Loading...
Bear Creek Park Master Plan (2022)Carmel, Indiana June 2022 BEAR CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN ivCarmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Planiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION Richard F. Taylor III, President Jenn Kristunas, Vice President Lin Zheng, Treasurer Linus Rude, Secretary Dr. Jessica Beer James D. Garretson Mark Westermeier Joshua A. Kirsh Louise Jackson CCPR PROJECT TEAM Michael W. Klitzing, Director of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Kurtis Baumgartner, Assistant Director of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Jonathan Blake, Administration & Planning Director Michael Allen, Parks & Natural Resources Director Jennifer Brown, Extended School Enrichment & Summer Camps Director Eric Mehl, Recreation & Facilities Director Jylian Riches, Marketing & Communication Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 PROJECT AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1.3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.4 VISION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2.0 PROCESS AND FINDINGS 11 2.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 OPPORTUNITIES AND FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3 DESIGN DRIVERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.4 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.0 PREFERRED CONCEPT 29 3.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE PARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARK STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRAIL SYSTEM AND CONNECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.5 PROJECT PHASING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.0 PRO FORMA 71 4.1 PROGRAM ZONES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.2 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.3 FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONS PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 APPENDIX 01 | ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT 01 APPENDIX 02 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 1 02 APPENDIX 03 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 2 03 APPENDIX 04 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 3 04 FIGURES Figure 1: Regional context 1 Figure 2: Historic aerials of Bear Creek Park property 2 Figure 3: Aerial photo from September 2021 3 Figure 4: Condition of Bear Creek 4 Figure 5: Historic meander of Bear Creek 5 Figure 6: Site analysis diagrams 7 Figure 7: Project arc 11 Figure 8: Photos of public & stakeholder engagment process 12 Figure 9: Public input survey summary 13 Figure 10: Public input survey programming summary 15 Figure 11: Stakeholder Tour of Bear Creek Park 17 Figure 12: Design Opportunities 18 Figure 13: Diagram of project vision and design drivers 19 Figure 14: Design driver: Resiliency 21 Figure 15: Design Driver: Activated 23 Figure 16: Design Driver: Connected 25 Figure 17: Alternative 1 conceptual plan 27 Figure 18: Alternative 2 conceptual plan 27 Figure 19: Alternative 3 conceptual plan 28 Figure 20: Preferred Concept Master Plan 29 Figure 21: Illustrative site sections 31 Figure 22: Illustrative creek axonometric section 33 Figure 23: Cross section of Bear Creek 35 Figure 24: Tree canopy diagram 38 Figure 25: Vegetative biome diagram 39 Figure 26: Vignette perspective along the realigned creek 41 Figure 27: Park programmed spaces 43 Figure 28: Activity zones diagram 44 Figure 29: Vignette perspective along the realigned creek 45 Figure 30: Program and use diagram 47 Figure 31: Concept of main structure in preferred alternate 49 Figure 32: Views of main structure 50 Figure 33: Northeast view of main structure 51 Figure 34: Southeast view of main structure 53 Figure 35: Southwest view of main structure 55 Figure 36: Material options for the main structure 57 Figure 37: Shelter studies 59 Figure 38: Main structure programming 61 Figure 39: Trails and connections diagram 63 Figure 40: Project phasing diagram 65 xixCarmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR On behalf of Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation, it is my privilege to share with you the Bear Creek Park Master Plan. Anchored by the needs of our community and a commitment to environmental stewardship, this plan establishes the vision for a new park destined to provide incredible experiences and lasting memories for generations to come. For anyone that has visited the Bear Creek Park site, it seems like it was destined to become a park. With rolling topography, its namesake creek, and existing prairies and trees, it is already a nature-lover’s dream. Thanks to an innovative public input process, this park will also become a transformative space that inspires play and exploration while meeting the recreation needs of our ever more diverse community. Because our parks are for the benefit and enjoyment of all people, I want to thank the community for your contributions to the master plan. Your voice and ideas, including enlightening (and entertaining) input from elementary, middle school, and high school students, helped inspire the park’s design and guide its future uses. This planning process was just one step in the journey for Bear Creek Park. Working with our community leaders to secure the necessary funding, CCPR looks forward to making this master plan – your vision for Bear Creek Park – a reality. Recreationally Yours, Michael W. Klitzing, CPRE Director of Parks and Recreation/CEO W 146TH ST VOYAGUER WA Y SHELBORNE R D 21Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Bear Creek Park was acquired by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation (CCPR) in 2020. Prior to its acquisition the property was a residence and had been privately held for almost 100 years. Historic aerial photos dating back to 1931 indicate this property and the neighboring properties were farmed until the early 2000’s. By 2005, much of the land that had been used for row cropping or grazing, had been converted to a planted prairie or tree plantation, discussed in more detail in Section 2.2. Because the site had been privately held for so long, there were very few community members who had any meaningful experiences onsite. This presented a problem and opportunity for collecting community opinions about how the site should be developed and the types of park programming and amenities that should be provided in the park. Without having any real experiences onsite, or even visual access to the location, many in the community were unaware of the intrinsic character of the new park before the master plan process began. To enable 1.0 INTRODUCTION Figure 1: Regional context Figure 2: Historic aerials of Bear Creek Park property the community to experience the site personally, CCPR made the unprecedented move of ‘soft’ opening the park before it was developed, CCPR provided primitive access opportunities so the community could get into the park and develop firsthand experiences. Master planning of the park began in the spring of 2021 and ended in the spring of 2022. The process was deliberately slower than is customary to enable the community more time to be onsite and use their new firsthand experiences to better inform the planning process. The slower process also enabled the design team and CCPR staff to spend more time onsite throughout the year. This afforded the team the opportunity to experience the park in all seasons (during rain, snow, and shine; hot, warm, and cold). Bear Creek Park is envisioned as a community park and is well-suited to serve Carmel’s growing northwest population. For many residents in this developing portion of the city, this will be their closest park. Many of the participants in the engagement process were nearby or immediately adjacent neighbors who expressed interest in walking trails, picnicking, biking, as well as playgrounds, splash pad, and recreation courts. In addition, it was clear that this would be a site used by CCPR’s summer camp program and needed infrastructure to accommodate 75-100 campers. As the master plan was developed through the community engagement process, it became clear there was a desire for the site to be more than a neighborhood park. The proposed site programming, such as the treehouse play and tower, were derived from the existing site grading and portions of the vegetative cover. The master plan concepts along with the park characteristics allow the park to serve as a unique community draw. 1.2 PROJECT AREA Bear Creek Park is located in the northwest corner of Carmel, Indiana and fills a service gap in this part of the city. Given its proximity, it is recognized that the park will also serve portions of neighboring communities. This corner of Carmel is one of the fastest growing areas in the city, county, and state, with rich cultural diversity. Surrounding the park are many new (and growing) residential developments. These developments are predominantly detached, single-family homes. Many of the residents in these newer neighborhoods are two- income families employed in professional fields. Several nearby or immediately neighboring community members who participated in the public engagement of the project expressed the need for a park that would accommodate families with younger to teenage children, a place to passively recreate, to picnic as a family, and also a place to play. This is further supported by the demographics of the area. The site can be accessed from Voyageur Way on the north and Shelborne Road on the east. While bike trails to the park, particularly along Shelborne Road, are not yet complete, they are planned as part of future development. In addition, the park is located in the middle of an expanding east-west greenway, the result of dedicated open space set aside in the new residential developments on either side of the park. BEAR CREEK PARK 1941 1956 1985 W 146TH ST SHELBORNE RDW 146TH ST SHELBORNE RDSHELBORNE RDW 146TH ST 43Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan 1.3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Totaling approximately 27-acres, the site is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Shelborne Road and 146th Street. Voyageur Way, a frontage road on the south side of 146th Street, defines the site’s northern boundary. The property abuts Shelborne Road along the east edge of its southeast corner. A private residential neighborhood borders most of the southern and western edges, except for the site’s southeast corner which borders the future location for an Islamic Life Center currently in the planning stages. The property would be roughly rectangular except for a 5-acre cutout owned by private residents in the central eastern edge of the site and the Voyageur Way and Shelborne Road intersection in the northeastern corner of the site. The property is currently accessed by the former residential driveway off Shelborne Road The site is split into north and south sections approximately through the middle by Bear Creek, a low flow creek. Its peak flows are driven by season (spring melt and rain) and storms. During droughty periods the creek will go dry. Even in wet years the flow can be little more than a trickle or present itself as saturated soils in the creek bottom in the drier months of the year. During spring runoff or following heavy storm periods, the flow is deeper and its presence is more pronounced. Bear Creek flows west and north discharging into the Little Eagle Creek watershed. At the east end of the site the creek is formed from the confluence of two tributaries that flow around the north edge and south edge of the 5-acre cutout. The north tributary is fed by road runoff from 146th Street, Voyageur Way and Shelborne Road The southern tributary comes from the east side of Shelborne Road, fed by stormwater runoff from the residential developments east of Shelborne Road The existing site grades are one of the two key attributes that gives the site its character, the other is the existing vegetation patterns, discussed later. The site grades down to the creek, forming a bowl or valley with higher grades at the north and south edges of the park. A low earthen bluff between 6 and 12 feet in height defines the change in grade between the creek bottom and the south face, whereas the sweep up the north face is more gradual. The creek valley, beginning with the tributaries to the east and continuing through the middle of the site, EXISTING ECOLOGY OF THE PARK Bear Creek can be seen in aerial photos dating back to the 40’s. An aerial photo from 1998 (see page 5) provides the clearest historic aerial photo and presents some of the most interesting stream morphology history of the creek. In the ‘98 photo, the northern and southern tributaries as well as Bear Creek are clearly seen. The two tributaries show evidence of straightening from farming and development. In addition, the image suggests that the creek was fed by flow other than stormwater runoff. Staining patterns in the photo indicate the tributaries were fed by tile drains from the farm parcels that had been on the east side of Shelborne Road The latent form of the tributaries can be seen in the fields as well as in unfarmed parcels. Without a more detailed historical hydraulic study it is not clear if these represented larger natural drainage systems, prior to farming, fed by seeps, springs, or overland flow. It is also unclear how the tributary arms east of Shelborne Road have been changed because of development. Today, however, there is little evidence of the tributaries in the aerial images. In addition, the ‘98 photo suggests Bear Creek had once been straightened, though it is unclear when. A photo from 1985 faintly shows longer and more dramatic meanders than what can be seen in ‘98. In the photo, Bear Creek shows it is beginning the process of reestablishing a fluvial morphology to match its flow and volume. Subtle, minor bends suggest the creek was reestablishing meanders. Without clearer aerial photography of this reach of the creek before it was straightened, we won’t know exactly how it looked. However, in the ‘98 photo we get a hint from a reach of the creek immediately west of the park. In the ‘98 photo long, loopy meanders are seen in an open meadow where the creek once flowed north and west. This pattern of meandering was very likely what Bear Creek would have looked like before it had been straightened. It serves as the pattern for how Bear Creek should look after is heavily wooded. This wood continues west beyond the site, hugging the creek as it flows west. The property can be differentiated into one of five significant vegetative land covers: scrub woods along the west, south, and east edges of the property; wet woodlands along the creek bottom; established prairie on the south face; established prairie on the north face; and an oak plantation along the upper half of the north face. A more detailed discussion of the creek and vegetative land covers follows in the Existing Ecology description. A 40’ wide sewer easement runs along the west side of the park along the north side of the creek, across the creek east to Shelborne Road The easement and sewer line imact where and how features of the park can be designed. Figure 4: Condition of Bear CreekFigure 3: Aerial photo from September 2021 W 146TH ST VOYAGEUR WAY SHELBORNE RDPROJECT BOUNDARY PELHAM RD BEAR CREEK 65Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan restoration. In addition, the open vegetative character seen in the ‘98 aerial suggests that the creek bottom was historically characterized by wetland, wet prairie, or meadow; not heavily wooded or tree dominated, as it is today. The edges of the park are dominated by a mixed scrub woodland comprised of native and invasive species: black walnut, ash, boxelder, cedar, red maple, Norway spruce, honesuckle, and gooseberry. (Juglans nigra; Fraxinus americana; Acer negundo; Thuja occidentalis; Acer rubra; Picea abies; Lonicera tartarica; Ribes missouriense). Some of the vegetation was planted, most are pioneer scrub species; remnants of no disturbance in these regions. While these vegetated edges provide a buffer between the park and the surrounding parcels, they have low ecological value. There is some cover value, but low nutritional value for many faunal species. As noted earlier, the creek bottoms are dominated by a wet wood. Just as with the scrub wood, the dominant species are predominantly weedy natives or invasives (walnut, ash, boxelder, honeysuckle, gooseberry). It is clear from historical imagery that the creek bottoms were always vegetated, however it is not clear the degree to which it was dominated by wood or more open vegetative communities. The creek bottom stands out in contrast to row crop fields, but the images lack the resolution to determine the extent of cover versus openness. Two prairies were planted at the site sometime in the 2000’s. These are not high-quality prairies; however, they are well-established with few invasive species. A survey of invasive species within the prairies was conducted by CCPR in 2021 and found populations of invasive species within the prairies was very low. The species planted represent those that easily establish. These spaces provide some ecological value as habitat and food sources for desirable native fauna. Where the north prairie transitions to the creek bottom and wet wood, a large stand of cane willow (S. spp.) forms a brow. Finally, approximately half of the north side of the park was planted in a tree plantation. The trees are planted on a grid, likely plugged or seeded by tractor, and are dominated by oak species (white, Q. alba; bur, Q. macrocarpa; scarlet, Q. coccinea; chinkapin, Q. muhlenbergii and red oak Q. rubra) as well as with some maples (A. rubrum). Some undesirable invasive species have also established in the plantation, most notably Asian pear (P. calleryana) and Russian Autumn Olive (E. augustifolia). Some desirable native shrubs or small trees including hazelnut (C. americana) have also established in this area, but it is unclear if they were planted or found their way to the site. The total area of existing woods including the mixed scrub wood and the wet wood is 15.23 acres. The total area of existing prairie and plantation is 9.85 acres. The amount of wood found at the site today is higher than it would have been historically. This isn’t just because much of the site was dominated by row cropping or pasturing practices, as evident from the historical aerial photos of the site. Historically, the site would have been maintained with burning, initially by Native Americans and later by pioneers who adopted the practice to manage the vegetation around their homesteads. It wasn’t until the early 1900’s that the practice began to wane particularly in portions of the United States that were becoming more developed, such as larger metropolitan areas but also in smaller towns or villages. Even then however, many farmers still managed their creeks or wetland areas with fire to knock back seasonal vegetation. But beginning in the late 50’s to early 60’s, fire management, even on farms, became less common thanks in part to the federal government’s Smokey the Bear campaign. By the mid 70’s through the 80’s, fire as a vegetative management tool was vehemently frowned upon. In the absence of burning, row cropping, or grazing the number of trees and the size of woods grew throughout much of the Midwest, including Indiana. ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATION As part of the site analysis process, CCPR engaged Stantec to prepare a Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance Report. The report identified and evaluated potential archaeological resources present within the proposed project area. The process included historical research and fieldwork digs for artifacts. Based on their findings, Stantec is recommending that the project proceed as planned. The full report is attached as Appendix 1. 1998Figure 5: Historic meander of Bear Creek W 146TH ST BEAR CREEK SITE HISTORIC CREEK MEANDER SHELBORNE RDBEAR CREEK 1.0 Introduction 8Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan7 VOYAGEUR WAY VOYAGEUR WAY VOYAGEUR WAY VOYAGEUR WAY Figure 6: Site analysis diagrams 1.0 Introduction 10Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan9 1.4 VISION STATEMENT Bear Creek Park will be an innovative, inclusive, and resilient community park. The park will be grounded in the site’s natural fabric and shaped by the northwest side of the city’s need for a unique and culturally connected experience. 12Carmel, Indiana 11  Bear Creek Park Master Plan PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT2.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The plan for Bear Creek Park was identified and refined through a robust public engagement process. Three public meetings were held where community residents were given the opportunity to share their ideas for what a new park could be, review and comment on the ideas developed by the design team, and finally select a preferred concept for the park. A Steering Committee comprised of invited participants, including Park Board members, Carmel and Clay Township elected officials, and community members involved with Citizen Science or that live close to the park, provided leadership and guidance for the development of the park. The Steering Committee was a sounding board for design ideas and sharpened concepts before they were presented to the public. 2.0 PROCESS AND FINDINGS The team also held sessions with stakeholder groups including elementary, middle and high school students, environmental stewardship professionals, neighboring property owners, nearby school administrators and teachers, representatives of the planned Islamic Life Center, and the Carmel Mayor’s Youth Council. The first public input meeting introduced the public to the park and asked attendees to identify desirable design themes and priorities. The second shared the findings from the first round of public input and asked participants to identify the types of park programming that should (or should not) be planned in the new park. The third presented three illustrated conceptual alternatives of the park and asked participants to identify the concept or the parts of a concept that most appealed to them. Figure 8: Photos of public & stakeholder engagment processFigure 7: Project arc 2.0 Process and Findings 14Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan13 Once a monthOnce a week or moreAverage age of respondents: 10% 8% 25%20% 15% 30% 92%10 + m iles 5-10 miles3-5 milesLes s t han a mile1-3 mil e s When visiting the park, survey respondentsdesign priorities... What are we from Carmel/Clay Parks missing? Which do you use most often? park *Number of responses 29%exploration25%passive recreationWest ParkCentral Park Hazel Landing23%adventureseasonal interestHow do you typically travel to a Carmel/Clay Park? What do you do when you visit a Carmel/Clay Park? What experiences would you like to try at Bear Creek Park? Bike Drive Walk Other Walking/Hiking trails Playground + Creek stomping Nature center3rd2nd1st I’ve never been 35% How often do you use a Carmel/Clay park? 12% 1% A couple times a year 90%5% 3% 2% 52% Total number of participants:867 0% 13% 42% 28% 8% 7% 2% <18 18 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 -60 61 - 70 71+TrailsEnjoy the parkExercisePicnicUse greenspacePlaygroundSplashpadsRecreationNature watching Socialize 491 323 201 113 168 420 340 215 11545No Y e s How close do you live from Bear Creek park? Have you visited Bear Creek park? WHAT WE HEARD... SUMMARY 4% BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN Want to hear more?Figure 9: Public input survey summary WHAT WE HEARD 2.0 Process and Findings 16Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan15 Want to find out more? WHAT WE HEARD... PROGRAMMING "More trails"” "Sitting areas, restrooms"” "fire rings for campfires, outdoor cooking..." "Volleyball, basketball, tennis courts need to be there"” "Kids adventure stuff"” "Place for a large family reunion with kitchen access and indoor/outdoor hangout space."”"We just love the wildlife and nature"” "I’d love to see another championship level disc golf course"” "Need less car parking. We need to limit cars and encourage arriving by bike"” More splash pads and kids activities"” BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN NATURE CENTRIC PROGRAMMING ECOLOGICAL SCALE STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING Figure 10: Public input survey programming summary 2.0 Process and Findings 18Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan17 Participants at the public input meetings were encouraged to identify their preferences using colored sticker voting, and by writing notes directly on the meeting boards. In addition, an online tool was developed for each round of public input that enabled participants to ‘vote’ for their preferences online in a way that closely mimicked the in-person experience. Participants were encouraged to participate in person and online. Summaries of the feedback collected through the online tool can be found in the appendices. The Steering Committee previewed content developed for each round of public input and provided recommendations for modifying the approach, presentation, or content. Content shared at public input meetings was also presented at the stakeholder sessions. Depending on the size of the group (or in the case of the students, the age), the team collected feedback and responses with a question and answer period, engagement with boards, and in one session a design charrette with teens from the Carmel Mayor’s Youth Council. 2.2 OPPORTUNITIES AND FUNCTION A goal of the master plan was to have the community provide guidance on the park, as discussed in the Community Engagement portion of this report. But, because the park was private property until 2020, most of the community had little exposure to the site. Bear Creek Park wasn’t just going to be a brand new park, it was also a brand new ‘place’ that most people had never had the chance to experience. Getting the community on site and in the park was critical for them to be able to share their expectations for the park. As part of the master planning process, Bear Creek Park was opened on a limited basis. CCPR mowed paths through the park, provided a small (8-car) gravel parking lot, and opened Bear Creek Park for limited hours on the weekend. They advertised the park’s opening at the community engagement events, on their website, and in e-newsletters sent directly to those on the Bear Creek Park mailing list. In addition, some public engagement events were held in the park to encourage participants to come to the site. Several events included walking tours of the property. By opening the park before it was developed, participants in the community engagement process were able to share first-hand experiences in the park and use these experiences to shape their expectations for the park. It is not common for a parks department to open a park before it is developed. The resulting feedback from the community was different than what would typically be expected and strongly shaped the outcome of the park’s master plan. Specifically, the balance between the various vegetative covers and the site grading emerged as strong attributes of the park. Figure 11: Stakeholder Tour of Bear Creek Park Figure 12: Design Opportunities 2.0 Process and Findings 20Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan19 Want to find out more? AN ACTIVATED ESCAPE RECREATION PLAY GATHER A RESILIENT MODEL ECOLOGY OPERATION A CONNECTED EXPERIENCE CULTURE EDUCATION MOBILITY VISION AND DESIGN DRIVERS Carmel Clay’s most innovative, inclusive, and resilient community park that is grounded in the site’s natural fabric and shaped by the northwest side’s need for a unique and culturally connected experience. „The People’s Park „Embrace the Bear „Engage the Bear „Bear Sightings „Activity Zones „Community Rooms „Celebrate Ecology „Leverage Disturbance „A confluence of Corridors BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN VISION DESIGN DRIVERS the Bear Creek corridor, as the foundation of the park’s visitor experience. It also seeks a balance between ecological health and critical community needs for multi- generational recreation, inclusive play, and community gathering experiences that reinforce healthy living and community vitality. The plan is also informed by past development and leverages areas of human disturbance as opportunity areas for more intensive development, including the former home site, northern oak room openings, recently planted landscapes, and more disturbed natural areas along the creek corridor. Further, the plan is mindful of operations and maintenance associated with proposed natural and built elements, and its program carefully considers appropriate levels of cost recovery to ensure operational and financial sustainability. A CONNECTED EXPERIENCE Bear Creek Park sits at the confluence of community, culture, and ecology, creating the opportunity for a park that is connected to the community from a physical mobility perspective through adjacent trails and greenways, culturally through its spaces for community programming and events, and educationally through immersive trails and exploration embedded in the park’s ecological setting. This mix of activities and connections creates “Bear Sightings” where intentional interactions between park users and nature create innovative experiences to see and be seen in. It is equal parts natural oasis and people’s park, shaped by needs at the neighborhood and community scale, and designed to integrate seamlessly into adjacent green and blueway corridors, and residential developments currently in planning or under development described in Section 3. 