Brook Hollow Solar
This is a fictional demonstration project in which every organisation, person, parcel and finding is invented.
AQ-01 · Matrix · Aquatic Resources
Resource is present, likely difficult to address
Code computed the rating from the assessor's inputs:
extent=core, avoidable=partly -> 3
Set by the rule
Not revised.
Present: yes
Field delineation (C-473bc604fa) found four wetlands totaling 6.2 acres and three streams in the Project Area; Sugar Run bisects it (C-b2682b602a) with two intermittent tributaries (C-d993df0dfd). The absence claim for Parcel 7 (C-002ed424de) is limited to that northern parcel and does not conflict with project-wide presence.
Cites C-473bc604fa, C-b2682b602a, C-d993df0dfd, C-002ed424de
Extent: core
Sugar Run, a perennial stream, bisects the center of the Project Area north to south (C-b2682b602a), fragmenting the buildable area; tributaries drain the western fields (C-d993df0dfd). Parcel 7 has no wetlands (C-002ed424de), but that is only one parcel.
Cites C-b2682b602a, C-d993df0dfd, C-002ed424de
Avoidable: partly
Consultant recommends avoiding all delineated features and HDD for Sugar Run collection line crossings (C-5a22a97656). Because Sugar Run bisects the site (C-b2682b602a), crossings for collection lines and access are likely even with layout avoidance of wetlands. Features are not pervasive: four wetlands totaling 6.2 acres (C-473bc604fa).
Cites C-5a22a97656, C-b2682b602a, C-473bc604fa
Pathway: standard
Sugar Run and tributaries are likely jurisdictional (C-c601777a50). Crossings by HDD or spanning and small linear impacts typically fit a Nationwide Permit with routine 401 certification; no evidence of large fill requiring an individual permit (C-5a22a97656). IDEM 401/isolated wetland permit likely (S-02).
Cites C-c601777a50, C-5a22a97656
Impact likely: yes
A perennial stream bisecting the site (C-b2682b602a) means that without special avoidance, access roads and collection lines will cross likely jurisdictional waters (C-c601777a50), triggering permitting and HDD costs.
Cites C-b2682b602a, C-c601777a50
The assessment is well supported by the delineation claims. Presence, core extent and partly avoidable are reasonable. The only problems are minor: an absence-of-evidence statement on fill size, and the omission of DNR floodway and drain checks in the next steps.
Severity minor · Kind other
The pathway rationale says there is 'no evidence of large fill requiring an individual permit' and cites C-5a22a97656. That claim only recommends avoidance and HDD. It does not speak to fill size. This is absence of evidence, not a supported statement. The NWP and routine 401 reading is a reasonable professional judgment, so the wording is minor. The USACE jurisdictional determination would settle it.
Cites C-5a22a97656
Severity minor · Kind missing_next_step
S-04 (DNR floodway permit) and S-08 (regulated drain or tile) are unverified, so they are not decisive. The next steps could still say to check floodway mapping for Sugar Run and to check for regulated drains in the western fields. The agencies list omits DNR.
Cites C-b2682b602a, C-d993df0dfd
Severity minor · Kind unsupported_statement
The comment says 'two intermittent tributaries drain the western fields' and also says three streams were delineated. This is consistent with the claims. The 'fragmenting the buildable area' wording is an inference from the bisecting stream, not a quoted fact.
Cites C-b2682b602a
Passed
rating_has_evidence · blocking
Passed
presence_is_evidenced · not blocking
Passed
counter_evidence_considered · not blocking
Passed
numbers_grounded · not blocking
Passed
agencies_grounded · not blocking
Passed
cutoff_respected · blocking
Passed
critic_not_refuted · blocking
Each claim the row cites: the statement in the assessor's words, then the quote the engine found on the page.
Arrow keys move the selection. A middle-click opens the claim's own page.
No wetlands were observed in the northern parcel, Parcel 7.
Quote check Exact · Placed verbatim · The quote occurs on the page exactly as written. · Read as ocr · OCR confidence 0.9589638913043479
This page has no position for the quote: it was found in the page text only.
