HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondencePlan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
1 1 Addressing
Dave McCoy
4/19/24 8:29 AM
Comment
You will need 6 street names for this subdivision. The cities of Hamilton
County and E911 have agreed to refrain from using duplicate street names,
regardless of the suffix. This website
(https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/180/Addressing-GIS) has the link to the
current street name list. Please contact me (dmccoy@carmel.in.gov) to
submit your chosen street names or if you wish to discuss.
Info Only
2 1 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
4/19/24 1:44 PM
Changemark
tree preservation easement
Please label all of the tree preservation areas on the entire site according to
the Open Space Exhibit v2.0.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:47 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for revision.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:25 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revised and
added notes.
Resolved
3 1 Fire
Carmel Fire
4/22/24 10:33 AM
Comment
Indiana Fire Code Section 3312.1 Fire Hydrants shall be fully functional tested
and approved prior to any combustible materials arriving on the
construction site.
Info Only
4 1 Fire
Carmel Fire
4/22/24 10:34 AM
Comment
Section 3310.1 Required Fire Department Vehicle Access. Approved Asphalt
fire apparatus access roads shall be provided to and through the
construction site during construction. Fire Apparatus access road must be
capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus and maintained clear at
all times
Info Only
5 1 Fire
Carmel Fire
4/22/24 10:35 AM
Comment
Submit an emergency vehicle auto turn circulation plan to provide
confirmation emergency vehicles can navigate the proposed streets without
obstruction.
Info Only
6 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:42 PM
Changemark
Please provide a drainage report for this project
Per Section 102.05 (ii) through (iv) of the Stormwater Technical Standards
Manual, we will require a drainage report submitted with the primary plat for
review. Please ensure that all items required by these sections are included in
the report.
Water-Sanitary-Storm System
Description.pdf
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:16 PM
Please see attached preliminary drainage report
showing release rates are being met with the proposed
design.
Resolved
REVIEW COMMENTS
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
7 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:59 PM
Changemark
Please relocate this structure outside of the roadway
We prefer storm (other than curb inlets) and sanitary structures to be located
outside of the roadway. Please reconfigure the storm to have this structure
outside of the pavement.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:16 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revised storm
layout.
Resolved
8 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:59 PM
Changemark
These structures appear to be misaligned with the curb, please revise
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:16 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revised storm
layout.
Resolved
9 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:59 PM
Changemark
Please provide a basic outline of the post-construction stormwater quality
features
Per Section 102.05(i) of the STSM, we will need a basic outline of the sites
proposed BMPs shown on the primary plat.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200. Water quality BMP's
are now shown in sequence with the ponds.
Resolved
10 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:59 PM
Changemark
Please indicate the flood routing of on and off-site runoff per Section
102.05(h) of the STSM
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for arrows showing
flood routing. Legend has been revised to reflect this
change.
Resolved
11 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 2:59 PM
Changemark
Please provide a statement regarding flooding as required by Section
102.05(g) of the STSM
A statement as to whether or not the FEMA Base Flood elevation will flood
portions of the property via the outfall or storm piping system will need to
be provided on the plans.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added flooding
statement.
Resolved
12 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 3:00 PM
Changemark
Please provide minimum flood protection grades for each lot per Section
102.05(e) of the STSM
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added minimum
flood protection grades.
Resolved
13 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 3:02 PM
Changemark
Please clarify if this represent the emergency overflow route or swale
locations and revise if necessary
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Legend has been revised for clarity. Please see Primary
Plat sheet C200 for revision.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
14 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 3:03 PM
Changemark
Detention must be located 50' from City right-of-way or a traffic rated barrier
will need to be provided
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revision.
Detention pond will have traffic rated barrier along
proposed right-of-way.
Resolved
15 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 3:05 PM
Changemark
This section of pipe will need an easement over it
It does not appear that a drainage easement is proposed over this pipe. This
will need to be provided on the primary plat.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:17 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added easement.
Resolved
16 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/26/24 3:07 PM
Changemark
A drainage easement will need to be provided south of this pipe or consider
relocating it
This pipe is located on the property line. If maintenance is required on this
line, work will most likely need to be performed on the adjacent lot if it
remains in this location. Please provide a drainage easement on lot 30 or
relocate the pipe off the property line.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:18 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revision. Pipe has
been relocated north out of property.
Resolved
17 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/30/24 2:47 PM
Changemark
This area is an existing overflow route and emergency flood route for the
properties to the west
This swale is the discharge route for Stafford Park and Salsbery Brothers
Landscaping. A culvert sized for the 100-year flow of these developments will
need to be provided with this project.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:18 PM
Culverts have been added on the north and south drive
connections to maintain the current runoff pattern.
Resolved
18 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/30/24 2:50 PM
Changemark
Please provide a wetland delineation
Several wetlands are noted on the site. Please provide a wetland
determination and verification from USACE and IDEM. Any wetlands that will
remain must be placed within a water quality preservation easement per
Section 7.10 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:03 AM
Approved Section 401 Water Quality Certification has
been attached. This covers wetlands A and B.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/3/24 10:41 AM
Please have this information submitted once completed.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:58 AM
Noted. V3 is continuing work on the wetland
determination for Wetland B and the stream segment.
This will be submitted when it is complete.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 8/6/24 12:41 PM
Thank you. Please let us know when a determination is
made by USACE and IDEM and provide the
documentation.
----------------------------------------------------------
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/2/24 8:17 AM
V3 is working on the wetland determinationfor Wetland
B and the stream segment. This will be submitted when
it is complete.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 7/5/24 10:13 AM
Thank you, but this only appears to cover "Wetland A"
and excludes "Wetland B" and the stream segment.
Please provide the determination for those with the next
submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/2/24 8:35 AM
Please see attached for the AJD.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 6/17/24 12:33 PM
Please have the assessment submitted to USACE and
IDEM for their review and determination is not done so
yet. If they have reviewed it, please provide confirmation
from them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:18 PM
Please see attached Natural Resource Assessment.
19 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/30/24 2:53 PM
Changemark
This section of pipe will need to be included in a drainage easement
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:18 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revised storm
layout to keep pipe in drainage easement.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
20 1 Engineering
Alex Jordan
4/30/24 2:56 PM
Changemark
An inlet will need to be provided every 300 feet or 3 residential lots
Per Section 303.05(8) of the STSM, an additional inlet will need to be
provided in the rear yards here.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:28 PM
An additional inlet has been provided on the north side
of lot 9 to meet the requirement of 1 inlet per 3
residential lots. Additionally, subsurface drain has been
called out on all swales located behind buildings. Please
see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revision.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 6/17/24 12:15 PM
A waiver will need to be requested from this standard if
the plans are to stay as proposed. We will also need to
ensure that the rear yard swale will have a subsurface
drain installed within it.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:19 PM
Due to these lots being so small, we believe an extra
inlet is excessive. Swales along the west property line
are 276' running south and 246' running north, both
being under 300' in length.
Resolved
21 1 Sign Permits
Aliza Shalit
5/1/24 1:44 PM
Changemark
Signage
Are any signs being proposed for this subdivision? Please include
location/type on schematics.
Open Space Exhibit v2.0.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:47 PM
Noted. Entrance sign location and type is called out and
detailed on the landscape plan. This sign meets the
discussed area requirement of 12 square feet maximum.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Aliza Shalit - 6/13/24 3:44 PM
Proposed location and type of neighborhood
identification sign (monument sign or entry feature) are
required. A ground sign will only require a sign permit
application as long as it complies with UDO sign
standards for ground signs. If not presented with this
filing an entry feature will require an ADLS Amend and
Plan Commission review and a sign permit application
after approval from the Commission.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/11/24 9:57 AM
Coordination is ongoing regarding this comment.
Signage will be provided at a later date.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
22 1 Sign Permits
Aliza Shalit
5/1/24 1:45 PM
Comment
All signs require a separate sign permit application and review process.
Info Only
23 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
102.05.i.f
Please include information on how and where the pond will outlet. Please
also include the approximate location, size, and capacity of any retention
basins to be located in or directly affecting the proposed subdivision, critical
pond elevations, top of bank and spillway elevations. The pond shall meet
size requirements per 302.07.1.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:00 AM
A traffic rated barrier is shown along the section of the
southeast pond that borders road. The northeast pond
is farther than 50' from the right-of-way. Wet basins
have been provided per discussions with Jeremy
Kashman. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/28/24 8:45 PM
In addition to pedestrian safety, a vehicular barrier
would need to be provided to ensure no vehicles run off
the road. The ponds will need to meet 302.08 standards.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/22/24 2:17 PM
Additional vegetation has been provided around each
dry basin, specifically adjacent to the road and
buildings. Do not mow or spray signage is also shown
around the ponds. The intent of this is to screen the dry
basins enough that they are not accessible to the public,
alleviating safety concerns of staging greater than 4'.
We are applying for a variance on the pond staging
being greater than 4 feet in dry basins with this
reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/9/24 3:13 PM
The drainage report indicates that the pond will stage
8.43'. Per 302.08.2 the maximum planned depth of
stormwater stored shall not exceed 4 feet in a dry basin.
Please revise
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 2:38 PM
The southeast wet pond has been converted to a dry
basin. Plan sheets and drainage report have been
updated accordingly, please see attached.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:25 PM
We acknowledge that the typical requirement is larger
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
than what is shown, but the pond has been previously
reviewed and approved by the City of Carmel so that in
can serve as an amenity feature for the community.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 6/21/24 1:23 PM
The pond does not meet the 302.07.1 minimum
requirements. Please revise pond size or type.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:12 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for updated pond
outlet and pond information. Emergency spillway
elevations and locations have been provided.
24 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
102.05.i.d
a Primary Plat Submission shall indicate portions of site within a floodway,
flood fringe, or floodplain as determined by the City of Carmel Flood Hazard
Area Ordinance.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:13 PM
No portion of this site is in floodway, flood fringe, or
floodplain. Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added
note.
Resolved
25 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
102.05.i.e
a Primary Plat Submission shall include minimum flood protection grades.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:13 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added minimum
flood protection grades.
Resolved
26 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
302.06.10
It does not appear that the required horizontal distance from top of bank to
edge of common area is the required 15'. Please revise
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:14 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revision - there is
now 15' from the top of bank to the edge of common
area.
Resolved
27 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
102.05.i.h
Primary Plat Submission shall indicate flood routing of off-site and on-site
runoff.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:15 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for arrows showing
flood routing. Legend has been revised to reflect this
change.
Resolved
28 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:16 PM
Changemark
102.05.i.i.
Primary Plat Submission shall include a basic outline of post construction
stormwater quality features (locations, sizes, easements, etc.).
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:15 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200. Water quality BMP's
are now shown in sequence with the ponds.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
29 1 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
5/6/24 5:17 PM
Comment
Primary Plat submission shall include a preliminary drainage report per
102.05.ii - iv
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:15 PM
Please see attached preliminary drainage report.
Resolved
30 1 Vectren Energy
Chad Miller
5/8/24 9:14 AM
Changemark
CenterPoint Energy
Please add the utility easement designation in Common Areas 1A, 1B, 2 & 3.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Info Only
31 1 Transportation
Systems
David Littlejohn
5/15/24 1:37 PM
Comment
There is still an unresolved Transportation Systems comment regarding ADA
crosswalks on all sides of all of the intersections of this project in the PUD
Rezone (PZ-2023-00014 PUD Andrews PUD) review. Resolve that comment
on the rezone project and upload the revised plans to this project for
approval.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/11/24 9:58 AM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added
crosswalks.
Resolved
32 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/22/24 5:44 PM
Changemark
Lot Width
The minimum Lot Width is 70 ft. and 50 ft. at the ROW. Will Lots 11, 12, 20,
23 meet the minimum 70 ft. lot widths at the building line?
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:19 PM
All lots meet the requirement of 70 ft. at the building
line and 50 ft. at the ROW. Please see Primary Plat sheet
C200.
Resolved
33 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 4:17 PM
Changemark
Street Lighting
Please provide street lighting per the requirements in the PUD.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:29 PM
Noted. Street light locations have been added to the
primary plat drawings and are called out on the
landscape plan.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/13/24 2:58 PM
Street light locations should be shown on the primary
plat drawings.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:19 PM
Street lighting to be provided at a later date with full
construction documents.
Resolved
34 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 4:20 PM
Changemark
Bike Parking
Please show the required bike parking locations on the primary plat.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:19 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for added bike
parking areas in common areas 4 and 3.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
35 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 4:21 PM
Changemark
Construction Traffic Signage
Please provide a construction traffic signage plan that shows where the
signage will be place and what it will look like.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 7/20/24 10:54 PM
Please submit the final plan with the secondary plat that
shows the signage at Gray Road per the PUD.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 7/20/24 10:54 PM
Please submit the final plan with the secondary plat that
shows the signage at Gray Road per the PUD.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:37 PM
Please see updated MOT plan on sheet C 500 for
proposed construction traffic signage at the Gray Oaks
connection.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/13/24 3:00 PM
Construction traffic signage locations and types of signs
need to be shown with the primary plat to show that
construction traffic will not go through Gray Oaks.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Construction traffic signage will not be provided at this
time. This information will be provided at the
construction document phase.
Resolved
36 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:01 PM
Changemark
Southern Tree Preservation Area
Please show this 30 ft. buffer yard as a tree preservation area per the PUD.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C200 for revised notes.
Resolved
37 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Please list what green or sustainable site or building design aspects will
implemented, similar to the LEED checklist: www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-
systems from the US Green Building Council. (This is not a requirement, but
the Commission looks favorably upon this.)
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Green or sustainable site or building design aspects will
not be provided at this time.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
38 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Please submit a draft copy of the neighborhood Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (if there will be any).
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 7/20/24 10:55 PM
Please provide with the secondary plat if you have them
so we can review them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/2/24 8:38 AM
Pulte typically does not draft these until post land
development.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/18/24 8:23 PM
Will you have those prepared to be reviewed with this
Primary Plat?
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Neighborhood covenants, conditions and restrictions
are to be provided when acquired at a later date.