2.3 DESIGN DRIVERS The design team collaborated with the community, project Steering Committee, and CCPR team to identify appropriate design drivers that reflect opportunities and aspirations for the site based on early analysis and input from the aforementioned groups. The drivers were used to guide programming and the development of site plan alternatives described in Section 2.4. Nine drivers were developed, organized into three themes: „An Activated Escape With a focus on the park’s role in providing recreational and community spaces for gathering and play, an important need identified for this rapidly growing part of the community with a heavy youth and family concentration. „A Resilient Model Leveraging the site’s existing and potential natural resources and appropriate levels of cost recovery to create a park that is both ecologically and economically sustainable and adaptable over time. „A Connected Experience Highlighting the opportunities for the park to connect visitors physically, culturally, and educationally to the park’s amenities and experiences. AN ACTIVATED ESCAPE Bear Creek Park resides in a growing section of the community that is home to a high density of families underserved by park amenities and programming. As such the plan aims to provide places for all-season recreation, play, and community gathering to fill this need, integrated sensitively into the site’s natural setting of upland and bottomland landscapes. Leveraging the creek corridor, it “Engages the Bear” by bringing programming to the edges of the corridor, creating a range of passive and more actively programmed spaces that are shaped by community needs and informed by their natural setting. Key components include: „Activity Zones that are influenced by their context to the site and surroundings, including adjacent neighbors seeking quiet and a buffer from park activities, and louder spaces along adjacent busy roadways that are more suitable for more active programming and facility development. This approach creates an intentional balance of spaces to engage in play and community activities, to unplug in more passive but programmed areas, and to be immersed in natural, interpretive settings. „Community Rooms for more intensive programming and community events, shaped by the park’s planted landscapes including the more formal, gridded “oak rooms” along the northern park edge, expansive planted prairies immediately north and south of Bear Creek, and the landscapes surrounding the former home site and existing barn. A RESILIENT MODEL Bear Creek Park is comprised of an interwoven network of natural and planted landscapes including savannas, prairies, woodlands, riparian corridors, and the gridded oak plantation along the north property edge. The plan aims to create “A Bigger Bear” that enhances and celebrates these ecological communities, in particular Design Drivers „The People’s Park „Embrace the Bear „Engage the Bear „Bear Sightings „Activity Zones „Community Rooms „Celebrate Ecology „Leverage Disturbances „A Confluence of Corridors Figure 13: Diagram of project vision and design drivers 2.0 Process and Findings 22Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan21 Figure 14: Design driver: Resiliency 2.0 Process and Findings 24Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan23 AN ACTIVATED ESCAPE RECREATION PLAY GATHER Want to find out more? DESIGN DRIVERS BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN ACTIVATED ENGAGE THE BEAR | SHAPED BY COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES | | INFORMED BY CONTEXT | ACTIVITY ZONES COMMUNITY ROOMS| DEFINED BY SPACES | Figure 15: Design Driver: Activated 2.0 Process and Findings 26Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan25 Figure 16: Design Driver: Connected 2.0 Process and Findings 28Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan27 Want to find out more? MASTER PLAN 1. NORTH CAMPUS 2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 3. SOUTH TOWER 4. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 5. OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS 6. NATURE PLAY (PLAYGROUND) 7. WATER PLAY 8. BOARDWALK 9. PRAIRIE TRAIL 10. WOODLAND TRAIL 11. RIDGE TRAIL / OVERLOOKS 12. VEGETATIVE BUFFER 13. GATEWAY/ENTRY FEATURE 14. RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF 15. PICNIC GROVE WITH FLEX LAWN 16. PARK ROAD 17. NORTH TOWER AT OBSERVATION KNOLL IMPACT: 18% of Site RESTORATION 82% of Site 1 5 6 7 17 16 16 8 10 12 12 12 12 12 9 15 13 134 14 14 2 3 11 NE | BEAR TOWERS AREA OF IMPACT VS. RESTORATION 0 100’ 200’ BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE TWO | BRAIDED BEAR 1 18 18 18 19 14 12 12 11 12 20 20 12 9 16 16 17 13 13 7 86 10 3 5 5 154 2 Want to find out more? BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE TWO | BRAIDED BEAR 1. ‘NORTH CAMP’2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF3. ‘SOUTH CAMP’4. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF5. OUTDOOR CLASSROOM6. CANOPY PLAY7. CREEK STOMPING8. BOARDWALK WITH INTERPRETIVE KIOSKS9. PRAIRIE TRAIL10. WOODLAND TRAIL11. OVERLOOK12. VEGETATIVE BUFFER13. GATEWAY/ENTRY FEATURE14. RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF 15. EVENT LAWN 16. PARK ROAD 17. OAK GROVE ROOMS 18. PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS 19. VEHICULAR BRIDGE 20. PICNIC SHELTER IMPACT: 20% of Site RESTORATION 80% of Site AREA OF IMPACT VS. RESTORATION 11 11 18 7 20 16 12 12 12 12 9 10 16 8 13 13 19 19 14 6 4 63 17 5 115 2 0 100’ 200’ 2.4 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES Based on the project vision, design drivers, and consensus program, the design team developed three distinctive concept alternatives of what Bear Creek Park could become. Each concept was based on a consistent program but illustrated dramatically different approaches to key project elements, including ecology, activities, facilities, and connections. Meeting participants were asked their preference between the three holistic concepts as well as the individual elements to provide guidance towards one preferred alternative. Alternative One, Bear Towers, is anchored by two dramatic viewing and activity towers, one north and one south of Bear Creek. It also features a centralized “base camp” that leverages oak openings in the northwestern section of the park as the location for a single year-round pavilion and associated plazas and parking areas. Play, spray, and more active recreational programming is clustered in the northeast “oak rooms” adjacent to the northern tower. More passive picnic groves and shelters are located south of Bear Creek. The creek itself is ecologically restored but its current alignment left largely intact. A hierarchy of paved, aggregate, and boardwalk trails link the site together from a pedestrian perspective, with two pedestrian crossings of Bear Creek. Park roadways do not cross the creek in this alternative. Alternative Two, Braided Bear, features a more extensive restoration and reconfiguration of Bear Creek into a larger, “braided” pattern. Above it is a dramatic “canopy play” feature along the southwestern creek bluff, leveraging the former house site for landside picnicking, support facilities, and parking. At creek level is an extensive, gridded network of boardwalks and open-air interpretive shelters and kiosks. Activity areas are balanced between the north and south park zones, with play and spray located south of the creek, and a campus of year-round pavilions and open-air shelters located to the north in the oak rooms. A hierarchy of paved and aggregate trails link pedestrians throughout the site, including two “low” creek crossings that complement the upper crossing provided by the canopy play structures. Park roadways are designed to cross Bear Creek in this alternative, with a dramatic road and trail bridge providing a north-south vehicular link between the two park zones. Alternative Three, Wandering Bear, also features a more extensive restoration and reconfiguration of Bear Creek, this time into a more sinuous, meandering or “wandering” alignment that is mirrored by an adjacent boardwalk. It also includes a more undulating network of upper and lower landforms and pedestrian trails that create a dramatic sculpture quality to the park’s prairies and bottomlands while making them feel larger to the pedestrian’s eye. This alternative takes the most decentralized approach to activities and facilities, with a campus of year-round and open-air pavilions to the north, a southern picnic grove with shelters, toilets, and parking. Play and spray is clustered near the creek itself. This concept includes the most extensive network of trails of boardwalks with two lower-level pedestrian creek crossings and, like alternative one, no roadway crossings of Bear Creek. Figure 17: Alternative 1 conceptual plan Figure 18: Alternative 2 conceptual plan Figure 19: Alternative 3 conceptual plan ALTERNATIVE ONE | BEAR TOWERS ALTERNATIVE TWO | BRAIDED BEAR ALTERNATIVE THREE | WANDERING BEAR 1. ‘NORTH CAMP’ 2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 3. ‘SOUTH CAMP’ 4. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 5. OUTDOOR CLASSROOM 6. CANOPY PLAY 7. CREEK STOMPING 8. BOARDWALK WITH INTERPRETIVE KIOSKS 9. PRAIRIE TRAIL 10. WOODLAND TRAIL 1. ‘NORTH CAMP’ 2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 3. ‘SOUTH CAMP’ 4. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 5. CLASSROOM SHELTERS 6. NATURE PLAY (PLAYGROUND) 7. CREEK STOMPING 8. BOARDWALK 9. PRAIRIE TRAIL 10. WOODLAND TRAIL 11. OVERLOOK 12. VEGETATIVE BUFFER 13. GATEWAY/ENTRY FEATURE 14. RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF 15. EVENT LAWN 16. PARK ROAD 17. OAK GROVE ROOMS 18. PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS 19. VEHICULAR BRIDGE 20. PICNIC SHELTER 11. OVERLOOK MOUND 12. VEGETATIVE BUFFER 13. GATEWAY/ENTRY FEATURE 14. RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF 15. PICNIC GROVE, LAWN, AND SHELTERS 16. PARK ROAD 17. OAK GROVE ROOMS 18. RAISED MOUND, TYP. 19. TRIBUTARY POOLS 20. BLUFF CLIMB 1. NORTH CAMPUS 2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 3. SOUTH TOWER 4. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF 5. OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS 6. NATURE PLAY (PLAYGROUND) 7. WATER PLAY 8. BOARDWALK 9. PRAIRIE TRAIL WOODLAND TRAIL RIDGE TRAIL / OVERLOOKS VEGETATIVE BUFFER GATEWAY/ENTRY FEATURE RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF PICNIC GROVE WITH FLEX LAWN PARK ROAD NORTH TOWER AT OBSERVATION KNOLL NORTH CAMPUS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 30Carmel, Indiana 29  Bear Creek Park Master Plan Figure 20: Preferred Concept Master Plan 3.0 PREFERRED CONCEPT 1. COMMUNITY PAVILION 2. NORTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF (75 CAR) 3. CANOPY PLAY 4. SHELTER OUTPOST WITH TOILETS 5. OUTDOOR CLASSROOM 6. SCATTERED PLAY WITH ZIPLINE 7. CREEKWALK 8. ADVENTURE TOWER 9. PRAIRIE TRAIL 10. WOODLAND TRAIL 11. OVERLOOK 12. VEGETATIVE BUFFER 13. GATEWAY/TRAILHEAD 14. WATER PLAY & SHELTER 15. PROGRAM PLAZA 16. PICNIC GROVE WITH SHELTERS & STORAGE 17. SPORTS COURTS (BASKETBALL, GAGA BALL) 18. OVERLOOK/SHELTER 19. PRAIRIE 20. PRAIRIE SAVANNA 21. RESTORED TRIBUTARY AND BLUFF 22. BLUFF CLIMB 23. SOUTH PARKING WITH DROPOFF (50 CAR) 24. PRAIRIE THEATER PROPERTY BOUNDARY EASEMENT PAVED TRAIL SOFT SURFACE TRAIL BOARDWALK BUILDING/SHELTER SUSPENDED STRUCTURE TREES STAIRS LAWN PRAIRIE PRAIRIE SAVANNA CREEK MEADOW WOODLAND A preferred concept plan was developed that incorporated design ideas from all of the concept alternatives tested at Public Input Meeting #3, Steering Committee, and the CCPR team. The most significant components combined to form the preferred concept based on community feedback included, base camp; adventure tower; active recreation rooms within the oak grove; and the north parking lot; canopy play; a remeandered Bear Creek; and a smaller, southern picnic grove. The preferred concept shown here, is described in greater detail on the following pages. Recommendations proposed in the plan are organized in the following sections: „Ecological Function „Visitor Use and Experience „Park Structures „ Trail Systems and Connections 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 32Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan31 KEYMAP Figure 21: Illustrative site sections section asection b SECTION Alooking west SECTION Blooking south 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 34Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan33 KEYMAP Figure 22: Illustrative creek axonometric section SECTIONlooking northwest 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 36Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan35 3.1 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE PARK The master plan recognizes the distinguishing characteristics of Bear Creek Park, in particular the existing site grades and vegetation patterns. The master plan proposes a restoration of native vegetative communities at the park. More than 80% of the park is proposed to undergo restoration. The habitats proposed for the park are based on identifying appropriate native vegetative communities informed by the site in its current condition. The restoration actions proposed in the master plan are: 1. Re-meander Bear Creek. As noted in an earlier discussion, a 1998 aerial photo highlights a meander pattern in Bear Creek immediately west of the park property. The creek flows through long loops in a mostly open plain. Whereas the portion of Bear Creek within the park is seen in the photo to meander only slightly but remain mostly straight. Earlier photos of the site seem to suggest that Bear Figure 23: Cross section of Bear Creek Creek was straightened at some point. The relatively modest meanders seen in the park portion of Bear Creek suggest that by ‘98 the creek was working to reestablish meanders. Meandering is an important form for a creek for many reasons. First, riparian systems are intended to move dirt. They erode slope on the ‘cut’ side of their flow (outside curve) and redeposit on the ‘depositional’ side of flow (inside curve). In this way, if left unfettered, a natural creek will appear to ‘walk’ with the bends moving slowly downstream over time. Second, meanders enable a riparian system to let off heat. The more sinuous the flow the greater opportunity for the water to release the heat it carries from overland run off, direct solar warming, and friction. Third, in addition to improving the heat management of the creek, restoring the meanders increases the time it takes for water entering the site on the east to exit the site on the west. As the water passes through more shoreline habitat, it will be better cleaned through longer contact with shoreline emergent vegetation. Lastly, the increased duration of flow can also help slow down stream flooding. The meanders seen west of the park in the ‘98 photo represent what Bear Creek probably looked like before straightening. Among the first restoration efforts for the park should be to reestablish appropriate meanders to the creek. The ‘98 aerial photo should serve as a reference from which meander lengths and bow widths should be derived. The master plan illustrates an approximate meander alignment that should be refined with future design. 2. Bear Creek Meadow. In its current disposition the creek bottoms are over vegetated. There are too many canopy trees and shrubs. Historically these areas would have been managed by fire. Fire would have promoted the establishment of oaks and limited the establishment and development of other species less suited to fire. This would have meant the creek bottoms would have been more open. The native perennial vegetation that would have dominated a system such as this historically were sedge (Carex) meadow or wet prairie dominant. Few of the species found in these vegetative communities are shade tolerant. Existing canopy trees and shrubs should be heavily thinned in this area to reopen the creek bottoms for the establishment of Bear Creek Meadow. All invasive species should be removed and treated for resprouting. A sedge meadow dominated planting should be established in this portion of the park. 3. Mesic Prairie and Savanna. Where the grade moves up and away from seasonal to regular saturation and throughout the unmowed portions of the tree plantation area the site should be restored with mesic prairie species. Most of the interior of the site should be restored to mesic prairie. The two existing planted prairies are comprised of mostly mesic species. The master plan recommends preserving the existing prairies where possible and enhancing the prairies by expanding down the bluff or where existing woodland areas have been thinned. Tall grass prairie species such as big blue stem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 38Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan37 nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and sideoats grama grass (Bouteloua curtipendula) should dominate the planting, comprising approximately 70% of the cover. The shorter grasses, little bluestem and sideoats grama grass, should comprise more than 80% of the cover in the former tree plantation area. Existing invasive tree species in these portions of the park should be removed. The pasture grass that is currently found throughout the tree plantation portion of the site should be managed for removal. 4. Woodland Management. Like the creek bottoms the woods on site are over vegetated. Historically these areas would have been comprised of a more open wood structure and dominated by oaks. The master plan recommends thinning the existing woods on the edges of the park property and enhancing the screening where none currently exists. Thinning work should target invasive species of trees and shrubs and evergreen species. Enhancement should be focused on reestablishing a canopy cover of between 75-80% with desirable native flowering trees and shrubs in the understory. 5. Burning and Oaks. Historically Bear Creek Park would have been managed with fire. Even after initial pioneer settlement the site would have been burned to control annual growth. This type of vegetation management promoted the establishment of grassier vegetative communities such as meadows, prairies, and savannas. It also limited the types of trees and shrubs that could become established except in the coldest and wettest portions of the landscape. This favored oaks. Oaks, particularly white (Q. alba), swamp white (Q. bicolor) and bur (Q. macrocarpa) oaks, were historically the dominant tree species throughout Indiana and most of the United States for centuries. It’s no wonder then that oaks (white, swamp white, and bur) provide the greatest habitat value for the most number of native fauna. Throughout Bear Creek Park oaks should be established and promoted in all the major vegetative communities proposed above. In the meadows and woods, they should form the dominant canopy species and comprise the dominant canopy structure (45-60%; meadow; 75-80% woods and property screening). In the prairie and savanna areas they should comprise between 1-45% canopy cover. Controlled burns should be used to manage vegetation on site. All of the vegetative communities proposed in the master plan were historically managed with burning. Historically most of these communities were burned every one to three years. If possible, burning should be reestablished as a vegetation management tool. While it can be intimidating for many at first, including neighbors, many communities especially in the upper Midwest have learned to embrace seasonal burning. When conducted and controlled by professionals, controlled burns are very safe. Additional design is needed for the development of more complete restoration recommendations. This is especially true with regards to Bear Creek. The restoration recommendations proposed above are intended to guide the further design of these portions of the site and the selection of appropriate species for seeding or planting. Figure 24: Tree canopy diagram EXISTING VEGETATION COVER PROPOSED VEGETATION COVER 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 40Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan39 Figure 25: Vegetative biome diagram 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 42Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan41 Figure 26: Vignette perspective along the realigned creek 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 44Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan43 of the activity tower provides a visual landmark from 146th Street that identifies both the park’s presence and exciting character to passersby. THE PERCH Located at the former home site on the south bluff facing Bear Creek, is the launching point for canopy play and related structures set at varying heights within the adjacent mature tree canopy that also serves as an upper-level creek crossing. With spaces for active play and socialization, as well as nature interpretation and quiet escape, it creates a park experience like no other in the region. CREEKSIDE Follows the lower creek corridor and is activated by an extensive interpretive boardwalk network and related shelters and kiosks. It is designed to link into regional trails as they develop over time in the Bear Creek greenway to the west. Inspired by the gridded pattern of the site’s existing oak plantation, the boardwalks have been designed as both a circulation element and part of the multi-tiered BASE CAMP Located along the north edge of the park and anchored by the year-round pavilion as described in section 3.3, with associated plazas, open-air shelters, and parking. THE OAK ROOMS Home to the north activity tower, play and spray facilities, ziplines, sports courts, and flexible outdoor rooms for small gatherings and outdoor classroom activities. These uses, like Base Camp, are intentionally located away from adjacent neighbors and nestled into openings or “rooms” within the gridded oak plantation along the north edge of the park. The location 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE PARK As noted previously, the plan seeks to create an activated escape for neighbors and residents of Carmel’s northwest side to serve the growing density of families currently underserved by recreational programming and amenities. The location and organization of activities and facilities is guided by the goal of a culturally connected and immersive visitor experience that is embedded in the park’s ecological systems. As illustrated on page 44, the park’s programming is primarily passive recreation with concentrated clusters of more active uses and support amenities including: Figure 27: Park programmed spaces Figure 28: Activity zones diagram 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 46Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan45 educational program of the park. Their immersion into the Bear Creek bottomlands, including strategically located open air shelters and kiosks, create a linear outdoor classroom that complements more formal indoor and outdoor spaces in the Base Camp and Oak Rooms areas. If "The Perch" is the place for canopy play, the Creekside boardwalks are nature’s playground and classroom. SOUTH PRAIRIE Includes the open spaces south of Bear Creek and is home to a flexible picnic grove with supporting lawn, shelters, toilets, and parking that are both a destination and support for a network of nature trails and interpretation opportunities set in the prairie, savanna, and woodlands south of Bear Creek. They are also designed to support and complement the adjacent canopy play in The Perch. Figure 29: Vignette perspective along the realigned creek 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 48Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan47 Figure 30: Program and use diagram 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 50Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan49 Figure 31: Concept of main structure in preferred alternate Figure 32: Views of main structure 3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARK STRUCTURES MAIN STRUCTURE Inspired by the experience of exploring the natural world, the architecture of the structures is an ode to the excitement and surprise of discovering unexpected landscape features and the environments they can create. The memories of walking along, and splashing in the creek beds of central Indiana, similar to Bear Creek, is pervasive in the consciousness of those who grew up in this region. The serendipity of surprising and delightful discoveries (fossils, bends, plunge pools, etc) along these streams creates a lasting impression that the architecture of Bear Creek Park aims to evoke. The massing of the building has a monolithic character and rises from grade as though the ground has been stripped way, revealing the building’s forms and surfaces, similar to the geological forms that dot the creek beds of the area. The angular building forms imply an irregularity typical of the natural world, and the relationships of the masses create unique, inhabitable spaces that can surprise and delight their occupants. The arrangement of these masses and forms communicates hierarchy of building program creating an implied wayfinding element. The building’s architecture signals to the visitors the location of key spaces such as the activity rooms. At this concept phase, exploration of building skins and materiality provides a range of solutions to consider. However, the application and detailing of the envelope aims to reinforce its monolithic nature. A common material should wrap corners, including those from wall to roof as the structure is designed to be seen from across the park and whose pitched roofs will be visible from grade. Openings in the structure’s envelope emulate the angular shapes and forms, furthering the allusion of geological features expressing themselves in the park’s landscape. These openings reveal a material change evocative of the gems or fossils that often hide within. STRUCTURE FUNCTION & SPACE PROGRAM The main structure is intended to be used primarily for summer camp and educational opportunities, accommodating approximately ninety students in two adjacent spaces that have been sized for forty-five students each, based on an anticipated allowance of 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 52Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan51 Figure 33: Northeast view of main structure 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 54Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan53 Figure 34: Southeast view of main structure 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 56Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan55 Figure 35: Southwest view of main structure 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 58Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan57 Figure 36: Material options for the main structure 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 60Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan59 thirty (30) square feet per student. A movable partition is suggested between the classrooms that can be opened up to allow for a single space that could accommodate a larger group. Secondary usage for the rooms would be as small rental opportunities to the public. Larger rental space needs are anticipated to continue to be at other locations in the CCPR system. The building program also includes necessary support features including restrooms (both public facilities and a unisex single use facility), a staff breakroom, and an isolation room adjacent to the staff breakroom for housing ill students until they can be relocated off site. Additional building program needs include a maintenance closet accessible from the exterior of the building and storage spacefor table, chairs, camp supplies, etc. that is relatively accessible from the classroom spaces. The men’s and women’s restrooms and the corridor leading to them is anticipated to be constructed of an independent structural system that would be resistant to severe weather events such as tornados that are typical to Indiana. Standard recommendations for these types of spaces that would be used for short durations would be three (3) square feet per person, for approximately ninety (90) students and ten (10) accompanying staff. This equates to a need of approximately 300 square feet, which is easily accommodated in the above-mentioned spaces. The building is anticipated to be climate controlled for year-round use and floor space has been allocated for both mechanical and electrical needs to support the various building systems including Wi-Fi capabilities throughout the facility. SUSTAINABILITY Initial conversations with CCPR indicate a desire to