C-002ed424de
No wetlands were observed in the northern parcel, Parcel 7.
No wetlands were observed in the northern parcel (Parcel 7).
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 3 · 2023-05-22
Source field_study · Claim type absence · Polarity absence · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
C-473bc604fa
Field delineation on April 10-14, 2023 identified four wetlands totaling 6.2 acres (palustrine emergent and forested) and three streams within the Project Area.
identified four wetlands totaling 6.2 acres (palustrine emergent and palustrine forested) and three streams within the Project Area.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 2 · 2023-05-22
Source field_study · Claim type presence · Polarity presence · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
Cited by EC-02
C-5a22a97656
Consultant recommends avoiding all delineated features and using horizontal directional drilling for collection line crossings of Sugar Run.
We recommend avoidance of all delineated features; collection line crossings of Sugar Run should use horizontal directional drilling (HDD).
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 2 · 2023-05-22
Source consultant_memo · Claim type recommendation · Polarity neutral · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
Cited by AQ-02
C-b2682b602a
Sugar Run, a perennial stream, bisects the center of the Project Area from north to south.
Sugar Run, a perennial stream, bisects the center of the Project Area from north to south.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 2 · 2023-05-22
Source field_study · Claim type presence · Polarity presence · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
C-c601777a50
Sugar Run and its tributaries are likely jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Sugar Run and its tributaries are likely jurisdictional waters of the United States.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 2 · 2023-05-22
Source consultant_memo · Claim type presence · Polarity presence · Confidence medium · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
C-d993df0dfd
Two intermittent tributaries to Sugar Run drain the western fields.
Two intermittent tributaries to Sugar Run drain the western fields.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report May2023 · DR-0005 · Page 2 · 2023-05-22
Source field_study · Claim type presence · Polarity presence · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100
Cited by EN-03
The requirements the assessor tied to this row, by level. Each quote from dated law is shown with its source.
Engine 0.1.0, which made this run, wrote no timelines or citations of law.
F-CWA404 · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (district by location)
Regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Permit type depends on the area of impact and the activity.
As of the cut-off: Sackett v. EPA narrowed the scope of waters of the United States. (2023-05-25) Changed after the cut-off (not applied): EPA and USACE published the conforming WOTUS rule. (2023-09-08)
F-CWA401 · State water quality agency (or EPA/authorized tribe)
Certification that a federally permitted discharge (for example a Section 404 permit) complies with state water quality standards.
Changed after the cut-off (not applied): EPA's revised Section 401 certification rule took effect. (2023-11-27)
S-02 · Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
Sugar Run and tributaries are likely jurisdictional waters, so a 401 WQC is required with any federal Section 404 permit. Isolated state-regulated wetlands and waters not covered federally need an IDEM isolated wetland permit if impacted.
As of 2023-08-15, after Sackett v. EPA (May 2023), federal jurisdiction narrowed, making state isolated wetland permitting more important. Indiana SEA 389 (2021) deregulated Class I and some Class II isolated wetlands.
Also in the permit matrix for this row: F-RHA10, S-03, S-04, S-08
IR-a33eeefca9 · High priority
Provide the usace jurisdictional determination or agency waters correspondence for the project area, or confirm none exists.
IR-9f6495626a · High priority
Provide the desktop nwi/nhd water review or constraints mapping for the project area, or confirm none exists.
HDD at Sugar Run, avoidance siting and likely NWP/401 permitting; limited wetland acreage keeps exposure moderate.
Impact: C = cost, S = schedule. Potential cost level: L, L-M, M, M-H, H (relative to a utility-scale solar budget).
Comments
May 2023 field delineation identified four wetlands totaling 6.2 acres and three streams. Sugar Run, a perennial stream, bisects the Project Area north to south; two intermittent tributaries drain the western fields. Sugar Run and tributaries are likely jurisdictional. No wetlands observed in Parcel 7.