Resolved
39 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Submit a copy of the Adjoining Property Owners List from Hamilton County.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
40 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page
of the application.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
41 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
42 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Submit Proof of Publication from the newspaper.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
43 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Submit Certificate of Mailing for proof of mailing.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
44 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:02 PM
Library Comment
Submit a copy of the Sign Affidavit.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:20 PM
Please see attached documents.
Resolved
45 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:06 PM
Changemark
Pond Vegetation
Please label the native vegetation around the pond
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:21 PM
Please see sheet C400 for proposed landscaping around
pond.
Resolved
46 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:09 PM
Changemark
Plantings required by Salsbery
Please provide an update on the commitment for Salsbery to install
landscaping along the western perimeter. When will these be installed? Have
you been in contact with them?
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 7/11/24 5:00 PM
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/2/24 8:39 AM
We have had multiple conversations in the past with
Salsberry and their representative from Kreig Devault.
They are aware of their obligations and will be
coordinated with when we start land development.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/18/24 8:06 PM
Have you been in contact with Salsbery about this
commitment?
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:21 PM
Noted. We also recognize the commitment stated the
change must be made by May 2025 at the latest.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
47 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:10 PM
Comment
Please provide a landscape plan to show the required plantings in the
bufferyards, and how the common areas will be landscaped., including the
location and fencing for the dog park and community garden.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:40 PM
Please see updated landscape plan for detailed
amenities.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/21/24 11:44 AM
Thank you for the landscape plan. Amenity details
should be provided with the primary plat. Please submit
these items with your next submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:21 PM
Amenities are to be provided at a later date. Please see
sheet C400 Landscape Plan for proposed locations of
amenity areas.
Resolved
48 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:12 PM
Changemark
Fence design and location
Please show the location for the fence for the dog park or community
garden. Please also provide the details for what the fence will look like.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:40 PM
Please see updated landscape plan for detailed
amenities.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/13/24 3:04 PM
Amenity details should be provided with the primary
plat. Please submit these items with your next
submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:21 PM
Amenity details to be provided at a later date with full
construction documents.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
49 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/29/24 5:13 PM
Comment
Please provide the details for what the subdivision signage will look like and
be located. Provide the size, height, landscaping around the sign and if any
lighting will be provided for the sign.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:40 PM
Noted. Entrance sign is called out on the landscape
plans.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/13/24 3:05 PM
At a minimum, the location of an entrance sign should
be shown on the plans.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/11/24 9:57 AM
Coordination is ongoing regarding this comment.
Signage will be provided at a later date.
Resolved
50 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 9:23 AM
Changemark
Pond Overlook
Please provide details on the pond overlook. What will it look like, how big
will it be, etc.
Open Space Exhibit v2.0.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:41 PM
Please see attached exhibit detailing the pond overlook,
as well as the landscape plans for revision.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/18/24 8:23 PM
Please upload the most recent plans that show the
details of the pond overlook.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:22 PM
Amenity details are to be provided at a later date.
Please see sheet C400 Landscape Plan for proposed
pond overlook landscaping.
Resolved
51 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 9:23 AM
Changemark
Additional Street Tree
Can you add another street tree in this general area?
Open Space Exhibit v2.0.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:22 PM
Please see sheet C400 for proposed landscaping.
Resolved
52 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 9:25 AM
Comment
Please provide a typical landscaping plan for a residential home.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:22 PM
Typical landscaping plan to be provided at a later date
with full construction documents.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
53 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:12 PM
Changemark
2 ft offset for front yard setback
Will all homes meet the minimum 2 ft. offset between adjacent lots?
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:22 PM
All homes are offset 2' between adjacent lots. Please see
Primary Plat sheet C200.
Resolved
54 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:15 PM
Changemark
Community Garden
Please show the location of the 20 raised garden beds, compost box, and
water source.
Open Space Exhibit v2.0.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:41 PM
Please see updated landscape plan on sheet C 400 for
detailed amenities.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/13/24 3:06 PM
Amenity details should be provided with the primary
plat. Please submit these items with your next
submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:22 PM
Amenities are to be provided at a later date with full
construction documents. Please see sheet C400
Landscape Plan for proposed locations of amenity areas.
Resolved
55 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:18 PM
Changemark
Common Area 2 Landscaping
Please show the landscape plan for Common Area 2 and locate trees and
shrubs to help break-up the view of the side facade of Lot 9. 3 Bur Oak trees
are required in this location as well.
Open Space Exhibit v2.0.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:23 PM
Please see sheet C400 for proposed landscaping.
Resolved
56 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:39 PM
Changemark
Speed bump
Will the Engineering Dept. permit a speed bump at the neighborhood
connection with Gray Oaks, per the PUD?
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/2/24 9:10 AM
This will be finalized with Engineering Department
during Construction Document review.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 6/21/24 12:25 PM
Please provide an update on this as I did not see it on
the plans.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:23 PM
Per section 8.2.C of the Andrews PUD, a speed bump is
to be provided if approved by Carmel Engineering.
Coordination regarding this update is ongoing.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
57 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:45 PM
Changemark
Docket Number
Please add the Docket Number to the Primary Plat Cover sheet. PZ-2024-
00064 PP
Primary Plat-C100.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:23 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C100 for revision.
Resolved
58 1 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
5/30/24 12:45 PM
Changemark
Update Zoning on Cover Sheet
Please update the zoning to the current zoning, which is PUD - Ordinance
Z-687-24 Andrews PUD
Primary Plat-C100.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/7/24 12:23 PM
Please see Primary Plat sheet C100 for revision.
Resolved
59 2 Sign Permits
Aliza Shalit
6/13/24 4:28 PM
Comment
All constructions signs require sign permits per UDO temporary sign
standards.
Info Only
60 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:12 PM
Changemark
Natural Open Space - tree preservation area
There shouldn't be a need to seed the tree preservation area. If any seeding
is needed it should be a woodland mix. Please relabel this area appropriately
as tree preservation area.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:47 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for revision.
Resolved
61 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:12 PM
Changemark
tree preservation areas2
Please label as tree preservation area please see other changemark about
these areas.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:48 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for revision.
Resolved
62 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:12 PM
Changemark
tree preservation area3
Please relabel as tree preservation as appropriate. see other tree preservation
area changemarks for more information.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:48 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for revision.
Resolved
63 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:12 PM
Changemark
tree preservation plantings
Is the labeling of additional trees in the tree preservation areas meant as
supplemental plantings? Please clarify how these trees are to be planted
within the tree preservation areas. Are they gap plantings as needed? specific
gaps already established? or extra by mistake?
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:48 PM
Proposed trees are being shown as a placeholder until
tree survey is received. This will be provided at a later
date with full construction documents.
Resolved
64 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:12 PM
Changemark
lack of street trees
Was there a reason for not providing street trees on the east side? Please
provide street trees.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:48 PM
Please see landscape plans on sheet C400 for revision
providing more trees.
Resolved
65 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:16 PM
Changemark
hornbeam as a street tree choice
hornbeam are an understory tree. Please use them in the common areas and
for street trees use the larger growing trees like tuliptree, red oak, hybrid elm
and hackberry. These trees can be trimmed up for street and sidewalk
clearance. Please use at least 4 different species for street trees for diversity.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:48 PM
Tree species have been updated to reflect these
comments. Please see landscape plan sheet C 400 for
revision of the plant schedule and landscaping layout.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
66 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:25 PM
Changemark
legend wording
Should these legends match the uses of the Open Space Legends on sheet
C300? Where is the mulch hatching being used?
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/28/24 9:48 AM
Mulching areas have been provided, seeding has been
revised, and tree preservation areas have been called
out. Please see landscape plan sheet C400 for revision.
Resolved
67 2 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
6/14/24 7:29 PM
Changemark
Planting details
The city of Carmel has their own standard details that we like to have used.
See the correspondence folder for the details. Please use the city details as
we prefer the wire baskets removed.
C401 LANDSCAPE DETAILS.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:49 PM
Please see landscape details on sheet C401 for added
Carmel details.
Resolved
68 2 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
6/21/24 12:11 PM
Changemark
Missing Street Trees
It looks like you are missing some street trees here. Please add them to the
plans.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:44 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for revision
providing more trees.
Resolved
69 2 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
6/21/24 12:35 PM
Changemark
Remove Waiver
Please remove the word Waiver here. This is just for the Subdivision Docket
Number as there were no waivers.
Primary Plat-C100.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:45 PM
Noted. Please see Primary Plat Sheet C100 for revision.
Resolved
70 2 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
6/21/24 12:44 PM
Changemark
Storm draining from dog park to Community garden
Is this the best location to have a storm drain from the Dog park to the
community garden area? I feel like this might contaminate the community
garden area.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 9:15 AM
Noted, outlet has been extended 20' past the
community garden. The community garden also sits
approximately 3.5' higher than the outlet structure.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alexia Lopez - 7/20/24 11:28 PM
Please extend the outlet a bit more so it is fully clear of
the community garden per our conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:45 PM
A beehive inlet is being proposed in the dog park area
and the outlet has been extended past the community
garden area. Please see Primary Plat Sheet C200 for
revisions.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
71 2 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
6/21/24 1:26 PM
Changemark
Gray Oaks DR
Please provide the Gray Oaks Drainage Report. Please run the
interconnected pond model with a tailwater condition for the Gray Oaks
pond, if applicable.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:55 AM
The ICPR model is being ran with a tailwater condition.
The starting elevation of the outfall is the 100-year
elevation of the Gray Oaks pond that is being
discharged into.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 9:18 AM
Gray Oaks drainage report has been provided with this
submission.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:26 PM
Tailwater condition was assesed using the 100-yr pond
elevation of the Gray Oaks pond. This raised the top of
bank by 0.1' to maintain 1' of freeboard to the top of
bank. It appears CrossRoad Engineers prepared this
project, can that drainage report be provided to us? It
does not appear to be on Carmel's online portal.
Resolved
72 2 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
6/21/24 1:36 PM
Changemark
Node diagram
Please provide the node diagram for the ICPR setup.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:55 AM
ICPR node diagram has been updated and included in
the appendices of the drianage report.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 9:18 AM
ICPR node diagram has been revised and included in
the drainage report.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:27 PM
ICPR node diagram has been provided. Please see
drainage report for revision.
Resolved
73 2 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
6/21/24 2:22 PM
Changemark
Tree Preservation Signage
Please show the tree preservation sign locations on the plans. And also
provide the design for the signs. Consider a shorter sign that won't obstruct
views for the residents and is less obtrusive while still letting them know the
area is for tree preservation and is not to be mowed/built in.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 6/27/24 12:45 PM
Please see landscape plan on sheet C400 for tree
preservation sign locations. Exact size and verbiage on
these signs will be provided with construction
documents at a later date upon further coordination
with the Urban Forestry department.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
74 3 Engineering
Alex Jordan
7/5/24 10:19 AM
Changemark
Please have the pond outlet into the existing stream
After conversations with the City Engineer, he would like the subdivision to
be discharged into the stream that was identified in the natural resource
assessment. Please revise the plans to show this.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:58 AM
Flow is only discharged to the stream in an emergency
flood routing situation. Otherwise, the site discharges to
the Grey Oaks pond, per coordination with Alex Jordan.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 9:16 AM
Per further discussion, discharging into the existing Grey
Oaks pond is the preferred option. Please see attached
email correspondence with Alex Jordan regarding this
decision dated 2024-07-22. We are not exceeding the
existing release rate to the Grey Oaks pond. Calculations
have been added to the drainage report as justification.
Resolved
75 3 Urban Forestry
Daren Mindham
7/15/24 9:58 AM
Changemark
Salsbery landscape requirement
Have you talked to Salsbery Bros on a landscape plan for this area of their
commitment? Can the landscape plan show the 'planned' landscaping
instead of the PUD wording, so that landscape plan will have the 'as-planted'
landscaping? This could be on a page 2 as an inset.
C400 LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 4:48 PM
Noted. Please see previous comment responses.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/20/24 8:20 AM
We have had multiple conversations in the past with
Salsbery and their representative from Kreig Devault.
They are aware of their obligations and will be
coordinated with when we start land development.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/22/24 2:18 PM
We have had multiple conversations in the past with
Salsbery and their representative from Kreig Devault.
They are aware of their obligations and will be
coordinated with when we start land development.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 7/30/24 2:31 PM
We have had multiple conversations in the past with
Salsberry and their representative from Kreig Devault.
They are aware of their obligations and will be
coordinated with when we start land development.
Question
76 3 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
7/23/24 11:17 AM
Comment
Further review pending revisions made per 7/22/24 email.
Info Only
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
77 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/7/24 10:22 AM
Changemark
Chapter 700 of the STSM requires that the site be treated by two different
types of BMPs
An additional BMP other than a water quality unit will need to be provided
with the project. Typically we see the bottoms of dry ponds planted with
native vegetation in situations similar to this but there are several different
options that can be investigated.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/22/24 2:17 PM
The bottoms of the dry ponds have been shown to have
native vegetation, please see Landscape Plan sheet
C400 for revision.
Resolved
78 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 11:31 AM
Changemark
Please revise the basin map to reflect existing conditions
From the contour lines shown on our GIS, it appears there are multiple
existing basins and that they extend outside the limits of the property line.
Please show these basins and factor them into your allowable and bypass
release rates.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:03 AM
This offisite flow has been accounted for in calculations.
Basin maps have been shown at a larger scale to show
the extents of the offsite flows. Please see drainage
report for revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/3/24 10:43 AM
It appears that the basin map provided is still only for
the limits of the project. Please revise.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 10:00 AM
Noted. Please see updated Existing Drainage Area Map,
emergency flood routing map, and emergency spillway
calculations to support bypass release rates. Please note
that, per inlet capacity calculations, no inlet stacks
greater than 6" in a 50% clogged situation. The
emergency flood map assumes all inlets are clogged.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
79 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 11:34 AM
Changemark
Please recalculate the allowable release rates
It appears the allowable release rates were calculated based on the entire
parcel acreage and not the acreage of the basins that drain to Gray Oaks.
