detroit metropolitan wayne county airport project no. a152 ......1 refer to table 2 in section 4.1...

WETLAND DETERMINATION &

DELINEATION REPORT

For

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Project No. A152: Reconstruction of Runway

3L/21R and Associated Taxiways

Sections 14, 22, 23, 26, 27 Romulus Township (T03S, R09E) Wayne County, Michigan

Prepared for:

Kimley Horn of Michigan, Inc. 1001 Warrenville Road

Lisle, IL 60532

December 7, 2017

ECT Project No. 17-0373

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. Project No. A152 – Wetland Report ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 AVAILABLE MAPPING & DATA ........................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.2 NRCS Soils Map ........................................................................................................................................ 1

2.3 National Wetland Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Wetland Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Upland Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS & CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 3

4.1 Wetland Regulations by the State of Michigan .......................................................................................... 3

4.2 Inland Lakes and Streams Regulation by the State of Michigan ................................................................ 5

4.3 City of Romulus Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 5

4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 7

TABLES

Table 1. NRCS Soil Map Units (Web Soil Survey) ......................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Wetland Summary Data: Wetland Type & MDEQ Regulatory Status .............................................................. 4 APPENDIX A: SITE MAPPING

Site Location Map USGS Topographic Map National Wetlands Inventory Map NRCS Soils Map Site Characteristics Map

APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATA FORMS

APPENDIX D: WETLAND IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM (WIP) REVIEW LETTER

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. Project No. A152 – Wetland Report iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) was contracted by Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. to complete site investigations for Project No. A152: Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R and Associated Taxiways at the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) in Sections 14, 22, 23, 26, and 27 of Romulus Township (T03S, R09E), Wayne County, Michigan. DTW is located within the City of Romulus. The Survey Area consists of portions of DTW associated with Project No. A152. The proposed project entails reconstructing a runway and associated taxiways and will involve disturbance of vegetated areas for equipment use, materials storage, and/or grading activities. On May 22-24, June 7, and July 24, 2017, ECT conducted site investigations to identify, delineate, and characterize wetlands and water features and assess their regulatory status. Twenty-seven (27) wetlands (Wetland 1 through Wetland 27) were documented in the Survey Area. It is ECT’s professional opinion that Wetlands 1 through 26 would be considered non-regulated by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) under Part 303, Wetlands Protection of P.A., 451 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Act (NREPA) of 1994, as amended. Wetland 27 appears to be regulated by the MDEQ under Part 303 of NREPA. The identification of wetland or water features described in this report is based on the condition of the Survey Area at the time of the investigations, ECT’s past experiences with regulatory agencies, and current regulatory policy. Wetlands in Michigan are regulated by the MDEQ, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies make their own determinations regarding wetlands in the state of Michigan and have the final decision in matters of jurisdiction and delineation. ECT believes that a permit from the MDEQ is not likely to be required for potential impacts to Wetland 1 through Wetland 26 that may result from project activities. A Part 303 permit from the MDEQ would be required for any impacts proposed to Wetland 27. It is unlawful to deposit fill, dredge material, drain surface water, or construct a structure in a regulated wetland without a permit from the MDEQ. ECT recommends scheduling a pre-application meeting with the MDEQ Southeast Michigan District Office to confirm these findings prior to commencement of construction activities. If sufficient information is provided, the MDEQ will likely provide a written statement regarding the regulatory status of on-site wetlands and the need (or lack thereof) for a permit for the project. Following issuance of a draft of this report, a pre-application meeting with the MDEQ was conducted on October 5, 2017 at the Southeast Michigan District Office to discuss ECT’s findings. Additionally, on October 24, 2017, the MDEQ conducted a Level 3 Wetland Identification Program (WIP) Review within selected portions of the Survey Area. The WIP Review confirmed that Wetland 27 (approximately 0.04 acres) is considered regulated by the MDEQ because of wetland size and/or proximity to a pond, lake, or stream/drain. All other wetlands within the Survey Area were confirmed to be non-regulated by the MDEQ.

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. Project No. A152 – Wetland Report 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) was contracted by Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. to complete site investigations for Project No. A152: Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R and Associated Taxiways at the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) in Sections 14, 22, 23, 26, and 27 of Romulus Township (T03S, R09E), Wayne County, Michigan. DTW is located within the City of Romulus city limits. (Site Location Map, Appendix A). The Survey Area consists of portions of DTW associated with Project No. A152. The proposed project entails reconstructing a runway and associated taxiways and will involve disturbance of vegetated areas for equipment use, materials storage, and/or grading activities. On May 22-24, June 7, and July 24, 2017, ECT conducted site investigations to identify, delineate, and characterize wetlands and water features and assess their regulatory status. The methodology used to identify wetlands described herein was consistent with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland delineation rules as outlined in the USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual – Technical Report Y-87-1 and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northeast-Northcentral Region (Environmental Laboratory 1987; USACE 2012). Wetlands are characterized according to three diagnostic parameters: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Plant species associated with wetland versus upland conditions were identified and checked against the National List of Plant Species (Lichvar et al. 2016). Soil profiles were examined by using a soil probe to dig to a depth of approximately 14 inches below the ground surface. Horizon thickness, color, texture, and presence of hydromorphic (water-formed) features were noted and compared against the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (USDA-NRCS) Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA-NRCS 2017). Primary and secondary indicators of hydrology, as described in the USACE’s 87 Manual and Regional Supplement, were used to confirm wetland hydrology. 2.0 AVAILABLE MAPPING & DATA 2.1 USGS Topographic Map

