Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Moore’s Creek Site Assessment

November 16, 2007 Craftian Consultancy Corp. Research Associates: Rebecca McCarty Ashley McElmurry Robert Winebrinner

Prepared for Qualmart Corp.

INTRODUCTION The presence and boundaries of a jurisdictional wetland were determined for the Qualmart Corporation according to the criterion of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. Establishment of wetland status under this classification system will determine Qualmart’s eligibility to develop the site and whether a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be required. Located just north of Lake Monroe and adjacent to Moore’s Creek (which flows into Lake Monroe), the site in question is an alluvial floodplain wetland (1385m2) approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the city of Bloomington, IN (Figure 1). Lake Monroe is the primary water source for the city of Bloomington and the surrounding areas, and is widely used by local residents for recreational purposes. Development of wetland habitat within the watershed could have large impacts on water quality for both the lake itself and for the surrounding municipalities that depend on the lake as a primary water source. In addition, floodplain wetlands provide many benefits such as wildlife habitat, the control of nonpoint source pollution that could enter the creek and the lake, the stabilization of stream banks via vegetation, and flood control.

SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located in Monroe County, IN, north of Lake Monroe, at the juncture of Moore’s Creek and the lake( 39˚06’10.71”N, 86˚27’50.33”W), at an average elevation 542ft. (Figure 1). The site contains both an upland slope and floodplain riverine wetland habitat adjacent to the creek. The upland slopes are characterized by hardwood forest. The land surrounding Lake Monroe is owned by the US Army Corp of Engineers, Indiana DNR, and the US Forest Service (Hoosier National Forest) (Indiana University, n.date). The soils of this site consist of an upland component of Berks-Weikert complex (BkF) and a bottomland component of Cuba silt loam (Cu). BkF is present on slopes of 25 to 75 percent and fragments of sandstone, siltstone or shale occur throughout the profile. Soil depth is very shallow to bedrock. The soils are well drained on side slopes and surface runoff is very rapid. Cu soils are acidic silty soil that is subject to frequent flooding from January to May for brief periods. The soils are nearly level, deep and well drained (NRCS, 1981). The site has also experienced drought conditions during the growing period of 2007, which translates into atypical characteristics. Common upland plant species found at the site included Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), and Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) within the canopy layer, Spice Bush 2|Page

(Lindera benzoin) in the subcanopy layer, and Painted Sedge (Carex picta) in the herbaceous layer. Common wetland plants found at the site included Black Willow (Salix nigra) and Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) in the canopy layer, Buttonbush (Cephalantuns occidentalis) in the subcanopy layer, and Pennsylvania Smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) in the herbaceous layer (Table 5).

METHODS At the site a baseline was established at a bearing of 338o which is roughly parallel to Moore Creek. Transects were established twenty meters apart on the baseline. Off of the baseline the first transect had an orientation of 68o off of north, so that they were perpendicular to the baseline (Figure 2). The plots were measured out using a meter tape so that they were twenty meters apart on this bearing perpendicular to the baseline. The plots were given letters to differentiate between plots along the transect lines. We had letters A-E for both transect one and two. Nested circular plots were established for each point. The outermost plot was established at a 5 meter radius (78.54 m2) with the interior plot measuring one meter in radius (3.14 m2). The outermost plot was established to survey for trees and sub-canopy woody vegetation, while the interior plot was established for herbaceous and ground cover vegetation. The woody vegetation was measured using a dbh tape (cm) to determine diameter at breast height. The cut off for dominant woody vegetation within these plots had to be greater than ten centimeters to classify as a mature tree. The herbaceous vegetation was measured by percent cover for the dominant plant species. This was determined by visual estimation of total area covered within the plot. Vegetation was surveyed to determine wetland indicator status within each of these stratums (Table 5). The three strata of vegetation were canopy (mature trees), sub- canopy (saplings shrubs) and herbaceous zones (grasses, sedges, etc). Wetland classification was determined according to indicators of hydric soils, hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation (Jurisdictional Manual 1987). Initial soil taxonomic classification was determined from the USGS soil survey of Monroe County, Indiana, by location of the site within the reference. Hue, values and chroma of soils were noted to later compare what soil was present at each plot. Soils were tested at each plot along the transect using a soil punch auger. Multiple soil samples were taken at each plot to ensure uniformity of results. Hue, value and chroma were determined, utilizing the Munsell soil color book. Dipyridyl dye was also utilized to determine the presence of reduced Fe (ferrous) in soil samples taken at each plot. Hydrology was determined by observation of both primary and secondary field indicators (Table 2). The FAC-neutral test is a secondary field indicator of hydrology that is determined by vegetation that only includes OBL and FACW percentage recalculated without FAC 3|Page

species. Data was then collected and recorded using the Wetland Delineation Worksheet taken from the Manual (1987).