Please provide the allowable release rates with these basins factored in.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:26 PM
Basin maps have been revised to deliniate both the
north and south basins with offsite areas broken out as
well. Please see drainage report for updates. Allowable
release rates have been calculated from Existing Basin
2A, which can be seen in the drainage report.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:03 AM
Noted. Basin maps have been revised. Allowable release
rate calculations account for the area of the basin
draining to the Grey Oaks pond that is inside of the
property line. Please see drainage report for revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/3/24 10:44 AM
Please revise these once the pre-developed basin map
is revised.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 10:00 AM
Noted. Existing drainage area map has been revised to
show seperated pre-developed drainage areas. Please
see drainage report for revised release rates and
calculations.
Resolved
80 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 1:17 PM
Changemark
How is this easement being obtained?
Per our email correspondence, the owner of this property is not willing to
dedicate easements across this land. Can the be approached regarding an
easement and pipe to the stream head on their property /as proposed in
Option 1 of my email on 7/22/24?
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 10:00 AM
Noted. Primary plat has been updated with this
easement removed. Since the existing sanitary
connection that is now being connected to is too high,
gravity sewer is being proposed for the extents possible
and force main is being proposed for the remainder of
the site. A grinder pump will be utilized at the each
building that cannot be served by gravity connections.
Info Only
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
81 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 1:17 PM
Changemark
We would like the pond overflow to be directed to the stream to the north
Please show this on the plans and provide all necessary grading and
easements to have this discharge to the stream.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 10:01 AM
Noted. Emergency flow has been routed to the
ephemeral stream discussed. Please see emergency
flood map in drainage report. Please note that, per inlet
capacity calculations, no inlet stacks greater than 6" in a
50% clogged situation. The emergency flood map
assumes all inlets are clogged.
Resolved
82 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 1:17 PM
Changemark
The maximum allowable ponding for dry detention basins is 4'
Per Section 302.08(2) of the STSM, dry ponds can store a maximum of 4'.
Please revise the pond to reduce the 100-year elevation not to exceed this
threshold.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:03 AM
A traffic rated barrier is shown along the section of the
southeast pond that borders road. The northeast pond
is farther than 50' from the right-of-way. Wet basins
have been provided per discussions with Jeremy
Kashman. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/3/24 10:45 AM
We will not allow the ponds to stage more than 4' so
the drainage system will need to be reevaluated.
Additionally, if they are closer than 50' to the right-of-
way, a traffic rated barrier will need to be installed.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/22/24 2:18 PM
Additional vegetation has been provided around each
dry basin, specifically adjacent to the road and
buildings. Do not mow or spray signage is also shown
around the ponds. The intent of this is to screen the dry
basins enough that they are not accessible to the public,
alleviating safety concerns of staging greater than 4'.
We are applying for a variance on the pond staging
being greater than 4 feet in dry basins with this
reasoning.
Info Only
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
83 4 Engineering
Alex Jordan
8/9/24 1:17 PM
Changemark
Please verify that this pipe is sized correctly to convey all flows and overflows
of the developments to the west
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:26 PM
Noted. Culvert has been upsized to convey the
emergency overflow from the upstream ponds without
overtopping the road.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Alex Jordan - 9/27/24 9:33 AM
The swale that the road will be crossing is sized for
convey the emergency overflow of the upstream
developments so the pipe will need accommodate this.
Currently the drainage report shows this flow
overtopping the road so the culvert sizing will need to
be revised to contain the overflow.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:03 AM
Culvert pipe sizing calculations have been updated.
Please see drainage report for revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 10:01 AM
Please see culvert pipe sizing calculations in drainage
report.
Resolved
84 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:40 PM
Changemark
Wetland B
As discussed in the 7/9/24 meeting, please provide an update on the
Wetland determination for Wetland B as it is not addressed in the USACE
report.
LRL-2024-00289-jde Approved JD
11Jun2024.pdf
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:01 AM
Please see attached for the JD that includes Wetland B
as well. Additionally, approved Section 401 Water
Quality Certification has been attached. This covers
wetlands A and B.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:55 AM
V3 is continuing work on the wetland determination for
Wetland B and the stream segment. This will be
submitted when it is complete.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
85 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:52 PM
Changemark
302.12
Per discussions with Engineering, the emergency flow from the pond should
be routed to the ephemeral stream north that commences to the NW of the
Gray Oaks pond to alleviate the Gray Oaks pond in extraordinary rain events.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 4:47 PM
Swale capacity calculations have been provided for the
emergency overflow path. Please see drainage report
for updates.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 9/26/24 12:45 PM
The drainage report will need to include swale/channel
capacity calculations for the overflow path to ensure the
flow is contained on the site.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:01 AM
Noted. A berm has been graded on the east side of this
swale to ensure no overlow is routed to the existing
Gray Oaks pond and instead is directed to the
ephemeral stream. Furthermore, building 14 (directly
north of the southeast pond) sits at minimum 5.7' above
this berm, thus water will overtop to the east before
being an issue for this building.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 2:23 PM
Please provide a swale capacity calculation downstream
of the emergency weir to verify that the proposed
building will not be affected by the overflow.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:57 AM
Noted. Emergency flow has been routed to the
ephemeral stream discussed. Please see emergency
flood map in drainage report. Please note that, per inlet
capacity calculations, no inlet stacks greater than 6" in a
50% clogged situation. The emergency flood map
assumes all inlets are clogged.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
86 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
Salsbery Brothers Drainage Report
Please provide the drainage report for the Salsbery Brothers Landscaping
pond as this outlets directly into the overflow swale to the south of the site
for which the drive culvert is being installed.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:23 PM
Noted. Culvert has been upsized to convey the
emergency overflow from the upstream ponds without
overtopping the road.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 9/27/24 7:47 AM
Per discussion with Engineering, since the swale was
designed for the emergency overflow from the
upstream ponds, that flow will need to be conveyed
through the culvert(s) without overtopping the road.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:01 AM
Noted. Per section 304.01 of the Carmel Stormwater
Technical Standards Manual, culverts must convey the
100-year storm rain event from the site and all
contributing areas. Updated culvert calculations and
emergency overflow calculations are provided for this
culvert. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations including both the Salsbery pond and
Stafford Place pond.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 2:06 PM
The existing swale is sized for the stafford place
emergency overflow, this will need to be perpetuated
with the proposed culvert. The culvert will also have to
accommodate any additional overflow from Salsbery.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:56 AM
Noted. Salsbery Brothers Drainage Report has been
attached to our drainage report. Culvert has been sized
per this drainage report.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
87 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
302.03
Sites where the pre-developed area has more than one (1) outlet, the release
rate should be computed based on pre-developed discharge to each outlet
point, and the computed release rate for each outlet point shall not be
exceeded at the respective outlet point even if the post developed
conditions would involve a different arrangement of outlet points.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 4:47 PM
Noted. Please see drainage report for additional ICPR
model considering offsite flows. "Constructed" ICPR
report has been updated for a minimum orifice size of
2".
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 9/27/24 1:19 PM
It does not appear that there is an icpr output that
models the offsite running through the system. Please
provide and summarize the scenario that shows the
effects of the offsite flow being added to the system.
Please note that the city allows a minimum orifice size
of 2". It looks like basin 1 and basin 2 constructed
models use a 6" orifices.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:01 AM
This offisite flow was accounted for in bypass flow
calculations for the ponds. Basin maps have been shown
at a larger scale to show the extents of the offsite flows.
Please see drainage report for revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 1:31 PM
Please include off-site drain basins in the pre- and post
developed scenarios as well. The southern watershed
does not appear to match that of the Gray Oaks
drainage report. Per the Gray Oaks drainage report and
available GIS topography, it appears that there is off-site
drainage from the Salsbery Brothers site being routed
through the subject site, noted on the inlet drainage
map. Please verify that the this was accounted for as
bypass flow through the respective ponds.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:56 AM
Noted. Existing drainage area map has been revised to
show both pre-developed areas. Please see drainage
report for revised release rates and calculations.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
88 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
102.02
Per the Gray Oaks report, the 10- and 100-YR runoff to the Gray Oaks pond
is 12.99 and 33.26 cfs, respectively.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:56 AM
Noted. Please see drainage report for updates.
Resolved
89 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
303
Please include analysis of the proposed off-site culvert under the Gray Oaks
Court extension to verify that it is adequately sized for the 1.25x 100yr flow
from the Stafford and Salsbery ponds for which the swale was sized.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:25 PM
Noted. Culvert has been upsized to convey the
emergency overflow from the upstream ponds without
overtopping the road.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 9/27/24 7:47 AM
Per discussion with Engineering, since the swale was
designed for the emergency overflow from the
upstream ponds, that flow will need to be conveyed
through the culvert(s) without overtopping the road.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:02 AM
Noted. Per section 304.01 of the Carmel Stormwater
Technical Standards Manual, culverts must convey the
100-year storm rain event from the site and all
contributing areas. Updated culvert calculations and
emergency overflow calculations are provided for this
culvert. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations including both the Salsbery pond and
Stafford Place pond.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 2:19 PM
See Ref.# 86
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:56 AM
Please see drainage report for adequate calculations
sizing this culvert.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
90 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
Direct Discharge
Please quantify the expected direct discharge due to the tree preservation on
the south side of the site.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:57 AM
Direct discharge from this area has been calculated and
provided in the drainage report. This area is discharging
directly to the Gray Oaks pond through an existing
swale and is undisturbed by the proposed development.
This area has been removed from the area used for
allowable release rate calculations as well to reflect this.
Resolved
91 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
102.03.i.a
Pre-developed watershed map and calculations shall reflect the actual
drainage basins based on existing contours, not just the overall site limits.
Please revise.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:02 AM
Basin maps have been shown at a larger scale to show
the extents of the offsite flows. Please see drainage
report for revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 2:19 PM
See Ref.# 87
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:57 AM
Noted. Please see updated Existing Drainage Area Map.
Resolved
92 4 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/9/24 3:53 PM
Changemark
201.03
Since "B" soils are categorized as B/D, the next less infiltrating capacity
category for post developed condition shall be considered a Type D soil.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:02 AM
Noted. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations. The post developed condition shows 100%
Type D soils.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 8/26/24 2:22 PM
The proposed CN should be be 100% group D since the
B/D soil is considered a D in the proposed condition.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 8/21/24 9:57 AM
Noted. The next less soil type is being used when
comparing pre-developed and post-developed
conditions.
Resolved
93 4 Planning & Zoning
Alexia Lopez
8/16/24 11:13 AM
Comment
Please don't shift the plat on the page with the next submittal. The software
let's us overlay previous versions and see what is different. If things shift up
or down, it won't overlay properly which may take longer for review.
Info Only
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
94 5 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
8/26/24 2:16 PM
Changemark
Offsite drainage areas
D19 & D40 inlet and pipe calculations should also include the offsite basins
being captured.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/17/24 10:02 AM
Noted. Please see drainage report for updated
calculations. Runoff to D40 has been redirected to a
new structure (D47) which is a 15" end section located
south of the dog park, alleviating inlet capacity
concerns. Structure D19 and D20 now have larger
castings and work in tandem in an emergency flood
condition.
Resolved
95 5 Engineering
Alex Jordan
9/3/24 10:50 AM
Comment
Please ensure that the information requested from both our department and
Crossroads is completed prior to your next submittal. We would encourage
you to forward the pre-developed basin map to us for our review prior to the
next ProjectDox submittal.
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/20/24 8:32 AM
Pre-developed basin map was forwarded prior to this
submittal. Please see drainage report for updates.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
96 6 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
9/26/24 12:52 PM
Changemark
STR D36
This structure needs to be an yard inlet with a rim elevation above the 100-
YR pond staging elevation, otherwise, this will act as an outlet vs an inlet to
the pond in a heavy storm.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Reviewer Response: Willie Hall - 10/14/24 5:49 PM
This can be further discussed during construction plan
review but to move this project along and avoid another
review cycle, this comment is considered resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:25 PM
Noted. This storm run has been removed. Given how
low existing grades are along the east property line,
storm lines cannot be provided to capture this area
while staying above the 100-year elevation of the
proposed pond. This structure would need to be raised
over 5.31' to be placed at the 100-year elevation, which
would make swaling to this inlet impossible and
ultimately make the inlet useless. Therefore, the side
yard swales have been graded to capture the side yard
areas, and the swale behind the buildings will route to
the existing stream, as the entire site does in the
existing condition. Given release rates are being
calculated to the 0.1 and 0.3 requirements, this
discharge has not been accounted for in allowable
release rate calculations as it would increase the
required detention much more than is reasonable.
Furthermore, since the entire site is already releasing to
this stream, direct discharge to the stream has been
decreased by 98.45% and should therefore have no
adverse effects. Please see drainage report for full
justification.
Resolved
97 6 Engineering
Alex Jordan
9/27/24 9:23 AM
Changemark
Please replace this waiver request with the most recent letter from 9/25/24
Please also include within the latest letter that we will require the ponds to
be lined and aerators to be installed within them in order for us to support
the waiver.
170325000-Drainage Waiver.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:26 PM
Noted. Please see updated waiver request attached.
Resolved
98 6 Engineering
Alex Jordan
9/27/24 9:36 AM
Changemark
Please provide a cross-section for the emergency overflow path behind these
homes
Can these lots realistically be constructed with the 30' easement in the rear
yard? Prospective home buyers will need to be notified that no
improvements will be allowed within the easement.
Primary Plat-C200.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 4:48 PM
Noted. Cross section has been provided in the drainage
report. Given grading and drainage constraints, this will
have to be communicated to prospective home buyers.
Resolved
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2024-00064 PP Andrews Subdivision
Workflow Started: 4/17/2024 11:41:10 AM
Report Generated: 10/23/2024 03:12 PM
REF #CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS
99 6 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
9/27/24 1:06 PM
Changemark
Proposed CN Table
The acreage total here does not match the exhibit.
170325000-Drainage Report.pdf Responded by: Mike Timko - 9/30/24 3:26 PM
Noted. Please see drainage report for updates.
Resolved
100 7 Engineering
Alex Jordan
10/10/24 9:10 AM
Comment
Enough information has been provided to satisfy our primary plat review. We
will provide further comments on the secondary plat/development plan
when it is submitted.