have this facility LEED certified, which can be pursued based on the initial design concept presented in the Master Plan document. Implementation of a sustainability strategy for the main structure should focus on four areas, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, and indoor environmental quality. Water efficiency will endeavor to reduce demand of water consumption through the installation and use of efficient plumbing fixtures and identify any inefficacies through monitoring of the systems wholistically. One of the greatest opportunities to improve the performance of buildings and structures and reduce their environmental impact is strategic design of the building envelope and HVAC systems. Increased insulation performance combined with passive solar design will reduce the heating and cooling loads on the HVAC system, resulting in reducing energy consumption. Furthermore, metering and controls of the system can reduce that demand even further, not only minimizing the impact on the environment, but also realizing cost savings associated with the purchase and use of energy. Intentional selection of sustainable building materials can affect the impacts an industry has on the environment. Sourcing of materials that are recycled, renewable, or have long life cycles reduces the demand on virgin materials. Reduction of waste and selective means of disposal will reduce the cumulative impact on our landfills and incineration facilities. While sustainability may emphasize the reduction of impacts on the environment, it also aims to address the health and well-being of building occupants. Improving the quality of life through air quality management, daylighting, and thermal comfort all contribute to the extended use of structures and the functions they support. MAIN STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION COST Based on the architect’s understanding of the current volatile construction market, the architect advises a budget of $3 million dollars for construction of the Main Structure. This budget would be for construction of the facility only and would not include cost to develop the adjacent site costs or connect to utilities. This includes both a continency and escalation factors based on the assumption that the facility would be completed within three (3) years. SECONDARY & OPEN-AIR STRUCTURES The design of the Secondary and Open-Air Structures is anticipated to be derivative of the Main Structure. Structures will vary in their inclusion of public restroom spaces, storage spaces, and the number of amenities found within each of the structures. Figure 37: Shelter studies 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 62Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan61 1460 SF ACTIVITY ROOM 1470 SF ACTIVITY ROOM 340 SF MAINTENANCE 170 SF RESTROOM 140 SF RESTROOM 100 SF UTILITY 820 SF LOBBY / PRE-FUNCTION 180 SF STORAGE 50 SF TOILET 90 SF ISOLATION 250 SF STAFF 200 SF MECHANICAL 840 SF OPEN-AIR SHELTER (OPTIONAL) 150 SF VESTIBULE 120 SF VEST. 220 SF STORAGE STORM SHELTER 1" = 10'-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN01 P ACTIVITY ACTIVITY MAINTEN RESTROO RESTROO UTILITY LOBBY / STORAGE TOILET ISOLATIO STAFF MECHAN VESTIBUL CORRIDO VEST. STORAGE The architectural design of the secondary and open-air structures will extend the motif and theme established by the main structure. The allusion of geological features presenting themselves as shelters and functional spaces through the park will unify the park through a consistent motif. The shelters will employ the same form and materiality as the main structure, but each structure’s functional program will inform the structure’s openness. Shelters may only provide overhead cover, while those structures with enclosed space, such as restrooms, will enclose the structures on one or more sides. Some shelters may take advantage of the architectural language to extend the enclosure to grade on one or more sides to obstruct views or create protected spaces by screening winds or sound. SECONDARY & OPEN-AIR CONSTRUCTION COST Based on the architect’s understanding of the current volatile construction market, the architect advises a budget between $250,000 and $500,000 dollars for construction of each of the secondary and open-air structures depending on the inclusion of restroom and storage space. This budget would be for construction of the facility only and would not include any adjacent site costs or site utility costs. This includes both a continency and escalation factors based on the assumption that the facility would be completed within three (3) years. PROJECT DELIVERY & DESIGN PROCESS Following this initial, conceptual, design phase, successive projects can be packaged and developed to align with funding timelines and the timing of other project scopes. Whether it is a standalone project or part of other park project scopes, the design of the main structure would benefit from the following design phases prior to procurement of the construction contract: schematic design, design development, and construction documentation. Typical schematic design tasks would be to verify the space program, refine the envelope design, and develop the interior floor plan. This phase would include one or two design review meetings with project stakeholders and a design deliverable consisting of both design drawings and project scope narratives. The design development phase would further the efforts of schematic design to include refinement of the design and selection of building systems and materials. Deliverables in this phase would include presentation drawings, preliminary construction drawings, and proposed material specifications. The construction document phase is aimed at creating bidding documents that clearly communicate design intention through drawings and specifications. These documents are then used by contractors or construction managers to provide a competitive bid for the cost of the work. Each phase should include stakeholder design reviews and signoffs and an evaluation of anticipated construction cost as the scope is defined in greater detail. This estimate can be performed by the design team, or an outside party can be brought in with specific expertise in construction estimating. Figure 38: Main structure programming 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 64Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan63 3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRAIL SYSTEM AND CONNECTIONS Part of creating a connected experience for Bear Creek Park visitors includes developing a rich network of trails within the park as well as connections to the surrounding system of trails and regional greenways. It also includes vehicular connections and parking for those that must drive to Bear Creek Park. The following outlines key components of the plan illustrated on this page: PARK TRAILS How users and visitors experience Bear Creek Park is as important as the uses that are proposed for the park and the restoration of habitat areas within the park. The master plan concentrated on developing a loop trail that moves users around the park and across the creek. The outer loop trail is planned to be accessible from Shelborne Road, and the anticipated future greenway west and east of the park. Trail activity is concentrated at the creek with boardwalks that crisscross the creek experience and the canopy play area. Additional trails provide access at the north end of the park to the play experiences and the adventure tower. The plan includes over 1.5 miles of paved, aggregate and boardwalk trails that connect park attractions and unique experiences in all seasons. All trails are to be universally accessible and are themed by the ecological communities they serve (Prairie Trail, Woodland Trail, Creekside Trail) with associated wayfinding and interpretive information as appropriate. They are also designed to provide multiple loop options within the park and provide corridors for snow-related recreation as weather permits. In addition to the permanent paved, aggregate, and boardwalk trails mentioned above, the plan provides the potential for more tactical, temporary mown trails that could be added to both the north and south prairie areas by the CCPR team on a seasonal basis. This represents an opportunity to create an evolving user experience as dynamic as the spaces they traverse. NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONS To encourage bike and pedestrian trips to Bear Creek Park from the surrounding community, proposed park trails are designed to link to adjacent community trails along the north and east park boundaries, with four entrances and trailheads as noted on the adjacent diagram. This plan strongly supports the City’s continued development of regional trail connections along the Shelborne Road and W. 146th Street corridors to provide this non- motorized access. REGIONAL CONNECTIONS The park’s location along Bear Creek creates the potential for regional greenway trail connections as improvements are made in the creek corridor to the west and east of the park. Park trails, and associated entries and trailheads, are planned to support these regional connections in the future, with a long-term goal of linking to the Lower Eagle Creek regional open space corridor to the west. ROADS AND PARKING Bear Creek Park is a community park intended to serve visitors from zero to three miles away that may choose to Figure 39: Trails and connections diagram 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 66Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan65 Client Carmel-Clay Parks and RecreationProjectBear Creek Master PlanProject #13143DetailOpinion of Probable CostDate4/20/2022PhasePreferred Alternative | Packet A Item Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal Site Preparation and Earthwork 1.Subsurface Investigation 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.Erosion Control 1 LS 47,000.00$ 47,000.00$ 3.Clear and Grub 1 LS 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$ 4.Selective Site Demo 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5.Grading and Earthwork 28200 SY 10.00$ 282,000.00$ 6.Fine Grading 50000 SF 0.50$ 25,000.00$ 7.Temporary Project Signage and Fencing 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 8.Construction Layout 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 448,000.00$ Overall Site Improvements 1.Signage 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 2.Gateway Entry Signage 1 EA 66,000.00$ 66,000.00$ 3.Concrete Pavement 16700 SF 8.00$ 133,600.00$ 4.Asphalt Pavement - Road 36800 SF 7.50$ 276,000.00$ 5.Asphalt Pavement - Path 16200 SF 4.00$ 64,800.00$ 6.Gravel Path 6500 SF 31.00$ 201,500.00$ 7.Nature Play 1 LS 610,000.00$ 610,000.00$ 8.Outdoor Classrooms 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 9.Overlook 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 10.Stone Steps (per stone slab)280 EA 3,100.00$ 868,000.00$ 11.Basketball Courts 2 EA 40,000.00$ 80,000.00$ 12.Gaga Ball 1 EA 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 13.Site Furnishings 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 14.Sanitary Service 1 LS 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 15.Electrical Service 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 16.Water Service 1 LS 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ Landscape 17.Turf Sod 1600 SY 18.00$ 28,800.00$ 18.Trees 200 EA 750.00$ 150,000.00$ 19.Accent Planting 1 LS 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$ Subtotal 2,703,700.00$ Buildings 1.Secondary Structure w/ Restrooms or Storage 1 EA 380,000.00$ 380,000.00$ 2.Open Air Structure (Picnic Shelter)2 EA 75,000.00$ 150,000.00$ Subtotal 530,000.00$ Vegetative Restoration 1.Woodland Resortaion 172,000 SF 0.50$ 86,000.00$ Subtotal 86,000.00$ Construction Subtotal 3,767,700$ Bonds and Insurance 1.5%56,500.00$ Mobilization 2%85,000.00$ Escalator 3%2 years 226,000.00$ Construction Contingency & Remaining Elements 20%753,500.00$ Construction Total 4,888,700$ Design/Engineering/Permits/Site Investigations 15%733,300.00$ Project Total (Construction, design, contingency and permitting)5,622,000$ SmithGroup 233 North W BUNDLE A drive to the park at varying frequencies. As such, the plan includes two vehicular entrances and parking clusters, including a north entrance with a primary parking lot of 75-100 cars and an east entrance with 40-50 parking spaces near the amenities south of Bear Creek. Pavement throughout the parking bays will be permeable to increase bio-filtration and limit runoff of Total Suspended Solids into the restored habitats. Connections between the north and south park areas are made by trail only. There are no roads planned for the park. One of the draft alternatives (Braided Bear) explored a road that connected the north and south sides of the park, but community feedback was clear, this was not strongly desired. The master plan proposes driveways that direct visitors arriving by vehicle to parking lots quickly and with minimal impact. The drive on the south side follows closely the alignment of the existing drive with some modification to provide a better buffer between the park and immediately adjacent properties to the south. 3.5 PROJECT PHASING Implementation of the master plan is expected to be developed over time as funding sources become available. Bundles of development that would allow for independent construction of different portions of the design were identified. The components of the bundles are described on the following pages. Figure 40: Project phasing diagram 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 68Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan67 BUNDLE B Client Carmel-Clay Parks and RecreationProjectBear Creek Master Plan Project #13143 Detail Opinion of Probable Cost Date 4/20/2022 Phase Preferred Alternative | Packet C Item Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal Site Preparation and Earthwork 1.Subsurface Investigation 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.Erosion Control 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 3.Clear and Grub 1 LS 25,000.00$ 5.00$ 4.Selective Site Demo 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5.Grading and Earthwork 4000 SY 10.00$ 40,000.00$ 6.Fine Grading 25000 SF 0.50$ 12,500.00$ 7.Temporary Project Signage and Fencing 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 8.Construction Layout 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 129,505.00$ Overall Site Improvements 1.Signage 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 2.Concrete Pavement 29000 SF 8.00$ 232,000.00$ 3.Concrete Steps 721 LF 400.00$ 288,400.00$ 4.Site Furnishings 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 5.Sanitary Service 1 LS 33,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 6.Electrical Service 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 7.Water Service 1 LS 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$ Landscape 8.Turf Sod 275 SY 18.00$ 4,950.00$ 9.Trees 4 EA 750.00$ 3,000.00$ 10.Accent Planting 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 673,350.00$ Buildings 1.Community Pavilion 1 LS 3,000,000.00$ 3,000,000.00$ 2.Open Air Structure (Trellis)2 EA 75,000.00$ 150,000.00$ Subtotal 3,150,000.00$ Construction Subtotal 3,952,855$ Bonds and Insurance 1.5%59,300.00$ Mobilization 2%89,000.00$ Escalator 3%2 years 237,000.00$ Construction Contingency & Remaining Elements 20%790,600.00$ Construction Total 5,128,755$ Design/Engineering/Permits/Site Investigations 15%769,300.00$ Project Total (Construction, design, contingency and permitting)5,898,055$ SmithGroup 233 North Water Street, Suite 502, Milw BUNDLE C Client Carmel-Clay Parks and RecreationProjectBear Creek Master PlanProject #13143DetailOpinion of Probable Cost Date 4/20/2022 Phase Preferred Alternative | Packet B Item Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal Site Preparation and Earthwork 1.Subsurface Investigation 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.Erosion Control 1 LS 47,000.00$ 47,000.00$ 3.Clear and Grub 1 LS 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$ 4.Selective Site Demo 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5.Grading and Earthwork 12000 SY 10.00$ 120,000.00$ 6.Fine Grading 25500 SF 0.50$ 12,750.00$ 7.Temporary Project Signage and Fencing 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 8.Construction Layout 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 273,750.00$ Overall Site Improvements 1.Signage 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2.Gateway Entry Signage 2 EA 66,000.00$ 132,000.00$ 3.Adventure Tower 1 LS 410,000.00$ 410,000.00$ 4.Water Play 1 LS 750,000.00$ 750,000.00$ 5.Zip-Line 1 LS 85,000.00$ 85,000.00$ 6.Site Furnishings 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 7.Sanitary Service 1 LS 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 8.Electrical Service 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 9.Water Service 1 LS 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ Landscape 10.Turf Sod 4055 SY 18.00$ 72,990.00$ 11.Trees 650 EA 750.00$ 487,500.00$ 12.Accent Planting 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Subtotal 2,046,490.00$ Buildings 1.Secondary Structure w/ Restrooms or Storage 1 EA 178,000.00$ 178,000.00$ 2.Open Air Structure (Picnic Shelter/Trellis)3 EA 75,000.00$ 225,000.00$ Subtotal 403,000.00$ Construction Subtotal 2,723,240$ Bonds and Insurance 1.5%40,800.00$ Mobilization 2%61,000.00$ Escalator 3%2 years 163,000.00$ Construction Contingency & Remaining Elements 20%544,600.00$ Construction Total 3,532,640$ Design/Engineering/Permits/Site Investigations 15%529,900.00$ Project Total (Construction, design, contingency and permitting)4,062,540$ SmithGroup 233 North Water Street, Suite 502, Milwaukee, WI 53202 T 414.615.9570 Packet B 5/6/2022 https://smithgroup4.sharepoint.com/sites/PRJ-13143-SmithGroup/Shared Documents/SmithGroup/ADMIN/ProjInfo/Cost/OPPC 2022 0420 Preferred Alt Bundles.xlsx Page 1 of 1 3.0 preferred CONCEPT 70Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan69 BUNDLE D BUNDLE E Client Carmel-Clay Parks and RecreationProjectBear Creek Master PlanProject #13143DetailOpinion of Probable CostDate 4/20/2022PhasePreferred Alternative | Packet E Item Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal Site Preparation and Earthwork 1.Subsurface Investigation 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.Erosion Control 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 3.Clear and Grub 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 4.Selective Site Demo 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5.Grading and Earthwork 5500 SY 10.00$ 55,000.00$ 6.Fine Grading 25500 SF 0.50$ 12,750.00$ 7.Temporary Project Signage and Fencing 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 8.Construction Layout 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 169,750.00$ Overall Site Improvements 1.Signage 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2.Tree House Play (The Perch)1 LS 2,250,000.00$ 2,250,000.00$ 3.Site Furnishings 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4.Electrical Service 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Landscape 5.Turf Sod 4055 SY 18.00$ 72,990.00$ 6.Trees 650 EA 750.00$ 487,500.00$ 7.Accent Planting 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Subtotal 2,870,490.00$ Construction Subtotal 3,040,240$ Bonds and Insurance 1.5%45,600.00$ Mobilization 2%68,000.00$ Escalator 3%2 years 182,000.00$ Construction Contingency & Remaining Elements 20%608,000.00$ Construction Total 3,943,840$ Design/Engineering/Permits/Site Investigations 15%591,600.00$ Project Total (Construction, design, contingency and permitting)4,535,440$ SmithGroup 233 North Water Street, Suite 502, Milwaukee, WI 53202 T 414.61https://smithgroup4. Client Carmel-Clay Parks and Recreation Project Bear Creek Master PlanProject #13143 Detail Opinion of Probable CostDate4/20/2022PhasePreferred Alternative | Packet D Item Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Item Total Subtotal Site Preparation and Earthwork 1.Subsurface Investigation 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.Erosion Control 1 LS 47,000.00$ 47,000.00$ 3.Clear and Grub 1 LS 42,000.00$ 42,000.00$ 4.Pavement Removal 3755 SY 7.50$ 28,162.50$ 5.Selective Site Demo 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 4.Grading and Earthwork 75800 SY 10.00$ 758,000.00$ 6.Fine Grading 100000 SF 0.50$ 50,000.00$ 7.Temporary Project Signage and Fencing 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 8.Construction Layout 1 LS 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 977,162.50$ Overall Site Improvements 1.Signage 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2.Gateway Entry Signage 1 EA 66,000.00$ 66,000.00$ 3.Concrete Pavement 9550 SF 8.00$ 76,400.00$ 4.Asphalt Pavement - Road 46400 SF 7.50$ 348,000.00$ 5.Asphalt Pavement - Path 4375 SF 4.00$ 17,500.00$ 6.Boardwalk 3675 LF 82.00$ 301,350.00$ 7.Interpretive Kiosks 4 EA 2,700.00$ 10,800.00$ 8.Site Furnishings 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 9.Sanitary Service 1 LS 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 10.Electrical Service 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 11.Water Service 1 LS 23,000.00$ 23,000.00$ Landscape 12.Turf Sod 2650 SY 18.00$ 47,700.00$ 13.Trees 450 EA 750.00$ 337,500.00$ 14.Accent Planting 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 1,306,250.00$ Buildings 1.Secondary Structure w/ Restrooms or Storage 1 EA 178,000.00$ 178,000.00$ 2.Open Air Structure (Picnic Shelter)1 EA 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Subtotal 253,000.00$ Prairie/Woodland Restoration 1.Prairie Savanna Restoration 376,360 SF 0.25$ 94,090.00$ 2.Woodland Resortaion 93,200 SF 0.50$ 46,600.00$ 3.Meadow Restoration 165,000 SF 0.45$ 74,250.00$ Subtotal 214,940.00$ Stream Restoration 1.Stream Restoration (Bank restoration & Armoring)1285 LF 212.00$ 272,420.00$ Subtotal 272,420.00$ Construction Subtotal 3,023,773$ Bonds and Insurance 1.5%45,400.00$ Mobilization 2%68,000.00$ Escalator 3%2 years 181,000.00$ Construction Contingency & Remaining Elements 20%604,800.00$ Construction Total 3,922,973$ Design/Engineering/Permits/Site Investigations 15%588,400.00$ Project Total (Construction, design, contingency and permitting)4,511,373$ SmithGroup 233 North Water Street, Suite 502, Milwaukee, WI 53202 T 414.615.9570https://smithgroup4.sharepoint.com/sites/PRJ-13143-SmithGroup/Shared Documents/SmithGroup/ADM 4.0 pro forma 72Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan71 4.1 PROGRAM ZONES Program zones were established to develop the program and operational standards for Bear Creek Park. The zones are defined as: „Base Camp: Program Center that is 5,890 square feet with a secondary open-air shelter of 840 square feet, landscaped areas of 9,250 sq. feet, and parking space for 75-100 cars with drop off, Prairie Overlook, Trailhead. „The Oak Rooms: Scattered playgrounds, nature-based playground, splashpad/water play area, adventure tower, half court sport courts, 1,500 square feet open air shelter with additional bathrooms and ziplines. „The Perch: Canopy play area „Creekside: Boardwalk with additional creek side open- air shelters. „South Prairie – Flexible lawn space, picnic area, 1,100 square feet of open-air shelters, bathrooms, bluff climb, overlook, terraced seating area, trailhead, and parking for 40-50 cars. „Bear Creek Greenway- Trail corridor „Ecology area 21-acres and 2,715 feet of creek „Pedestrian trail is 1.5 miles The total footprint of Bear Creek Park is approximately 27-acres. A majority of the park will remain in a more natural state allowing it to be managed at a level three (3) maintenance standard as defined in section 4.2 of this plan. The restored native vegetative communities will be maintained to ensure that invasive species are minimized. High-use spaces within the park will require more frequent visits by staff to empty trash, clean, or manicure (mow, etc.), therefore resulting in a level two (2) maintenance standard. The master plan aims to restore 2,715 lineal feet of creek while providing 1.5 miles of trail. The matrix below provides further detail into the program zones and facilities/amenities available at Bear Creek Park. The matrix also illustrates who benefits from use and the projected cost to develop/operate. 4.1.1 BASE CAMP INCLUDES A 5,890 SQUARE FOOT INDOOR PROGRAM CENTER AND A SECONDARY OPEN AIR SHELTER FACILITY OF 840 SQUARE FEET „5,900-square foot Indoor program center for nature- based programs, summer camps, ecology programs, rentals, and public meeting space. „840-square foot open-air shelter that can be used for summer camps, group outings, gathering space and general school programs „Trail head „Parking and drop off for 75-100 cars 4.1.2 OAK GROVE AND ROOMS „Adventure tower „Open-air structures „Program spaces for different types of events and rentals „Splashpad/water play 4.0 PRO FORMA 4.1.3 CREEKSIDE „Boardwalk with additional open-air shelters and seating „Creek-walk 4.1.4 SOUTH PRAIRIE „Flexible open lawn space „Picnic area „1,100 square feet open air shelter with toilets „Trail head „Bluff Climb, terraced seating area „Parking and drop off for 40-50 cars 4.1.5 DESTINATION ADVENTURE PLAY „Large iconic playground – ages 2-5 and 6-10 destination adventure playground will be located on- site „Large Shelter – rentable with restrooms and picnic tables, 100-person capacity 4.1.6 SPLASH PAD „Nature-based splash pad „Small shelter – 24-person capacity Space Length of Experience 2‐5 years 6‐8 years 9‐12 years 13‐15 years 16‐18 years 19‐30 years 31‐45 years 46‐60 years 61‐70 years 71‐75 years 76 + years % Covered Revenue Cost to  Develop Cost to  Operate Walking Paths / Trails 1‐2 hours ** *******82%low medium medium Natural Open Green Spaces 1‐2 hours **** *******100%low low low Tree House Play (The Perch)2‐3 hours **** ***64%low high medium Community Program Pavilion 3‐4 hours **** *******100%high high medium Ziplining 1‐2 hours ** ***45%low medium lowBirding1‐2 hours **** *******100%low low low Picnic Areas 2‐3 hours **** *******100%low low medium Natural Areas 1‐2 hours *** *******91%low low low Water Recreation (Creek Experiences)1‐2 hours **** *****82%low medium lowWater Play Area (Splash Pad)2‐3 hours **** ****73%low high medium Shelters 2‐3 hours * * * * **55%medium medium medium Nature Play Area/Playground 1‐2 hours ***27%low low medium Outdoor Classrooms 1‐2 hours *** * *45%low low lowSports Courts 1‐2 hours **** *****64%low medium low Adventure Tower 2‐3 hours **** ****73%low high low BEAR CREEK PARK Activity Experience Chart (Menu of Options)             FACILITIES and AMENITIES                                                                                                                         Age Group Appeal  AMENITY MATRIX 4.0 pro forma 74Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan73 4.2 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS Maintenance Standards: Two maintenance levels are generally defined. The differences between levels are determined by the frequency of maintenance as determined by ability. Maintenance standards have the following general characteristics. „Level 1 Maintenance – Moderate to heavy use typical of most parks. Example maintenance activities include: Mowing and edging once per week, 88 percent turf coverage at start of season with 8 percent weeds and 4 percent bare area, tree pruning cycle every seven years, litter pickup once per week. „Level 2 Maintenance – Typical for low usage parks or when funding is limited. Example maintenance activities include: Native vegetative community management activities such as spot herbiciding or mechanical removal of undesirable species, annual burning or mowing, tree pruning cycle every 10 years, natural areas mowed three times a year. This format provides guidance in terms of understanding the required work activities and elements in a descriptive manner that then can be quantified numerically. Following are descriptions of the levels of service and both qualitative and quantitative maintenance standards as proposed for all parks in the system. 