RESULTS/DISCUSSION Upland Vegetation In this site the majority of plants did not meet hydrophytic requirements. The area in plot 1A was dominated by facultative upland with 70 percent while 2A was dominated by 100 percent upland species for the canopy. This stratum included Carpinus carolinana, Carya glabra, Acer saccarum, and Quercus rubra (Table 5). Lindera benzoin was the only species found in the subcanopy at both plots. The herbaceous stratum of each plot was sparse, however Panicum sp. was found at the first transect. 1A had Carex picta which is an upland species. 1A had 40 percent of dominant species that are obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW) and/or facultative (FAC) while 2A had zero percent (see field sheets). Soils The series and subgroup for these sites were Berks-Weikert Complex and dystrochepts respectively. The soils are not on the hydric soils list and are not mottled or gleyed. The chroma of the matrix was greater than two. Plot 1A had a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 and 2A had 10YR 6/4 (see field sheets). There also were not secondary soil indicators that meet the requirements for hydric soils. Based on the lack of indicators these plots were determined to be upland soils. Hydrology Primary and secondary indicators were not found at the plots. Watermarks on trees and drift lines are examples of primary indicators while oxidized root channels and FAC-neutral test are secondary indicators. Hydrology will be illustrated more thoroughly in the following discussion of wetland as such indicators were observed in those plots. Wetland Vegetation The percent of dominant species for 1B that were OBL, FACW and/or FAC was 100 percent. All species were wetland indicative species. Betula nigra was the only species found in the canopy however the dbh was less than 10 cm. The subcanopy stratum was the most species robust with Plantanus occidental, Taxodium disticum, Cephalanthus occidentalis and Acer rubrum. Acer rubrum was the only FAC species found and comprised very little of the plot. The herbaceous layer was dominated by Carex sp. and Lysimachia nummularia (Table 5). 2B was comprised of Plantanus occidentalis, Acer saccarinum 4|Page

and Ulmus Americana in the canopy layer. These species were all FACW while Cephalanthus occidentalis was the only sub canopy stratum species. Plantanus occidentalis and Acer saccarinum were the two canopy species found at site 1C, both have a FACW indicator status. Cephalanthus occidentalis was found in the sub canopy and Boehmeria cylindrica in the herbaceous layer for 1C and 2C. Both species are OBL and C. occidentalis was the dominant in 1C (90% cover). The canopy species for 2C was Salix nigra an OBL species. The dominant species in the herbaceous layer for 2C was Echincloa crusgalli (OBL species) with 95 percent cover. 1 and 2D both contained Polygonum pennsylvanicum (FACW), Bidens frondosa (FACW), Boehmeria cylindrica (OBL) and Carex sp. in the herbaceous layer. 2D also contained a small amount of Xanthium strumarium. The herbaceous layer constituted the majority stratum of the last plots. The species found at both plots included Cuscuta gronvii, Polygonum pennsylvanicum, Boehmeria cylindrica, Carex sp. and Xanthium strumarium.

The percent of dominant species for both

plots that are classified OBL, FACW and/or FAC was 100 percent. Soils Plots 1B-1E and 2B-2E all had soil series Cuba and subgroup dystrochepts. While 1B/2B, 1C/2C and 1D/2D had mottled soils, sites 1C/2C and 1D/2D also contained chroma values of two or less. Site 1B had a matrix color of 10YR 5/2 and mottle of 10YR 6/4 respectively. 2B had a matrix color of 10Y 5/1 and mottle of 7.5 YR 4/6. The soil color for 1 and 2C was 10YR 5/2. A mottle color of 2.5YR 3/6 for 1C was observed while 2C had 10YR 5/8 for mottles. 1D had a matrix 10YR 5/1 and mottle of 5YR 3/4. 2D matrix was 10Y 6/1 and a mottle 2.5YR 4/8. 1E soils did not contain mottles but had a matrix color of 10YR 4/2. 2E soils were mottled and had a matrix color of 10YR 5/1 and mottle of 2.5 YR 3/4. All these plots fulfill the wetland soil indicator of chroma ≤2 (Table 4), yet not all soils from plots B-E contained mottling. Hydrology Plot 1B had both primary and secondary field indicators of hydrology. The primary indicator was watermarks on trees seen in the surrounding area, yet not immediately within the five meter radius. The secondary indicator support came from the FAC-neutral test. 2B passed the FAC-neutral test as an indicator, and also contained the indicator of oxidized root channels. Although both of these indicators are secondary, together they meet the requirement for wetland hydrology. 1C and 2C both met criterion with primary and secondary indicators. Each C plot had watermarks on trees, oxidized root channels and passed the FAC-neutral test. Hydrology criterion for 1D was met with one primary field indicator (water marks on trees) and had secondary field indicators (oxidized root channels and FACneutral test). 2D was met with secondary indicators (oxidized root channels and FAC-neutral test), there 5|Page

