)True Aquatic Plants (B14)Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
HYDROLOGYWetland Hydrology Indicators:Primary Indicators (check all that apply)Secondary IndicatorsSurface Water (A1)Water Stained Leaves (B9)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present?xRemarks:
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Very Shallow Dark Surface (F12)Thick Dark Surface (A12)Depleted Matrix (F3)
Stratified Layers (A5)Stripped Matrix (S6)Coast Prairie Redox (A16)2 cm Muck (A10)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Black Histic (A3)Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Sandy Redox (S5)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
*Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Coated Sand grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=MatrixHydric Soil Indicators:Histosol (A1)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Redox Dark Surface (F6)Histic Epipedon (A2)5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
100 SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)Matrix Redox Features%Color %Type*Texture Remarks
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Remarks:x
5 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL speciesRanunculus abortivus 5 N Total
FAC species5FACU species
Total % cover of: OBL species FACW species
Cornus racemosa 5 N
3 60 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
15 Y Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Populus deltoides 30 Y Dominance Test WorksheetAcer negundo 15 Y Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Platanus occidentalis
xRemarks:Does not meet all wetland criteriaVEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes NoSUMMARY OF FINDINGSHydrophytic Vegetation Present?Hydric Soil Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
Soil Map Unit Name:Shoals silt loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopesClimatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%):39.957293 -86.084466 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Flowing Well Park Hamilton/Carmel 11 March 2020Schmidt Associates, Inc.IN Sec 33, T 18 N, R 4 EInvestigator(s):O. Speckman and R. Collins Flood Plains Local Relief Convex