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Flat Rock NE Quadrangle (USGS 1980) indicates that the terrain in the Survey Area is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 630 to 635 feet above mean sea level (USGS Topographic Map, Appendix A). The topographic map depicts DTW and associated structures and infrastructure. Wetlands are not depicted within the Survey Area. The topographic map depicts the Packard Drain, a tributary to the Packard Drain, and an intermittent water feature in the southern portion of the Survey Area. It should be noted that the DTW property has expanded since the USGS topographic map was photorevised in 1980. USGS topographic maps typically show only the more distinct wetland and water features and should be utilized for preliminary analysis only. Field inspections are necessary to determine the actual existence, type, and boundaries of wetlands and water features. 2.2 NRCS Soils Map

The USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey was reviewed prior to the site inspections. Five soil map units are mapped within the Survey Area (Soil Map, Appendix A). Three of the mapped soils are considered hydric by the USDA-NRCS (Table 1). A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA-NRCS 2017). Hydric soils are one of three diagnostic criteria used to determine whether or not an area is a wetland.


Table 1. NRCS Soil Map Units (Web Soil Survey)

Symbol Soil Map Unit Name Drainage Class Hydric?

Pe Pewamo loam Poorly Drained Yes SfA Selfridge-Pewamo complex, 0- 2 percent slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained Yes SeA Selfridge loamy sand, 0- 3 percent sloes Somewhat Poorly Drained No Cu Cut and fill land N/A N/A TfA Tedrow loamy find sand, loamy substratum, 0- 2 percent slopes Somewhat Poorly Drained Yes

2.3 National Wetland Inventory

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed prior to the site inspections (NWI Map, Appendix A). The NWI maps large basins adjoining the Survey Area; however, wetlands are not depicted on the NWI maps (USFWS 2016). Field investigations confirmed that wetlands and existing stormwater basins and ponds are present within the Survey Area. NWI maps are remotely compiled from aerial photography and may not show all wetlands in a given area, nor accurately characterize all wetlands shown. These maps should be used only for preliminary analysis, and field inspections and mapping are necessary to determine the actual existence, type, and boundaries of wetlands. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Wetland Conditions

Wetlands are defined by P.A. 451 of 1994, as: “...land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support wetland vegetation or aquatic life and is commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh...” During the site investigations, 27 wetlands (Wetland 1 through Wetland 27) were identified within the Survey Area (Site Characteristics Map, Appendix A). Site Photographs depicting conditions at the time of the site investigations are provided in Appendix B, and Wetland Data Forms are provided in Appendix C. Wetlands 1 through Wetland 27 are emergent wetland systems ranging from 0.01 to 2.32 acres in size. Wetlands 13, 15, 19, 22, and 24 are the largest wetlands within the Survey Area but do not exceed 2.32 acres.1 Wetlands 1-12, 14, 16-18, 20-21, 23, 25-27 are found in small depressions or toe of slopes that hold water long enough to support wetland vegetation and develop hydric soils, despite regular airfield maintenance activities, and in some cases, presence of stormwater management structures. These small wetlands are scattered throughout the Survey Area but are not abundant (Site Characteristics Map, Appendix A). Dominant vegetation varied among these wetlands but typically include several of the following species: dark green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), spike rush (Eleocharis erythropoda), redtop (Agrostis gigantea), creeping bent (A. stolonifera), sedges (i.e. Carex bebbii, C. vulpinoidea, C. cristatella, C. granularis, C. stipata, C. stricta, C. pellita), rushes (i.e. Juncus effusus, J. dudleyi, J. tenuis), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca). In general, this group of wetlands can be considered lower quality based on presence of invasive species, hydrologic isolation, small fragmented locations, regular mowing, and low plant species diversity. Wetlands 13, 15, 19, 22, and 24 are concentrated in one large section of the Survey Area that appears to be maintained less regularly than other sections due to difficulty of equipment access. Dominant vegetation varied among these wetlands but typically include several of the following species: dark green bulrush, spike