were no primary indicators. Both 1E and 2E shared indicators of wetland hydrology, including; drift lines, oxidized root channels and the FAC-neutral test. They differed in that 1E had water marks on trees as an indicator, while 2E was observed to contain water stained leaves.

UPLAND/WETLAND BOUNDARY The boundary determination between upland and wetland system for the site began with a coarse scale evaluation. From those five plots (A-E) on each of two transects, fine scale evaluation was determined. Plots 1A and 2A consisted of upland characteristics based on hydrology, vegetation and soils, whereas plots B-E of both transects consisted of wetland characteristics. Fine scale evaluation consisted of soil punch auger samples between plots 1A/2A and 1B/2B. To determine the exact boundary between these plots, multiple soil samples were taken along a gradient (Table 3). The initial 20 meter increment was divided in half, sampled and then further divided in half moving from wetland soil towards the upland soils. This process was repeated until wetland soil was no longer collected. At this point soil was sampled in reverse fashion towards the wetland and when hyrdic soil was again collected, the boundary was set (Figure 3). The process was repeated for the second transect and a boundary drawn between the two points. The points determined to be the wetland/upland boundary were then utilized to calculate total wetland and upland areas (m2). Total wetland area comprised (1385m2) and total upland area comprised (215m2) of the site (total area= 1600m2).

CONCLUSION According to evidence gathered, this site has been determined to contain 86.5% jurisdictional wetland under federal wetland criteria. It is recommended that development not occur on this site, due to frequently flooding soils, floodplain topography, and high water tables. These factors would make development of the land difficult and costly. The wetland values of non-point pollution control, flood regulation, water quality of the reservoir and stabilization of stream banks all contribute to the health of the Lake Monroe watershed. Therefore, development actions taken at this site could have a potentially detrimental effect on surrounding municipalities, who rely heavily on the water system of Lake Monroe. Alternative development sites are likely to lessen the degree of financial risk in such an endeavor for the Qualmart Corp. The communities and environment of the Lake Monroe watershed would also avoid environmental risk by selection of an alternative site.

6|Page

REFERENCES Brown, Lauren. Grasses: An identification guide. 1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979. Indiana University. N. date. The Research and Teaching Reserve: Moore’s Creek. Available at http://www.iub.edu/~preserve/preserve/moores.html#. Accessed 14 November 2007. Nautral Resources Conservation Serivce. Soil Survey of Monroe County, Indiana. Indianapolis: United States Department of Agriculture, 1981. Newcomb, Lawrence. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. 1. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1977. United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1971.

7|Page

APPENDIX

Figure 1 Satellite imagery showing Monroe County, Indiana. Specifically shown are Bloomington, IN and Monroe Lake to the Southeast. Photo taken from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

8|Page

Figure 3 Illustration of survey site, including transects 1 and 2, imbedded with plots A-E along each transect. Upland and wetland delineated and defined by area. Table 3 Soil samples taken to determine fine scale boundary between upland and wetland areas, including soil color values.

Transect

Sample

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance from plot A (m) 10 5 7.5 8.5 15 17.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 14

Matrix (hue/value/chroma) 10YR 6/2 10YR 5/3 10YR 5/2 10YR 6/2 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2 2.5YR 5/4 10YR 5/4 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2

Mottle (hue/value/chroma) 10YR 5/4 5YR 3/4 10YR 5/6 10YR 5/8 -

Boundary Point N N

Y N N N N N N

Y

9|Page

Figure 2 Satellite imagery depicting placement of transects within the survey site. South of the site lay Stipp Road, while Moore’s Creek Road is to the east. A 338 bearing was taken and transects protrude perpendicular from the bearing at 68 from north. The bearing was placed roughly parallel to Moore’s Creek on the west (flow designated for the creek). Satellite photo taken from Google. 2007. Google Earth.

