Appendix F - Envrionmental Assessment 5-15-24.pdf

Appendix F:

Environmental Assessment

OHM Advisors®

34000 PLYMOUTH ROAD

LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48150

T 734.522.6711 F 734.522.6427 OHM-Advisors.com

December 11, 2023

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Web Database Review – RVSDS LTCAP Phase 2, Wayne County Michigan

OHM has reviewed the Threatened and Endangered Species list generated by the MNFI Web Database, conducted on December 11, 2023. During this Review, the project location was checked against known localities for rare species, and 8 State threatened, endangered, or species of special concern have been documented within the 1.5 mile project area buffer and it is possible that without proper management negative impacts may occur. The species listed can be found in Table 1 below. include the following:

Table 1 State listed species occurring within 1.5 miles of project area.

Common Name Scientific Name State Status

American Lotus Nelumbo lutea Special Concern

Climbing fumitory Adlumia fungosa Threatened

Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Special Concern

Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Threatened

Nodding Rattlesnake Root Prenanthes crepidinea Threatened

Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia Threatened

Showy Orchis Galearis spectabilis Threatened

Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla Threatened

Additionally, ESA Section 7 species were generated via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website. Determinations for Federally listed species will be made utilizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website if applicable.

The proposed project will include lining of existing sanitary sewer lines, excavation of existing manholes for rehabilitation, and excavation and installation of new manholes over existing sanitary sewer line. The project has an anticipated starting date of winter of 2023.

For the 8 State listed species in the document provided OHM Advisors has made preliminary determinations related to potential field surveys for listed species. In response to the Rare Species Review provided by MNFI Web Database OHM Advisors has prepared the following strategy and documentation to ensure this project does not result in take of species listed in the review.

American Lotus (Nelumbo lutea) State Species of Special Concern. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as marshes, in quiet backwaters and near-shore areas and in large rivers near the Great Lakes. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1897 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Climbing fumitory (Adlumia fungosa) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as gravelly or rocky Great Lakes shores, woods, thickets, glades, mesic southern forests and in dune complexes.

A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the

LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48150

Wayne County RVSDS LTCAP Phase 2 Wetland Delineation Technical Memorandum December 4, 2023

Introduction

OHM Advisors performed a wetland delineation in November 2023 within the area 100 feet south of Hines Drive from Telegraph Road to Outer Drive. The wetland investigation conducted by OHM Field Ecologists Seth McRobb and Melissa Meszaros included a desktop review and subsequent on-site wetland evaluation. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the methodology and results of the wetland delineation and to provide supporting documentation.

Methodology

Desktop Review The EGLE Wetlands Map Viewer aerial imagery and wetland inventory maps were reviewed to identify potential and approximate locations of wetlands. The EGLE Wetlands Map Viewer compiles data from the following sources:

• National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, generated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through interpretation of topographic data and aerial photographs.

• Land cover maps generated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Michigan Resource Inventory System (MIRIS), through interpretation of aerial photographs.

• Hydric soils mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS).

• The desktop review also included a review of additional soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, which were collected from the Web Soil Survey website operated by the

USDA NRCS.

On-Site Investigation An on-site wetland evaluation was performed on November 28th, 2023. The investigation consisted of a visual survey of the entire site to identify potential wetland field indicators, followed by formal data collection and analysis of vegetation types, hydrology indicators, and soils data within the project area.

The data collection and analysis were performed based on the methods described in the Northcentral Northeast Regional Supplement to the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual.

Wayne County – RVSDS LTCAP Phase 2 Wetland Delineation Technical Memorandum

LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48150

Results

The results indicated Palustrine, Emergent, Nonpersistent, Intermittently Flooded (PEM2J) wetlands exist within the proposed project limits.

Supporting Documentation The following attachments contain supporting documentation, including the site map that depicts the wetland boundaries/sampling locations and the corresponding field data sheets required as part of an EGLE joint permit application.