Info Only
101 7 CrossRoad
Engineers
Willie Hall
10/14/24 5:54 PM
Comment
The Primary Plat plat submittal is considered in substantial conformance with
the STSM requirements; however, additional comments may be made during
construction as there are several items that will need to be addressed prior
to ADLS drainage approval. These items include, but are not limited to MFPG
/freeboard requirements and non-tree preservation easement direct
discharge.
Info Only
146TH S TREET AND GRAY R OAD P ROPERTY
N ATURAL R ESOURCE A SSESSMENT
PROJECT SITE:
Southwest of 146th Street and Gray Road
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana
PREPARED FOR:
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
(317) 534-0339
PREPARED BY:
V3 Companies, Ltd.
619 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 423-0690
March 2022
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
2.1.2 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
2.3.1 IDEM PERMIT NOT REQUIRED ................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 IDEM PERMIT REQUIRED ........................................................................................................ 7
2.3.3 MITIGATION.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 IDNR IN-L IEU FEE PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 8
2.5 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ........................................................................................... 9
2.6 HAMILTON COUNTY DRAINAGE BOARD ................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 3 DESKTOP REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP .............................................................................................. 10
3.3 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP ................................................... 10
3.4 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ........................................................................................................... 10
3.5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL SURVEY ................................................................. 11
3.6 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE SPECIES EVALUATION ................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................................................... 12
4.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 12
4.2 SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY LAND USE ........................................................................................... 12
4.3 WETLAND SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.3.1 WETLAND A – (±0.05-ACRE PEM ON-SITE) ............................................................................ 12
4.3.2 WETLAND B – (±0.24-ACRE PSS ON-SITE).............................................................................. 13
4.4 DATA POINT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 13
4.5 DRAINAGE FEATURES, STREAMS, AND OTHER POTENTIAL “WATERS OF THE U.S.” ...................................... 15
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................... 16
ii
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP
FIGURE 3: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 4: FLOOD ZONES OF HAMILTON COUNTY MAP
FIGURE 5: SOIL SURVEY OF HAMILTON COUNTY MAP
FIGURE 6: WETLAND AND STREAM 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: ISOLATED WETLAND CLASSES ........................................................................................................... 6
TABLE 4: ISOLATED WETLAND MITIGATION RATIOS ........................................................................................... 8
TABLE 6: AQUATIC FEATURES ON-SITE ......................................................................................................... 16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ETR SPECIES CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C DATA FORMS
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
V3 Companies, Ltd. (V3) performed a natural resource assessment (NRA) and wetland delineation for
a proposed development situated southwest of the intersection of 146th Street and Gray Road in
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana (SITE) on 16 February 2022.
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.
Two wetlands were identified on-SITE. Wetland A did not appear to exhibit a hydrologic
connection with any “Waters of the U.S.,” and would likely be considered an isolated wetland
subject to regulation by Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) alone.
Wetland B drains into Stream 1 and eventually discharges into Michener Creek (east of Gray
Road) and would likely be considered a “Waters of the U.S.” and under the regulatory authority
of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and IDEM.
Stream 1 appears to be an intermittent stream and would likely be considered jurisdictional
and under the regulatory authority of USACE and IDEM.
Online analysis of the Hamilton County General Viewer GIS web resource indicated no county
regulated drains mapped within the SITE area.
An official species list obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website showed that the SITE is within the range of the
federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), the federally
endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) which is a
candidate for listing. V3 did not observe any potential bat habitat trees on-SITE at the time of
SITE reconnaissance.
Correspondence with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) indicated no known
instances of endangered, threatened, or rare (ETR) species within a 0.50-mile radius of the
SITE.
Wetland A did not appear to exhibit a hydrologic connection with any federally jurisdictional “Waters
of the U.S.,” and as such would likely be considered isolated and subject to regulation under the
Isolated Wetlands Program, by the IDEM alone. If impacts to isolated wetlands are proposed, the type
of permit required will depend on the extent of impacts and on the class of the impacted wetland as
verified by IDEM.
Wetland A measures under 3/4 acre and is situated within the City limits of Carmel. According to IC 13-
18-22-1(b)(7), a permit is not required for dredge or fill activities in a Class II wetland that “is located
within the boundaries of a municipality” and “has an area, as delineated, of not more than three-fourth
(3/4) acre.” Therefore, Wetland A would not likely require mitigation by IDEM.
If permanent impacts to the stream are less than 500 lf and 0.25 acre of wetland, the proposed
development will likely qualify for a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) under activity number 29
(Residential Developments), with Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Notification to IDEM.
Cumulative permanent impacts to streams greater than 300 lf and less than 500 lf are authorized under
the USACE NWP 29, with mitigation likely required. If proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are
between 0.1 and 1.0 acre and proposed impacts to streams are between 300 and 1,500 lf, a USACE
Regional General Permit (RGP) with Section 401 WQC to IDEM will likely be necessary. An RGP
Notification to IDEM may be necessary if impacts are proposed for wetlands that total less than 0.1
acre and streams under 300 lf which typically do not require mitigation.
iv
A review of the National Flood Hazard Zone data for Hamilton County, Indiana indicated that the no
portion of the SITE is situated within the 100-year floodplain.
If proposed development activities will disturb one or more acres of land, then a Construction
Stormwater General Permit may be required.
If development activities are proposed to impact any of these aquatic features, V3 recommends that
the final report and associated figures be submitted to USACE for an approved jurisdictional
determination (AJD).
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared solely in accordance with an agreement between Schafer Development
(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 approximately 14 acres and is situated southwest of the intersection of 146 th Street and
Gray Road in Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana (FFigure 1).
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 (OHWM) 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 “Water of the U.S.” including federal jurisdictional wetlands. USACE uses three
types of permits: nationwide permits, regional general permits for Indiana, and individual permits.
The USACE published in the Federal Register revisions of the 2021 Nationwide Permits (NWP). The 12
reissued and four new 2021 NWPs in the rule are necessary for work in streams, wetlands and other
waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899. These NWPs take effect 15 March 2021. All activities authorized by the remaining
40 NWPs from 2017 remain authorized until the 18 March 2022.
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/will be 58 NWPs 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,
stream and wetland restoration, maintenance dredging of existing basins, agriculture activities,
mining activities, oil or natural gas pipeline activities, surface coal mining activities, residential
developments, commercial and institutional developments, agricultural activities, recreational
facilities), stormwater management facilities, mining activities, commercial shellfish mariculture
activities, underground coal mining activities, land-based renewable energy generation facilities,
water-based renewable energy generation pilot projects. The new final rule issues four new NWPs:
NWP 55 (seaweed mariculture activities); NWP 56 (finfish mariculture activities); NWP 57 (electric
utility line and telecommunications activities); and NWP 58 (utility line activities for water and other
substances.
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 (lf) of stream, and are deemed to have minimal impacts to the aquatic environment.
Furthermore, the USACE will also need to be notified for any projects that propose qualifying
impacts.
Individual Permits (IP) are required for proposed wetland impacts of one acre and greater. The
review process for this type of permit may take up to one year due to the higher level of scrutiny
by the regulatory agencies.
3
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 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:
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
*4:1 ratio is an IDEM requirement and USACE only requires 3:1 ratio for forested wetlands.
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:”
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
4
x Hydrophytic vegetation
x Hydrology
x 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
was updated by USACE with cooperation with other federal agencies in 2016. The following list is the
categories for plant species:
x OObligate Wetland Plants (OBL) – Probability of >99% occurrence in wetlands with a 1%
probability of occurrence in upland areas.
x Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW) – Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in wetlands with a
1% - 33% probability of occurrence in upland areas.
x Facultative Plants (FAC) - Probability of 34% - 66% occurrence in either wetlands or upland
areas.
x Facultative Upland Plants (FACU) - Probability of 67% - 99% occurrence in upland areas with a
1% - 33% probability of occurrence in wetland areas.
x 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)
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/
5
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.
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.
TTable 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
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
6
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.
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 for impacts to non-jurisdictional aquatic
resources. IDEM regulates impacts to isolated wetlands, which are wetlands that exhibit wetland
indicators but do not qualify as “Waters of the U.S.” and are not subject to USACE regulation under
Section 404(a) of the CWA.6 IDEM does not require a permit for impacts to ephemeral streams.7,8
Indiana Code (IC) 13-11-2-25.8 divides isolated wetlands into three classes:
TTable 3: Isolated Wetland Classes
Class I Isolated Wetland Class II Isolated Wetland Class III Isolated Wetland
Has been disturbed or affected
by human activity (at least 50
percent of wetland area)
Supports moderate habitat or
hydrological functions
Located in an undisturbed or
minimally disturbed setting; supports
more than minimal wildlife or aquatic
habitat or hydrologic function
Supports minimal wildlife or
aquatic habitat or hydrologic
function, does not provide critical
habitat for ETR species
Is dominated by native species
but is without the presence of, or
habitat for, ETR species
Is one of the rare and ecologically
important types listed in IC 13-11-2-
25.8(3)(B)
IDEM regulates impacts to isolated wetlands using the isolated wetland general permit (IWGP) and the
isolated wetland individual permit (IWIP). However, permitting requirements depend on whether the
isolated wetland to be impacted is an exempt isolated wetland or a state regulated wetland.
2.3.1 IDEM Permit Not Required
No IDEM permit is required if:
The impacted wetland is an exempt isolated wetland; or
The impacted wetland is a state regulated wetland, and certain conditions are met
Exempt isolated wetlands include the following. Definitions and qualifications can be referenced in
Indiana Code (IC) 13-11-2-74.5(a).
Class I isolated wetlands, regardless of size
Class II isolated wetlands of 0.375 acre or smaller
Fringe wetlands
Incidental features
Voluntarily-created isolated wetlands
Isolated wetlands associated with manmade waters
6 Indiana Code (IC) 13-11-2-112.5
7 IC 13-18-22-1(b)(6)
8 An ‘ephemeral stream’ is “surface water flowing or pooling only in direct response to precipitation such as rain or
snowfall,” defined in IC 13-11-2-72.4.
7
Isolated wetlands situated on land subject to certain regulations
Pollution or stormwater control wetlands
For sites where multiple Class II isolated wetland exemptions are claimed and no other exemption
applies, an exemption may be claimed for either the largest qualifying individual Class II isolated
wetland on-site, or for 60 percent of the cumulative acreage of qualifying Class II isolated wetlands on-
site, whichever is larger.9
If an isolated wetland does not qualify as an exempt isolated wetland, it is a state regulated wetland as
per IC 13-11-2-221.5. As of 1 July 2021, IDEM does not require a permit for impacts to state regulated
wetlands that meet the following conditions:
Class II isolated wetlands of 0.750 acre or smaller situated within a municipality, where
proposed impacts consist of dredge/fill10
Isolated wetlands situated in cropland that has been farmed in the five years preceding impacts
or for which the USACE has issued a jurisdictional determination finding no federally regulated
wetlands on-site within the ten years preceding impacts11
2.3.2 IDEM Permit Required
If the conditions in SSection 2.3.1 do not apply, isolated wetland impacts require a permit from IDEM.
The permits available are the IWGP or the IWIP. IDEM permit applications are submitted concurrently
with USACE permit applications and/or IDEM Section 401 WQCs.
The IWGP is required for:
Class II isolated wetland impacts associated with field tile maintenance if such maintenance is
necessary to restore adjacent drainage and does not drain the wetland
Class III isolated wetland impacts associated with field tile maintenance if such maintenance is
necessary to restore adjacent drainage and does not drain the wetland. In such cases IDEM
also requires site-specific approval for the impacts
The IWIP is required for:
Class II isolated wetland impacts of more than 0.375 acre, unless such impacts are for field tile
maintenance that qualifies for the IWGP
Class III isolated wetland impacts, regardless of size, unless the impacts are for field tile
maintenance that qualifies for the IWGP
2.3.3 Mitigation
IWGP and IWIP permits require compensatory mitigation. Mitigation may be completed through an
approved mitigation bank,12 the in-lieu fee (ILF) program,13 on-site, or off-site. If off-site mitigation is
proposed, it must be situated within the same eight-digit U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit
code (HUC) as the impacts, or within the same county, or within a designated service area established
in an approved ILF mitigation program. Exempt isolated wetlands can also be used to contribute toward
9 IC 13-11-2-74.5(c)
10 IC 13-18-22-1(b)(7)
11 IC 13-18-22-1(d). Cropland is farmland that is “cultivated for agricultural purposes” and “from which crops are
harvested” (IC 13-11-2-48.5). Pasture does not qualify as cropland unless it is in “active rotation with cultivated crops
for purposes of soil maintenance or improvement” (IC 13-11-2-48.5).
12 327 IAC 9.5-2-4(2); 327 IAC 17-4-5(b); 327 IAC 17-4-10.
13 IC 13-11-2-104.7
8
mitigation requirements. If this is done, the exempt isolated wetlands become state regulated
wetlands.14
If compensatory mitigation is completed prior to the start of the wetland activity, the mitigation ratio
of impacts to mitigation required is 1 to 1. In all other cases, the following mitigation ratios apply 15
(TTable 4):
Table 4: Isolated Wetland Mitigation Ratios
Impacted
Wetland Class
Replacement
Class
On-Site and In-Lieu
Fee Ratio Off-Site Ratio
Class II
Class II
or
Class III
1.5 to 1
Non-forested
2 to 1
Non-forested
2 to 1
Forested
2.5 to 1
Forested
Class III Class III
2 to 1
Non-forested
2.5 to 1
Non-forested
2.5 to 1
Forested
3 to 1
Forested
These mitigation ratios do not apply to USACE jurisdictional wetlands. They apply only to state
regulated wetlands.
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.
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, the 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
14 IC 13-11-22-6
9
Section 404 of the CWA and by IDEM under Section 401 Water Quality Certification of the CWA and
Indiana Isolated Wetlands Law (IAC 13-18-22).
The ILF program restores, establishes, enhances, and/or preserves aquatic resources from the funds
paid to satisfy compensation required in USACE and IDEM permits. Funds are collected from multiple
permittees and are pooled together to create larger, more ecologically valuable mitigation sites than
typical permittee-responsible projects.