10 | P a g e

Table 4 Plots broken down to display necessary indicators of vegetation, soil and hydrology as defined to meet requirements of a jurisdictional wetlands.

11 | P a g e

Table 1 General determination of whether each plot met characteristic vegetation, soil and hydrology and in doing so met the criteria for a jurisdictional wetland.

Table 2 Primary and secondary indicators as necessary to determine hydrology in a jurisdictional wetland.

12 | P a g e

Table 5 Vegetative data depicting DBH for mature trees, percent cover for all other vegetation, wetland indicator status and associated stratum. Transect 1

Plot A

Vegetation Carpinus caroliniana Carya glabra Acer saccarum

1

1

B

C

DBH (cm) 10.5

1

D

E

Stratum

FAC

Canopy

10

FACU

Canopy

15.1

FACU

Canopy

Lindera benzoin

20

FACW-

Subcanopy

Carex picta

30

UPL

Herbaceous

Panicum sp.

30

*FAC*

Herbaceous

Betula nigra

10

FACW

Canopy

Platanus occidentalis

65

FACW

Subcanopy

Taxodium distichum

5

OBL

Subcanopy

Cephalanthus occidentalis

10

OBL

Subcanopy

Acer rubrum

5

FAC

Herbaceous

Lysimachia nummularia

35

FACW+

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

30

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

50

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Acer saccharinum

20.6

FACW

Canopy

Acer saccharinum

16.7

FACW

Canopy

Platanus occidentalis

26.7

FACW

Canopy

Cephalanthus occidentalis

90

OBL

Subcanopy

Boehmeria cylindrica

15

OBL

Subcanopy

5

Platanus occidentalis 1

Indicator Status

% Cover

FACW

Subcanopy

Salix nigra

21.5

OBL

Canopy

Salix nigra

16.5

OBL

Canopy

Salix nigra

23.5

OBL

Canopy

Salix nigra

18.5

OBL

Canopy

Salix nigra

16

OBL

Canopy

Cephalanthus occidentalis

15

OBL

Subcanopy

Bidens frondosa

50

FACW

Subcanopy

Xanthium strumarium

20

FAC

Subcanopy

Polygnum pennsylvanicum

40

FACW+

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

90

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Boehmeria cylindrica

5

OBL

Herbaceous

Cephalanthus occidentalis

15

OBL

Subcanopy

Xanthium strumarium L.

50

FAC

Subcanopy

Polygnum pennsylvanicum

5

FACW+

Herbaceous

Boehmeria cylindrica

10

OBL

Herbaceous

Bidens frondosa

10

FACW

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

50

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Cuscuta gronovii

5

-

Herbaceous

13 | P a g e

2

A

Acer saccharum Quercus rubra Carya glabra

24.1

FACU

Canopy

24

FACU

Canopy

26.8

FACU

Canopy

FACW-

Subcanopy

-

Herbaceous

Lindera benzoin

80

unknown 2

2

2

2

B

C

D

E

-

Acer saccharinum

59.3

FACW

Canopy

Platanus occidentalis

13.2

FACW

Canopy

Platanus occidentalis

17.5

FACW

Canopy

Cephalanthus occidentalis

60

OBL

Subcanopy

Polygonum pennsylvanicum

10

FACW+

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

2

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

OBL

Canopy

Salix nigra

34.6

Cephalanthus occidentalis

65

OBL

Subcanopy

Echinocloa crusgalli

95

FACW

Herbaceous

Boehmeria cylindrica

5

OBL

Herbaceous

Boehmeria cylindrica

50

OBL

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

25

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Polygonum pennsylvanicum

10

FACW+

Herbaceous

Xanthium strumarium L.

5

FAC

Herbaceous

Bidens frondosa

5

FACW

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

5

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Polygonum pennsylvanicum

15

FACW+

Herbaceous

Oxalis europaea

15

FACU

Herbaceous

Carex sp.

20

*FACW/OBL*

Herbaceous

Xanthium strumarium L.

20

FAC

Herbaceous

Boehmeria cylindrica

20

OBL

Herbaceous

Echinocloa crusgalli

5

FACW

Herbaceous

unknown

5

-

Herbaceous

14 | P a g e