• Attachment #1: Wetland Delineation Site Map

• Attachment #2: Wetland Field Data Sheets

• Attachment #3: National Cooperative Soil Survey Map

• Attachment #4: EGLE Wetland Inventory Map

Regulatory Discussion Our understanding of the current regulation is that a wetland is regulated under Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

• Greater than five acres in size.

• Connected to, or located within 1,000 feet of, one of the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair.

• Connected to, or located within 500 feet of, an inland lake, pond, river, or stream.

• Non-contiguous wetlands less than five acres in size that are on the list of rare and imperiled wetlands.

• Non-contiguous wetlands less than five acres with the documented presence of state or federal endangered or threatened species.

Based on the field investigation it was determined that wetlands are present within the project area boundary provided and are regulated as the flagged wetlands are connected to, or located within 500 feet of the Rouge River.

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\_Working\Trzeciak\RVSDS_Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 5, 2023

1" = 300'

0 150 300

Feet

³

E dw ard N H ines D r

Warren Rd

P arkw ay S t

A nn

A rbor Trl

W arrendale

Dr

S1

S2

S3

S4

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Overview

MMeszaros Text Box Attachment 1 - Page 1 of 7

Esri Community Maps Contributors, Province of Ontario, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

Edward N Hines Dr

S1

S2

S3

Map 1

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros

Attachment 1 - Page 2 of 7

NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

Edward N Hines Dr

Map 2

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros

Attachment 1 - Page 3 of 7

NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

Edward N Hines Dr

Map 3

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros

Attachment 1 - Page 4 of 7

NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

Edward N Hines Dr

Map 4

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros

Attachment 1 - Page 5 of 7

NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland DelineationAnn

Arbor Trl

Edw ard

N H ines D r

Map 5

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros

Attachment 1 - Page 6 of 7

NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA

888.522.6711 | ohm-advisors .comP:\0126_0165\0144230020_RVSDS_LTCAP_ph2_Design_CA-CE\_GIS\ArcLayouts\Wetlands\RVSDS_Wetlands.aprx

Source: Data provided by State of Michigan, Esri, and OHM Advisors. OHM Advisors does not warrant the accuracy of the data and/or the map. This document is intended to depict the approximate spatial location of the mapped features within the Community and all use is strictly at the user’s own risk.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane Michigan South FIPS 2113 Ft Intl

Map Published: December 4, 2023

1" = 40'

0 20 40

Feet

³

RVSDS

Wetland Delineation

E dw ard N

H ines

D r

Warren Rd

Map 6

Upland

Wetland

Wetland Flag

Wetland Boundary

Wetland Polygon

Wetland boundaries have been delineated.

Wetland polygons are approximate or regulated by Part 301 Regulations.

Edward N Hines Dr

WARRENDALE

PARK

Warren Ave W

MMeszaros Text Box Attachment 1 - Page 7 of 7 smcrobb Line

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

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:

Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)

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-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) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) 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) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

(includes capillary fringe)

Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

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

Remarks:

RVSDS Dearborn Heights/Wayne County 2023-11-28 Wayne county Michigan S1

Seth McRobb, Melissa Meszaros S04 T2S R10E Floodplain None 10

42.344447 -83.268182 WGS 84

CeraaA - Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

L 99

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 1 of 12

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

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

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

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

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

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

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

Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No

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

S1

30 ft r Populus deltoides 40 ✔ FAC

Ulmus americana 20 ✔ FACW

100.00

0 0 20 40 60 180 10 40 0 0 90 260

2.89

15 ft r Rhamnus cathartica 20 ✔ FAC

Lonicera morrowii 5 FACU Morus alba 5 FACU

5 ft r

30 ft r

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 2 of 12

SOIL Sampling Point:

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

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

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) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)

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

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

S1

0 12 10YR 4/3 75 10YR 5/6 25 C M Clay Loam

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 3 of 12

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) 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) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) 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) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

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

Wayne county Michigan S2

Seth McRobb, Melissa Meszaros S04 T2S R10E Ditch Concave 0

42.344648 -83.268256 WGS 84

CeraaA - Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Vegetation is mowed.