1 Refer to Table 2 in Section 4.1 for revised wetland designations and MDEQ WIP Review Report in Appendix D.


rush, redtop, creeping bent, woolgrass, sedges (i.e. C. bebbii, C. vulpinoidea, C. cristatella, C. granularis, C. stipata, C. stricta, C. pellita, C. lacustris), rushes (i.e. J. effusus, J. dudleyi, J. tenuis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), curly dock (Rumex crispus), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia), common water horehound (Lycopus americanus), southern water-plantain (Alisma subcordata), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), common mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), panicled aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), river-bank grape (Vitis riparia), and Indian-hemp (Apocynum cannabinum). In general, this group of wetlands can be considered low to moderate quality based on presence of invasive species, hydrologic isolation, occasional mowing, and moderate plant species diversity. Wetland hydrology was relatively uniform among all wetlands in the Survey Area and generally indicated by saturated soils, areas of inundation (2-4 inches), bare soil (i.e. sparsely vegetated concave surfaces), crayfish burrows, algae mats, and/or visible saturation on aerial imagery. 3.2 Upland Conditions

Uplands in the Survey Area consist of regularly maintained turf areas adjoining runways and taxiways, which have been graded and seeded with soil stabilization mixes. Small patches of concrete and/or gravel as well as stormwater structures occur occasionally. Upland areas exhibit relatively uniform vegetation, including non-native cool season grasses and non-native species. Common species generally include: turf fescues (Festuca spp.), Canada blue grass (Poa compressa), Kentucky bluegrass (P. pratensis), perennial rye (Lolium perenne), common fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus), common plantain (Plantago major), English plantain (P. lanceolata), self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), field thistle (Cirsium arvense), Timothy (Phleum pratense), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (T. repens), yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officinalis), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), birdfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), goat’s beard (Tragopogon dubius), among others. 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS & CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Wetland Regulations by the State of Michigan

Wetlands are protected under Part 303 Wetland Protection, of P.A. 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA, as amended). The MDEQ assumes authority over wetlands that are 5 acres or greater in area; contiguous (directly adjacent to) to an inland lake, pond, or stream; within 500 feet of an inland lake, pond, or stream; or within 1,000 feet of a Great Lake, Lake Saint Clair, Saint Mary’s River, Saint Clair River, or Detroit River. The MDEQ may also exert regulatory control over isolated wetlands less than five (5) acres in size: "...if the department determines that protection of the area is essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction and the department has so notified the owner." The following activities are prohibited within regulated wetlands without a MDEQ permit:

1. The placement of fill material; 2. Dredging; 3. Construction within; and/or 4. The draining of surface water from a wetland.

ECT’s site investigations indicate that Wetland 1 through Wetland 26 appear to be non-regulated by the MDEQ under Part 303 of NREPA and that Wetland 27 appears to be regulated under Part 303 of NREPA (Table 2). Non-regulated wetlands within the Survey Area are less than 5 acres in size and are located farther than 500 feet of a stream. However, Wetland 27 is located within 500 feet of an existing stormwater pond containing greater than 1 acre in open water extent, which is likely considered a regulating surface water feature by MDEQ. There are three (3) stormwater ponds within or adjoining the Survey Area. These features


appear to have been constructed for stormwater management and would likely not be considered regulated by the MDEQ under Part 303 of NREPA. On October 24, 2017 the MDEQ conducted a Level 3 Wetland Identification Program (WIP) Review within selected portions of the Survey Area. The WIP Review Report, dated December 4, 2017, is provided in Appendix D. Results of the WIP review include revisions to ECT’s findings that incorporate small areas of wetland, specifically:

Increase the size of Wetland 1, from 0.151 acres to 0.191 acres Addition of a small non-regulated wetland (i.e. MDEQ new in Table 2) Connection of Wetlands 15 and 19 (i.e. Wetland 15/19 in Table 2)

The WIP Review confirmed that Wetland 27 (approximately 0.04 acres) is considered regulated by the MDEQ. All other wetlands within the Survey Area were confirmed to be non-regulated by the MDEQ. Table 2 below incorporates MDEQ WIP Results.

Table 2. Wetland Summary Data: Wetland Type & MDEQ Regulatory Status

Wetland ID Type Acres Regulatory Status Reason

Wetland 1 Emergent 0.191 Non‐Regulated Less than 5 acres














Wetland 15/19 Emergent 3.109 Non‐Regulated Less than 5 acres











Wetland 27 Emergent 0.042 MDEQ Regulated Within 500‐feet of Pond / WIP Review

MDEQ (new) Emergent 0.006 Non‐Regulated Less than 5 acres

TOTAL 9.09


4.2 Inland Lakes and Streams Regulation by the State of Michigan

Inland lakes and streams are protected under Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the NREPA. The MDEQ assumes authority over natural or artificial inland lakes that are greater than five (5) acres in size, and natural or created streams that have definite banks, a bed, and visible evidence of a continued flow or continued occurrence of water. The following activities are prohibited within regulated inland lakes and streams without a MDEQ permit:

Dredging or filling bottomland;

Constructing, enlarging, extending, removing or placing a structure on bottomland;

Erecting, maintaining or operating a marina;

Creating, enlarging or diminishing an inland lake or stream;

Structurally interfering with the natural flow of an inland lake or stream;

Constructing, dredging, commencing, extending or enlarging an artificial canal, channel, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake, or similar waterway where the purpose is ultimate connection with an existing inland lake or stream, or where any part of the artificial waterway is located within 500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of an existing inland lake or stream;

Connecting any natural or artificially constructed waterway, canal, channel, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake or similar water with an existing inland lake or stream for navigation or any other purpose.