2.5 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
A Construction Stormwater General 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
Construction Stormwater General 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 Construction Stormwater
General 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 the Hamilton County Drainage Board would be required for any work conducted within the
easement of a regulated drain. Any construction affecting a regulated drain, and/or the corresponding
easement on either side of the drain must be reviewed and approved by the Hamilton County Surveyor
prior to disturbance.
10
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 southwest of the intersection of 146 th Street and Gray Road in Carmel, Hamilton
County, Indiana. The SITE location is shown on the ESRI World Street Map in FFigure 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 Fishers, Indiana USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps in FFigure 2.
No NWI features are mapped within the SITE area. The presence of NWI features mapped partially or
fully within the SITE area suggests the potential presence of wetlands or other regulated aquatic
features 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 situated in the Fishers, Indiana USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map, in Section 20, Township
18 North, Range 4 East. V3 evaluated the topography and concluded that the SITE elevation ranges
from approximately 815 to 830 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). No aquatic features are mapped
within the SITE area (FFigure 3).
3.4 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE 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 digital National Flood Hazard Zone data for Hamilton County, Indiana. No portion of the
SITE is mapped within the 100-year floodway or a flood zone (FFigure 4).
11
3.5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL SURVEY
V3 reviewed the soils mapped on-SITE using 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, in FFigure 5.
Table 5: Soil Survey On-SITE
Soil Map Unit Description
Hydric within
Hamilton
County
MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 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
One hydric soil unit is situated within the SITE. Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes (YbvA) is considered hydric within Hamilton County, Indiana. Soils are considered hydric
if more than 50 percent of the soil contains hydric components according to the NRCS Web Soil Survey.
The presence of hydric soil units within the SITE area suggests appropriate wetland soils are located
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 USFWS indicated that the SITE is within the range of the federally
endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), and the candidate for listing monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).
Correspondence with the IDNR indicated that no ETR species have been identified within 0.5 mile of
the SITE. Please refer to AAppendix 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.
12
CHAPTER 4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
4.1 METHODOLOGY
V3 conducted a field investigation at the SITE on 16 February 2022. 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 AAppendix 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 SSection 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 consists of fallow scrub-shrub land. Adjacent land use consists of commercial businesses and
single-family residential parcels.
4.3 WETLAND SUMMARY
Two wetlands were identified during this investigation based upon the methodology set forth in the
1987 Manual and the Midwest Regional Supplement. Information that V3 collected at each DP on 16
February 2022 is described in the following section. This information is summarized on the forms
provided in AAppendix C. An overall SITE delineation map showing placement of the DPs is included as
Figure 6.
4.3.1 Wetland A – (±0.05-acre PEM on-SITE)
Wetland A was situated in the northeastern portion to the SITE and consists of approximately 0.05
acres of palustrine, emergent wetland (PEM). Wetland A does not appear to have a hydrologic
connection with any federally jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.,” and as such would likely be considered
isolated and subject to regulation by IDEM alone.
DP A1
This DP was collected in the western portion of Wetland A. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia, OBL) and Frank’s sedge (Carex frankii, OBL), 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 two inches and 10YR 3/2 with 10YR 5/6 redox concentrations
from two to 18 inches, meeting the hydric soil criterion with the depleted dark surface (F6) indicator.
Evidence of hydrologic features included one inch of surface water (A1), high water table (A2) and
13
saturation (A3) at the surface, geomorphic position (D2), and FAC-neutral test (D5), meeting the
hydrology criteria. Since all three criteria were met, this area qualified as a wetland.
DDP A2
This DP was collected in the upland area adjacent to DP A1. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis, FACU) and Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis, FAC),
which did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination of the soil profile using the
Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 and 4/2 to a depth of 18 inches, which did not
meet the hydric soil criterion. No evidence of hydrologic features was observed. Since all three criteria
were not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
4.3.2 Wetland B – (±0.24-acre PSS on-SITE)
Wetland B was situated in the eastern portion to the SITE and appeared to consist of approximately
0.24 acres of palustrine, scrub-shrub wetland (PSS). Wetland B does appear to have a hydrologic
connection to a federally jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.,” and as such would likely be considered
jurisdictional and subject to regulation by USACE and IDEM.
DP B1
This DP was collected in the northern portion of Wetland B. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of 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 3/2 to a depth of five
inches and 10YR 3/2 with 10YR 5/6 redox concentrations from five to 18 inches, meeting the hydric soil
criterion with the depleted dark surface (F6) indicator. Evidence of hydrologic features included one
inch of surface water (A1), high water table (A2) and saturation (A3) at the surface, geomorphic position
(D2), and FAC-neutral test (D5), meeting the hydrology criteria. Since all three criteria were met, this
area qualified as a wetland.
DP B2
This DP was collected in the upland area adjacent to DP B1. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of sweet cherry (Prunus avium, FACU), callery pear (Pryus calleryana, UPL), Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera
maackii, UPL), American elm (Ulmus americana, FACW), Canadian goldenrod (FACU), and Kentucky
blue grass (FAC), which did not meet 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 was observed. 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 16 February 2022
field investigation 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 AAppendix C. Their placement is depicted in FFigure 6.
DP 1
This DP was collected in the southeastern portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present
consisted of callery pear (UPL), Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis, FACU), Kentucky blue grass,
and Canadian goldenrod (FACU), which did not meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Examination
of the soil profile using the Munsell Color Chart revealed a matrix color of 10YR 4/2 to a depth of 18
inches, which did meet the hydric soil criterion with the redox dark surface (F6) indicator. No evidence
14
of hydrologic features was observed. Since all three criteria were not met, this area did not qualify as a
wetland.
DDP 2
This DP was collected in the southwestern portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present
consisted of Canadian goldenrod (FACU), Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum, FACU), and Virginia
pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum, FACU), which did not meet 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 was
observed. Since all three criteria were not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 3
This DP was collected in the central portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present consisted of
callery pear (UPL), silver maple (FACW), Canadian goldenrod (FACU), and Kentucky blue grass (FAC),
which did not meet 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 was observed. Since all three criteria were
not met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 4
This DP was collected in the western portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FACU), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus, FACU), Amur
honeysuckle (UPL), Kentucky blue grass (FAC), and red fescue (Festuca rubra, FACU), which did not
meet 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 hydrophytic
vegetation criterion. No evidence of hydrologic features was observed. Since all three criteria were not
met, this area did not qualify as a wetland.
DP 5
This DP was collected in the northern portion of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of American ash (Fraxinus americana, FACU), callery pear (UPL), Amur honeysuckle (UPL), gray
dogwood (Cornus racemosa, FAC), black walnut (Juglans nigra, FACU), white avens (Geum canadense,
FAC), and Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica, UPL), which did not meet 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 was observed. Since all three criteria were not met, this area did not qualify as a
wetland.
DP 6
This DP was collected near the northwestern of the SITE. The dominant vegetation present consisted
of callery pear (UPL), Kentucky blue grass (FAC), and Canadian goldenrod (FACU), which did not meet
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 was observed. Since all three criteria were not met, this area did
not qualify as a wetland.
15
4.5 DRAINAGE FEATURES, STREAMS, AND OTHER POTENTIAL “WATERS OF THE U.S.”
One stream was identified on-SITE. Approximately 10 lf of Stream 1 appears on-SITE. Stream 1
originates from Wetland A and flows east off-SITE. Stream 1 crosses under Gray Road through a culvert
and discharges into Mitchner Drain. Stream 1 would likely be considered jurisdictional “waters of the
U.S.” subject to USACE and IDEM authority.
Online analysis of the Hamilton County General Viewer GIS resource indicated no county regulated
drains mapped within the SITE boundary.
No additional drainage features, streams, or other potential “waters of the U.S.” were observed on-
SITE.
16
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
On 16 February 2022, V3 performed a natural resources assessment and wetland delineation of the
SITE located in the Fishers, Indiana USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map, in Section 20, Township 18
North, Range 4 East.
Two wetlands and one stream were identified within the SITE boundary.
TTable 5: Aquatic Features On-SITE
Water Body Type Size
(On-Site)
Anticipated
Regulatory Status
Wetland A PEM Wetland ±0.05 acre IDEM
Wetland B PSS Wetland ±0.24 acre USACE/IDEM
Stream 1 Intermittent Stream ±10 lf USACE/IDEM
Wetland A did not appear to exhibit a hydrologic connection with any federally jurisdictional “Waters
of the U.S.,” and as such both would likely be considered isolated and subject to regulation under the
Isolated Wetlands Program, by the IDEM alone. If impacts to isolated wetlands are proposed, the type
of permit required will depend on the extent of impacts and on the class of the impacted wetland as
verified by IDEM.
Wetland A measures under 3/4 acre and is situated within the City of Carmel municipality. According
to IC 13-18-22-1(b)(7), a permit is not required for dredge or fill activities in a Class II wetland that “is
located within the boundaries of a municipality” and “has an area, as delineated, of not more than
three-fourth (3/4) acre.” Therefore, Wetland A would not likely require mitigation by IDEM.
Wetland B and Stream 1 would likely be considered jurisdictional and under the regulatory authority
of USACE and IDEM. Wetland A appears to have a hydrologic connection to Stream 1, a “Waters of the
U.S.” If permanent impacts to the stream are less than 500 lf and 0.25 acre of wetland, the proposed
development will likely qualify for a USACE NWP under activity number 29 (Residential Developments),
with Section 401 WQC Notification to IDEM. Cumulative permanent impacts to streams greater than
300 lf and less than 500 lf are authorized under the USACE NWP 29, with mitigation likely required. If
proposed impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are between 0.1 and 1.0 acre and proposed impacts to
streams are between 300 and 1,500 lf, a USACE RGP with Section 401 WQC to IDEM will likely be
necessary. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would likely be required at a ratio of 3:1 for
scrub-shrub wetlands and a 1:1 ratio for stream impacts.
Online analysis of the Hamilton County General Viewer GIS web resource indicated no county regulated
drains mapped within the SITE area.
An official species list retrieved from the USFWS IPaC web site indicated that the SITE is within the
range of the federally endangered Indiana bat, the federally threatened northern long-eared bat, and
the candidate for listing monarch butterfly. V3 observed no potential bat habitat trees on-SITE at the
time of the SITE reconnaissance.
Correspondence with the IDNR indicated no known records of ETR species within a 0.50-mile radius of
the SITE.
A review of the digital FIRM data from the National Flood Hazard Zone data for Hamilton County,
Indiana indicated no flood zones mapped within the SITE area.
17
If proposed development activities will disturb one or more acres of land, then a Construction
Stormwater General Permit may be required.
If any impacts to the wetland or streams are proposed, then V3 recommends that the final report and
associated figures be submitted to the USACE and IDEM for boundary confirmation.
&ŝŐƵƌĞƐ
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG1loc220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
³
220192
NDH
02/14/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
ESRI World Street Map
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 1
FIGURE:
1,500 0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG2nwi220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
PUBGh
PEM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx PUBGx
PEM1C
R4SBCx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGh
PEM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PFO1A
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PUBGx
PEM1F
PEM1C
PUBGx
PUBGx
PSS1C
PUBG
PUBGx
PUBGh
³
220192
NDH
02/14/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
USGS Topographic Map
Fishers Quadrangle
NATIONAL WETLAND
INVENTORY MAP (NWI)
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 2
FIGURE:
500 0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG3topo220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
³
220192
NDH
02/14/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
USGS Topographic Map
Fishers Quadrangle
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FISHERS QUADRANGLE
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 3
FIGURE:
1,000 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG4nfhl220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
³
220192
NDH
02/14/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
Aerial Imagery
(2020)
FLOOD ZONES OF
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 4
FIGURE:
300 0 300 600
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
Zone AE
Zone A
Zone AE, Floodway
Zone X, 0.2% Annual
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG5soil220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
YbvA
YmsB2
YmsB2
YclA
MmB2
YmsA
YclA
YclA
YmsC2
YmsC2
YbvA
YmsA
YmsB2
YclA
MmC2
YclA
YmsA
Br
YclA ³
220192
NDH
02/14/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
Aerial Imagery
(2020)
SOIL SURVEY OF
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 5
FIGURE:
150 0 150 300
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
Hydric Soils of Indiana
J:\2022\220192\NR\FIG6delin220192.mxd
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
Visio, Vertere, Virtute...
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
619 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317.423.0690 phone
www.v3co.com
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
Wetland A
±0.05 ac
Wetland B
±0.24 ac
Stream 1
±10 lf
Continues Off-Site
DP 6
DP 5
DP 4
DP 3
DP 2 DP 1
DP B2
DP B1
DP A2 DP A1 ³
220192
NDH
02/24/2022
See Scale Bar
Schafer Development
2222 West Southport Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46217
Aerial Imagery
(2020)
WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
146th & Gray Road Property
Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana 6
FIGURE:
80080160
Feet
Legend
SITE (Approximate)
PEM Wetland
PSS Wetland
Intermittent Stream
Data Point
dZ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐŽƌƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶĐĞ>ĞƩĞƌƐ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž
Eric Holcomb, Governor
Daniel W. Bortner, 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
February 22, 2022
Nathan Houk
V3 Companies, Ltd.
619 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Nathan Houk:
I am responding to your request for information on the threatened or endangered (T&E) species, high quality
natural communities, and natural areas for the 146th & Gray Road Property located within Hamilton County,
Indiana. The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center has been checked and there are no T&E species or
significant areas documented within 0.5 mile of the project area.
If you need a general environmental review of the project from DNR, you can submit the project information
to Christie Stanifer, DNR Environmental Coordinator, at environmentalreview@dnr.in.gov (preferred) or
send to the street address below. For more help or guidance contact Christie Stanifer at cstanifer@dnr.in.gov.
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review
Division of Fish and Wildlife
402 W. Washington Street, Room W273
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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
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.