4.2.1 LEVEL TWO MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PARKS Maintenance standards can change by season and month depending on the park and level of use. Standards will be calculated by time and equipment needed to develop the required operation budgets. A summary of maintenance levels is shown on the table found on page 79. „Turf Maintenance —Mowing will occur once weekly —Mowing heights „2½ ” during cool season (day time highs consistently below 75 degrees) —Edging of all turf perimeters will occur weekly during season and every 2 weeks in off-season —88% turf coverage —8% weed infestation —4% bare area will be acceptable after play begins —Remove grass clippings if visible —Aerate once annually in low use areas —Aerate twice annually in high use areas (additional if needed) —Inspect thatch layer regularly and remove as needed —Test soil and water annually „Additional testing will occur if deemed necessary —Soil moisture will be consistent „No wet areas „No dry areas „Firm enough for foot and mower traffic „Apply wetting agents to assist in uniform soil moisture „Hand water as needed —Inspect weekly for insects, disease, and stress, and respond to outbreaks within 24 hours —Fertilize twice yearly „Tree and Shrub Maintenance —Prune/trim trees and shrubs as dictated by species at least once annually —Apply fertilizer to plant species only if plant health dictates —Remove sucker growth as needed —Inspect regularly for insects and diseases. Respond to outbreaks within 48 hours —Place 2” of organic mulch around each tree within a minimum 18” ring —Place 2” of organic mulch around shrub beds to minimize weed growth —Remove hazardous limbs and plants immediately upon discovery —Remove dead trees and plant material within 30 days of discovery —Remove or treat invasive plants yearly „Storm Cleanup —Inspect drain covers at least once monthly and immediately after flooding occurs —Remove debris and organic materials from drain covers within every other month —Inspect and clean drains before forecasted storms begin —Maintain water inlet height at 100% of design standard —Invasive plant removal once a year or as needed —Drain system maintenance done once a year „Irrigation Systems —Inspect irrigation systems a minimum of once per month and as necessary —Initiate repairs to non-functioning systems within 48 hours of discovery —Annual back flow inspection done yearly „Litter Control —Pick up litter and empty containers at least every other day or as needed —Remove leaves and organic debris once a week „Playground Maintenance —Audit each playground to insure compliance with the current version of ASTM Performance Standard F1487 and the Consumer Product Safety Commission “Handbook for Public Playground Safety” —Complete low-frequency playground inspections at least bi-monthly or as required. All low-frequency inspections are to be completed by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector (CPSI). Complete safety-related repairs immediately and initiate other repairs within 48 hours of discovery —Complete high-frequency inspections at least weekly —Grooming surface two times weekly „Hard Surface Maintenance —Remove debris and glass immediately upon discovery —Remove sand, dirt, and organic debris from walks, lots, and hard surfaces every 30 days —Remove trip hazards from pedestrian areas immediately upon discovery —Paint fading or indistinct instructional/directional signs every other year —Remove grass in the cracks monthly „Outdoor Court Maintenance —Inspect basketball courts at least once monthly. Complete repairs within 10 days of discovery —Repaint lines at least once every 2 years —Replace basketball nets within 10 days when frayed, broken, or removed —Maintain basketball goal posts, backboards, rims, fencing, and hardware to original design specifications. Complete repairs within 10 days of discovery „Trail Maintenance —Inspect hard and soft surface trails at least once monthly —Remove dirt, sand, and organic debris from hard surfaces at least once monthly —Remove organic debris from soft surfaces at least once monthly —Maintain a uniform 2-4” depth of compacted material on soft surface trails —Mechanically or chemically control growth 24” on either side of the trails —Remove overhanging branches within 84” of the trail surface at least once annually —Inspect signs, benches, and other site amenities at least once monthly. Complete repairs within 10 days of discovery „Site Amenity Maintenance —Inspect benches, trash containers, picnic tables, grills, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, and other site amenities at least monthly. Complete repairs within 5 days of discovery —Cleaning and washing annually —Inspect daily for insects, disease, and stress and respond to outbreaks within 24 hours „Fence and Gate Maintenance —Inspect fences, gates, and bollards at least once annually. Complete safety-related repairs immediately, and complete other repairs within 5 days of discovery —Clean debris annually „Sign Maintenance —Inspect sign lettering, surfaces, and posts at least once every 3 months —Repair/replace signs to maintain design and safety standards within 5 days of discovery —Clean sign once a year „Vandalism and Graffiti Removal —Initiate repairs immediately upon discovery. Document and photograph damage as necessary „Picnic Shelters —Reserved units cleaned and litter removed prior to and after each reservation —Minor repairs are made immediately upon discovery —Non-reserved units are cleaned bi-weekly, or as necessary 4.0 pro forma 76Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan75 „Lighting Security/Area —Inspect quarterly —Repairs/bulb replacement will be completed within 72 hours of discovery „Restrooms —Restrooms cleaned daily unless contracted —Restrooms inspected every three hours —Restrooms locked/unlocked daily —Replace waterless urinal cartridges monthly —Leaks dealt with immediately and repaired within 24 hours of discovery 4.2.2 LEVEL THREE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PARKS Maintenance Standards are adjusted to suite the season and month depending on the type of park and level of use. Standards are calculated by time and equipment needed to develop required operation budgets. „Native Vegetation Community Maintenance —Biannual burning or mowing —Mowing heights „8” max., duff to be removed following mowing —Mechanical removal of undesirable species „Hand pulling „Tractor removal of large vegetative material —Monthly or more frequent herbicide application „Wick application or spot spraying „Occasionally broadleaf herbicide application in some areas „Tree Care —General maintenance of scrub trees as needed —Pruning done every 10 years, if needed 4.3 FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONS PLAN The operational and financial assumptions describe the overall philosophy of Bear Creek Park and explain how revenues and expenses were derived to develop the operational proforma for the Park. The proforma is demonstrated over a six-year period and forecasts all revenues and costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the park. The following operational assumptions were used to develop the pro forma, which will help to determine the overall operational cost of the park. 4.3.1 AMENITIES ON SITE „Community pavilion „North parking with drop off for 75-100 cars „Canopy play area „Shelter outpost with toilets „Outdoor classroom „Scattered play with zipline „Creekwalk „Adventure Tower „Prairie Trail „Woodland Trail „Overlook „Vegetative Buffer „Gateway/trailhead „Water play and Shelter „Program plaza „Picnic grove with shelters and storage „Sports courts with basketball and gaga ball „Overlook shelter „Prairie „Prairie Savanna „Restored tributary and bluff „Bluff Climb „South parking with drop-off for 40-50 cars „Prairie Theater 4.3.2 HOURS OF OPERATION Bear Creek Park will be open 365 days per year as a park. Regular hours of operation will be sunrise to sunset. 4.3.3 GENERAL COST ASSUMPTIONS The following are general cost assumptions for the Park „Lawn areas within the park will be mowed by contract at $400 dollars per occurance which will include the areas around the program center, the parking lots, the picnic areas, along both sides of the trails, the play areas,] and around the key amenities on site. „Custodial services will be contracted for the program center at approximately $16,000 a year based on what the CCPR is paying now for a comparable size center and will include 3 cleanings a week. „HVAC preventative maintenance will be contracted at approximately $6,174 annually with an assessment completed quarterly. „General grounds maintenance in-house will be $21.63 per hour x 3 hours a week x 52 weeks = $3,375 annually „Custodial services for exterior public restrooms will be done in-house including 3 restrooms-$21.63 an hour x 2 times a day x 363 hours a year=$15,790 „Utility costs are anticipated for the program center to be: —$1,000 for Electricity a month —$90 dollars a month for water —$115 a month of Sewer costs —$220 a month for Gas „The Program Center will be approximately 100% cost recovery with 20% cost recovery for permitted shelters on site. „No overnight stays anticipated in the park. 4.3.4 PRICING AND REVENUE STRATEGY The revenue opportunities and pricing philosophy for programs and services at Bear Creek Park are as follows: „Revenues are categorized into the following areas: Programs on-site, Events rentals, and Other. „Pricing and participation for programs considered existing offerings by the Department, as well as local market rates based on similar provider analysis. „Recreation programs will be a key source of driving energy and activity at Bear Creek Park. Summer Day Camps will be offered in weeklong sessions during the summer months (10 weeks), with an expected attendance of 100 kids per week. „Rentals revenues will be generated from shelters, rentals of the program center, and programs on site. —Shelters are rented via a permit at $150 per day —It is anticipated that there will be approximately 50 full-day rentals for Sunday through Friday and 30 rentals for Saturday. —Pricing of the Program Center will be Sunday-Friday at $150 dollars an hour x 400 hours and $225 an hour on Saturday x 240 hours a year. „No cost recovery goal has been established for Bear Creek Park except all programs offered will recover 100% of their cost. „There is no parking cost, no school group cost for accessing the park. 4.3.5 STAFFING LEVELS To operate and maintain Bear Creek Park, no full-time or part-time staffing levels will be permanent on-site. Staffing levels and hours required for staff will be based on the programs that are conducted on-site. There may be a part-time or contracted program person and park maintenance staff. As indicated earlier in this proforma, the park will be mowed contractually. PART-TIME / SEASONAL STAFFING FOR SUMMER DAY CAMPS „Seasonal Facility Maintenance Worker rate = $13.00 hr. 2 hours a day x 7 days a week x 30 weeks=$5,460 „Seasonal Summer Camp Staff = $15hr @ x 8 staff a week x 40 hours a week x 10 weeks =$48,000 CONTRACT SERVICES Services that may be needed on a contractual basis for Bear Creek Park include: 4.0 pro forma 78Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan77 „Mowing of the high use areas on a weekly basis= $400 dollars a mow x 32 mows a year „Program instructors – 60/40 split if programs are offered in the park „Garbage pick-up- done by the department workforce „HVAC-Contracted 4.3.6 ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL COSTS Utility costs reflect industry rates based on actual costs for similar operations. „All equipment, materials, and supplies were estimated based on existing expenses and industry rates to account for the provision of program services and to operate Bear Creek Park on an annual basis. „Maintenance costs were incorporated based on industry best practices and the desired maintenance standards (level 2), which includes all costs except personnel. (See 4.2) „Marketing costs to promote the programs and services of Bear Creek Park are estimated at <1% of the operational budget for the park. Marketing Costs will be approximately 3k a year „Credit card fees are estimated at 2% of revenues x $331,938 of the total revenue earned in the first year of operation or $6,639. „An ongoing asset management/lifecycle replacement cost is estimated at 3% of the annual operating budget. „Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment will be factored into upfront capital development costs. 4.3.7 PRO FORMA The table below represents the six-year operational pro forma for Bear Creek Park. Based on the assumptions outlined and typical growth inputs for revenues and expenditures, Bear Creek Park is projected to achieve 81.1% cost recovery in year one, with expected improvement to 87.3% by year six. (Note: full revenue and expenditure detail can be found in the Appendix.) Bear Creek Carmel, IN Pro Forma 5/10/2022 Pro Forma Revenues and Expenditures Bear Creek Park REVENUES Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Shelters 93,688 102,582 111,925 128,191 145,331  Program Center 238,250 245,398 252,759 260,342 268,152  TOTAL REVENUES 331,938$ 347,979$ 364,684$ 388,533$ 413,484$  EXPENSES Grounds & Trails Mx 8,275$        8,523$        8,779$        9,042$        9,314$         Facility Mx 27,424 28,247 29,094 29,967 30,866  Sprayground 20,000 20,600 21,218 21,854 22,510  Shelters 106,128 109,312 112,591 115,969 119,448  Program Center 126,470 130,264 135,109 141,181 148,775  #REF!6,113 6,296 6,485 6,680 6,880  TOTAL EXPENSES 426,992$ 439,803$ 454,871$ 472,555$ 493,448$  OVERALL NET REVENUE / (LOSS)(95,055)$ (91,823)$ (90,187)$ (84,022)$ (79,965)$  OVERALL Cost Recovery 77.7% 79.1% 80.2% 82.2% 83.8% Pro Forma Revenue & Expenditure AnalysisBusiness Unit: Grounds & Trails Maintenance SUMMARY: Grounds & Trails Maintenance Total Grounds & Trails Maintenance Expenses (not adjusted for inflation) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 EXPENSES Total Category Expenses Grounds Mx (contracted)4,000$           4,000$           4,000$           4,000$           4,000$            Grounds Mx (in‐house and other)3,375$           3,375$           3,375$           3,375$           3,375$            Snow Removal 900$              900$              900$              900$              900$               Other ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                      ‐                       TOTAL Grounds & Trails Mx 8,275$           8,275$           8,275$           8,275$           8,275$            Total Grounds & Trails Maintenance Expenses (ADJUSTED for inflation) Multiplier 1.03 01234 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 EXPENSES Total Category Expenses Grounds Mx (contracted)4,000$           4,120$           4,244$           4,371$           4,502$           Grounds Mx (in‐house and other)3,375$           3,476$           3,581$           3,688$           3,799$            Snow Removal 900$              927$              955$              983$              1,013$            Other ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                    ‐$                     TOTAL Grounds & Trails Mx 8,275$           8,523$           8,779$           9,042$           9,314$            4.0 pro forma 80Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan79 Pro Forma Revenue & Expenditure Analysis Business Unit: Facilities Maintenance Adjust assumptions by revising yellow cells Facilities Maintenance Facility Maintenance Level Definitions:Level 1 Hourly; highest level for special, high‐visibility, extremely high traffic areas Level 2 Every 2‐4 hours; high level; well‐developed high‐traffic public facilities. Level 3 Daily; for locations that have moderate levels of visitation. Level 4 Level 5 As‐needed; very low level maintenance associated with locations  Level 6 Bare minimum for rarely visited or storage areas, both indoor and open‐air. NOTE: Facility Maintenance SqFt by Year based on phasing assumptionsY1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Level 2 Public Restrooms Level 2 15,790 15,790 15,790 15,790 15,790 Level 3 Seasonal Maintenance Level 3 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460 5,460TOTAL 21,250 21,250 21,250 21,250 21,250 Facility Maintenance  Costs by Year (not adjusted for inflation) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 HVAC Preventive M. Level 6 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$  TOTAL 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$ 6,174$  SUMMARY: Facility Maintenance Total Facility Maintenance Expenses (not adjusted for inflation) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 EXPENSES Total Category Expenses Facility Maintenance 21,250$        21,250$        21,250$        21,250$        21,250$         HVAC Preventive Maintenance 6,174$          6,174$          6,174$          6,174$          6,174$           TOTAL Facilities Mx 27,424$        27,424$        27,424$        27,424$        27,424$         Total Facility Maintenance Expenses (ADJUSTED for inflation) Multiplier 1.03 01234 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 EXPENSES Total Category Expenses Facilities 21,250$        21,888$        22,544$        23,220$        23,917$         HVAC Preventive Maintenance 6,174$          6,359$          6,550$          6,746$          6,949$           TOTAL Facilities Mx 27,424$        28,247$        29,094$        29,967$        30,866$         The above definitions represent maintenance levels necessary to sustain facilities for general public use. Facility  rental/special use fees should be used to offset the additional costs associated with the rental/special use. Every 2‐3 days; moderately‐low maintenance for low‐visitation or that cannot afford a higher level. Daily for open‐ air facilities. Pro Forma Revenue & Expenditure Analysis Business Unit: Sprayground Maintenance Adjust assumptions by revising yellow cells SUMMARY: Sprayground Maintenance Totals (not adjusted for inflation) Productivity Multiplier 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 REVENUE Total Category Revenue Sprayground ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    Other Revenue ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                      TOTAL Revenue ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    EXPENSES Expenses ‐Personnel Labor 1,015$          1,015$          1,015$          1,015$          1,015$           Testing 475$              475$              475$              475$              475$               Cleaning 2,400            2,400            2,400            2,400            2,400             Total Personnel 3,890            3,890            3,890            3,890            3,890             Expenses ‐ Utilities Water 6,019$          6,019$          6,019$          6,019$          6,019$           Energy 4,803$          4,803$          4,803$          4,803$          4,803$           Chemicals 5,288$          5,288$          5,288$          5,288$          5,288$           TOTAL Utilities 16,109$        16,109$        16,109$        16,109$        16,109$         Total Expenses 20,000$        20,000$        20,000$        20,000$        20,000$         Totals (ADJUSTED for inflation) Multiplier 1.03 01234 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 REVENUE Total Category Revenue Sprayground ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    Other Revenue ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                      TOTAL Revenue ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    EXPENSES Expenses ‐Personnel Labor 1,015$          1,045.90$     1,077.28$     1,109.60$     1,142.89$      Testing 475$              489.25$        503.93$        519.05$        534.62$         Cleaning 2,400            2,472.00$     2,546.16$     2,622.54$     2,701.22$      Total Personnel 3,890            4,007            4,127            4,251            4,379             Expenses ‐ Utilities Water 6,019$          6,200$          6,386$          6,577$          6,774$           Energy 4,803            4,947$          5,095$          5,248$          5,405$           Chemicals 5,288            5,446$          5,610$          5,778$          5,951$           Total Utilities 16,110          16,593          17,090          17,603          18,131           TOTAL Expenses 20,000$        20,600$        21,218$        21,854$        22,510$         NET REVENUE / (LOSS)(20,000)$       (20,600)$       (21,218)$       (21,854)$       (22,510)$        Cost Recovery 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.0 pro forma 82Carmel, Indiana  Bear Creek Park Master Plan81       SUMMARY: Shelter Rentals Totals (not adjusted for inflation) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 REVENUE Total Category Revenue One Day Shelters 11,813$        17,719$        23,625$        35,438$        47,250$         Pavilion ‐$                   11,000$        11,000$        11,000$        11,000$        Program Center Shelters 70,875$        70,875$        70,875$        70,875$        70,875$        TOTAL 82,688$        99,594$        105,500$      117,313$      129,125$       EXPENSES Total Category Expenses All Shelters 106,128$      106,128$      106,128$      106,128$      106,128$       Pavilion ‐$                   6,113$          6,113$          6,113$          6,113$           Other Expenses ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                    TOTAL Expenses 106,128$      112,241$      112,241$      112,241$      112,241$       Totals (ADJUSTED for inflation) Multiplier 1.03 01234Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5REVENUETotal Category Revenue One Day Shelters 11,813$        18,250$        25,064$        38,724$        53,180$         Pavilion 11,000$        11,330$        11,670$        12,020$        12,381$         Program Center Shelters 70,875          73,001          75,191          77,447          79,770           TOTAL Revenue 93,688$        102,582$      111,925$      128,191$      145,332$       EXPENSES Total Category Expenses All Shelters 106,128$      109,312$      112,591$      115,969$      119,448$       Pavilion 6,113$          6,296$          6,485$          6,680$          6,680$          Other Revenue ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   ‐$                   TOTAL Expenses 112,241$      115,608$      119,076$      122,649$      126,128$       NET REVENUE / (LOSS)(18,554)$       (13,026)$       (7,151)$         5,542$          19,204$         Cost Recovery 83% 89% 94% 105% 115% Pro Forma Revenue & Expenditure AnalysisSUMMARY ‐ Business Unit: Program Pavilion Totals (not adjusted for inflation) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 REVENUES Total Category Revenue Pavilion Rental 57,000$                          57,000$            57,000$     57,000$          57,000$      Day Camp Revenue 181,250                          181,250            181,250     181,250          181,250     TOTAL 238,250$                        238,250$          238,250$   238,250$        238,250$    EXPENSES Total Category ExpensesPersonnel 81,000$                          81,000$            81,000$     81,000$          81,000$      Supplies 24,800$                          19,700$            19,700$     19,700$          19,700$     Other Services 4,650$                             16,450$            16,450$     16,450$          16,450$      Utilities 16,020$                          16,020$            16,020$     16,020$          16,020$      TOTAL 126,470$                        133,170$          133,170$   133,170$        133,170$    NET REVENUE / (LOSS)111,780$                        105,080$          105,080$   105,080$        105,080$    Cost Recovery 188%179% 179% 179% 179% Totals (ADJUSTED for inflation) Multiplier 1.03 0 1 234 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 REVENUES Total Category Revenue Pavilion Rental 57,000$                          58,710$            60,471$     62,285$          64,154$      Day Camp Revenue 181,250                          186,688            192,288     198,057          203,998      TOTAL 238,250$                        245,398$          252,759$   260,342$        268,152$    EXPENSES Total Category Expenses Personnel 81,000$                          83,430$            85,933$     88,511$          91,166$      Supplies 24,800$                          25,544$            27,100$     29,612$          33,329$      Other Services 4,650$                             4,790$              5,081$        5,552$            6,249$         Utilities 16,020$                          16,501$            16,996$     17,505$          18,031$      TOTAL 126,470$                        130,264$          135,109$   141,181$        148,775$    NET REVENUE / (LOSS)111,780$                        115,133$          117,650$   119,161$        119,377$    Cost Recovery 188%188% 187% 184% 180% 01Carmel, Indiana Bear Creek Park Master Plan APPENDIX 01 Appendix 01 contains the a Phase 1A Archeaological Reconnaissance Report of the project area. APPENDIX 01 | ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance for Bear Creek Park Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana J090109334 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Introduction i Document Information Prepared for Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Project Name Bear Creek Park Project, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana Cardno, now Stantec PN J090190334 Cardno, now Stantec PM Kathleen D. Settle Date June 8, 2022 Prepared and Submitted By Alexandra Powell, Isabelle Ortt, and Kathleen D. Settle Principal Investigator Kathleen D. Settle Prepared for: Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation 1411 E. 116th Street Carmel, IN 46032 Prepared by: Cardno, now Stantec 3901 Industrial Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46254 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Introduction ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Background Research ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 National Historic Landmarks List ......................................................................... 4 2.1.2 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ....................................................... 4 2.1.3 Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD) ............................................................................................................ 4 2.1.4 Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI) and Historic Bridge Inventory .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.5 Cemetery Registry Survey Files .......................................................................... 5 2.1.6 Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Reports ................................................. 5 2.1.7 Historic Maps and Atlases ................................................................................... 6 2.2 Environmental Context ...................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Physiography ..................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Flora and Fauna ................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Precontact Cultural Setting ................................................................................................ 13 2.3.1 Contact and Post-Contact Periods (ca. 1650 C.E. – Present) ........................... 14 2.4 Post-Contact Cultural Setting ............................................................................................ 14 2.4.1 Hamilton County ................................................................................................. 14 2.4.2 Clay Township .................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Summary and Discussion .................................................................................................. 15 3 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Applicable Regulations and Guidelines ............................................................................. 16 3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Field Methods .................................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Laboratory Methods........................................................................................................... 17 3.4.1 Precontact Artifacts ............................................................................................ 17 3.4.2 Post-Contact Artifacts ........................................................................................ 17 3.5 Curation ............................................................................................................................. 18 4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.1 Fieldwork Results .............................................................................................................. 19 4.1.1 Site 12H1935 ..................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Potential Sites Not Identified During the Field Effort ......................................................... 27 4.2.1 14330 Shelborne Road ...................................................................................... 27 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 28 6 References Cited ............................................................................................................ 29 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Introduction iii Appendices Appendix A Historic Maps Appendix B Photographs Appendix C Artifact Catalog Tables Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area .................................................. 4 Table 2. Previously Recorded IHSSI and Historic Bridge Resources within the Study Area ....................... 5 Table 3. Previous CRM Reports ................................................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Soil Units within the Project Area .................................................................................................. 10 Table 5. Artifacts Recovered from site 12H1935 ........................................................................................ 25 Figures Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Previously Identified Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Previous CRM Investigations ......