Streams are not found within the Survey Area. Several non-regulated constructed ditches, which appear to be connected to DTW’s stormwater management system, are located in the Survey Area (Site Characteristics Map, Appendix A). ECT’s review indicates that these constructed ditches do not meet the MDEQ definition of a regulated stream. The Packard Drain, which is depicted on the USGS topographic map, is no longer located within the Survey Area. Three (3) stormwater ponds are located within or adjoin the Survey Area. Two of these stormwater ponds are relatively small (<.0.5 acres), and located on the south end of the Survey Area. These features appear to have been constructed for water treatment purposes and would likely be considered exempt by MDEQ under Part 301 of NREPA. The largest stormwater pond consists of two connected basins containing greater than 50 acres of open water. Based on their surface area, these features may be considered regulated by the MDEQ under Part 301 of NREPA. 4.3 City of Romulus Regulations

According to information from the MDEQ and the City of Romulus code of ordinances, the city does not appear to have local ordinances regulating wetlands. However, the City of Romulus Site Plan Submission Checklist indicates that the location of existing drainages, wetlands, lakes, streams, and floodplain elevations shall be provided in site plans of proposed land developments. In addition, the topographic survey shall include the limits of existing wetlands (regulated or non-regulated) and any impacts should also be indicated and quantified (City of Romulus 2017). 4.4 Conclusions

Wetlands in Michigan are regulated by the MDEQ, in coordination with the USACE, and the EPA. These agencies make their own determinations as to what is or is not wetland and have the final decision in matters of jurisdiction and delineation. Variability in boundary determinations may be due to, but not limited to, the agency representative conducting the determination, wetland policy, and the time of year the site was examined. In addition, the wetland boundaries and extent on a site can change over time depending upon numerous factors including,


but not limited to, changes in vegetation, drainage, weather patterns, and activities on adjacent parcels that may alter the pattern of the wetland on the site. The identification of wetlands described in this report is based on the condition of the Survey Area at the time of ECT’s investigations, ECT’s past experiences with regulatory agencies, and current regulatory policy. Based on the criteria outlined in Part 303 of NREPA, it is ECT’s professional opinion that Wetland 1 through Wetland 26 would be considered non-regulated by the MDEQ. These wetlands are smaller than 5 acres in size and are not located within 500 feet from a regulated stream or waterbody. However, Wetland 27 would likely be considered regulated by the MDEQ, because it is located within 500 feet of an existing stormwater pond that exceeds 1 acre of open water. Lastly, ECT field investigations concluded that the existing constructed ditches do not meet the characteristics of a regulated stream and should not be regulated by the MDEQ under Part 301 of NREPA. ECT believes that a permit from the MDEQ is not likely to be required for potential impacts to Wetland 1 through Wetland 26 that may result from project activities. However, a Part 303 permit from the MDEQ would be required for any impacts proposed to Wetland 27. It is unlawful to deposit fill, dredge material, drain surface water, or construct a structure in a regulated wetland without a permit from the MDEQ. ECT recommends scheduling a pre-application meeting with the MDEQ Southeast Michigan District Office to confirm these findings prior to commencement of construction activities. If sufficient information is provided, the MDEQ will likely provide a written statement regarding the regulatory status of on-site wetlands and the need (or lack thereof) for a permit for the project. Following issuance of a draft of this report, a pre-application meeting with the MDEQ was conducted on October 5, 2017 at the Southeast Michigan District Office to discuss ECT’s findings. Additionally, on October 24, 2017, the MDEQ conducted a Level 3 WIP Review within selected portions of the Survey Area. The WIP Review confirmed that Wetland 27 (approximately 0.04 acres) is considered regulated by the MDEQ because of wetland size and/or proximity to a pond, lake, or stream/drain and that impacts to Wetland 27 would require a Part 303 permit. All other wetlands within the Survey Area were confirmed to be non-regulated by the MDEQ. Respectfully submitted, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Guadalupe Cummins Associate Scientist

Matthew Carmer, PWS Senior Scientist


5.0 REFERENCES City of Romulus. 2017. “City of Romulus - Planning/Zoning Department.” Planning Forms/Applications.

http://romulusgov.com/departments/economic_development/planning/index.php.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program - Technical Report Y-87-1.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lichvar, RW, DL Blanks, WN Kirchner, and NC Melvin. 2016. “The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. (Northcentral and Northeast Regional Wetland Plant List).” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USACE. 2012. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region. (Version 2.0).” ERDC/EL TR-12-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/NCNE_suppv2.pdf.

USDA-NRCS. 2017. “Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.1, 2017.” Edited by LM Vasilas, GW Hurt, and JF Berkowitz. US Dep. of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053171.pdf.

USFWS. 2016. “NWI.” National Wetland Inventory - Wetlands Mapper (V2, November 22, 2016). http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

USGS. 1980. “Flat Rock NE, Michigan (Formerly Detroit-Wayne Airport) [1967, Photorevised 1973 and 1980].” U.S. Geological Survey.