Nathan Houk 2 February 22, 2022
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
you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Taylor Davis
Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center
Enclosure: Invoice
February 14, 2022
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:
Project Code: 2022-0007308
Project Name: 146th & Gray Road Property
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
Please use the species list provided and visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceµs 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
02/14/2022 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.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to
protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional,
resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more
information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally
killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to
comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within
applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan
(when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and
their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and
recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-
birds.php.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities
that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures
that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both
migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of
02/14/2022 3
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/
executive-orders/e0-13186.php.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code 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
Migratory Birds
Wetlands
02/14/2022 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
02/14/2022 2
Project Summary
Project Code: 2022-0007308
Event Code: None
Project Name: 146th & Gray Road Property
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: Approximately 14 acres of scrub-shrub land for proposed residential
development in Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@39.998782,-86.0931656966155,14z
Counties: Hamilton County, Indiana
02/14/2022 3
1.
Ƒ
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 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. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949
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
Insects
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
1
02/14/2022 1
1.
2.
3.
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Oct 15
to Aug 31
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399
Breeds May 15
to Oct 10
1
2
02/14/2022 2
1.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2974
Breeds Apr 21
to Jul 20
Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds Apr 20
to Aug 20
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds Apr 1 to
Jul 31
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds
elsewhere
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
02/14/2022 3
2.
3.
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Black-billed
Cuckoo
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Cerulean Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
02/14/2022 4
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Kentucky Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC - BCR
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits
may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
02/14/2022 5
1.
2.
3.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
02/14/2022 6
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be
aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no
data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
02/14/2022 1
Wetlands
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine
the actual extent of wetlands on site.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
02/14/2022 2
IPaC User Contact Information
Name: Nathan Houk
Address: 619 North Pennsylvania Street
City: Indianapolis
State: IN
Zip: 46204
Email natehouk@hotmail.com
Phone: 3174230690
^/d WŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž
Photo: 1
Wetland A
Emergent
Direction of View:
South
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 2
Data Point A2
Direction of View:
West
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 3
Wetland B
Scrub-Shrub
Direction of View:
West
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 4
Data Point B2
Direction of View:
West
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 5
Stream 1
Intermittent
Direction of View:
East
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 6
Data Point 1
Direction of View:
East
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 7
Data Point 2
Direction of View:
East
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 8
Data Point 3
Direction of View:
South
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 9
Data Point 4
Direction of View:
East
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 10
Data Point 5
Direction of View:
East
Date:
16 February 2022
Photo: 11
Data Point 6
Direction of View:
South
Date:
16 February 2022
ĂƚĂ&ŽƌŵƐ
ƉƉĞŶĚŝdž
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP A1
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
0-1 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes X No
Yes X No Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes X No Yes X No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.
3.40 x 1 40
4.0x2 0
5.5x3 15
Total Cover 0 x 4 0
Plot size: 5'0x5 0
1.OBL 1 45 55
2.OBL 1 1.22
3.FAC 3 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 Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-2 10YR 3/2
2-18 10YR 3/2 M
XOther
Restrictive Layer (if observed):Type:
Depth (Inches):Yes No
X
X
X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X
Thin Muck Surface (C7)X
Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 1"
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 0"Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 0"Yes No
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
X
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
95 10YR 5/6 5 C SiCL
100 SiCL
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
45 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Carex frankii 20 Y Prevalence Index:
Vernonia gigantea 5N
Herb Stratum UPL species
Typha angustifolia 20 Y Total
FAC species
0 FACU species
Total % cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
2
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
Remarks:Meets all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
PEM
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Slope (%): 39.999903 -86.092172 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Concave
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP A2
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.
3.0x1 0
4.0x2 0
5.30 x 3 90
Total Cover 65 x 4 260
Plot size: 5'0x5 0
1.FACU 4 95 350
2.FAC 3 3.68
3.FACU 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
10YR 4/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.999896 -86.092237 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1
2
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50.00Shrub Stratum
FAC species
0 FACU species
Total % cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
Poa pratensis 30 Y Prevalence Index:
Dipsacus fullonum 5N
Herb Stratum UPL species
Solidago canadensis 60 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
95 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
70 SiCL Fill
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
30 SiCL Fill
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP B1
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
0-1 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes X No
Yes X No Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes X No Yes X No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.FACW 2 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.FACW 2
3.FACW 2 0 x 1 0
4.90 x 2 180
5.0x3 0
Total Cover 0 x 4 0
Plot size: 5'0x5 0
1.90 180
2.2.00
3.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 Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-5 10YR 3/2
5-18 10YR 3/2 M
XOther
Restrictive Layer (if observed):Type:
Depth (Inches):Yes No
XX
X
X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X
Thin Muck Surface (C7)X
Guage or Well Data (D9)
Field Observations:Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 1"
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 0"Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) 0"Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Till Plains Local Relief Concave
Slope (%): 39.998673 -86.092266 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
PSS
Soil Map Unit Name: Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
Remarks:Meets all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1
Acer saccharinum 75 Y
Cornus amomum 10 N
1
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100.00Shrub Stratum
FAC species
90 FACU species
Total % cover of:
Ulmus americana 5 N 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
100 SiCL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
95 10YR 5/6 5 C SiCL
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP B2
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.FACU 4
2.UPL 5
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.FACW 2
3.FACW 2 0 x 1 0
4.FACW 2 35 x 2 70
5.20 x 3 60
Total Cover 30 x 4 120
Plot size: 5'30 x 5 150
1.FACU 4 115 400
2.FAC 3 3.48
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.998748 -86.092258 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Prunus avium 10 Y Dominance Test Worksheet
Pyrus calleryana 10 Y
Number of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
Lonicera maackii 20 Y
Ulmus americana 20 Y
6
20 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33.33Shrub Stratum
FAC species
55 FACU species
Total % cover of:
Acer saccharinum 10 N OBL species
Cornus amomum 5 N FACW species
Poa pratensis 20 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Solidago canadensis 20 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
40 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiCL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 1
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.FACU 4
3.FACW 2 0 x 1 0
4.FACU 4 5 x 2 10
5.FACU 4 60 x 3 180
Total Cover 45 x 4 180
Plot size: 5'30 x 5 150
1.FAC 3 140 520
2.FACU 4 3.71
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 4/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.998748 -86.092258 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1
Pyrus calleryana 30 Y
Rubus allegheniensis 15 Y
4
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:25.00Shrub Stratum
Rosa multiflora 5 N FAC species
60 FACU species
Total % cover of:
Acer saccharinum 5 N OBL species
Juniperus virginiana 5 N FACW species
Solidago canadensis 20 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Poa pratensis 60 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
80 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiCL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 2
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.
3.0x1 0
4.0x2 0
5.5x3 15
Total Cover 90 x 4 360
Plot size: 5'0x5 0
1.FACU 4 95 375
2.FACU 4 3.95
3.FACU 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.FAC 3 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.997861 -86.093553 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0
3
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0.00Shrub Stratum
FAC species
0 FACU species
Total % cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
Dipsacus fullonum 20 Y Prevalence Index:
Lepidium virginicum 20 Y
Herb Stratum UPL species
Solidago canadensis 50 Y Total
Geum canadense 5N
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
95 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 3
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.FACW 2
3.FACW 2 0 x 1 0
4.FAC 3 40 x 2 80
5.FACU 4 35 x 3 105
Total Cover 55 x 4 220
Plot size: 5'30 x 5 150
1.FACU 4 160 555
2.FAC 3 3.47
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.998621 -86.092991 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2
Pyrus calleryana 30 Y
Acer saccharinum 30 Y
4
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50.00Shrub Stratum
Juniperus virginiana 5 N FAC species
80 FACU species
Total % cover of:
Cornus amomum 10 N OBL species
Populus deltoides 5 N FACW species
Poa pratensis 30 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Solidago canadensis 50 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
80 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 4
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.FACU 4
2.FACU 4
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.
3.0x1 0
4.0x2 0
5.50 x 3 150
Total Cover 120 x 4 480
Plot size: 5'40 x 5 200
1.FAC 3 210 830
2.FACU 4 3.95
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.998703 -86.093916 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Pseudotsuga menziesii 50 Y Dominance Test Worksheet
Pinus strobus 40 Y
Number of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1
Lonicera maackii 40 Y
5
90 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:20.00Shrub Stratum
FAC species
40 FACU species
Total % cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
Festuca rubra 30 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Poa pratensis 50 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
80 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 5
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.FACU 4
2.UPL 5
3.FAC 3
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.FAC 3
3.FACU 4 0 x 1 0
4.0x2 0
5.20 x 3 60
Total Cover 40 x 4 160
Plot size: 5'65 x 5 325
1.FAC 3 125 545
2.UPL 5 4.36
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.999540 -86.092891 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
5N
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Fraxinus americana 30 Y Dominance Test Worksheet
Pyrus calleryana 30 Y
Number of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2Ulmus rubra
Lonicera maackii 30 Y
Cornus racemosa 10 Y
7
65 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:28.57Shrub Stratum
FAC species
50 FACU species
Total % cover of:
Juglans nigra 10 Y OBL species
FACW species
Carex pensylvanica 5 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Geum canadense 5Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
10 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiCL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM-MIDWEST REGION
Site: City/County: Date: Data Point: DP 6
Client: State: Section, Township, Range:
Landform
2-3 Lat. Long. Datum
Y/N Y
, Soil
, Soil
Are Normal Circumstances Present? X
Yes No X
Yes No X Is the DP within a Wetland?
Yes No X Yes No
Plot size: 30'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Cover
Plot size: 15'
1.UPL 5 Prevalence Index Worksheet
2.
3.0x1 0
4.0x2 0
5.70 x 3 210
Total Cover 20 x 4 80
Plot size: 5'75 x 5 375
1.FAC 3 165 665
2.FACU 4 4.03
3.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Veg.
5.Dominance Test is >50%
6.Prevalence Index is <3.0*
7.Morphological Adaptations*
8.Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation*
Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum Plot size: 5'
1.
2.
Total Cover
Yes No
SOIL
Depth
(inches)Color Loc**
0-18 10YR 3/2
Other
Restrictive 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 X No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Hydroloy Indicators Present?
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches) Yes No
146th and Gray Road Property Hamilton 16 Feb 2022
Schafer Development IN Sec 20, T 18N, R 4E
Investigator(s): N. Houk Moraines Local Relief Convex
Slope (%): 39.999845 -86.093468 NAD 83 NWI Class:
Vegetation or Hydrology significantly disturbed
Vegetation or Hydrology naturally problematic
N/A
Soil Map Unit Name: Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Climatic/hydrologic conditions typical for time of year?
X
Remarks:Does not meet all wetland criteria
VEGETATION
Tree Stratum Absolute %
Cover
Dominant
Species Indicator Status
Yes No
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Total number of dominant
species across all strata:
Dominance Test WorksheetNumber of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1
Pyrus calleryana 75 Y
3
0 Percent of dominant species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:33.33Shrub Stratum
FAC species
75 FACU species
Total % cover of:
OBL species
FACW species
Solidago canadensis 20 Y Prevalence Index:
Herb Stratum UPL species
Poa pratensis 70 Y Total
0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:x
90 *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland
hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
100 SiL
Profile Description: (Describe to depth needed to document the indicator or confirm absence of indicators.)
Matrix Redox Features
% Color % Type* Texture Remarks
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=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Histic Epipedon (A2) 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
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)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (check all that apply) Secondary Indicators
Surface Water (A1) Water Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? X
Remarks:
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)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Other
X
Describe Recorded Data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
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)
I NDIANA D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL M ANAGEMENT
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment.
100 N. Senate Avenue • Indianapolis, IN 46204
(800) 451-6027 • (317) 232-8603 • www.idem.IN.gov
Eric J. Holcomb Brian C. Rockensuess
Governor Commissioner
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
IDEM Number: 2024-635-29-ENH-WQC
USACE Number: LRL-2024-00289-jde
Project Name: 146th & Gray Road Development
Authority: 327 IAC 2. CWA Sections: 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, & 401
Date of Issuance: September 16, 2024
Impacts must be completed by: September 16, 2026
Approved:
__________________________________
Amari Farren, Branch Chief
Surface Water and Operations
Office of Water Quality
Applicant / Permittee: Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC
Attention: Joseph Marx
11595 North Meridian Street, Suite 700
Carmel, IN 46032
Agent: V3 Companies, Ltd.
Attention: Landon Vine
619 N Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Project Location: Hamilton County
Latitude 39.998823, Longitude -86.093217
4411 E 146th St, Carmel, IN 46033
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 2
Project Description: Construction of a residential subdivision, involving the
placement of 194 cubic yards of clean earthen fill into 0.24
acre of palustrine scrub-shrub federally jurisdictional wetland
and 2 cubic yards of clean earthen fill into 10 linear feet of an
intermittent stream. 40 cubic yards of clean earthen fill will
also be placed into 0.05 acre of Class I exempt emergent
isolated wetland.
Proposed mitigation is the purchase of 0.86 acre of scrub
shrub wetland credits and 12 linear feet of intermittent stream
credits from the Indiana Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Program (INSWMP)in the Upper White Service Area.
Authorized Impacts
STREAM IMPACT(S) Length of Impact (linear feet)
Type of Impact: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Clean Earthen Fill 10
WETLAND IMPACT(S) Area of Impact (acres)
Type of Impact: Open
Water Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested
Clean Earthen Fill 0.24
Project Mitigation
MITIGATION BANKS AND IN LIEU FEE Stream (Linear Feet)
Type of Purchase Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
In Lieu Fee Credits: 12
MITIGATION BANKS AND IN LIEU FEE Wetland (Acres)
Type of Purchase Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested
In Lieu Fee Credits: 0.86
Mitigation Location: Upper White Service Area
Application Signed: August 15, 2024
Application Received: August 16, 2024
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 3
Application Amendments
Received:
August 28, 2024
• Mitigation plan revised to reflect USACE 2008
Mitigation Rule hierarchy.
Based on available information, it is the judgment of this office that the impacts from the
proposed project as outlined by this Section 401 Water Quality Certification and
described in your application will comply with the applicable provisions of 327 IAC 2 and
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act if you comply with the
conditions set forth below. Therefore, subject to the following conditions, the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) hereby grants Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the project described in your application. Any changes in project
design or scope not detailed in the application described above or modified by this
Section 401 Water Quality Certification are not authorized.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Section 401 Water Quality
Certification may result in enforcement action against you. If an enforcement action is
pursued, you could be assessed up to $25,000 per day in civil penalties. You may also
be subject to criminal liability if it is determined that the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification was violated willfully or negligently.