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Project Area Soils ........................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5. Fieldwork Results......................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6. Site Location ................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 7. Site 12H1935 ............................................................................................................................... 26 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Introduction iv Executive Summary The Carmel Clay Board of Parks and Recreation acquired 27 acres located in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana intended for the future location of Bear Creek Park. The project is located in the northeast corner of Section 19, Township 18 North, Range 3 East on the Carmel, Indiana USGS 7.5’ topographic map quadrangle. Specifically, the property is located at 14330 Shelbourne Road and currently consists of overgrown agricultural fields with extant native prairie and remnant woodlots. The property will be developed into a public park to be managed by Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation and provide recreation opportunities to park patrons. Prior to proceeding with the proposed Bear Creek Park Project, Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation contacted Cardno, now Stantec (Cardno) to conduct a Phase Ia archaeological records review and reconnaissance (Phase Ia) prior to the proposed Bear Creek Park Project in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana. Cardno was contracted to survey the areas slated for ground disturbance related to the trails and park infrastructure, which included approximately 4.14 hectares (ha; 10.22 acres [ac]) of infrastructure and 930 meters (m; 3,051 feet [ft]) of trails (Project Area). Research within a 1.6 kilometer (km; 1 mile [mi]) radius around the proposed Project Area revealed seven previously conducted cultural resources surveys and identified seventeen archaeological sites and two Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI)-listed resources within the study area, one of which is a cemetery. Neither of these resources are within the current Project Area. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on May 9th and 10th, 2022. As a result of the Phase Ia investigation, one new archaeological site was identified, which consists of a mid-to late nineteenth century post-contact scatter of artifacts (12H1935). Based on the results of the field reconnaissance and archival research, site 12H1935 is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and Cardno recommends no further archaeological investigation be required for the proposed project to proceed as planned. These recommendations are based on the current project plans. Currently the project is not considered a Federal Undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation has chosen to conduct an archaeological survey out of respect for the preservation of cultural resources. If plans should change, or the Project becomes a Federal Undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Protection Act (NHPA), further archaeological work may be necessary. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Introduction 1 1 Introduction In response to a request from the Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation, Cardno conducted a Phase Ia archaeological records review and reconnaissance (Phase Ia) in Hamilton County, Indiana for the proposed Bear Creek Park Project. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation purchased 27 acres located in Clay Township, Hamilton County, at 14330 Shelborne Road that currently consists of overgrown agricultural fields with extant native prairie and remnant woodlots. The property will be developed into a public park and provide recreation opportunities to park patrons. Cardno was contracted to survey the areas slated for ground disturbance related to the trails and park infrastructure, which include approximately 4.14 hectares (ha; 10.22 acres [ac]) of infrastructure and 930 meters (m; 3,051 feet [ft]) of trails. The project is located in Section 19, Township 18 North, Range 3 East on the Carmel, Indiana USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map (Figure 1). The portions of the Project Area that will experience subsurface disturbance were subject to a Phase Ia archaeological reconnaissance. Background research conducted in April 2022 focused on a 1.6 kilometer (km; 1 mile [mi]) study area centered on the proposed project footprint. Cardno gathered information about previously conducted cultural resource investigations and documented cultural resources, as well as the environmental and cultural context of the region to assess the potential for additional undocumented cultural resources in and around the Project Area. Key personnel committed to the project include Principal Investigator and Field Director, Kathleen Settle, and Field Technicians John Flood, Matt Pike, Isabelle Ortt, and Nicole Shields. Isabelle Ortt, Alexandra Powell, and Kathleen Settle served as report co-authors. Ms. Tammy Miller created the report graphics. This report presents the research design and results of the background research in Section 2. Section 3 outlines the field methods used during the survey. Section 4 discusses the results of the field investigation, followed by the conclusions and recommendations in Section 5. The references cited in this report appear in Section 6. Appendix A includes Historic Maps, Appendix B includes photographs documenting the Phase Ia, and Appendix C contains the artifact catalog. Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 1: Project LocationTh is m ap and all data contained with in aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno,Inc. expressly disclaim s responsib ility fordam ag es or liab ility from any claim s th atm ay arise out of th e use or m isuse of th ism ap. It is th e sole responsib ility of th euser to determ ine if th e data on th is m apm eets th e user’s needs. Th is m ap was notcreated as survey data, nor sh ould it b eused as such . It is th e user’s responsib ilityto ob tain proper survey data, prepared b ya licensed surveyor, wh ere required b ylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 Trail Survey AreaInfrastructure Survey Area Project Area File Path : R :\Projects\09\0901\0901093_Carm elClay_CentralPark\34_Bear Creek Park\GIS\MXD\Ph ase1\Fig 1_ProjLocation.m xdBasem ap: Sources: Esri, HER E, Garm in, USGS, Interm ap, INCR EMENT P, NR Can, Esri Japan, METI, Esri Ch ina (Hong Kong ), Esri Korea, Esri (Th ailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contrib utors, and th e GIS User Com m unity, Copyrig h t:© 2013 National Geog raph ic Society, i-cub ed Date: 5/24/2022 Saved By: Steph en.LaFon HAMILTON TIPTON MAR IONBOONE MADISONHANCOCKCLINTONArea ofInterest 0 1,000500 Feet 0 100 200 300 Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 3 2 Literature Review The objective of the current study is to identify and evaluate any archaeological resources present within the proposed project area, as well as assess the effects of the proposed project on archaeological resources, including those resources eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). For the purposes of this investigation, archaeological resources may include any site location that contains material remains of past human life or activities, or other places and/or items that possess cultural importance to individuals or a group. Once identified through fieldwork, these sites are evaluated for eligibility based on the following criteria. “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture is present in the districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: a. That are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” (36 CFR 60.4).” The purpose of this section is to provide a basic context through which to evaluate the results of our investigations. This section will briefly outline the environmental and cultural background of the region in and around Hamilton County, Indiana. 2.1 Background Research The literature review was directed toward identifying previously recorded cultural resources. Research was conducted using online data available through the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDNR-DHPA) in April 2022. Cardno focused on previously recorded resources within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area, but also examined the larger region where appropriate. For the literature review, the following resources were consulted: • National Historic Landmark list; • NRHP list; • Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD); • Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI); • Cemetery Registry Survey files; • Cultural Resource Management reports; • Historic Maps; and • Guernsey Map of Indiana (Guernsey 1932). The results of the literature review revealed 17 archaeological sites and two IHSSI-listed resources, one of which is a cemetery are recorded within the study area. In addition, seven previously conducted cultural resource investigations have occurred within the study area (Figure 2 and Figure 3). No cultural resources were previously identified within the Project Area. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 4 2.1.1 National Historic Landmarks List There are no National Historic Landmarks within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. 2.1.2 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) There are no NRHP-listed properties identified within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. 2.1.3 Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD) The SHAARD files and previous cultural resource investigation reports indicate 17 archaeological sites are located within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area (Table 1). In 1995, the Archaeological Resources Management Service from Ball State University conducted an archaeological field reconnaissance for 146th Street corridor improvements in Hamilton and Boone Counties, Indiana (Feldhues and Zoll 1995). The survey identified 40 archaeological sites, 14 of which are located within the current 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. The identified sites varied from precontact lithic scatters and isolates, to post-contact nineteenth to twentieth century artifact scatters. Though some of the sites from this field effort were listed as potentially eligible for the NRHP, the fourteen archaeological sites that fall within the current study area are all listed as ineligible (Feldhues and Zoll 1995). An addendum to the previous 1995 report (Feldhues and Zoll), detailed an additional survey effort that was conducted along the 146th Street corridor to capture portions of the project area which had previously unable to have been surveyed (Waldron and Zoll 1996). During this field effort, three additional sites were identified, one of which was 12H746, which is located within the current 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. According to SHAARD files, sites 12H1085 and 12H1086 were previously identified within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area (IDNR-DHPA 2007); however, these sites were not identified during a cultural resource survey, but were reported by David Buibee and subsequently investigated by DHPA in 2003. Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area Site Number Description Cultural Affiliation National Register Status Source 12H710 Isolated Find Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H711 Multicomponent Scatter Unidentified Precontact, Postcontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H711_R1 Multicomponent Scatter Unidentified Precontact, Postcontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H712 Lithic Scatter Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H713 Multicomponent Scatter Unidentified Precontact, Postcontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H714 Postcontact Scatter Postcontact (19th – 20th Century) Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H715 Postcontact Scatter Postcontact (19th – 20th Century) Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H716 Lithic Scatter Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H717 Postcontact Scatter Postcontact (19th – 20th Century) Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H718 Isolated Find Early Archaic Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H719 Multicomponent Scatter Unidentified Precontact, Postcontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H720 Lithic Scatter Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 5 Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within the Study Area Site Number Description Cultural Affiliation National Register Status Source 12H721 Isolated Find Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H722 Postcontact Scatter Postcontact Ineligible Feldhues and Zoll 1995 12H746 Postcontact Scatter Postcontact (19th – 20th Century) Ineligible Waldron and Zoll 1996 12H1085 Lithic Scatter Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Buibee 2003; IDNR-DHPA 2007 12H1086 Isolated Find Unidentified Precontact Ineligible Buibee 2003; IDNR-DHPA 2007 2.1.4 Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory (IHSSI) and Historic Bridge Inventory There are two IHSSI-listed resources mapped within the 1.6 km (1.0 mi) study area, one of which is listed as a church and one of which is the cemetery associated with this church. (Figure 2; Table 2). These resources are not located directly within or adjacent to the current Project Area. Table 2. Previously Recorded IHSSI and Historic Bridge Resources within the Study Area Resource Number Resource Type Resource Age Location IHSSI Rating IHSSI 057-667-20033 CR-29-106 Cemetery ca. 1858/ to present E. side of Rd. just N.E. of the intersection of Little Creek Ave. and W. 156 St. Notable IHSSI 057-667-20033 Church ca. 1858/ to present E. side of Rd. just N.E. of the intersection of Little Creek Ave. and W. 156 St. Notable 2.1.5 Cemetery Registry Survey Files A search of the Hamilton County cemetery records indicates that one cemetery has been recorded within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area (Figure 2). Eagle Creek Cemetery (CR-29-106/IHSSI 057-667-20033) is listed with a “Notable” rating in the IHSSI. The cemetery contains approximately 2,000 headstones. Eagle Creek Cemetery is located nearly 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the Project Area and will not be directly affected by project activities. 2.1.6 Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Reports Records on file at the IDNR-DHPA indicate that seven previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the 1.6 km (1.0 mi) study area (Bennett and Plunkett 2016; Feldhues and Zoll 1995, King and Zoll 2008; Stillwell 1999, 2005; Waldron and Zoll 1996, Westmor and Finney 2019; Table 3; Figure 3). Three of the surveys (Feldhues and Zoll 1995, King and Zoll 2008; and Waldron and Zoll 1996) examine the 146th street corridor which travels east to west directly north of the current Project Area. A portion of the King and Zoll (2008) survey overlaps a small portion of the current Project Area. The two other surveys which examined the 146th street corridor (Feldhues and Zoll 1995 and Waldron and Zoll 1996) were conducted adjacent to, but outside of the current Project Area. The additional previous surveys within the study area also do not fall within or adjacent to the current survey boundaries. Brief summaries of the previous CRM reports are provided in Table 3. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 6 Table 3. Previous CRM Reports Report Year Report Author Report Title Number of Sites Identified NRHP Eligible Sites 1995 Feldhues, William and Mitchell Zoll Archaeological Field Reconnaissance: 146th Street Corridor Improvements Boone and Hamilton Counties, Indiana 40 total, 1 previously identified 7 potentially eligible 1996 Waldron, John and Mitchell Zoll Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Addendum: 146th Street Corridor Improvements, Boone and Hamilton Counties, Indiana 3 0 1999 Stillwell, Larry N. An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Cellular Phone Tower (Project #MW07140C) near Westfield, Hamilton County, Indiana 0 0 2005 Stillwell, Larry N. An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Proposed C.R. 300 South Improvements in Hamilton County, Indiana 0 0 2008 King, Brad and Mitchell K. Zoll Archaeological Field Reconnaissance West 146th Street Added Travel Lanes Des. No. 0810287 Hamilton County, Indiana 0 0 2016 Bennett, Stacy and Jeffrey A. Plunkett Phase Ia Archaeological Field Reconnaissance: Proposed Culvert Replacement on 151st Street in Westfield, Hamilton Co., IN (INDOT Des. No. 1500431) 0 0 2019 Westmor, Colleen and Kathryn M. H. Finney Phase I Archaeological Survey Proposed 146th Street Improvement Project Detention Pond and Floodway Mitigation Areas Clay and Washington Townships 0 0 2.1.7 Historic Maps and Atlases Several available historic maps as well as aerial imagery were referenced for information pertaining to the historic use of the Project Area between 1866 and 1959 (Cottingham 1896; Cottingham 1906; Indiana Highway Survey Commission 1936; Kenyon Company 1922; McClellan and Warner 1866; NetrOnline 2022; and United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1959). These maps are shown in Appendix A. The 1866 map of Hamilton County shows property owners and locations of structures (McClellan and Warner 1866). As early as 1866 regional features such as a school to the southeast and a church and cemetery to the north of the Project Area are depicted, along with Eagle Creek traveling southwest to northeast, west of the Project Area. In 1866 the Project Area is located on a parcel owned by T. Stalbtz. The Stalbtz property has one mapped structure which falls within the current survey boundaries in the northeast corner of the parcel (McClellan and Warner 1866). Mapping from 1896 shows a change in parcel ownership with the Project Area to J. M. Stultz (Cottingham 1896). In 1896 mapping, it appears the former structure within the Project Area is no longer extant. Mapping from 1906 depicts continued Stultz ownership of the Project Area, now listed under Marion Stultz. Building locations are not illustrated on this map (Cottingham 1906). Mapping from 1922 again depicts the parcel associated with the Project Area being owned by Marion Stultz, though similar to the 1906 map, the locations of structures are not depicted (Kenyon Company 1922). A 1936 Hamilton County roadway map does depict a structure within or directly adjacent to the Project Area’s southwestern border (Indiana Highway Survey Commission 1936); however, this structure appears to no longer be extant by 1952 as evidenced by an aerial image (NetrOnline 2022). In the late 1950’s, aerial imagery (NetrOnline 2022) and a Carmel, Indiana topographic Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 7 map (USGS 1959) depict two structures within the current Project Area boundaries, as well as Bear Creek running east to west through the area. In addition to the historic atlas maps, one early cultural resources map was also consulted (Guernsey 1932). Similar to other maps of its time (e.g., Mills 1914), this map depicts some archaeological site locations as well as important historic cultural resources at a county-wide scale. This map provides an overview of cultural resources but is limited in locational accuracy. The Guernsey map indicates no cultural resources in proximity to the Project Area (Guernsey 1932). 057-667-20033 CR-29-106 Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 2: Previously Identified Cultural Resources This m ap an d all data con tain ed within aresupplied as is with n o warran ty . Cardn o,In c. expressly disclaim s respon sibility fordam ages or liability from an y claim s thatm ay arise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole respon sibility of theuser to determ in e if the data on this m apm eets the user’s n eeds. This m ap was n otcreated as survey data, n or should it beused as such. It is the user’s respon sibilityto obtain proper survey data, prepared bya licen sed survey or, where required bylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 !(IHSSI StructureTrail Survey Area In frastructure Survey Area "C Cem etery Project Area1-Mile Study Area File Path: \\cardn o.corp\global\US\IN\IND02\ProjectData\Projects\09\0901\0901093_Carm elClay _Cen tralPark \34_Bear Creek Park \GIS\MXD\Phase1\Fig2_PrevIDCultResources.m xdBasem ap: Copy right:© 2013 Nation al Geographic Society, i-cubed Date: 6/8/2022 Saved By : Stephen .LaFon 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Meters Archaeological sites are not depicted due to the sensitive nature of these resources 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 3: Previous CRM Investigations This m ap and all data contained w ithin aresupplied as is w ith no w arranty. Cardno,Inc. expressly disclaim s responsibility fordam ages or liability from any claim s thatm ay arise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole responsibility of theuser to determ ine if the data on this m apm eets the user’s needs. This m ap w as notcreated as survey data, nor should it beused as such. It is the user’s responsibilityto obtain proper survey data, prepared bya licensed surveyor, w here required bylaw . ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 Trail Survey AreaInfrastructure Survey AreaBennett and Plunk ett 2016Feldhues 1995 King and Zoll 2008Stillw ell 1999Stillw ell 2005Waldron and Zoll 1996 Westm or and Finney 2019Project Area1-Mile Study Area File Path: R:\Projects\09\0901\0901093_Carm elClay_CentralPark \34_Bear Creek Park \GIS\MX D\Phase1\Fig3_PrevCRMInvestigaitons.m xdBasem ap: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Date: 5/24/2022 Saved By: Stephen.LaFon 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 10 2.2 Environmental Context Hamilton County is located within the Tipton Till Plain Natural Region. The Project Area is located within the Upper White River watershed. An unnamed tributary of Bear Creek travels east to west through the Project Area. 2.2.1 Physiography The Project Area is located in the Tipton Till Plain physiographic region, which is characterized by gently rolling to flat terrain, the result of continental glaciation. The glaciers deposited glacial till and outwash as the ice advanced and melted from central and northern Indiana (Indiana Geological Survey 2019). The Tipton Till Plain region is “a mostly undissected plain formerly covered by an extensive beech-maple- oak forest” (Homoya et al. 1985:255). Features such as bogs, prairies, marshes, seep springs, and ponds are common (Homoya et al. 1985). No restricted species exist within this region due to the section’s location and the scarcity of specialized natural communities (Homoya et al. 1985). The Project Area is located within the Miami-Crosby soil association (United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service [USDA/SCS] 1978). The Miami-Crosby association consists of "deep, nearly level to strongly sloping, well drained and somewhat poorly drained, medium textured soils that formed in a thin mantle of loess and the underlying glacial till on uplands" (USDA/SCS 1978). Soils within the Project Area are listed in Table 4 and depicted on Figure 4. Table 4. Soil Units within the Project Area Soil Type Soil Characteristics Drainage Type Hydric Br Brookston silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes Poorly drained Yes CrA Crosby silt loam, fine loamy subsoil, 0-2% slopes Somewhat poorly drained No MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2-6% slopes, eroded Moderately well drained No MoC3 Miami clay loam, 6 to 12% slopes, severely eroded Moderately well drained No Sh Shoals silt loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration Somewhat poorly drained No YbvA Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2% slopes Poorly drained Yes YclA Crosby silt loam, fine-loamy subsoil-Urban land complex, 0 to 2% slopes Somewhat poorly drained No YmsC2 Miami silt loam-Urban land complex, 6 to 12%, eroded Moderately well drained No 2.2.2 Climate Mild winters and warm summers characterize the humid continental climate typical of central Indiana (USDA/SCS 1978). The average winter temperature in the region fall to the -1s Celsius (high-20s Fahrenheit) and reaches the 30s Celsius (mid-80s Fahrenheit) in the summer months. Precipitation is fairly constant throughout the year, but peaks between April and September, which coincides with the growing season for most crops (USDA/SCS 1978). 2.2.3 Flora and Fauna In Indiana, the ecological communities in the forests presented a wide variety of resources available to precontact and post-contact populations. Plant species such as white, red, and black oak, pignut and shagbark hickory, sugar maple, and beech, would have provided nuts and other food resources to native Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 11 groups. Animal species occurring in this environment would have included a variety of woodland mammals such as gray wolf, red wolf, black bear, white-tailed deer, red fox, gray fox, eastern cottontail, and bison (Mumford 1966). River valleys would have contained a variety of shellfish, fish, amphibians and reptiles, as well as migratory waterfowl. Other birds such as wild turkeys and passenger pigeons would have also been present (Mumford 1966). Much of the area where these natural communities occurred has been cleared due to the high agricultural productivity of this region. Br CrA YbvAYclA YmsB2 YclA Sh YclA MmB2 CrA Br Br Br YclA YclAW CrA YclAMmB2 CrA CrA YclA CrA YmsC2 Br YclA MmB2MmB2 CrABrCrAMoC3 YclA W MmB2MmC2 CrA CrA YclAYbvA W 141ST ST W 146TH ST SHELBORNE RDOVERBROOK DR PELHAM RD MARSDALE PLPERCIVAL DR BEAR CREEK WAY ALDREW PL DUNELLEN CI R MmB2 Br Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 4: Project Area SoilsThis m ap and all data contained within aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno,Inc. ex pressly disclaim s responsibility fordam ages or liability from any claim s thatm ay arise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole responsibility of theuser to determ ine if the data on this m apm eets the user’s needs. This m ap was notcreated as survey data, nor should it beused as such. It is the user’s responsibilityto obtain proper survey data, prepared bya licensed surveyor, where required bylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 Trail Survey AreaInfrastructure Survey Area Soil UnitSoil Unit - Hydric Project Area File Path: R:\Projects\09\0901\0901093_Carm elClay_CentralPark\34_Bear Creek Park\GIS\MXD\Phase1\Fig4_SoilSurvey.m x dBasem ap: Date: 5/24/2022 Saved By: Stephen.LaFon 0 500250 Feet 0 50 100 150 Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Symbol Description Hydric Br Brookston silty clay loam , 0 to 2 percent slopes Y esCrACrosby silt loam , fine-loam y subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes NoMmB2Miam i silt loam , 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded NoMoC3Miam i clay loam , 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded NoShShoals silt loam , 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration NoYbvABrookston silty clay loam -Urban land com plex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NoYclACrosby silt loam , fine-loam y subsoil-Urban land com plex, 0 to 2 percent slopes NoYmsC2Miam i silt loam -Urban land com plex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded No Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 13 2.3 Precontact Cultural Setting Archaeological sites are well-documented in Hamilton County, Indiana. The county is located in a region with a temperate climate, well-drained soils, subtle topography, and riverine corridors, making it an ideal location for settlement and subsistence throughout history. Over 1,800 archaeological sites have been recorded in Hamilton County to date (IDNR-DHPA 2007). These sites include approximately 300 post- contact archaeological sites and over 1,500 precontact archaeological sites (IDNR-DHPA 2007). The precontact occupation of Indiana is generally divided into four broad periods: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. Hamilton County contains sites dating to each of these time periods; however, the majority of recorded precontact sites in the county do not contain diagnostic artifacts, and therefore cannot be attributed to specific cultural occupations. The Paleoindian period encompasses the cultural remains of the earliest recorded occupations in the region. Paleoindian sites date to early postglacial times, after 12,000 B. P. (years Before Present). In Hamilton County, currently only eight documented Paleoindian sites exist (IDNR-DHPA 2007). The majority of these sites consist of individual fluted projectile points, a characteristic artifact type for the Paleoindian period. The Archaic period is identified by archaeologists as the timespan when more localized seasonal settlement and subsistence patterns replaced the broad seasonal migration patterns of the Paleoindian period. Over 200 Archaic period sites are recorded in Hamilton County (IDNR-DHPA 2007). The majority of these sites consist of small camps, identified through the presence of characteristic projectile points. The innovation of ceramic technology and the emergence of cultigens generally define the transition to the Woodland time period. Woodland period sites are often identifiable through recovered pottery sherds, in addition to stylistic projectile points. In Hamilton County, over 100 Woodland period sites are currently recorded (IDNR-DHPA 2007). The Albee Phase is a prime example of Woodland period occupation within northern and central Indiana, and dates to the Late Woodland period (between about A.D. 850 and 1100) (Schurr 2003). Albee ceramics are generally thought to exist within the Wabash Valley in Indiana (Schurr 2003). Schurr (2003) states that there are some problems with the current definition of the Albee Phase, but the findings in central and northern Indiana suggest two things: the dispersion of Albee ceramics suggests substantial communication between the Kankakee and Wabash Valleys around A.D. 1,000; and that Albee ceramics are more widely dispersed chronologically and temporally than previously thought. These occupations appear to have been terminated by the intrusion of Upper Mississippian groups from the west. If this is the case, the ultimate fate of the Albee-related peoples of northwestern Indiana remains unknown and is a topic for future research (Schurr 2003). Archaeologists divide the Mississippian period into two general cultural adaptations. The Middle Mississippian represents the expression of influences from the southeastern U.S., resulting in the development of complex sociopolitical organizations. Middle Mississippian sites generally occur in the southern half of Indiana, with the majority located in southwest Indiana. The second adaptation, the Upper Mississippian, may be characterized as the “Mississippianization” of groups influenced by populations in the Great Lakes region. Upper Mississippian groups in Indiana are generally found in the northern, central, and southeastern parts of the state and generally demonstrate less “classic” characteristics of Mississippian cultures. The Oliver Phase represents Mississippian period occupations located in central and south-central Indiana and is best described as a collection of village-dwellings, mainly located along the drainages of the East and West Forks of the White River. The Oliver Phase (AD 1200-1450) exhibited a heavy reliance on maize, and settlements contained a great deal of diversity from circular villages with post stockade walls and ditches to dispersed “farmsteads” along floodplains and linear settlements along natural levees (McCullough 2000). The Mississippian period is not well-documented in Hamilton County. To date, fewer than 10 sites are affiliated with the Mississippian time period, documented through characteristic pottery and tools (IDNR-DHPA 2007). Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 14 2.3.1 Contact and Post-Contact Periods (ca. 1650 C.E. – Present) The Contact Period represents the initial time when Europeans and Native Americans began to interact directly. Prior to this time, Native American communities had known of European presence on the continent through interregional communication, exotic goods, disease, and warfare, but scholars designate the early to mid-seventeenth century as the time during which Europeans began to physically enter present-day Indiana. The Contact Period covers the initial interval of direct interaction between Native Americans and Europeans, and the Post-Contact Period represents the time after which European and Euro-American peoples and culture spread across the region. To date, no contact-period sites have been identified in Hamilton County. While the following sections focus on European and Euro-American activities within present-day Indiana, it is important to acknowledge that Native American nations played a vital role in Indiana’s Post-Contact Period and continue to influence Indiana’s culture today. These Nations have demonstrated resilience and resistance in the face of concerted efforts to remove them from their land and culture. In the first treaty following the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the state government forcibly removed many of the Native Americans inhabiting Indiana from their homes in 1832. We acknowledge the circumstances that led to the forced removal of the displaced peoples and honor their history and resilience. 2.4 Post-Contact Cultural Setting Approximately 16 percent of the recorded archaeological sites in Hamilton County date to the post- contact period (IDNR-DHPA 2007). These sites represent the introduction and perpetuation of European and early American settlement in the region. The majority of these sites consist of domestic, industrial, or commercial development associated with the historic growth of Hamilton County. Some common recorded site types include elements of farmsteads or other residential sites, municipal buildings such as schools or churches, commercial structures such as mills, or post-contact dump and debris discard areas. 2.4.1 Hamilton County Hamilton County is located in central Indiana in the White River Valley. The land that was eventually to become Hamilton County was first settled by Europeans in 1822 when the land office in Brookville, Indiana offered large expanses of land for purchase in central Indiana (Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana [HLFI] 1992). The following year, Hamilton County was formally established, and the village of Noblesville named the county seat (HLFI 1992). Settlement occurred quickly in Hamilton County due to its rich farmland and access to major transportation routes. The development of a rail system and the discovery of natural gas dramatically affected the county’s economic growth during the years following the Civil War (HLFI 1992). The county’s first railroad was followed quickly by other lines. Towns such as Durbin, Jolietville, Eagletown, and Fishers grew up along the lines, becoming commercial centers for their respective areas (HLFI 1992). Washington Township is located in west-central Hamilton County and was organized in 1833. The township was first settled in 1832 by Quakers who had moved to the area from North Carolina (HLFI 1992). The proposed project is located south of the city of Westfield, which was organized by Ambrose Osborn, Asa Beales, and Simon Moon in 1834 (HLFI 1992). Asa Beales had opened the first store in 1832, a post office was created in 1837, a flour mill was constructed by Isaac Williams and Company in 1848, and a tannery was built before the Civil War by A. E. Funderburg and Joseph Conklin. Hamilton County’s only Congregational Church was founded by Jabez Neal, and a church was constructed in Westfield in 1855. The State Bank of Westfield was created in 1884 and the bank building, which remains as the most prominent commercial building in the city, was erected in 1899. The first library was also built in Westfield in 1910 by Carnegie and was later expanded in 1918 (HLFI 1992). Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Literature Review 15 2.4.2 Clay Township Clay Township is situated in the southwestern corner of Hamilton County and was established in 1833 by the County Board of Commissioners (Haines 1915). Though formally established in 1833, the first European American settlers came to Clay Township in the early 1820’s (Haines 1915). Initially a wooded area with sections of swamps and floodplains, the early to mid-1830’s saw Clay Township experience larger scale development and agriculture as the Indianapolis and Peru State Road surveyed through the region. This facilitated the movement of settlers, bringing with them the construction of houses, churches, county buildings, and pioneer schools (Haines 1915). As were many townships in Indiana, much of Clay Township was historically used as agricultural land, and while it retains some of that usage today, Clay Township is also home to the large urban city of Carmel, Indiana. 2.5 Summary and Discussion This section presented the results of the cultural resources records review. The records check indicates that seventeen archaeological sites and two IHSSI-listed resources, one of which is a church and the other its associated cemetery, are located within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. None of these resources are located within or adjacent to the current Project Area. The seventeen archaeological sites consist of nineteenth to twentieth century post-contact artifact scatters and temporally unidentified precontact scatters and isolated finds. An additional isolated find consisted of a projectile point dating to the Early Archaic temporal period (12H718). Based on the results of the field reconnaissance and archival research, the seventeen recorded archaeological sites were recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The cultural context of the region suggests that additional unidentified cultural resources persist in this area. The precontact context of the region suggests that unidentified precontact archaeological sites may represent a variety of time periods, ranging from precontact Paleoindian period sites through proto- historic Native American sites. These sites may represent a variety of site types including isolated artifacts to larger occupational sites. Terrace remnants, hill and/or sandy ridge features, particularly in association with drainages or other water sources are local landforms likely to contain archaeological deposits. The post-contact context of the region also suggests that unidentified post-contact archaeological sites may represent a variety of activities ranging from dump and debris discard areas to residential sites. Post- contact sites also tend to occur in conjunction with transportation features such as drainages, railroads, and roads. Additionally, these types of transportation features can be considered cultural resources. Based on the review of historical maps, three structures may have been located within the Project Area between 1866 and present (Appendix A). Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Methods 16 3 Methods This section describes the regulations and guidelines governing archaeological fieldwork as well as the research design, field methods, and laboratory methods employed during the Phase Ia survey. The objective of the Phase Ia was to identify cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project and to evaluate their eligibility for the NRHP. 3.1 Applicable Regulations and Guidelines Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that federal agencies assess the effect(s) of their projects on cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP. While no specific federal agency is responsible for this review, Section 106 of the NHPA applies to any federal agency undertaking that has the potential to affect cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP, should they be present. This federal agency action may include permitting, funding, or other approval of project activities. The current project is not considered a Federal Undertaking under Section 106 of the NHPA due to the lack of federal involvement. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation has requested an archaeological survey out of respect for the preservation of cultural resources. The current survey was conducted in a way to satisfy requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that the federal agency assess the effect(s) of their undertakings in areas where the effects are likely to occur, known as the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The APE takes into account both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are limited to the areas of likely ground disturbance in the planned area of improvements and in associated easements. Direct effects in these areas may affect archaeological or architectural resources, if present. Indirect effects include areas where visual, noise, or other effects caused by the project occur outside the footprint of the project area. Indirect effects may affect architectural resources, certain types of archaeological resources, or other cultural resources if present. The Indiana Administrative Code IC 14-21-1, as amended by Public Law 175 in 1989 and House Enrolled Act No. 1129 in 2008 also provides protection for archaeological sites and historic burial sites regardless of their location on state or private lands. All archaeological sites with artifacts dating before December 31, 1870, are protected under this act. Human burial sites are afforded protection under IC 14-21-1, IC 14-21-2, IC 23-14 (Indiana General Cemetery Act), and others. IC 14-21-1 protects burial grounds or cemeteries containing human remains buried before January 1, 1940, while IC 23-14 protects burial grounds or cemeteries containing human remains buried after January 1, 1940. 3.2 Research Design Cardno based the research design on the results of the records check, environmental data, and the precontact and post-contact cultural background information. Based on the context of the area, any unidentified precontact sites may range from isolated artifacts such as projectile points or other tools, to small, diffuse artifact scatters, to larger, denser distributions of artifacts. Any unidentified post-contact sites are likely to be related to agricultural and/or rural domestic activity associated with the post-contact development of Hamilton County. 3.3 Field Methods Cardno conducted the archaeological fieldwork using methods consistent with IDNR-DHPA guidelines (IDNR–DHPA 2022). Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation will develop the property into a public park. Cardno surveyed the areas slated for ground disturbance related to the trails and park infrastructure, which include approximately 10.22 acres of infrastructure and 930 meters of trails (Figure 1). Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Methods 17 The portions of the Project Area which were the focus of this investigation exhibited less than 30 percent surface visibility; therefore, Cardno conducted systematic shovel probe investigation. Adherence to these intervals was maintained as closely as possible, although shovel test units were occasionally off-set due to the presence of utility corridors, drainage ditches, and roots. Cardno conducted shovel test probe excavation in several different portions of the Project Area. Systematic shovel testing was conducted along the proposed trails, along an access route which partially followed an existing gravel drive off Shelborne Road, and within two areas slated for ground disturbance and facility construction. Portions of the southern area were subjected to construction related to the installation of a sewer line prior to survey, which disturbed the ground surface. Visibility in these areas was greater than 90 percent and the areas of ground disturbance were subsequently visually inspected (Appendix B, Photograph 1). Pursuant to IDNR-DHPA Guidelines (IDNR–DHPA 2022), shovel tests were 30 centimeters (cm; 11.8 inches [in]) in diameter and extended into undisturbed soils or to a maximum depth of 50 cm (19.7 in). Soils removed from the units were screened for cultural materials through ¼-inch hardware mesh and immediately backfilled. The crew documented and characterized soil stratigraphy according to the Munsell color guide (Munsell 1994). Shovel test units that exhibited disturbance, such as mixed and mottled “A” and “B” horizons were excavated until intact subsoil was encountered, or to a maximum depth of 50 cm (19.7 in). Shovel tests that became inundated with water were not fully excavated. No additional portions of the Project Area will be subjected to ground-disturbing activities; therefore, no additional portions of the Project Area were investigated beyond those previously discussed. When the crew encountered an artifact isolate and/or concentration, artifact collection methodology was consistent with IDNR-DHPA Guidelines (IDNR–DHPA 2022). No precontact material was noted during the investigation. Archaeologists recorded the artifact distribution, along with relevant landscape features, with a Trimble R1 receiver capable of real-time sub-meter accuracy. For identified post-contact artifact scatters, the Field Supervisor, a Qualified Professional in Midwestern historic archaeology, focused on collecting diagnostic artifacts. Materials with no identifying characteristics, artifacts of recent origin, and artifacts which were large and non-diagnostic (i.e. fragments of brick of unknown manufacture) were left in the field. Counts and descriptive notes were recorded for the materials left in the field. 3.4 Laboratory Methods Laboratory staff cleaned, sorted, analyzed, and cataloged all cultural material recovered during the investigation. Once cataloged, artifacts were counted, weighed, and photographed. 3.4.1 Precontact Artifacts No precontact sites were identified during the current investigation. Precontact sites are most commonly identified by the presence of lithic artifacts. 3.4.2 Post-Contact Artifacts Following initial processing, post-contact materials were identified categorically along a spectrum ranging from general to specific. Artifacts were first separated into broad material categories (e.g. bone, brick, ceramic, glass, and metal). Although brick is a ceramic material in that it is fired clay, it is easily recognized as a structural element, and has therefore been categorized separately from other ceramic items. Sub-material types were then utilized to further evaluate and classify those artifacts with additional characteristics beyond their general material. These sub-material types included a variety of ceramic wares and their surface treatments, the production characteristics of flat and vessel glass, which include categories such as embossed, pressed, paneled, and undecorated, and specific types of metal, such as ferrous, cast iron, or copper alloy. The final, most specific classification focused on artifact type, and was used to identify, when possible, the exact function of an artifact, such as a dinner plate, architectural nail, or glass medicinal bottle. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Methods 18 Artifacts were further separated into functional categories in order to determine the function of a feature or site. The functional categories used in the present study include: Activity, Architectural, Kitchen, and Personal. These categories are based on methods set forth by South (1977) and described in greater detail below. South (1977) launched his methodological framework to draw out cultural trends at post-contact sites through easily quantifiable data based on the artifacts identified. The Activity group is a broad category encompassing a multitude of artifacts associated with work related activities and includes all materials, tools, and machinery associated with those activities. The Architecture group encompasses artifacts associated with the external and internal material remains of structures. The Kitchen group is one of the largest functional groups, composed of a variety of artifacts related to cooking, dining, and storing foodstuff. Artifacts within the Personal group are often some of the most interesting due to their tendency to be associated with the familiar routines of daily life. For recovered ceramics, classifications and chronologies formulated by Greer (2005), Miller (1991), and Samford & Miller (2002) were referenced to identify and date ceramic artifacts for the current project. Bottle glass in particular was analyzed according to Lindsey’s (2022) classification, terminology, definitions, and chronology. 3.5 Curation Cardno collected all artifacts for transport to our laboratory in Indianapolis, Indiana. Following review and concurrence of the report of investigations by the IDNR-DHPA, artifacts will be returned to the current landowner (Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation). An Indiana archaeological site record will also be completed for the identified archaeological site. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 19 4 Results Cardno conducted the fieldwork on May 9 and 10, 2022. Weather was warm and sunny with temperatures around 24° Celsius (75° Fahrenheit). Ground surface visibility in the wooded area, grassy yard lot, and overgrown pastures was 0 percent (Appendix B, Photographs 1-4). Ground visibility in areas of previous ground disturbance relating to construction was greater than 90 percent and disturbance in these areas extended to 50 cm below ground surface (Appendix B, Photograph 5). Photographs of the field investigation are included in Appendix B. 4.1 Fieldwork Results During fieldwork, Cardno field technicians excavated 221 shovel test probes throughout the Project Area (Figure 5). These shovel tests consisted of 180 negative probes, nine positive probes, and two disturbed probes. Six negative probes located in proximity to site 12H1935 contained between one and 10 fragments of brick, which were counted and discarded in the field. An additional 24 probes were recorded as “No Dig” due to their location on slope, within creeks or areas of standing water, near extant utilities, or within paved areas on the access road. Portions of the southern Project Area were subjected to construction related to the installation of a sewer line prior to fieldwork, which disturbed the ground surface. Visibility in these areas was greater than 90 percent. A shovel probe excavated within the construction area exhibited disturbance and fill to a depth of at least 50 cm below ground surface and the areas of ground disturbance were subsequently visually inspected (Appendix B, Photograph 5). Overall, the intact shovel test probes across the project area displayed multiple soil profiles. The A horizon ranged in depth from approximately 5 to 50 cm (2.0 in to 19.7 in) and consisted of gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam, gray (10YR 3/1) clay loam, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam, brown (10YR 4/3) clay loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4 and 10YR 4/6) silt loam. The B horizon ranged from very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam, brown (10YR 4/3) or dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silt loam or clay loam sometimes followed by inundation with water at 20-30 cm below ground surface, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4 and 10YR 5/6) silty clay or clay loam sometimes mottled with very dark brown (10YR 2/2) clay loam or light gray (10YR 7/1) silty clay, and yellowish brown (10YR 5/4 and 10YR 5/6) silt loam (Appendix B, Photographs 5-8). Nine shovel test probes were positive for cultural material, and one new archaeological site was identified within the Project Area (12H1935; Figures 6 and 7). The fieldwork results are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. W 146TH ST SHELBORNE RDPhase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 5: Fieldwork ResultsThis m ap an d all data co n tain ed within aresupplied as is with n o warran ty. Cardn o ,In c. expressly disclaim s respo n sibility fo rdam ages o r liability fro m an y claim s thatm ay arise o ut o f the use o r m isuse o f thism ap. It is the so le respo n sibility o f theuser to determ in e if the data o n this m apm eets the user’s n eeds. This m ap was n o tcreated as survey data, n o r sho uld it beused as such. It is the user’s respo n sibilityto o btain pro per survey data, prepared bya licen sed surveyo r, where required bylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 DisturbedNegative STPNo DigOn ly Brick No ted Po sitive STPSurface Fin dTrail Survey AreaIn frastructure Survey Area No Dig - Creek an d Slo peNo Dig - Distrubed an d UtilitiesNo Dig - Disturbed an d Man ho lePro ject Area File Path: R:\Pro jects\09\0901\0901093_ Carm elClay_ Cen tralPark\34_ Bear Creek Park\GIS\MXD\Phase1\Fig5_ Fieldwo rkResults.m xdBasem ap: Date: 5/24/2022 Saved By: Stephen .LaFo n 0 200100 Feet 0 20 40 60Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Potential Site not located 12H1935 Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 6: Site LocationThis m ap an d all data co n tain ed within aresupplied as is with n o warran ty. Cardn o ,In c. expressly disclaim s respo n sibility fo rdam ages o r liability fro m an y claim s thatm ay arise o ut o f the use o r m isuse o f thism ap. It is the so le respo n sibility o f theuser to determ in e if the data o n this m apm eets the user’s n eeds. This m ap was n o tcreated as survey data, n o r sho uld it beused as such. It is the user’s respo n sibilityto o btain pro per survey data, prepared bya licen sed surveyo r, where required bylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 12H1935Po ten tial site n o t lo cated Pro ject Area File Path: R:\Pro jects\09\0901\0901093_ Carm elClay_ Cen tralPark\34_ Bear Creek Park\GIS\MXD\Phase1\Fig6_ SiteLo catio n .m xdBasem ap: Co pyright:© 2013 Natio n al Geo graphic So ciety, i-cubed Date: 6/1/2022 Saved By: Stephen .LaFo n 0 100 200 300 Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com 0 1,000500 Feet Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 22 4.1.1 Site 12H1935 Site 12H1935 consists of a small post-contact artifact scatter (N=29) identified during the systematic shovel testing of an overgrown agricultural field and extant native prairie. UTM coordinates: (NAD 1983) 566255 m E, 4427780 m N Cultural period: Post-Contact (Mid-Late 19th Century) Site dimensions: 36.1 meters E/W by 40.7 meters N/S (118.4 feet by 133.5 feet), 966.8 square meters (3771.9 square feet) Physiographic region: Tipton Till Plain Section Topographic setting: Upland Flats Elevation: 909 feet AMSL Soil type: Miami silt loam (MmB2), 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Watershed: Upper White Nearest water source: Unnamed Tributary of Bear Creek Distance and direction to nearest water source: 70 meters (229.7 feet) southeast Surface visibility: 0 percent Site 12H1935 is located in the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 19, Township 18 North, Range 3 East as shown on the USGS 7.5’ series Carmel, Indiana topographic quadrangle (Figure 6). The site consists of a small post-contact artifact scatter (N=29) identified during the systematic shovel testing of an overgrown agricultural field and extant native prairie with no ground surface visibility (Plate 1). Radial shovel tests were excavated at 5 m (16.4 ft) until two negative shovel tests were encountered to the north and east; however, the Project Area boundaries prevented complete delineation to the west and south. Nine shovel tests were positive for cultural material at site 12H1935, with an additional six shovel tests containing between one and 10 fragments of brick, which were noted and discarded in the field (Figure 7). Most of these brick fragments were small, likely broken from larger pieces during STP excavation. Additionally, none of the brick fragments had identifying marks. The soil on which the site is located is Miami silt loam (MmB2), 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded. The excavated shovel test probes exhibited a typical soil profile of a brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam A-horizon ranging from 22 cm (8.6 in) to 38 cm (15.0 in) below surface over a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4 or 10YR 5/6) silt loam subsoil (Plate 4). No evidence of soil staining related to the presence of subsurface features was observed. Site 12H1935 measures 40.7 m north to south by 36.1 meters east to west (133.5 ft by 118.4 ft). Plate 1. Overview of 12H1935. Photo facing southeast. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 23 Historic maps were referenced in order to identify potential structures in proximity to the scatter. The Hamilton County Assessor’s GIS website indicates that this parcel belongs to the Carmel Clay Board of Parks and Recreation, transferred from Beth and David Bidgood in September 2021. There are no extant structures on this property. A review of aerials from 1952 through 2018 reveals one structure within the Project Area; however, this structure was not in proximity to site 12H1935. Historic maps between 1866 and 1959 were reviewed (Appendix A). The 1866 map indicates the landowner as T. Stalbtz [Stultz]; one structure is depicted in the northern portion of the parcel, within the vicinity of site 12H1935 (McClellan and Warner 1866; Plate 2). By 1896, the parcel is depicted as being owned by J. M. Stultz and has no structures illustrated (Cottingham 1896; Plate 3). In 1906, the property owner of the parcel is listed as Marion Stultz with no structures illustrated (Cottingham 1906). Mapping from 1922 does not illustrate building locations; and therefore, it is unknown if a structure stood in the vicinity of site 12H1935 during this time (Kenyon Company 1922). Historic mapping from 1936 depicts one structure in the southwestern portion of the Project Area, not in the vicinity of site 12H1935 (Indiana Highway Survey Commission 1936). This structure is in approximately the same location as the structure which first appears in 1956 aerial imagery, but due to the absence of any structures on the parcel in 1952, it cannot be confirmed that these structures are the same (NetrOnline 2022). US Census Records reveal no individuals named “Stalbtz” residing in Clay Township between 1830 and 1950; however, multiple individuals with the surname “Stultz” or “Stutts” are recorded as residents of the township during that time. The E. Clampell family, documented neighbors of the Stabltz family on the 1866 map, are recorded in the 1860 census as the “Clampitt” family, suggesting that the 1866 historic mapping and corresponding census records may contain spelling discrepancies and likely reflects an association of the “Stalbtz” family with the “Stultz” and “Stutts” names (United States Census Bureau 1860; McClellan and Warner 1866; Plate 2; Plate 3). US General Land Office Records describe the “east half of the northeast quarter of Section 19, in Township 18, north of Range 3 east”, as being transferred to Thomas Stultz on October 15, 1835 (United States Bureau of Land Management 1935). Thomas A. Stultz was born in 1808 in North Carolina and died in 1894 in Boone County, Indiana; he is buried in Eagle Creek Cemetery in Westfield, Hamilton County, Indiana (Find a Grave 2022). Census records from 1840 denote a Thomas Stultz as a resident of Clay Township, while records from 1850 and 1860 describe a Thomas Stutts or Stultz, wife Sarah, and multiple children as residing in the township. Thomas was a farmer with real estate assets worth 600 dollars which had increased to 4000 dollars by 1860 (United States Census Bureau 1840; United States Census Bureau 1850, United States Census Bureau 1860). The E. Clampell and Conrad families, neighbors of the Stalbtz [Stultz] family in 1866 mapping, are included on the same census page as the family in 1850 and 1860, suggesting the Thomas Stultz family may have resided in the structure depicted on the 1866 historic map (United States Census Bureau 1850; United States Census Bureau 1860; Plate 2). An 1874 Boone County Directory indicates Thomas Stultz relocated in 1868 (The People’s Guide 1874: p 377). Subsequent census records depict Thomas and Sarah Stultz as residents of Union Township in Boone County and Center Township in 1870 and 1880, respectively (United States Census Bureau 1870; United States Census Bureau 1880). Mapping depicts no structures on the parcel by 1896, indicating the Stalbtz [Stultz] structure may have been removed between 1866 and 1896, possibly as early as 1868 after the family had relocated to neighboring Boone County. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 24 Plate 2. 1866 Map showing the approximate location of site 12H1935 Plate 3. 1896 Map showing the approximate location of site 12H1935 Based off the temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from site 12H1935, the post-contact component of the site represents a mid-late nineteenth century refuse scatter. Most likely, the artifact scatter is the result of the historic use of the landscape related to the historically mapped structure in the vicinity of site 12H1935. Artifacts consisted of glass, ceramics, and metal. In total, 29 artifacts were recovered from the overgrown agricultural field and extant native prairie containing site 12H1935. Diagnostic artifacts consisted predominantly of fragments of glass and ceramic containers, as well as cut nails (Plate 5). Plate 4. Typical soil profile for site 12H1935 Plate 5. Artifacts recovered from site 12H1935 (Top to Bottom, left to right) CAT Nos. 1.1.1 - 1.9.3 Temporally diagnostic glass artifacts present at site 12H1935 consist of solarized glass manufactured between 1875 and 1920 (Jones & Sullivan 1989; Lockhart 2006; CAT No. 2.2.4). In addition, various unidentified aqua flat glass fragments were recovered. Recovered ceramic varieties include whiteware and stoneware. The stoneware fragments consist of two body fragments with Albany-slipped interior and a salt glazed exterior, which were manufactured from 1825 to 1900 (Greer 2005; CAT Nos. 1.1.2, 1.4.1; Plate 5). Six undecorated whiteware fragments manufactured post 1830 (Miller 1991; CAT Nos. 1.2.3, 1.5.2, 1.8.2, 1.9.2; Plate 5) were recovered, along with two blue painted edge-decorated rim pieces, one with impressed lines and one without, with manufacture dates of 1800-1860s and 1860s-1890s, respectively (Samford & Miller 2002; CAT Nos. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 25 1.2.2, 1.9.1). While these artifacts all have nineteenth century manufacture dates, it is likely that they were used past their end manufacture date. Diagnostic metal artifacts recovered consist of late and indeterminate cut nails (1835-1880; 1790-1880; Nelson 1968; CAT Nos. 1.3.1, 1.7.1; Plate 5). Undated material recovered includes miscellaneous glass of unknown manufacture and a sample of brick fragments (N=3). An additional 10-20 fragments of brick were noted on the ground surface or recovered from shovel tests and discarded in the field. Only one shovel test contained more than two brick fragments, and while the test did contain between five and 10 fragments of brick, it is likely the fragments all broke from the same larger fragment lodged in the wall of the shovel test. The following artifacts were recovered from site 12H1935 (Table 5); a comprehensive artifact catalog is included in Appendix C. Table 5. Artifacts Recovered from site 12H1935 Material Type Artifact Type Depth of Recovery (cmbs) Date Range Count Refined Earthenware Whiteware-Undecorated 0-30, 0-31, 0-32 Post 1830 6 Whiteware-Edge Decorated, Impressed 0-30 1800-1860s 1 Whiteware-Edge Decorated, Non-impressed 0-31 1860s-1890s 1 Stoneware Albany-slipped/salt glazed 0-15 1825-1900 2 Unrefined Earthenware Brick 0-28 3 0-38 10-20* Glass Unknown Container - Aqua 0-31 4 Unknown Container - Solarized 0-27, 0-30, 0-32 1875-1920 1 Flat Glass - Aqua 0-27, 0-31, 0-32 9 Metal Late cut nail 0-28 1835-1880 1 Indeterminate cut nail 0-10 1790-1880 1 *discarded in field Total Recovered 29 The archaeological survey revealed no intact structural remains or deposits beneath the ground surface related to the historic occupation of the site, which historic mapping and Bureau of Land Management records date to as early as 1835 and certainly by 1866. Historic occupation of the site ended by 1896 at the latest and possibly as early as 1868. The artifact assemblage reflects a mid- to late nineteenth century occupation. It appears that site 12H1935 is a refuse scatter related to historic use of the land in the mid to late nineteenth century. The site cannot be directly associated with any significant persons or events in the region, nor does it appear to offer information important to the history of the region. For these reasons, site 12H1935, as it is currently defined, is not eligible for the NRHP and no further archaeological work is recommended. 12H1935 Phase Ia Archaeological ReconnaissanceBear Creek Park ProjectCarmel Clay Parks & RecreationHamilton County, Indiana Figure 7: Site 12H1935This m ap and all data contained within aresupplied as is with no warranty. Cardno,Inc. ex pressly disclaim s responsibility fordam ages or liability from any claim s thatm ay arise out of the use or m isuse of thism ap. It is the sole responsibility of theuser to determ ine if the data on this m apm eets the user’s needs. This m ap was notcreated as survey data, nor should it beused as such. It is the user’s responsibilityto obtain proper survey data, prepared bya licensed surveyor, where required bylaw. ² 7.5' Quadrangle: CARMELT18n R3e Sec19Project No.j090109334 DisturbedNegative STP !(No DigOnly Brick Noted Positive STPSurface FindNo Dig - Disturbed and Manhole12H1935 Infrastructure Survey AreaProject Area File Path: R:\Projects\09\0901\0901093_Carm elClay_CentralPark\34_Bear Creek Park\GIS\MX D\Phase1\Fig7_Site12H1935.m x dBasem ap: Date: 6/1/2022 Saved By: Stephen.LaFon 0 10050 Feet 0 10 20 30Meters 3901 Industrial Blvd.,Indianapolis, IN 46254Phone (+1) 317-388-1982 Fax (+1) 317-388-1986 www.cardno.com Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Results 27 4.2 Potential Sites Not Identified During the Field Effort Analysis of historic mapping and archival documentation indicated the presence of historic structures within the Project Area. Cardno identified one of the two, potentially three mapped structure locations during the current Phase Ia effort; however, the remaining mapped structure(s) locations/location were not relocated. These are described below. 4.2.1 14330 Shelborne Road Historic mapping from 1936 depicts one structure in the southwestern portion of the Project Area, although the map does not denote landowners (Indiana Highway Survey Commission 1936). This structure is in approximately the same location as a structure which first appears in 1956 aerial imagery, but due to the absence of any structures on the parcel based on an aerial image from 1952, it cannot be confirmed that these structures are the same (NetrOnline 2022). A review of aerials from 1952 through 2018 reveals an additional structure within the Project Area, first appearing in on aerials in 1956 and depicted consistently through 2018. Property records indicate construction began on the dwelling in 1951 (Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation 2022). The structure also appears on topographic mapping from 1959 (USGS 1959). This structure has since been demolished, leaving an open overgrown grassy lawn surrounded by remnant woodlot (NetrOnline 2022; Plate 6). Shovel tests were excavated according to the methodology described in this report and the ground surface scrutinized for surface artifacts. No artifacts were recovered from subsurface investigations. At least one fragment of PVC pipe and a cut coaxial cable were noted on the surface, but not collected. A cast iron bathtub was noted in the creek basin directly below the landform where the structure previously stood. Plate 6. Overview of the area previously occupied by the dwelling at 14330 Shelborne Rd. Photo facing northeast. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Conclusions and Recommendations 28 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation contracted Cardno to conduct a Phase Ia archaeological records review and reconnaissance for the proposed Bear Creek Park Project in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana. The project area is located in Section 19, Township 18 North, Range 3 East on the Carmel, Indiana USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation purchased 27 acres of land located in Clay Township, Hamilton County. The property is located at 14330 Shelbourne Road and currently consists of largely overgrown agricultural fields, extant native prairie, and remnant woodlots. The property will be developed into a public park and provide recreation opportunities to park patrons. Cardno was requested to survey the areas slated for ground disturbance related to the trails and park infrastructure, which include approximately 10.22 acres of infrastructure and 930 meters of trails. The records on file at the IDNR-DHPA indicate that no archaeological sites have been recorded within or immediately adjacent to the Project location; however, seventeen archaeological sites and two IHSSI- listed resources are located within the 1.6 km (1 mi) study area. As a result of the current investigation, Cardno conducted survey work on the proposed areas of ground disturbance that will result from the Project, which included the length of the proposed trails and the areas intended for park infrastructure. Cardno identified one archaeological site, a mid- to late nineteenth century post-contact site (12H1935). Based on the results of the field reconnaissance and archival research, this recorded archaeological site is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and Cardno recommends no further archaeological investigation be required for the proposed project to proceed as planned. These recommendations are based on the current project plans. Currently the project is not considered a Federal Undertaking under Section 106 of the NHPA. Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation has chosen to conduct an archaeological survey out of respect for the preservation of cultural resources. If plans should change, or the Project becomes a Federal Undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Protection Act (NHPA), further archaeological work may be necessary. If archaeological artifacts or human remains are identified during project activities in any location, work within 30m (100 ft) of the discovery must stop and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology must be notified within two (2) business days pursuant to Indiana Code 14-21-1. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec References Cited 29 6 References Cited Bennett, Stacy and Jeffrey Plunkett 2016 Phase Ia Archaeological Field Reconnaissance: Proposed Culvert Replacement on 151st Street in Westfield, Hamilton Co., IN (INDOT Des. No. 1500431). Prepared by Accidental Discoveries, LLC. Prepared for Metric Environmental, LLC. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Cottingham C. J. 1906 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana. The Hamilton Trust Company, Noblesville, Indiana. Electronic document, http://cdm16066.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15078coll8/id/1083, accessed April 2022. Map Collection, Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Cottingham, W. F. 1896 Map of Hamilton County Indiana. Fariss and Beck (Chicago, Ill.). Electronic Document, https://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15078coll8/id/4023, accessed April 2022. Map Collection, Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Feldhues, William and Mitchell Zoll 1995 Archaeological Filed Reconnaissance: 146th Street Corridor Improvements, Boone and Hamilton County, Indiana. Prepared by Archaeological Resources Management Service – Ball State University. Prepared for American Consulting Engineers, Inc. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Find a Grave 2022 Thomas A. Stultz, US. Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current. Ancestry, https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/60525/, accessed May 2022. Greer, G. H. 2005 American Stonewares: The Arts and Crafts of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer Publishing Co., Atglen. Guernsey, E.Y. 1932 Indiana, the influence of the Indian upon its history – with Indian and French names for natural and cultural locations. Department of Conservation, State of Indiana, Indianapolis. Haines, J.F. 1915 History of Hamilton County Indiana. Her People, Industries, and Institutions. B.F. Bowen & Company, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana. Electronic document, https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Hamilton_County_Indiana/sFE0AQAAMAAJ?hl =en&gbpv=1, accessed April 2022. Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation 2022 14330 Shelborne Road. Standard Property Record Card. Electronic document, https://secure2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/PRC/PRC2020/0000059704.pdf, accessed May 2022. Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana (HLFI) 1992 Hamilton County Interim Report: Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, Indianapolis. Homoya, M. A., D. B. Abrell, J. R. A., and T. W. Post 1985 The Natural Regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science 94: 245-269. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec References Cited 30 Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDNR DHPA) 2007 State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD). Electronic document, https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/welcome.html, accessed April 2022. 2022 Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory – Archaeological Sites. Prepared by the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Indiana Geological Survey 2019 Landscapes of Indiana. Electronic document, https://igws.indiana.edu/Surficial/Landscapes Accessed April 2022. Indiana Highway Survey Commission 1936 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana. Electronic document, https://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15078coll8/id/853, accessed April 2022. Map Collection, Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Jones, O. and C. Sullivan 1989 Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture, and History. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa. Kenyon Company, Inc. (Kenyon Company) 1922 Atlas and Plat Book of Hamilton County, Indiana. Enterprise Printing and Publishing Co. Electronic document, https://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/HistAtlas/id/2891, accessed April 2022. Map Collection, Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. King, Brad and Mitchell K. Zoll 2008 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance West 146th Street Added Travel Lanes Des. No. 0810287 Hamilton County, Indiana. Prepared by Pioneer Consulting Services, Inc. Prepared for United Consulting. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Lindsey, Bill 2022 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Electronic document, https://sha.org/bottle/. Accessed April 2022. Lockhart, Bill 2006 The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amethyst Container Glass. Historical Archaeology, 40(2):45-56. McClellan, C.A.O., and C.S. Warner 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana. C.A.O. McClellan and C.S. Warner, Waterloo City, Indiana and Newtown Connecticut. Electronic document, https://www.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/647/Maps-Aerials-Plats, accessed July 2021. McCullough, Robert G. 2000 The Oliver Phase of Central Indiana: A Study of Settlement Variability as a Response to Social Risk. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Miller, G. L. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology, 25(1): 1-25. Mills, W. C. 1914 Archaeological Atlas of Ohio. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec References Cited 31 Mumford, R. E. 1966 Mammals. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp 474-488. Indiana Sesquicentennial Volume, Indiana Academy of Science, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Munsell Soil Color Charts 1994 Munsell Soil-Color Charts with genuine Munsell color chips. Munsell Color, Grand Rapids. Nelson, L.H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. History News 19(2): 25-27. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NetrOnline) 2022 Historic Aerials. Electronic database, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed August 2022. 1952, 1956, 1959, and 2018 aerial images. The People’s Guide 1874 The People's guide : a business, political and religious directory of Boone Co., Ind. : together with a collection of very important documents and statistics connected with our moral, political and scientific history : also a historical sketch of Boone County, and a brief history of each township. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Print. and Pub. House. Samford, Patricia and George L. Miller 2002 “Edged Earthenwares.” Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland. Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory. Electronic document, https://apps.jefpat.maryland.gov/diagnostic/Post-Colonial%20Ceramics/Shell%20Edged%20Wares/index-shelledgedwares.html. Accessed May 2022. Schurr, M.R. 2003 “The Late Prehistory of Northwestern Indiana: New Perspectives on an Old Model”. In Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Late Prehistory of Indiana, A.D. 700 to 1700. Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Stillwell, Larry N. 1999 An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Cellular Phone Tower (Project #MW07140C) near Westfield, Hamilton County, Indiana. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Historic Preservation, Alt-Witzig Engineers, Inc. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. 2005 An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Proposed C.R. 300 South Improvements in Hamilton County, Indiana. Prepared by Archaeological Consultants of Ossian. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Historic Preservation, Dryer Environmental Services, Inc. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. United States Census Bureau 1840 Sixth Census of the United States, Hamilton County, Indiana. Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8057/, accessed May 2022. 1850 Seventh Census of the United States, Hamilton County, Indiana. Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8054/, accessed May 2022. 1860 Eighth Census of the United States, Hamilton County, Indiana. Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7667/, accessed May 2022. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana June 2022 Cardno, now Stantec References Cited 32 1870 Ninth Census of the United States, Hamilton County, Indiana. Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/7163/, accessed May 2022. 1880 Tenth Census of the United States, Hamilton County, Indiana. Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/6742/, accessed May 2022. United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service (USDA/SCS) 1978 Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Bureau of Land Management 1935 US, General Land Office Records, 1776-2015. Automated Records Project; Federal Land Patents, State Volumes. Springfield, Virginia: Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1246/, accessed May 2022. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1959 Carmel 7.5’ 1:24,000 Topographic Quadrangle-Indiana. United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Waldron, John and Mitchell Zoll 1996 Archaeological Filed Reconnaissance Addendum: 146th Street Corridor Improvements, Boone and Hamilton County, Indiana. Prepared by Archaeological Resources Management Service – Ball State University. Prepared for American Consulting Engineers, Inc. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Westmor, Colleen and Kathryn M. H. Finney 2019 Phase I Archaeological Survey Proposed 146th Street Improvement Project Detention Pond and Floodway Mitigation Areas Clay and Washington Townships. Prepared by Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. Prepared for United Consulting. Copy on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources-Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance For the Bear Creek Park Project Hamilton County, Indiana APPENDIX A HISTORIC MAPS Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1866 Map Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1896 Map Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1906 Map Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1922 Atlas and Plat Book Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1936 Map Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1952 Aerial Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1956 Aerial Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Approximate Project Area Appendix A: 1959 Topographic Map Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user’s needs. Project Number: J0901093 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance For the Bear Creek Park Project Hamilton County, Indiana APPENDIX B PHOTO PAGES Appendix B: Project Photographs Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana Site Photographs Project Number: J090109334 These photographs and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of these photographs. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the photographs meet the user’s needs. Photo 3. Overview of the overgrown agricultural field within project area. Photo facing west. Photo 1. Overview of the naƟve prairie within project area. Photo facing east. Photo 2. Overview of the remnant woodlot and overgrown agricultural field within project area. Photo facing west. Photo 4. Overview of Bear Creek in incised floodplain within project area. Pho-to facing northeast. Appendix B: Project Photographs Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Bear Creek Park Project Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation Hamilton County, Indiana Site Photographs Project Number: J090109334 These photographs and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Cardno, Inc. expressly disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of these photographs. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the photographs meet the user’s needs. Photo 7. Example profile of an STP excavated in the remnant woodlot. Soils con-sist of an A-horizon of 32 cm of 10YR 3/2 silt loam over 10YR 5/6 sandy loam. Photo 5. Example profile of an STP excavated in an area of previous construc-Ɵon disturbance. Soils consist of an A-horizon of 50 cm of 10YR 4/4 silt loam. Photo 6. Example profile of an STP excavated in the overgrown agricultural field and extant naƟve prairie. Soils consist of an A-horizon of 24 cm of 10YR 4/3 clay loam over hydric clay and inundaƟon with water at 30 cm. Photo 8. Example profile of a STP excavated in the remnant woodlot. Soils consist of an A-horizon of 24 cm of 10YR4/2 silt loam over 14 cm of 10YR3/1 silt loam over hydric clay. Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance For the Bear Creek Park Project Hamilton County, Indiana APPENDIX C ARTIFACT CATALOG Appendix C: Artifact CatalogSite TrinomialField Site No.PN # Catalog #Provenience LevelDepth (cm)Group ClassArtifactDescriptionAttributesCount Weight (gm) CommentDateRef.12H1935 FS‐1 1 1.1 Surface‐‐Architecture Glass Flat Glass2.05mm, 1.55mmaqua2 2.791885, 1843Moir 198712H1935 FS‐1 1 1.2 Surface‐‐Kitchen Ceramic Stonewaresalt glaze/Albany1 41.23 unk., body1825‐1900Greer 200512H1935 FS‐1 2 2.1 STP NMS 19 1 0‐31 Architecture Glass Flat Glass1.58mm, 1.06mm, 2.17mm aqua3 1.231846, 1802, 1896Moir 198712H1935 FS‐1 2 2.2 STP NMS 19 1 0‐31 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareEdge‐decorated hand‐painted, non‐impressedblue1 0.22 unk., rim1860s‐1890sSamford & Miller 200212H1935FS‐1 2 2.3 STP NMS 19 1 0‐31 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareUndecorated1 0.05 unk., body; 1 side exfoliated Post 1830Miller 199112H1935 FS‐1 2 2.4 STP NMS 19 1 0‐31 Misc. Glass Container, unk. Manufacture unknown solarized1 0.571875‐1920Jones & Sullivan 1989; Lockhart 200612H1935 FS‐1 3 3.1 STP KDS 18 1 0‐28 Architecture Metal Late cut nail fragmentpulled1 11.081835‐1880Nelson 196812H1935 FS‐1 3 3.2 STP KDS 18 1 0‐28 Architecture Ceramic Brickred body3 4.6012H1935 FS‐1 4 4.1 STP NMS 19+10E 1 0‐15 Kitchen Ceramic Stonewaresalt glaze/Albany1 39.42 unk., body1825‐1900Greer 200512H1935 FS‐1 5 5.1 STP NMS 19+5N10‐32 Architecture Glass Flat Glass1.71mm, 1.34mmaqua2 0.751857, 1826Moir 198712H1935 FS‐1 5 5.2 STP NMS 19+5N 1 0‐32 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareUndecorated2 0.88 unk., bodyPost 1830Miller 199112H1935 FS‐1 5 5.3 STP NMS 19+5N 1 0‐32 Misc. Glass Container, unk. Manufacture unknown 1 aqua, 1 colorless 2 1.62 aqua burned12H1935 FS‐1 6 6.1 STP KDS 18+5E 1 0‐27 Architecture Glass Flat Glass1.38mmaqua1 0.171829Moir 198712H1935 FS‐1 6 6.2 STP KDS 18+5E 1 0‐27 Misc. Glass Container, unk. Manufacture unknown aqua1 0.54 unk., body, paneled12H1935 FS‐1 7 7.1 STP NMS 19+20E 1 0‐10 Architecture Metal Indeterminate cut nail fragment1 4.141790‐1880Nelson 196812H1935FS‐1 8 8.1 STP NMS 19+10N 1 0‐32 Architecture Glass Flat Glass1.25mmaqua1 0.241818Moir 198712H1935 FS‐1 8 8.2 STP NMS 19+10N 1 0‐32 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareUndecorated2 1.46 unk., bodyPost 1830Miller 199112H1935 FS‐1 9 9.1 STP NMS 19+5E 1 0‐30 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareEdge‐decorated hand‐painted, impressedblue1 1.00 unk., body/rim1800‐1860sSamford & Miller 200212H1935 FS‐1 9 9.2 STP NMS 19+5E 1 0‐30 Kitchen Ceramic WhitewareUndecorated1 0.52 unk., bodyPost 1830Miller 199112H1935 FS‐1 9 9.3 STP NMS 19+5E 1 0‐30 Misc. Glass Container, unk. Manufacture unknown aqua1 2.55 unk., bodyPhase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bear Creek Park, Hamilton County, Indiana 02Carmel, Indiana Bear Creek Park Master Plan APPENDIX 02 Appendix 02 contains the presentation slides presented at the first Public Input Meeting in Carmel, Indiana, as well as the online survey data gathered from the public. APPENDIX 02 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 1 BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 1 2021 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ENGAGEMENTSCHEDULE PLANNING & DESIGNPUB #3PUB #2 Round 1: Discover Round 2: Envision Round 3: Realize PUB = Public Engagement Meeting DRAFT MASTER PLAN 2 smithgroup.com WE ARE HERE! SITE ANALYSIS KICKOFF PUB #1 PREFERRED MASTER PLAN Stakeholder Meetings | April CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT VALUE TESTING WHERE IS BEAR CREEK PARK? WHERE IS BEAR CREEK PARK? NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS A B B C A C VIRTUAL TOUR VIRTUAL TOUR –NORTH SIDE VIRTUAL TOUR A B B C AC VIRTUAL TOUR –SOUTH SIDE & BEAR CREEK SITE ANALYSIS SITE ANALYSIS SITE ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN VISION TESTING BOARDS –ACTIVATED RECREATION VISION TESTING BOARDS –ACTIVATED PLAY VISION TESTING BOARDS –ACTIVATED GATHER VISION TESTING BOARDS –CONNECTED VISION TESTING BOARDS –ECOLOGICAL VISION TESTING BOARDS –CULTURAL VISION TESTING BOARDS –CULTURAL VISION TESTING BOARDS –EDUCATIONAL WANT TO FIND OUT MORE? Scan this code to find out more! THANK YOU! Report for Bear Creek Park Public Input Survey Completion Rate:69.3% Complete 600 Partial 266 Totals: 866 Response Counts 1. Are you a resident of Carmel or Clay Township? 