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. Project No. A152 – Wetland Report

APPENDIX A: Mapping

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Topographic MapKimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc.DTW Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R

p

Survey Area 20170 0.25 0.5

Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Site Location MapKimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc.DTW Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R

p

Survey Area 20170 0.25 0.5

Miles

!

!

State Map

Wayne County

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

National Wetland Inventory MapKimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc.DTW Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R

p

Freshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater PondLakeRiverine

0 0.25 0.5Miles

Survey Area 2017

NRCS Soils MapKimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc.DTW Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R

p

0 500250Feet

Survey Area 2017Soils

1 of 3

Pe - Pewamo loam (Hydric)SfA - Selfridge-Pewamo complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric)SeA - Selfridge loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopesCu - Cut and Fill LandTfA - Tedrow loamy fine sand, loamy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Hydric)


p

0 500250Feet


2 of 3



p

0 500250Feet


3 of 3


Site Characteristics MapKimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc.DTW Reconstruction of Runway 3L/21R

p

0 500250Feet

Survey Area 2017Ex. WetlandEx. Stormwater PondConstructed Ditch

1 of 3


p

0 500250Feet


2 of 3


p

0 500250Feet


3 of 3


APPENDIX B: Photographic Log

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc Project No. A152 – Wetland Report

Photo 1. Wetland 1, looking east.

Photo 2. Wetland 2, looking northwest.


Photo 3. Wetland 3, looking northeast.




Photo 6. Wetland 6, looking south.



Photo 8. Wetland 8, looking west.



Photo 10. Wetland 10, looking north.


Photo 17. Wetland 17, looking southeast.



Photo 19. Wetland 19, looking southwest.




Photo 24. Soil in Wetland 23, indicating hydric soils.


Photo 27. Soils in Wetland 25, indicating hydric soils.



Photo 29. Wetland 27 (MDEQ Regulated), looking northwest, located within 500-feet of stormwater pond (Photo 30).

Photo 30. Large stormwater pond northeast of the survey area.


Photo 31. One of two stormwater ponds at the south end of the survey area.

Photo 32. Vegetated constructed ditch at the north end of the survey area.


Photo 33. One of multiple constructed ditches at the south end of the survey area.


APPENDIX C: Wetland Data Forms

Project/Site:Applicant/Owner: State:Investigator(s):

Lat:Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

XAre Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes XAre Vegetation , Soil , or HydrologySUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X

XX

X Yes X

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) City/County: Romulus/Wayne Sampling Date: 5/22/2017

Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Plain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope %: ~1

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. MI Sampling Point: W1M. Carmer, G. Cummins (ECT) Section, Township, Range: 14; T03S, R09E

WGS84Selfridge-Pewamo complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (SfA) PEM

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR L 42.2334 Long: -83.3353 Datum:

significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Nonaturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Wetland 1

Is the Sampled Area

Hydric Soil Present? Yes within a Wetland? Yes No

Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 1 (Flag A1-A11)

HYDROLOGY

Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Surface Water (A1)

Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8)Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16)Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4)

Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

No

(includes capillary fringe)Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?

US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0

Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: x 1 =1. x 2 =2. x 3 =3. x 4 =4. x 5 =5. Column Totals: (B)6.7.

Herb Stratum (Plot size: X1. X2. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.

(Plot size:1.2.3.4. X

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. W1

Tree Stratum 30 ft )Absolute % Cover

Dominant Species?

Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%Prevalence Index worksheet:

FAC species 0 0

60 60Total % Cover of:

30

UPL species 0 0FACU species 0

=Total Cover

90Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.20

75 (A)

15 ft ) OBL speciesMultiply by:

FACW species 15

0

=Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation5 ft ) 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Eleocharis erythropoda 50 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 10 No FACW

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)Carex bebbii 5 No OBL 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Scirpus atrovirens 5 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)Agrostis gigantea 5 No FACW

Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.

Woody Vine Stratum 15 ft ) Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.75 =Total Cover

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X

SOIL W1Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Depth Matrix Redox Features

Prominent redox concentrations

(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1

4-10 10YR 5/1Loamy/Clayey

Loc2 Texture Remarks

M Loamy/Clayey80 10YR 4/6 20 C

Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Matrix (F3) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)

Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)

0-4 10YR 3/1 100

Stripped Matrix (S6) Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks)Dark Surface (S7)

3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (F21)Sandy Redox (S5) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)

Yes No

Remarks:This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx)

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present?





X NoX No xX No

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X





WSG 84Selfridge-Pewamo complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (SfA) PEM






Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 2 (Flag B1-B7).

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)





1Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):



Remarks:

No


Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present?


Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


20


=Total Cover


90 (A)


FACW species 10

0



Juncus tenuis 60 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Eleocharis erythropoda 20 Yes OBL

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Carex granularis 10 No FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)







Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)Bare soil (i.e. sparesely vegetated concave surface) in herb stratum 10%

=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X













0-4 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No

Remarks:This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2015 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx).