Conditions of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
1.0 General
(a) Implement the project as depicted and described in the application for Section
401 Water Quality Certification as modified by the conditions of this
certification.
(b) Per 33 CFR 325.6(c), 327 IAC 5-2-6, IC 13-15-3-2 the federal license shall
have an established timeframe. Therefore, all approved discharges must be
completed within the term of the valid federal permit.
(c) Per IC 13-14-2-2, the department may inspect public or private property to
inspect for and investigate possible violations of environmental management
laws. Therefore, the commissioner or an authorized representative of the
commissioner (including an authorized contractor), upon the presentation of
credentials must be allowed:
(1) to enter your property, including impact and mitigation site(s);
(2) to have access to and copy at reasonable times any records that must be
kept under the conditions of this certification;
(3) to inspect, at reasonable times, any monitoring or operational equipment
or method; collection, treatment, pollution management or discharge
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 4
facility or device; practices required by this certification; and any
mitigation wetland site;
(4) to sample or monitor any discharge of pollutants or any mitigation site.
2.0 Mitigation
Per 327 IAC 2, the goal of Indiana’s water quality standards is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the state’s waters.
Mitigation of dredge and fill impacts to Indiana’s water resources is required to
maintain water quality.
(a) Per 40 CFR 230.91; 33 CFR 332.3; 327 IAC 2-1; 327 IAC 2-1.5,
implementation of the submitted and approved mitigation plan is to ensure the
water quality functions of the impacted waters are replaced, preventing a
reduction in water quality. Therefore, implement the mitigation plan as
described in the application (referred to collectively hereinafter as the
“mitigation plan”), and as modified by the conditions of this certification.
(b) Per 33 CFR 332.3 (f); 327 IAC 2-1; 327 IAC 2-1.5, the amount of mitigation
required must be listed within the permit.
(1) Provide to IDEM proof of the purchase of 0.86 acre of in lieu fee
wetland credits and 12 linear feet of in lieu fee stream credits in the
Upper White Service Area from the Indiana Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Program (IN SWMP):
(A) Within one (1) year of the date of this authorization;
(B) Before authorized impacts to waters of the State.
Be aware that credits may not be available at all times.
Failure to purchase credits by the required date may result in additional
mitigation requirements to compensate for temporal loss.
3.0 Erosion and Sediment Control
Per 40 CFR 122.26, 327 IAC 15; 327 IAC 2-1; 327 IAC 2-1.5, the use of appropriate
stormwater control measures and maintenance thereof will prevent any sediment
laden water from migrating off site and entering waterways and wetlands,
potentially impairing water quality. Therefore, the following erosion and sediment
control steps must be completed.
(a) Implement erosion and sediment control measures on the construction site
prior to land disturbance to minimize soil from leaving the site or entering a
waterbody. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented
using an appropriate order of construction (sequencing) relative to the land-
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 5
disturbing activities associated with the project. Appropriate measures
include, but are not limited to, silt fence, diversions, and sediment traps.
(b) Monitor and maintain erosion control measures and devices regularly,
especially after rain events, until all soils disturbed by construction activities
have been permanently stabilized.
(c) Use run-off control measures, including but not limited to diversions and slope
drains. These measures are effective for directing and managing run-off to
sediment control measures and for preventing direct run-off into waterbodies.
(d) Install and make appropriate modifications to erosion and sediment control
measures based on current site conditions as construction progresses on the
site. The Indiana Storm Water Quality Manual or similar guidance documents
are available to assist in the selection of measures that are applicable to
individual project sites.
(e) Implement appropriate erosion and sediment control measures for all
temporary run-arounds, cofferdams, temporary causeways, temporary
crossings, or other such structures that are to be constructed within any waters
of the state. Minimize disturbance to riparian areas when constructing these
structures. Structures must be included in reviewed designs or approved by
IDEM prior to use. Construct temporary run-arounds, temporary cofferdams,
temporary causeways, temporary crossings, or other such structures of non-
erodible materials. Temporary crossings and causeways must be completely
removed upon completion of the project and the affected area restored to pre-
construction contours, grades, and vegetative conditions.
(f) Install stream pump-around operations in accordance with the plans and
ensure in-stream component is constructed of non-sediment producing
materials. The discharge at the outlet shall not cause erosion of the stream
bottom and banks.
(g) Direct cofferdam dewatering activities to an appropriate sediment control
measure or a combination of measures prior to discharging into a water of the
state to minimize the discharge of sediment-laden water.
(h) Ensure cut and fill slopes located adjacent to wetlands and streams (including
encapsulated streams) or that directly discharge to these aquatic features are
stabilized using rapid/incremental seeding or other appropriate stabilization
measures.
(i) Stabilize and re-vegetate disturbed soils as final grades are achieved.
Initiation of stabilization must occur immediately or, at a minimum, within the
requirements of a construction site run-off permit after work is completed. Use
a mixture of herbaceous species beneficial for wildlife or an emergent wetland
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 6
seed mix wherever possible and appropriate. Tall fescue may only be planted
in ditch bottoms and ditch side slopes and must be a low endophyte seed mix.
Stabilize the channel before releasing stream flows into the channel.
(j) As work progresses, re-vegetate areas void of protective ground cover. Areas
that are to be re-vegetated shall use seeding and anchored mulch. If
alternative methods are required to ensure stabilization, erosion control
blankets may be used that are biodegradable, that use loose-woven/leno-
woven netting to minimize the entrapment and snaring of small-bodied
wildlife such as snakes and turtles (follow manufacturer’s
recommendations for selection and installation).
(k) Anchor mulch. Anchoring shall be appropriate for the site characteristics such
as slope, slope length, and concentrated flows. Anchoring methods may
not include loose netting over straw, but can range from crimping of
straw, erosion control blankets as specified above that minimize wildlife
entrapment, or net free blankets. Tackifiers with mulch and hydro-mulch are
acceptable and shall be applied to the manufacturer specifications.
4.0 Construction
Per 327 IAC 2-1-6(b)(4) the protection of existing uses for aquatic life is required
and, per 327 IAC 2-1.3-2 (4) the utilization of best management practices helps
ensure the protection of existing uses. Therefore, the following best management
practices are required.
(a) Avoid in stream channel work during the fish spawning season (April 1 through
June 30).
(b) Clearly mark wetlands and streams that are to remain undisturbed on the
project site.
(c) Restrict channel work and vegetation clearing to the minimum necessary for
the installation of any structures. Work from only one side of the stream, and,
where possible, from the side of the stream which does not have adjacent
wetlands. If no wetlands are present, work from the side with the fewest trees
and woody vegetation.
(d) Ensure permanent in-stream structures, including but not limited to culverts
and other stream encapsulations, are embedded and sized appropriately so as
not to impede surface flows or create abnormal impediments to aquatic life.
(e) Deposit any dredged material in a contained upland (non-wetland) disposal
area to prevent sediment run-off to any waterbody.
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 7
(f) Create temporary structures constructed in streams such that near normal
stream flows are maintained. (327 IAC definitions Stream Design Flow)
(g) Install riprap and other bank stabilization materials so they are flush with the
upstream and downstream bank and stream channel bed elevations and
grades.
(h) Maintain flow and connectivity between upstream and downstream waters of
the State throughout duration of the project.
(i) Stream flow must be pumped around or rerouted around work areas.
(j) Channels must be stabilized before being energized and before allowing
stream flow through the channels.
Other Applicable Permits
Based on the proposed land disturbance, a construction stormwater general permit is
required for the project. Permit coverage must be obtained prior to the initiation of land-
disturbing activities. Information related to obtaining permit coverage is available at
www.in.gov/idem/stormwater or by contacting the IDEM, Stormwater Program at 317-
233-1864 or via email at Stormwat@idem.IN.gov.
This certification does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any other permits
or authorizations that may be required for this project or related activities from IDEM or
any other agency or person. You may wish to contact the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources at 317-232-4160 (toll free at 877-928-3755) concerning the possible
requirement of natural freshwater lake or floodway permits.
This certification does not:
(1) Authorize impacts or activities outside the scope of this certification;
(2) Authorize any injury to persons or private property or invasion of other private
rights, or any infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations;
(3) Convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges;
(4) Preempt any duty to obtain federal, state or local permits or authorizations
required by law for the execution of the project or related activities; or
(5) Authorize changes in the plan design detailed in the application.
Notice of Right to Administrative Review (Permits)
If you wish to challenge this permit, you must file a Petition for Administrative Review with
the Indiana Office of Administrative Law Proceedings (OALP) and serve a copy of the
petition upon IDEM. The requirements for filing a Petition for Administrative Review are
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 8
found in IC 4-21.5-3-7, IC 13-15-6-1 and 315 IAC 1-3-2. A summary of the requirements
of these laws is provided below.
A Petition for Administrative Review must be filed with the Indiana Office of Administrative
Law Proceedings (OALP) within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this notice (eighteen
(18) days if you received this notice by U.S. Mail), and a copy must be served upon
IDEM. Addresses are:
Director
Office of Administrative Law Proceedings
Indiana Government Center North
100 North Senate Avenue, Room N802
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Commissioner
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
Indiana Government Center North
100 North Senate Avenue, Room 1301
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
The petition must contain the following information:
(a) The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner.
(b) A description of each petitioner’s interest in the permit.
(c) A statement of facts demonstrating that each petitioner is:
(1) a person to whom the order is directed;
(2) aggrieved or adversely affected by the permit; or
(3) entitled to administrative review under any law.
(d) The reasons for the request for administrative review.
(e) The particular legal issues proposed for review.
(f) The alleged environmental concerns or technical deficiencies of the permit.
(g) The permit terms and conditions that the petitioner believes would be
appropriate and would comply with the law.
(h) The identity of any persons represented by the petitioner.
(i) The identity of the person against whom administrative review is sought.
(j) A copy of the permit that is the basis of the petition.
(k) A statement identifying petitioner’s attorney or other representative, if any.
Failure to meet the requirements of the law with respect to a Petition for Administrative
Review may result in a waiver of your right to seek administrative review of the permit.
Examples are:
(a) Failure to file a Petition by the applicable deadline;
(b) Failure to serve a copy of the Petition upon IDEM when it is filed; or
(c) Failure to include the information required by law.
If you seek to have a permit stayed during the administrative review, you may need to
file a Petition for a Stay of Effectiveness. The specific requirements for such a Petition
can be found in 315 IAC 1-3-2 and 315 IAC 1-3-2.1.
Pursuant to IC 4-21.5-3-17, OALP will provide all parties with notice of any pre-hearing
conferences, preliminary hearings, hearings, stays, or orders disposing of the review of
IDEM No. 2024-655-29-ENH-WQC
Page 9
this action. If you are entitled to notice under IC 4-21.5-3-5(b) and would like to obtain
notices of any pre-hearing conferences, preliminary hearings, hearings, stays, or orders
disposing of the review of this action without intervening in the proceeding you must
submit a written request to OALP at the address above.
For additional information on filing a petition with OALP, visit their website at
https://www.in.gov/oalp/.
If you have any questions about this certification, please contact Emersyn Harriman,
Project Manager, by email at EHarrima@IDEM.IN.Gov or by phone at 317-409-7580.
cc: Justin Eshelman, USACE – Indianapolis Regulatory Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – IndianaFO@fws.gov
Kent Hanauer, IDNR – khanauer@dnr.IN.gov
Indiana Stream and Wetland Mitigation Program – INSWMP-Inquiry@dnr.IN.gov
Joseph Marx, Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC
1
Koone, Josh
From:Koone, Josh
Sent:Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:02 PM
To:Koone, Josh
Subject:FW: Gray Oaks Drainage Report
From: Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 12:58 PM
To: Timko, Mike <Mike.Timko@kimley-horn.com>; Thomas, John G <jthomas@carmel.in.gov>
Cc: Rex Ramage <Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com>; Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com>; Justen Hochstetler
<jhochstetler@crossroadengineers.com>
Subject: RE: Gray Oaks Drainage Report
Mike,
Sorry for the delay in getting back with you. John is out on vacation this week as well but we were able to get out on site
on July 10th and see what it looked like. After walking through the area, we would not recommend a direct discharge
into the stream where it starts at property line as we are concerned it will lead to erosion. The two options the City
Engineer has requested you look into are below:
1. You can investigate taking a pipe through the woods on the other property to discharge to a spot where the
stream channel is stable. From our walk through, it appears that the stream branches off and creates a defined
channel where I have marked in yellow below.
2. You can tie into Gray Oaks at a release rate that does not exceed the existing release rate to the basin that
currently goes to Gray Oaks. In this case, we would count the direct discharge from the tree preservation against
the release rate.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this or if we will need to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Alex Jordan, CPESC
Plan Review Coordinator
City of Carmel Engineering Department
(317) 571-2305
ajordan@carmel.in.gov
2
From: Timko, Mike <Mike.Timko@kimley-horn.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Thomas, John G <jthomas@carmel.in.gov>; Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov>
Cc: Rex Ramage <Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com>
Subject: RE: Gray Oaks Drainage Report
Good morning John,
Hope you enjoyed the vacation time. Were you able to make it out to the site before leaving for vacation? If not,
can we plan to meet out there early this week?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Timko, P.E.
Kimley-Horn | 500 East 96th Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46240
Direct: 317-218-9566 | Mobile: 317-753-2412
From: Timko, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 6:34 AM
To: Thomas, John G <jthomas@carmel.in.gov>; Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov>
Cc: Rex Ramage <Rex.Ramage@PulteGroup.com>
Subject: RE: Gray Oaks Drainage Report
Alex,
Do you know if John got a chance to visit the site last week like we had discussed on our call on Tuesday? We
never saw or heard anything from him.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Timko, P.E.
Kimley-Horn | 500 East 96th Street, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46240
Direct: 317-218-9566 | Mobile: 317-753-2412
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOUISVILLE DISTRICT
INDIANAPOLIS REGULATORY OFFICE
8902 OTIS AVENUE, SUITE S106B
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46216
June 11, 2024
Regulatory Division
North Branch
ID No. LRL-2024-00289-jde
Mr. Nathan Houk
V3 Companies
619 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Dear Mr. Houk:
This letter is in regard to the correspondence dated April 4, 2024, requesting an Approved
Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) on behalf of Pulte Homes of Indiana for a 14-Acre review
area located at 39.9988, -86.0931 near Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. A location map of the
review area is enclosed.