56% Yes56% Yes 44% No44% No Value Percent Responses Yes 56.3%454 No 43.7%353 Totals: 807 2. If not, will you share where you live? 3. Please select the age class that best describes you: 0% Less than 18 years old0% Less than 18 years old 13% 18-30 years old13% 18-30 years old 42% 31-40 years old42% 31-40 years old 28% 41-50 years old28% 41-50 years old 8% 51-60 years old8% 51-60 years old 7% 61-70 years old7% 61-70 years old 2% 71+ years old2% 71+ years old Value Percent Responses Less than 18 years old 0.3%2 18-30 years old 13.0%104 31-40 years old 41.6%332 41-50 years old 27.5%220 51-60 years old 8.4%67 61-70 years old 7.0%56 71+ years old 2.3%18 Totals: 799 4. Are you a Carmel/Clay Parks visitor? 97% Yes97% Yes 4% No4% No Value Percent Responses Yes 96.5%721 No 3.5%26 Totals: 747 5. If yes, which Park(s) do you use most often? parkwest central monon hazel landing creek cool center coxhall inlowcareydillon gardensfoundersflowing grove cox james riverroadcommons westermeier clay hall 6. What attracts you to that Park? 7. How often do you visit/use a Carmel/Clay Park? 52% Once a week or more52% Once a week or more 35% Once a month35% Once a month 12% A couple times a year12% A couple times a year 1% I've never used a Carmel Clay Park 1% I've never used a Carmel Clay Park Value Percent Responses Once a week or more 51.9%379 Once a month 35.1%256 A couple times a year 11.8%86 I've never used a Carmel Clay Park 1.2%9 Totals: 730 8. How do you typically travel to and from Carmel/Clay Parks? 90% I drive90% I drive 3% I walk3% I walk 5% I ride my bike5% I ride my bike 1% I don't go to parks1% I don't go to parks 1% Other (please specify)1% Other (please specify) Value Percent Responses I drive 89.5%647 I walk 3.2%23 I ride my bike 5.3%38 I don't go to parks 0.7%5 Other (please specify)1.4%10 Totals: 723 9. Other: 10. What do you typically do when you visit a Carmel/Clay Park? Check all that apply PercentUse the trailsJust enjoy the parkExerciseI'm there to picnicUse the greenspacePlaygroundsSplashpadsThe parks are part of my social networkBird watch//nature observationOutdoor RecreationI don't typically go to any parksOther (please specify)0 50 25 75 Value Percent Responses Use the trails 69.4%491 Just enjoy the park 45.7%323 Exercise 28.4%201 I'm there to picnic 16.0%113 Use the greenspace 23.8%168 Playgrounds 59.4%420 Splashpads 48.1%340 The parks are part of my social network 6.4%45 Bird watch//nature observation 16.3%115 Outdoor Recreation 30.4%215 I don't typically go to any parks 0.4%3 Other (please specify)14.7%104 11. Other: 12. What experience are we missing in the Carmel/Clay parks system? 13. How did you learn about Bear Creek Park? 14. How close do you live to Bear Creek Park? 15% Less than a mile15% Less than a mile 29% 1-3 miles29% 1-3 miles 26% 3-5 miles26% 3-5 miles 20% 5-10 miles20% 5-10 miles 11% 10+ miles11% 10+ miles Value Percent Responses Less than a mile 14.9%98 1-3 miles 29.3%193 3-5 miles 25.5%168 5-10 miles 19.7%130 10+ miles 10.6%70 Totals: 659 15. Have you visited Bear Creek Park? 8% Yes8% Yes 92% No92% No Value Percent Responses Yes 8.0%52 No 92.0%601 Totals: 653 16. If yes, what did you like most about Bear Creek Park? 17. Select the experiences you think you would try at Bear Creek Park (Select all that apply)PercentPark/Self-led natureeducationTechnology-led nature educationWalking/hiking trailsWi-Fi connectivityBird watching/nature observationPicnickingIndoor meetingRemote workspacesCreek stompingPlaygroundNature center0 100 25 50 75 Value Percent Responses Park/Self-led nature education 42.7%261 Technology-led nature education 14.1%86 Walking/hiking trails 89.0%544 Wi-Fi connectivity 23.2%142 Bird watching/nature observation 32.2%197 Picnicking 47.8%292 Indoor meeting 8.0%49 Remote workspaces 16.7%102 Creek stomping 60.6%370 Playground 65.0%397 Nature center 53.7%328 18. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 25% Passive Recreation25% Passive Recreation 29% Exploration29% Exploration 3% Summer Camps & Other Programming 3% Summer Camps & Other Programming 23% Adventure23% Adventure 6% Seasonal Interest6% Seasonal Interest 14% Something We Missed?14% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Passive Recreation 25.4%149 Exploration 29.1%171 Summer Camps & Other Programming 2.9%17 Adventure 23.0%135 Seasonal Interest 5.6%33 Something We Missed?14.0%82 Totals: 587 19. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 20. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 31% Adventure Play31% Adventure Play 3% Mud Play3% Mud Play 21% Destination Play21% Destination Play 24% Water Play24% Water Play 14% Loose-Materials Play14% Loose-Materials Play 8% Something We Missed?8% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Adventure Play 31.0%177 Mud Play 2.5%14 Destination Play 21.0%120 Water Play 23.5%134 Loose-Materials Play 13.7%78 Something We Missed?8.4%48 Totals: 571 21. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 22. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 17% Park & Picnic Shelter17% Park & Picnic Shelter 43% Restroom Facilities43% Restroom Facilities 14% Park Structure / Nature Center 14% Park Structure / Nature Center 17% Social Spaces17% Social Spaces 6% Open Lawn6% Open Lawn 3% Something We Missed?3% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Park & Picnic Shelter 16.8%98 Restroom Facilities 42.5%248 Park Structure / Nature Center 14.4%84 Social Spaces 16.6%97 Open Lawn 6.2%36 Something We Missed?3.4%20 Totals: 583 23. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 24. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 62% Easy to Access62% Easy to Access 6% Community Partners6% Community Partners 20% Neighboring20% Neighboring 7% Wi-Fi7% Wi-Fi 5% Something We Missed?5% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Easy to Access 62.4%360 Community Partners 5.7%33 Neighboring 19.8%114 Wi-Fi 7.1%41 Something We Missed?5.0%29 Totals: 577 25. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 26. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 14% Historical Habitats14% Historical Habitats 9% Community Science9% Community Science 42% Stream Restoration42% Stream Restoration 30% Ecological Diversity30% Ecological Diversity 4% Something We Missed?4% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Historical Habitats 14.3%81 Community Science 9.2%52 Stream Restoration 42.3%240 Ecological Diversity 30.1%171 Something We Missed?4.2%24 Totals: 568 27. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 28. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 21% Accessible21% Accessible 10% Guided Tours and Camps10% Guided Tours and Camps 35% Artistic & Whimsical35% Artistic & Whimsical 30% Recuperating30% Recuperating 4% Something We Missed?4% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Accessible 20.5%116 Guided Tours and Camps 9.5%54 Artistic & Whimsical 35.3%200 Recuperating 30.2%171 Something We Missed?4.4%25 Totals: 566 29. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 30. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 21% Social21% Social 26% Familial26% Familial 29% Flexible29% Flexible 21% Eventful21% Eventful 3% Something We Missed?3% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Social 21.0%118 Familial 26.0%146 Flexible 28.5%160 Eventful 21.2%119 Something We Missed?3.4%19 Totals: 562 31. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 32. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: 24% Integrated Curriculum24% Integrated Curriculum 36% STEM36% STEM 22% Learning Spaces22% Learning Spaces 13% Augmented reality13% Augmented reality 4% Something We Missed?4% Something We Missed? Value Percent Responses Integrated Curriculum 24.2%135 STEM 36.3%202 Learning Spaces 22.4%125 Augmented reality 13.1%73 Something We Missed?3.9%22 Totals: 557 33. Please select one of the following design priorities that you believe is best suited for Bear Creek Park: - comments 03Carmel, Indiana Bear Creek Park Master Plan APPENDIX 03 APPENDIX 03 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 2 Appendix 03 contains the presentation slides presented at the second Public Input Meeting in Carmel, Indiana, as well as the online survey data gathered from the public. BEAR CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN NOVEMBER,2021 OUR NEXT GREAT ADVENTURE… AN INTENTIONAL JOURNEY Bear Creek Master Plan3smithgroup.com CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY INPUT #DISCOVER BEAR CREEK WORKSHOP #ENVISION BEAR CREEK WORKSHOP BASE CAMP WORKSHOP #REALIZE BEAR CREEK WORKSHOP STEERINGCOMMITTEE/ STAKEHOLDERS PARK BOARD SEPTEMBER NOVEMBER JANUARY ‘22 PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY Bear Creek Master Plan WHAT WE HEARD… Bear Creek Master Plan6smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PROGRAMMING Bear Creek Master Plan7smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PLANNING THEMES Bear Creek Master Plan8smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PLANNING THEMES Bear Creek Master Plan9smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PLANNING THEMES Bear Creek Master Plan10smithgroup.com WHAT YOU SAW… PUBLIC SITE VISITS VISION AND DESIGN DRIVERS Bear Creek Master Plan12smithgroup.com VISION AND DRIVERS A CONNECTED EXPERIENCE THE PEOPLE’S PARK Bear Creek Master Plan14smithgroup.com CONNECTED School Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Islamic Life Center Neighbors Community Community Bear Creek Park -Shaped by community needs - A CONFLUENCE OF CORRIDORS Bear Creek Master Plan15smithgroup.com CONNECTED Greenways Blueways Community Bear Creek Park Integrated Development -Framed by adjacent connections - BEAR SIGHTINGS Bear Creek Master Plan16smithgroup.com CONNECTED Land Encounters Creek Encounters -Culturally connected through exploration - A RESILIENT MODEL CELEBRATE ECOLOGY Bear Creek Master Plan18smithgroup.com RESILIENT Oak Plantation Planted Prairie Planted Prairie Bear Creek Woodlands +HP HP+ Planted Prairie Bear Creek -Embracing existing ecosystem relationships - LEVERAGE DISTURBANCE Bear Creek Master Plan19smithgroup.com RESILIENT Oak Plantation Planted Prairie Planted Prairie House Site Barn Driveway Bear Creek Barn -Informed by the site’s past - House Site A BIGGER BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan20smithgroup.com RESILIENT -Grounded in the natural fabric of the site - AN ACTIVATED ESCAPE COMMUNITY ROOMS Bear Creek Master Plan22smithgroup.com ACTIVATED The Oaks North Prairie House South Prairie Barn The Oaks -Defined by spaces - ACTIVITY ZONES Bear Creek Master Plan23smithgroup.com ACTIVATED Unplugged Immersed Engaged Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Road Noise and Visibility Road Noise and Visibility -Informed by context - Creek Interaction ENGAGE THE BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan24smithgroup.com ACTIVATED -Shaped by community experience - Bear Creek Master Plan25smithgroup.com ENGAGE THE BEAR ACTIVATED -Shaped by community need - A BIGGER BEAR RESILIENT -Grounded in the natural fabric of the site - BEAR SIGHTINGS CONNECTED -Culturally connected through exploration - BEAR CREEK PARK DESIGN DRIVERS EXPLORE BEAR CREEK CHAPTER 2 WHAT COULD BE… PAVILION PARKWAY NATURE PLAY TRAILS + INTERPRETATION CREEK RESTORATION + TRAILS CENTRAL PARK EAST WOODS: PICNIC GROVES WEST PARK GROVES AND CORE WHAT COULD BE… PAVILION PARKWAY NATURE PLAY TRAILS + INTERPRETATION CREEK RESTORATION + TRAILS CENTRAL PARK EAST WOODS: PICNIC GROVES WEST PARK GROVES AND CORE 1) PLAYGROUNDS 3) TREE HOUSES 2) WATER PLAY 4) WINTER GAMES SHOULD BEAR CREEK PARK HAVE…? Bear Creek Master Plan2smithgroup.com 1) WIFI 3) NIGHTTIME CAMPING 2) NATURE APPS 4) ADVENTURE PLAY SHOULD BEAR CREEK PARK HAVE…? Bear Creek Master Plan3smithgroup.com 1) TOWER SLIDES 3) ZIP LINES 2) SWINGS 4) MUD PLAY SHOULD BEAR CREEK PARK HAVE…? Bear Creek Master Plan4smithgroup.com 1) INDOOR SPACES 3) BOARDWALKS 2) PLACES TO LEARN 4) NATURE TRAILS SHOULD BEAR CREEK PARK HAVE…? Bear Creek Master Plan5smithgroup.com 1) SPORTS COURTS 3) SUMMER CAMPS 2) DISC GOLF SHOULD BEAR CREEK PARK HAVE…? Bear Creek Master Plan6smithgroup.com 4) STAR GAZING Bear Creek Master Plan7smithgroup.com SO, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP Bear Creek Master Plan8smithgroup.com PARK PROGRAMMING POLL EVERYWHERE 9 smithgroup.com INSTRUCTIONS Public Information Meeting 1 Join by QR Code Go to PollEv.com/BEARCREEK Respond to activity Text BEARCREEK to 22333 *Text address and website are not case sensitive Bear Creek Master Plan10smithgroup.com PROGRAMMING | CONNECTED Presentation Name11smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan12smithgroup.com PROGRAMMING | ACTIVATED Presentation Name13smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP Bear Creek Master Plan15smithgroup.com PARK PROGRAMMING BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | COMMUNITY PAVILION 16 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name17smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | FLEXIBLE LAWN 18 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name19smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | PICNIC GROVE 20 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name21smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | RESTROOM 22 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name23smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | PLAY/SPRAY 24 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name25smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | NATURE PLAY 26 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name27smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | PARKING (50 CAR) 28 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name29smithgroup.com BUILD A BEAR WORKSHOP | PARKING (100 CAR) 30 smithgroup.com Bear Creek Master Plan Presentation Name31smithgroup.com THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING! Report for Bear Creek Public Input Survey II Completion Rate:45.4% Complete 163 Partial 196 Totals: 359 Response Counts 1. The base, "Connected" program are consensus design elements that came out of the previous round of community engagement. We want to know what upgrades you would like to see added to that base programming. Select the desired upgrades you would like added to the base program at Bear Creek Park. You may vote for as many selections as you like.PercentPaved TrailsBoardwalksTrailheadsVehicular Bridge/Creek CrossingVehicular ParkwayIntegrated Regional Trail/GreenwayMajor Park GatewayAugmented Reality/Virtual LearningInformational KiosksCommunity PavilionGuided Tours and ActivitiesIntegrated Curriculum/School PartnersIndoor Community RoomVehicular Drop-off0 20 40 60 80 Value Percent Responses Paved Trails 63.2%122 Boardwalks 49.7%96 Trailheads 49.2%95 Vehicular Bridge/Creek Crossing 8.3%16 Vehicular Parkway 7.3%14 Integrated Regional Trail/Greenway 32.1%62 Major Park Gateway 8.8%17 Augmented Reality/Virtual Learning 6.2%12 Informational Kiosks 11.4%22 Community Pavilion 32.6%63 Guided Tours and Activities 11.4%22 Integrated Curriculum/School Partners 12.4%24 Indoor Community Room 19.2%37 Vehicular Drop-off 5.7%11 2. Is there anything you see in the BASE program you don't think should be included in Bear Creek Park? golfdisc park area areas parking trails basebikegardens room support bus car community coxhall dropnatural options paths safe traffic vehicles 0 1 3. The base, "Activated" program are consensus design elements that came out of the previous round of community engagement. We want to know what upgrades you would like to see added to that base programming. Select the desired upgrades you would like added to the base program at Bear Creek Park. You may vote for as many selections as you like.PercentLoose Materials PlayWinter ProgrammingDay CampsOvernight CampingAdult FitnessMud PlayDisc GolfSports CourtsPlay Tower/ClimbersTactical Program StructuresZiplineSlidesSwingsIndoor Recreation/CampsTree HousesHammocksNight Sky ViewingWi-FiRental Facilities0 10 20 30 40 50 Value Percent Responses Loose Materials Play 18.0%34 Winter Programming 32.3%61 Day Camps 20.1%38 Overnight Camping 24.9%47 Adult Fitness 28.0%53 Mud Play 12.2%23 Disc Golf 47.6%90 Sports Courts 26.5%50 Play Tower/Climbers 32.8%62 Tactical Program Structures 9.5%18 Zipline 32.3%61 Slides 39.7%75 Swings 41.8%79 Indoor Recreation/Camps 14.8%28 Tree Houses 48.1%91 Hammocks 29.1%55 Night Sky Viewing 43.9%83 Wi-Fi 22.2%42 Rental Facilities 19.0%36 4. Is there anything you see in the BASE program you don't think should be included in Bear Creek Park? courtspark discgolf nature humans play prefer social spaces sportstrails water zip activities agility areaareas bikebuilt camping carmelchampion closedetriment 5. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a COMMUNITY PAVILION. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 17% Zone One17% Zone One 23% Zone Two23% Zone Two 4% Zone Three4% Zone Three 21% Zone Four21% Zone Four 35% No Thank You35% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 17.4%26 Zone Two 22.8%34 Zone Three 4.0%6 Zone Four 20.8%31 No Thank You 34.9%52 Totals: 149 6. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a FLEXIBLE LAWN. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 5% Zone One5% Zone One 38% Zone Two38% Zone Two 2% Zone Three2% Zone Three 31% Zone Four31% Zone Four 24% No Thank You24% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 4.8%7 Zone Two 37.9%55 Zone Three 2.1%3 Zone Four 31.0%45 No Thank You 24.1%35 Totals: 145 7. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a PICNIC GROVE. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 17% Zone One17% Zone One 26% Zone Two26% Zone Two 13% Zone Three13% Zone Three 20% Zone Four20% Zone Four 24% No Thank You24% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 16.7%24 Zone Two 26.4%38 Zone Three 13.2%19 Zone Four 20.1%29 No Thank You 23.6%34 Totals: 144 8. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a RESTROOM building. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 18% Zone One18% Zone One 38% Zone Two38% Zone Two 11% Zone Three11% Zone Three 24% Zone Four24% Zone Four 10% No Thank You10% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 17.6%25 Zone Two 38.0%54 Zone Three 10.6%15 Zone Four 23.9%34 No Thank You 9.9%14 Totals: 142 9. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a PLAY/SPRAY facility. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 6% Zone One6% Zone One 29% Zone Two29% Zone Two 8% Zone Three8% Zone Three 21% Zone Four21% Zone Four 38% No Thank You38% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 5.6%8 Zone Two 28.5%41 Zone Three 7.6%11 Zone Four 20.8%30 No Thank You 37.5%54 Totals: 144 10. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a NATURE PLAYGROUND. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 17% Zone One17% Zone One 18% Zone Two18% Zone Two 23% Zone Three23% Zone Three 22% Zone Four22% Zone Four 20% No Thank You20% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 17.3%24 Zone Two 18.0%25 Zone Three 23.0%32 Zone Four 21.6%30 No Thank You 20.1%28 Totals: 139 11. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a 50 car PARKING LOT. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 21% Zone One21% Zone One 27% Zone Two27% Zone Two 2% Zone Three2% Zone Three 29% Zone Four29% Zone Four 22% No Thank You22% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 20.9%29 Zone Two 26.6%37 Zone Three 2.2%3 Zone Four 28.8%40 No Thank You 21.6%30 Totals: 139 12. Select the desired ZONE you would like to see a 100 car PARKING LOT. Or select No Thank You if you don’t want it. 8% Zone One8% Zone One 13% Zone Two13% Zone Two 1% Zone Three1% Zone Three 21% Zone Four21% Zone Four 57% No Thank You57% No Thank You Value Percent Responses Zone One 8.0%11 Zone Two 13.0%18 Zone Three 1.4%2 Zone Four 21.0%29 No Thank You 56.5%78 Totals: 138 04Carmel, Indiana Bear Creek Park Master Plan APPENDIX 04 APPENDIX 04 | PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 3 Appendix 04 contains the presentation slides presented at the third Public Input Meeting in Carmel, Indiana, as well as the online survey data gathered from the public. BEAR CREEK MASTER PLAN JANUARY,2022 OUR NEXT GREAT ADVENTURE… AN INTENTIONAL JOURNEY A PROVEN PROCESS Presentation Name4smithgroup.com MEETING AGENDA & PURPOSE 1.REVIEW WHAT WE LEARNED IN PUBLIC INPUT MEETING #2 2.SHARE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PARK 3.IDENTIFY THE PARTS OF A PREFERRED CONCEPT PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY Bear Creek Master Plan7smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PROGRAMMING Bear Creek Master Plan10smithgroup.com WHAT WE HEARD… PLANNING THEMES Bear Creek Master Plan11smithgroup.com VISION AND DRIVERS Bear Creek Master Plan12smithgroup.com WHAT YOU SAW… PUBLIC SITE VISITS THE PEOPLE’S PARK Bear Creek Master Plan13smithgroup.com CONNECTED School Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Neighbors Islamic Life Center Neighbors Community Community Bear Creek Park -Shaped by community needs - A CONFLUENCE OF CORRIDORS Bear Creek Master Plan14smithgroup.com CONNECTED Greenways Blueways Community Bear Creek Park Integrated Development -Framed by adjacent connections - COMMUNITY ROOMS Bear Creek Master Plan15smithgroup.com ACTIVATED The Oaks North Prairie House South Prairie Barn The Oaks -Defined by spaces - The Prairies CELEBRATE ECOLOGY Bear Creek Master Plan16smithgroup.com RESILIENT Oak Plantation Planted Prairie Planted Prairie Bear Creek Woodlands +HP HP+ Planted Prairie Bear Creek -Embracing existing ecosystem relationships - LEVERAGE DISTURBANCE Bear Creek Master Plan17smithgroup.com RESILIENT Oak Plantation Planted Prairie Planted Prairie House Site Barn Driveway Bear Creek Barn -Informed by the site’s past - Bear Creek Master Plan18smithgroup.com WHAT YOU TOLD US . . . HOW TO USE THE SITE ZONE 1 a)Access b)Parking c)Restrooms ZONE 2 a)Community Pavilion b)Flexible Lawn c)Picnic Grove d)Restrooms e)Play ZONE 3 a)Restoration b)Nature Play ZONE 4 a)Access b)Parking c)Community Pavilion d)Flexible Lawn e)Picnic Grove f)Restrooms g)Play A CONNECTED EXPERIENCE A RESILIENT MODEL AN ACTIVATED ESCAPE Bear Creek Master Plan21smithgroup.com ENGAGE THE BEAR ACTIVATED -Shaped by community need - A BIGGER BEAR RESILIENT -Grounded in the natural fabric of the site - BEAR SIGHTINGS CONNECTED -Culturally connected through exploration - DESIGN DRIVERS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Bear Creek Master Plan22smithgroup.com DESIGN LEVER: GRADING & TERRAIN A BIGGER BEAR(3 BIGGER BEARS) ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Bear Creek Master Plan23smithgroup.com DESIGN LEVER: ECOLOGY & CREEK GEOMETRY A BIGGER BEAR(3 BIGGER BEARS) ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Bear Creek Master Plan24smithgroup.com DESIGN LEVER: ACTIVITY HUBS BEAR SIGHTINGS ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Bear Creek Master Plan25smithgroup.com DESIGN LEVER: ACCESS & CONNECTIONS ENGAGE THE BEAR BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES Bear Creek Master Plan26smithgroup.com GATHERING PLACES BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES Bear Creek Master Plan27smithgroup.com ADVENTURE PLACES BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES Bear Creek Master Plan28smithgroup.com LIVING SPACES CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES Bear Creek Master Plan29smithgroup.com AT A GLANCE BEAR TOWERS BRAIDED BEAR WANDERING BEAR BEAR TOWERS Bear Creek Master Plan30smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS Bear Creek Master Plan31smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS Bear Creek Master Plan32smithgroup.com KEY DESIGN FEATURES North Camp Prairie Tower Nature/Water Play Bluff Tower Picnic Grove ALTERNATIVE 1 Bear Creek Master Plan33smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS Prairie Tower Bluff Tower ALTERNATIVE 1 Bear Creek Master Plan34smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS North Camp ALTERNATIVE 1 Bear Creek Master Plan35smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS Adventure/Water Play ALTERNATIVE 1 Bear Creek Master Plan36smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS Picnic Grove ALTERNATIVE 1 Bear Creek Master Plan37smithgroup.com BEAR TOWERS BRAIDED BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan38smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan39smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan40smithgroup.com North Camp Boardwalk GladeTreehouse Play Creek Stomping KEY DESIGN FEATURES ALTERNATIVE 2 Bear Creek Master Plan41smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR North Camp ALTERNATIVE 2 Bear Creek Master Plan42smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR Treehouse Play ALTERNATIVE 2 Bear Creek Master Plan43smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR Boardwalk Glade ALTERNATIVE 2 Bear Creek Master Plan44smithgroup.com BRAIDED BEAR Creek Stomping Bear Creek Master Plan45smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 2 BRAIDED BEAR WANDERING BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan46smithgroup.com WANDERING BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan47smithgroup.com WANDERING BEAR Bear Creek Master Plan48smithgroup.com North Camp Adventure Play Picnic Grove KEY DESIGN FEATURES Creek Stomping Bear Creek Master Plan49smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 3 WANDERING BEAR North Camp Bear Creek Master Plan50 smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 3 WANDERING BEAR Adventure Play Bear Creek Master Plan51 smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 3 WANDERING BEAR Creek Stomping Bear Creek Master Plan52 smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 3 WANDERING BEAR Picnic Grove Bear Creek Master Plan53 smithgroup.com ALTERNATIVE 3 WANDERING BEAR CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES Bear Creek Master Plan54 smithgroup.com AT A GLANCE BEAR TOWERS BRAIDED BEAR WANDERING BEAR Report for Bear Creek Park Concepts Public Input Survey III Completion Rate:49.4% Complete 119 Partial 122 Totals: 241 Response Counts 1. Select each item that you like about the above concept plan.PercentNative PlantingsTower StructuresNatural RiverTraditional Water PlayNature Play PlaygroundBoardwalksWalking PathsOutdoor ClassroomsPicnic AreasFlex Lawn0 20 40 60 80 100 Value Percent Responses Native Plantings 56.0%79 Tower Structures 62.4%88 Natural River 70.2%99 Traditional Water Play 51.8%73 Nature Play Playground 58.2%82 Boardwalks 58.9%83 Walking Paths 80.1%113 Outdoor Classrooms 27.0%38 Picnic Areas 44.0%62 Flex Lawn 22.7%32 2. In a few sentences or less, tell us what you like and dislike about each concept. areatowers natural park play love towerwater natureidea areas kids playgroundwalkingconcept lot other parking parkstrails bearhigh or place structures 3. Select each item that you like about the above concept plan.PercentNative PlantingsCanopy Play StructuresBraided RiverCreak StompingNature Play PlaygroundBoardwalksWalking PathsEvent LawnPicnic AreasVehicular Bridge and Park RoadNorth and South Camp0 25 50 75 100 Value Percent Responses Native Plantings 55.6%70 Canopy Play Structures 79.4%100 Braided River 60.3%76 Creak Stomping 64.3%81 Nature Play Playground 54.0%68 Boardwalks 57.9%73 Walking Paths 71.4%90 Event Lawn 23.8%30 Picnic Areas 36.5%46 Vehicular Bridge and Park Road 19.8%25 North and South Camp 11.1%14 4. In a few sentences or less, tell us what you like and dislike about each concept. canopyplaylove park creek area stomping nature kidswater bridge road areas idea natural concept boardwalk boardwalks unique braided children enjoy great keeping plan 5. Select each item that you like about the above concept plan.PercentNative PlantingsCreek StompingWinding RiverWater PlayNature Play PlaygroundBoardwalksWalking PathsOverlook MoundPicnic Areas0 20 40 60 80 Value Percent Responses Native Plantings 58.1%68 Creek Stomping 77.8%91 Winding River 70.1%82 Water Play 56.4%66 Nature Play Playground 54.7%64 Boardwalks 53.0%62 Walking Paths 63.2%74 Overlook Mound 42.7%50 Picnic Areas 32.5%38 6. In a few sentences or less, tell us what you like and dislike about each concept. creekstomping kidsmoundsnatural play areapark nature canopyloveotherareas design favoritegood parks conceptfeel parking plan great ideainteresting land 7. Please identify your preferred Concept Alternative by selecting the appropriate box below. 32% Alternative 1 | Bear Towers32% Alternative 1 | Bear Towers 48% Alternative 2 | Braided Bear48% Alternative 2 | Braided Bear 21% Alternative 3 | Wandering Bear 21% Alternative 3 | Wandering Bear Value Percent Responses Alternative 1 | Bear Towers 31.5%35 Alternative 2 | Braided Bear 47.7%53 Alternative 3 | Wandering Bear 20.7%23 Totals: 111 8. Please share any comments you have about the Alternatives in the box below. playcreek towerscanopy0area natural park love nature 1 braided parksstomping bear or areasconcept greatidea plan prefer trails 2 activities