X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X X

xx

x Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 3 (Flag C1-C4)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







Agrostis gigantea 5 No FACW

FACW


Carex granularis 10 No FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Symphyotrichum lanceolatum 10 No

=Total Cover


65 (A)


FACW species 25

0UPL species 0 0FACU species 0

Prevalence Index worksheet:

FAC species 0 0


50

1 (B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0%

1 (A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:



Dominant Species?


Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:


Sampling Point

X

XYes No







Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)




0-4 10YR 3/1 100


Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)

80 10YR 4/6 20 CLoamy/Clayey


M Loamy/Clayey





4-10 10YR 5/1





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 4 (Flag D1-D5)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


40


=Total Cover


70 (A)


FACW species 20

0




Carex stricta 25 Yes OBL


Carex granularis 20 Yes FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)








=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X





4-10 10YR 4/1loamy sand








0-4 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X

X X

xx

x Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 5 (Flag E1-E6)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







OBL


Juncus tenuis 25 Yes FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Scirpus atrovirens 25 Yes

=Total Cover


75 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 25 75


0

3 (B)


3 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-4 10YR 3/2 100





M Loamy/Clayey





4-10 10YR 4/1





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 6 (Flag F1-F5)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







Juncus effusus 10 No OBL

OBL


Carex bebbii 15 Yes OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)



Agrostis gigantea 40 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Eleocharis erythropoda 15 Yes

=Total Cover


80 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 0 0


0

3 (B)


3 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-6 10YR 3/1 100



90 10YR 4/6 10 Csandy clay


M



sandy clay


6-12 10YR 4/2





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No



1.5Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):





Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 7 (Flag G1-G8)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







Rumex crispus 5 No FAC

OBL


Carex cristatella 5 No FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)





=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 5



FAC species 5 15


10

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

x

XYes No



Type: gravelDepth (inches): 7 Hydric Soil Present?








0-7 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 3/6 5 C PL



loamy, sandyLoc2 Texture Remarks


Depth Matrix Redox Features(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X X

xx

x Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 8 (Flag H1-H10)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







FACW






Juncus dudleyi 30 Yes

=Total Cover


80 (A)


FACW species 50



FAC species 0 0


100

3 (B)


3 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-6 10YR 3/1 100





M Loamy/Clayey



6-12 10YR 5/2





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 9 (Flag I1-I15)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area











Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc. MI Sampling Point: W9M. Carmer, G. Cummins (ECT) Section, Township, Range: 22; T03S; R09E


Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







OBL


data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Scirpus atrovirens 10 No

=Total Cover


80 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 0 0


0

1 (B)


1 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-6 10YR 3/1 100





M Loamy/Clayey



6-12 10YR 5/2





X NoX No XX No

X

XX

XX X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 10 (Flag J1-J5)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover








OBL

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)Agrostis gigantea 10 No FACW 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must


Dactylis glomerata 15 No FACU data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Carex vulpinoidea 20 Yes

=Total Cover


90 (A)


FACW species 10



FAC species 15 45


20

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-12 10YR 3/1 100



loamy, silty, sandyLoc2 Texture Remarks







X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

X X

XX

X Yes X





WSG 84Selfridge loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (SeA) PEM






Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 11 (Flag K1-K12)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


0


=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 0

0



Agrostis gigantea 40 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Carex vulpinoidea 30 Yes OBL


Eleocharis erythropoda 20 Yes OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)Carex pellita 10 No OBL









Sampling Point

X

X











0-6 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

X

x

XX X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 12 (Flag L1-L9)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.




Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)Bare soil (i.e. sparsely vegetated concave surface) in herb strata 30%

=Total Cover







OBL






Carex bebbii 20 Yes

=Total Cover


70 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 0 0


0

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-6 10YR 3/1 100





M Loamy/Clayey



6-12 10YR 4/2





X NoX No XX No

XX

XX

X

XX X

XXX Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 13 (Flag M1-M21 and N1-N24)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)





2Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 6



Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


50


=Total Cover


90 (A)


FACW species 25

0



Carex stricta 40 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Phalaris arundinacea 25 Yes FACW


Carex vulpinoidea 25 Yes OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)








=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X



sandy siltLoc2 Texture Remarks






1-18 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

XX

X X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 14 (Flag O1-O12)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







FACW





Onoclea sensibilis 50 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Phalaris arundinacea 35 Yes

=Total Cover


85 (A)


FACW species 35



FAC species 0 0


70

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

?

XYes No











0-6 10YR 3/1 100



100Sandy sandy loam


Sandy



sand


6-12 10YR 5/3





X NoX No XX No

X

XX

XX X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 15 (Flag P1-P71)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.