The site was reviewed pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Section 404 of the CWA requires that a
Department of the Army (DA) permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged
and/or fill material into “waters of the United States (U.S.),” including wetlands, prior to
conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 1344). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
requires that a DA Permit be obtained for structures or work in or affecting navigable “waters of
the U.S.,” prior to conducting the work (33 U.S.C. 403).
Based on the information provided to this office, the site contains Wetland A which is not
considered to be a “water of the U.S.” and is not regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. However, this determination does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with
applicable state law. We urge you to contact the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management, Office of Water Quality at WetlandsProgram@idem.in.gov to determine the
applicability of state law to your project.
This letter contains an AJD for the aforementioned site. If you object to the AJD, you
may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 331. Enclosed
you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and Request for Appeal (RFA)
form. If you request to appeal the AJD, you must submit a completed RFA form to the Lakes
and Rivers Division Office at the address listed on the enclosed NAP RFA form.
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is
complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR Part 331.5, and that it has been
received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to
submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by August 10, 2024. It is not
necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division office if you do not object to the determination
in this letter.
This jurisdictional determination is valid for a period of five years from the date of this
letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date.
The delineation included herein has been conducted to identify the location and extent of
the aquatic resource boundaries and/or the jurisdictional status of aquatic resources for purposes
of the Clean Water Act for the particular site identified in this request. This delineation and/or
jurisdictional determination may not be valid for the Wetland Conservation Provisions of the
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended. If you or your tenant are USDA program participants, or
anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should discuss the applicability of a certified
wetland determination with the local USDA service center prior to starting work.
If you have any questions, please contact us by writing to the above address, or contact
me directly at 317-543-9424 or Justin.D.Eshelman@usace.army.mil. Any correspondence on this
matter should refer to our ID Number LRL-2024-00289-jde. A copy of this letter will be
furnished to your authorized agent.
Sincerely,
Justin D. Eshelman
Project Manager
Indianapolis Regulatory Office
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
IDEM (Wrin)
- ???15?6KDSHILOH?),*GHOLQP[G
CLIENT:
BASE LAYER:DATE:
TITLE:
SITE:
9LVLR9HUWHUH9LUWXWH
"The Vision To Transform with Excellence"
13HQQV\OYDQLD6WUHHW
,QGLDQDSROLV,1
SKRQH
ZZZYFRFRP
CREATED BY:
SCALE:
PROJECT NO.:
:HWODQG$
DF
:HWODQG%
DF
6WUHDP
OI
&RQWLQXHV2II6LWH
'3
'3
'3
'3
'3'3
'3%
'3%
'3$
'3$
³
1'+
6HH6FDOH%DU
3XOWH+RPHVRI,QGLDQD
10HULGLDQ6WUHHW
&DUPHO,QGLDQD
$HULDO,PDJHU\
:(7/$1'$1'675($0
'(/,1($7,210$3
WK *UD\5RDG3URSHUW\
&DUPHO+DPLOWRQ&RXQW\,QGLDQD
FIGURE:
)HHW
/HJHQG
6,7( $SSUR[LPDWH
(PHUJHQW:HWODQG
6FUXE6KUXE:HWODQG
,QWHUPLWWHQW6WUHDP
'DWD3RLQW
-1-
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Pulte Homes of Indiana File Number: LRL-2024-289 Date: 06/11/2024
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE C
PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE D
X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION F
SECTION I
The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-
Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/appeals/ or Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to
the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may
accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Stand ard Permit or
acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to
appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations
associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions
therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of
this form and return the form to the district engineer. Upon receipt of your lett er, the district
engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issue d as previously written. After evaluating your
objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as
indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to
the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may
accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or
acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to
appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations
associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain
terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to t he
division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date
of this notice.
-2-
C. PERMIT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: Not appealable
You received a permit denial without prejudice because a required Federal, state, and/or local
authorization and/or certification has been denied for activities which also require a Department of
the Army permit before final action has been taken on the Ar my permit application. The permit denial
without prejudice is not appealable. There is no prejudice to the right of the applicant to reinstate
processing of the Army permit application if subsequent approval is received from the appropriate
Federal, state, and/or local agency on a previously denied authorization and/or certification.
D: PERMIT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE: You may appeal the permit denial
You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process
by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the d ate of this notice.
E: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD
or provide new information for reconsideration
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the
Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice means that you accept the approved JD in its
entirety and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the
Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and
sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division e ngineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
• RECONSIDERATION: You may request that the district engineer reconsider the approved JD by
submitting new information or data to the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
The district will determine whether the information submitted qualifies as new information or data
that justifies reconsideration of the approved JD. A reconsideration request does not initiate the
appeal process. You may submit a request for appeal to the d ivision engineer to preserve your
appeal rights while the district is determining whether the submitted information qualifies for a
reconsideration.
F: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: Not appealable
You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not
appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting
the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further
consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision
you may contact:
Justin Eshelman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District
Indianapolis Regulatory Office
8902 Otis Avenue, S106B
Indianapolis, IN 46216
Office Phone: 317-543-9424
e-mail: Justin.D.Eshelman@usace.army.mil
If you have questions regarding the appeal
process, or to submit your request for appeal, you
may contact:
Katherine A. McCafferty
Regulatory Administrative Appeals Officer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
550 Main Street, Room 10780
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3222
Office Phone: 513-684-2699, FAX: 513-684-2460
e-mail: katherine.a.mccafferty@usace.army.mil
-3-
SECTION II – REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or
your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. Use additional pages as
necessary. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the
Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental
information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record.
Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However,
you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the
administrative record.
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,
and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the
appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day notice of any site investigation and will have the
opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
_______________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date:
Email address of appellant and/or agent: Telephone number:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOUISVILLE DISTRICT
INDIANAPOLIS REGULATORY OFFICE
8902 OTIS AVENUE, SUITE S106B
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46216
CELRL - RDN June 11, 2024
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime
Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322
(2023) ,1 LRL-2024-00289-jde.
BACKGROUND. An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a Corps document
stating the presence or absence of waters of the United States on a parcel or a written
statement and map identifying the limits of waters of the United States on a parcel.
AJDs are clearly designated appealable actions and will include a basis of JD with the
document.2 AJDs are case-specific and are typically made in response to a request.
AJDs are valid for a period of five years unless new information warrants revision of the
determination before the expiration date or a District Engineer has identified, after public
notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing
environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis.3 For the
purposes of this AJD, we have relied on section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 (RHA),4 the Clean Water Act (CWA) implementing regulations published by the
Department of the Army in 1986 and amended in 1993 (references 2.a. and 2.b.
respectively), the 2008 Rapanos-Carabell guidance (reference 2.c.), and other
applicable guidance, relevant case law and longstanding practice, (collectively the pre-
2015 regulatory regime), and the Sackett decision (reference 2.d.) in evaluating
jurisdiction.
This Memorandum for Record (MFR) constitutes the basis of jurisdiction for a Corps
AJD as defined in 33 CFR §331.2. The features addressed in this AJD were evaluated
consistent with the definition of “waters of the United States” found in the pre-2015
regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett. This
AJD did not rely on the 2023 “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” as
amended on 8 September 2023 (Amended 2023 Rule) because, as of the date of this
decision, the Amended 2023 Rule is not applicable in Indiana due to litigation.
1 While the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett had no effect on some categories of waters covered
under the CWA, and no effect on any waters covered under RHA, all categories are included in this
Memorandum for Record for efficiency.
2 33 CFR 331.2.
3 Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-02.
4 USACE has authority under both Section 9 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 but for
convenience, in this MFR, jurisdiction under RHA will be referred to as Section 10.
CELRL - RDN
SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light
of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00289-jde.
2
1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.
a. Provide a list of each individual feature within the review area and the
jurisdictional status of each one (i.e., identify whether each feature is/is not a
water of the United States and/or a navigable water of the United States).
i. Wetland A is not a water of the U.S. or a navigable water of the U.S.
2. REFERENCES.
a. Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, 51 FR 41206
(November 13, 1986).
b. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs, 58 FR 45008 (August 25, 1993).
c. U.S. EPA & U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States &
Carabell v. United States (December 2, 2008)
d. Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. _, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023)
3. REVIEW AREA. A 14-acre review area located at 39.9988, -86.0931 near Carmel,
Hamilton County, Indiana. See attached AJD Map.
4. NEAREST TRADITIONAL NAVIGABLE WATER (TNW), INTERSTATE WATER, OR
THE TERRITORIAL SEAS TO WHICH THE AQUATIC RESOURCE IS
CONNECTED. N/A. the subject aquatic resource is not connected to a TNW,
interstate water, or the territorial seas.
5. FLOWPATH FROM THE SUBJECT AQUATIC RESOURCES TO A TNW,
INTERSTATE WATER, OR THE TERRITORIAL SEAS. N/A. The subject aquatic
resources do not flow to a TNW, interstate water, or the territorial seas.
6. SECTION 10 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS5: Describe aquatic resources or other
features within the review area determined to be jurisdictional in accordance with
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Include the size of each aquatic
5 33 CFR 329.9(a) A waterbody which was navigable in its natural or improved state, or which was
susceptible of reasonable improvement (as discussed in § 329.8(b) of this part) retains its character as
“navigable in law” even though it is not presently used for commerce, or is presently incapable of such
use because of changed conditions or the presence of obstructions.
CELRL - RDN
SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light
of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00289-jde.
3
resource or other feature within the review area and how it was determined to be
jurisdictional in accordance with Section 10.6 N/A
7. SECTION 404 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS: Describe the aquatic resources within
the review area that were found to meet the definition of waters of the United States
in accordance with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and consistent with the Supreme
Court’s decision in Sackett. List each aquatic resource separately, by name,
consistent with the naming convention used in section 1, above. Include a rationale
for each aquatic resource, supporting that the aquatic resource meets the relevant
category of “waters of the United States” in the pre-2015 regulatory regime. The
rationale should also include a written description of, or reference to a map in the
administrative record that shows, the lateral limits of jurisdiction for each aquatic
resource, including how that limit was determined, and incorporate relevant
references used. Include the size of each aquatic resource in acres or linear feet and
attach and reference related figures as needed.
a. TNWs (a)(1): N/A
b. Interstate Waters (a)(2): N/A
c. Other Waters (a)(3): N/A
d. Impoundments (a)(4): N/A
e. Tributaries (a)(5): N/A
f. The territorial seas (a)(6): N/A
g. Adjacent wetlands (a)(7): N/A
8. NON-JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES AND FEATURES
a. Describe aquatic resources and other features within the review area identified
as “generally non-jurisdictional” in the preamble to the 1986 regulations (referred
to as “preamble waters”).7 Include size of the aquatic resource or feature within
the review area and describe how it was determined to be non-jurisdictional
under the CWA as a preamble water. N/A
6 This MFR is not to be used to make a report of findings to support a determination that the water is a
navigable water of the United States. The district must follow the procedures outlined in 33 CFR part
329.14 to make a determination that water is a navigable water of the United States subject to Section 10
of the RHA.
7 51 FR 41217, November 13, 1986.
CELRL - RDN
SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light
of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00289-jde.
4
b. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area identified as
“generally not jurisdictional” in the Rapanos guidance. Include size of the aquatic
resource or feature within the review area and describe how it was determined to
be non-jurisdictional under the CWA based on the criteria listed in the guidance.
N/A
c. Describe aquatic resources and features identified within the review area as
waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet
the requirements of CWA. Include the size of the waste treatment system within
the review area and describe how it was determined to be a waste treatment
system. N/A
d. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area determined to be
prior converted cropland in accordance with the 1993 regulations (reference
2.b.). Include the size of the aquatic resource or feature within the review area
and describe how it was determined to be prior converted cropland. N/A
e. Describe aquatic resources (i.e. lakes and ponds) within the review area, which
do not have a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce, and prior to the January
2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” would have been jurisdictional
based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule.” Include the size of the aquatic
resource or feature, and how it was determined to be an “isolated water” in
accordance with SWANCC. N/A
f. Describe aquatic resources and features within the review area that were
determined to be non-jurisdictional because they do not meet one or more
categories of waters of the United States under the pre-2015 regulatory regime
consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett (e.g., tributaries that are
non-relatively permanent waters; non-tidal wetlands that do not have a
continuous surface connection to a jurisdictional water).
- Wetland A is a 0.05-acre emergent wetland that does not have a continuous
surface connection to a jurisdictional water. The wetland is located in an isolated
depression within an abandoned access road adjacent to an aerial utility right-of-
way in the northeast corner of the review area and is surrounded by a wooded
parcel adjacent to existing residential and commercial development. As such,
Wetland A is not a water of the U.S.
9. DATA SOURCES. List sources of data/information used in making determination.
Include titles and dates of sources used and ensure that information referenced is
available in the administrative record.
CELRL - RDN
SUBJECT: Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime Approved Jurisdictional Determination in Light
of Sackett v. EPA, 143 S. Ct. 1322 (2023), LRL-2024-00289-jde.
5
a. Office evaluation conducted on 6/6/2024.
b. 20240404_V3_146th & Gray Road_NRA.pdf (Includes Project Location Map; NWI
layer and USGS Topo Map; USGS Topo Map, Fishers Quad; Flood Zones of
Hamilton County, Indiana; Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana ; Wetland and
Stream Delineation Map; Site Photos dated 02/16/2022; Wetland Determination
Data Forms dated 02/16/2022).
c. LRL-2024-00289-jde LiDAR; LRL-2024-00289-jde NHD
10. OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION. N/A
11. NOTE: The structure and format of this MFR were developed in coordination with
the EPA and Department of the Army. The MFR’s structure and format may be
subject to future modification or may be rescinded as needed to implement
additional guidance from the agencies; however, the approved jurisdictional
determination described herein is a final agency action.