OBL

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)Agrostis gigantea 5 No FACW 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must


Carex vulpinoidea 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Pycnanthemum virginianum 5 No FACW



Carex stricta 60 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Scirpus cyperinus 15 No

=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 10



FAC species 5 15


20

1 (B)


1 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-20 10YR 3/1 100



90 10YR 5/6 10sandy silt




20-26 10YR 4/2





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 16 (Flag Q1-Q17)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover











Carex lacustris 100 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 0 0


0

1 (B)


1 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-3 10YR 3/1 100



7-12 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C100

clay loamLoc2 Texture Remarks




sandyM


3-7 10YR 5/4





X NoX No XX No

XX

X X

XXX Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 17 (Flag R1-R4)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


0


=Total Cover


75 (A)


FACW species 0

0



Lythrum salicaria 50 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Asclepias incarnata 15 Yes OBL


Lycopus americanus 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)








=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X



clayey


6-12 10YR 3/1clay loam


M80 10YR 5/6 20 C






0-6 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

XX

XX X

XXX Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 18 (Flag S1-S7)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 10 30


20


=Total Cover


65 (A)


FACW species 10

0




Asclepias incarnata 10 No OBL


Juncus tenuis 10 No FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)Agrostis gigantea 10 No FACW








=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X











0-6 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

XXX

XX

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 19 (Flag T1-T52)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.











FACW


Lycopus americanus 15 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Phalaris arundinacea 15 No

=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 15



FAC species 0 0


30

1 (B)


1 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-4 10YR 3/1 100





M Loamy/Clayey



4-12 10YR 3/1





X NoX No XX No

XX

XX

XXX Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 20 (Flag U1-U16)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


50


=Total Cover


95 (A)


FACW species 25

0



Carex vulpinoidea 60 Yes OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Carex cristatella 15 No FACW


Agrostis gigantea 10 No FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)Scirpus cyperinus 10 No OBL







Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)Bare soil (i.e. unvegetated concave surface) in herb strata 5%

=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X



sandy


10-16 10YR 5/4sandy loam


M70 10YR 5/6 30 C






0-10 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

XXX

X

XX X

XX

X Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 21 (Flag V1-V24)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.





=Total Cover







Lycopus americanus 10 No OBL

OBL


Juncus tenuis 15 Yes FAC data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)





=Total Cover


75 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 15 45


0

3 (B)


3 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-6 10YR 5/1 80 10YR 5/6 20 C M



100Loamy/Clayey


Loamy/Clayey



6-16 10YR 3/1





X NoX No XX No

XX

X X

XX

X Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 22 (Flag W1-W44)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


0


=Total Cover


80 (A)


FACW species 0

0




Lythrum salicaria 20 Yes OBL


Scirpus cyperinus 5 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)








=Total Cover


Sampling Point

X

X









0-16 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C PL/M




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

X

XXX Yes X











Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 23 (Flag X1-X6)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


0


=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 0

0















Sampling Point

X

X









0-12 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/6 10 C PL/M




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

X

X X

XXX Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 24 (Flag Y1-Y6)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area





WSG 84Pewamo loam (Pe) PEM








Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.




Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)Bare soil (e.g. sparsely vegetated convave surface) in herb strata 5%

=Total Cover







OBL


Carex bebbii 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Scirpus cyperinus 40 Yes

=Total Cover


95 (A)


FACW species 0



FAC species 0 0


0

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-12 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C PL/M



Loamy/ClayeyLoc2 Texture Remarks







X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

XXX Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 25 (Flag Z1-Z7)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.




Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)Bare soil (e.g. sparsely vegetated convave surface) in herb strata 5%

=Total Cover







Lycopus americanus 5 No OBL

OBL


Agrostis gigantea 20 Yes FACW data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)




Scirpus cyperinus 25 Yes

=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 20



FAC species 0 0


40

3 (B)


3 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-4 10YR 3/1 100





M Loamy/Clayey



4-12 10YR 5/1





X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

XXX Yes X





WSG 84Pewamo loam (Pe) PEM






Is the Sampled Area


Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 26 (Flag AA1-AA5)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)








Remarks:

No




Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.






Dominant Species?





FAC species 0 0


40


=Total Cover


100 (A)


FACW species 20

0















Sampling Point

X

X











0-4 10YR 3/1 100




Yes No








X NoX No XX No

X

X

X

XXX Yes X

Remarks:

No








Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)Wetland 27 (Flag AB1-AB5)

HYDROLOGY


Surface Water (A1)



Is the Sampled Area













Sampling Point:

(Plot size:1.2.3.4.5.6. (A/B)7.











Typha angustifolia 10 No OBL

FACW

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)Carex 10 No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must


Schoenoplectus pungens 10 No OBL data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)



Setaria glauca 50 Yes FAC 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01

Agrostis stolonifera 20 Yes

=Total Cover


90 (A)


FACW species 20



FAC species 50 150


40

2 (B)


2 (A)




Dominant Species?




Sampling Point

X

XYes No











0-12 10YR 4/2 90 10YR 5/6 10 C M





M Loamy/Clayey



12-18 10YR 4/1



APPENDIX D: Wetland Identification Program (WIP) Review Letter (December 4, 2007)

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7973

www.michigan.gov/deq • (800) 662-9278

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSING

RICK SNYDER GOVERNOR

C. HEIDI GRETHER DIRECTOR

December 4, 2017

Mr. Bryan Wagoner Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 11050 Rogell Drive, Building 602 Detroit, Michigan 48242 Dear Mr. Wagoner: SUBJECT: Wetland Identification Report Wetland Identification Site Name: 82-Detroit Metro Airport-Romulus MiWaters Submission Number: HN8-HJNH-43426 The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted a Level 3 Wetland Identification Review of approximately 31 acres on property (Property Tax Identification Number 80053990001700) located in Town 03 South, Range 09 East, Sections 14, 22, 23, and 27, city of Romulus, Wayne County on October 24, 2017. The wetland identification was conducted in accordance with Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA), and Rule 4 (1), Wetland Identification and Assessment (R 281.924), of the Administrative Rules for Part 303. This is a report of our findings in response to your Wetland Identification Program (WIP) application. Based on our on-site investigation which included a review of plants, hydrology, and soils, the DEQ confirms, in part, the wetland boundary lines flagged by your consultant. Several small wetland areas were overlooked and omitted by the consultant, including a wetland area linking Wetlands 15 and 19. The wetland areas showed evidence of sustained surface (or near-surface) hydrology occurring during the growing season, were dominated by hydrophytic plant species, and were associated with hydric soil. The site maps (Figure 2A and Figure 2B) of the WIP Review Areas were created by combining information from your consultant and the DEQ. The new maps identify areas containing regulated wetland, unregulated wetland, and non-wetland (upland). Approximately 0.04 acre of the wetland within the WIP Review Areas is regulated by the DEQ because of wetland size and/or proximity to a pond, lake, or stream/drain. For Wetland 27, identified as regulated wetland on the site maps (Figure 2B), please be advised that any of the following activities require a permit under Part 303:

a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a regulated wetland. b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from regulated

wetland. c) Construct, operate, or maintain any use or development in a regulated

wetland. d) Drain surface water from a regulated wetland.

Mr. Bryan Wagoner Page 2 December 4, 2017 All other wetlands identified on Figure 2 are unregulated by the DEQ. The unregulated wetlands are not regulated by the DEQ because they are not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or stream; and are 5 acres or less in size. The DEQ lacks jurisdiction under Part 303 for activities occurring in unregulated wetlands and upland areas. This Wetland Identification Report is limited to findings pursuant to Part 303 and does not constitute a determination of jurisdiction under other DEQ-administered programs. Any land use activities undertaken within the review area may be subject to regulation pursuant to the NREPA under Part 91, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

Please be aware that this wetland identification report does not constitute a determination of the jurisdiction under local ordinances or federal law. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) retains regulatory authority over certain wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and specifically those wetlands associated with traditionally navigable waters of the state. Navigable waters are generally the Great Lakes, their connecting waters, and river systems and lakes connected to these waters. In other areas of the state, the DEQ is responsible for identification of wetland boundaries for purposes of compliance with the CWA under an agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Your review area does not appear to be within those areas also regulated by the USACE. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the USACE at 313-226-2218. You may request the DEQ reassess the wetland boundaries and regulatory status of wetlands within any portion of the review area, should you disagree with the findings, within 60 days of the date of this report. A written request to reassess the Wetland Identification review area must be accompanied by supporting evidence with regard to wetland vegetation, soils or hydrology different from, or in addition to, the information relied upon by DEQ staff in preparing this report. The request should be submitted to:

Wetland Identification Program Department of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division P.O. Box 30458 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958

The findings contained in this report do not convey, provide, or otherwise imply approval of any governing act, ordinance, or regulation, nor does it waive the obligation to acquire any applicable federal, state, county, or local approvals. This Wetland Identification Report is not a permit for any activity that requires a permit from the DEQ. Should you need to apply for a permit for future work within this site, please use the same site name listed within the subject line of this letter when you are listing the site location within the MiWaters online permit application.

Mr. Bryan Wagoner Page 3 December 4, 2017 The findings contained in this report are binding on the DEQ until December 4, 2020, a period of three years from the date of this Wetland Identification Report unless a reassessment has been conducted. Please contact me at 517-243-5002; [email protected]; or DEQ, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958, if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely,

Keto Gyekis Wetland Identification Program Coordinator Water Resources Division

Enclosures cc: Wayne County Soil Erosion Enforcement Agent (CEA) Wayne County Department of Health, Veterans and Community Wellness City of Romulus Clerk Mr. Matthew Carmer, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. Mr. Andrew Hartz, DEQ Mr. Jeremy Richardson, DEQ

Harrison Rd

Middlebelt RdGoddard Rd

W G Rogell Dr

Northline Rd

Hildebrandt Rd

I 94 South Service Drive

International Dr

Airport DrCentral Ave

Homefield Ave

Hyde Park Ave

Five M Center Dr

I-94I-94

Map created: November 2017K. Gyekis,

Wetlands, Lakes, and Streams Unit, DEQ W

RD

Figure 1.Wetland Assessment LocationsDEQ WIPMetro AirportRomulus

2017 WIP Review Areas

Wayne County

01,000

2,0003,000

4,000500

Feet

detroit metropolitan wayne county airport project no. a152 ......1 refer to table 2 in section 4.1...

Documents