L 99

✔ 0

✔ 0 ✔

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 4 of 12

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

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

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

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

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

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

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

S2

0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 100 400 0 0 100 400

4.00

15 ft r

5 ft r

Poa pratensis 100 ✔ FACU

30 ft r

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 5 of 12

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

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

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) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)

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

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

S2

0 5 10YR 3/2 100 Mucky Sand

5 7 10YR 2/2 100 Sand Asphalt milling in matrix

7 10 10YR 3/1 70 10YR 4/6 30 C M Sand

10 14 10YR 4/4 50 10YR 4/6 50 C M Sand

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 6 of 12

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) 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) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) 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) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

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

Wayne county Michigan S3

Seth McRobb, Melissa Meszaros S04 T2S R10E Upland None 0

42.344586 -83.268203 WGS 84

CeraaA - Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Vegetation is mowed.

L 99

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 7 of 12

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

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

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

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

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

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

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

S3

0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 100 400 0 0 100 400

4.00

15 ft r

5 ft r

Poa pratensis 100 ✔ FACU

30 ft r

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 8 of 12

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

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

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) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)

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

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

S3

0 12 10YR 4/3 100 Sand

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 9 of 12

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

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

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No

Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) 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) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) 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) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

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

Wayne county Michigan S4

Seth McRobb, Melissa Meszaros S09 T2S R10E Floodplain None 0

42.338642 -83.26247 WGS 84

CeraaA - Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

L 99

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 10 of 12

Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

= Total Cover

Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

= Total Cover

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1.

2.

3.

4.

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

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

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

OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Definitions of Vegetation Strata:

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

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

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

S4

Acer negundo 30 ✔ FAC

Celtis occidentalis 10 ✔ FAC

Ulmus americana 10 ✔ FACW

83.33

0 0 10 20 95 285 15 60 0 0 120 365

3.04

15 ft r Rhamnus cathartica 20 ✔ FAC

Lonicera morrowii 15 ✔ FACU

5 ft r

30 ft r

Vitis riparia 30 ✔ FAC Toxicodendron radicans 5 FAC

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 11 of 12

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

Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

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

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) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)

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

Restrictive Layer (if observed):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No

Remarks:

S4

0 14 10YR 3/2 50 7.5YR 4/6 50 C M Silt

MMeszaros

Attachment 2 - Page 12 of 12

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Wayne County, Michigan

Natural Resources Conservation Service

December 4, 2023

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 1 of 6

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 2 of 6

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

312300 312600 312900 313200 313500 313800 314100 314400

312300 312600 312900 313200 313500 313800 314100 314400

42° 21' 14'' N

6'

6' ' W

42° 21' 14'' N

5'

'' W

42° 19' 34'' N

6'

6' ' W

42° 19' 34'' N

5'

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000

Feet 0 200 400 800 1200

Meters Map Scale: 1:15,100 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 3 of 6

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Wayne County, Michigan Survey Area Data: Version 9, Aug 25, 2023

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 8, 2022—Oct 4, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 4 of 6

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

BrmhcB Brems loamy sand, loamy substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

7.4 0.7%

BrmuaB Brems-Urban land complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

3.7 0.4%

BrmucB Brems-Urban land complex, loamy substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

55.8 5.4%

CeraaA Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes

105.5 10.2%

CerabA Ceresco-Sloan complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, protected

6.6 0.6%

ColucA Colwood-Urban land complex, dense substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes

7.0 0.7%

EtmacA Anthroportic Udorthents, 0 to 2 percent slopes

34.2 3.3%

KibhaB Kibbie sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes

9.7 0.9%

KibhfB Kibbie-Wauseon sandy loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes

5.8 0.6%

KibuaB Kibbie-Urban land complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

117.8 11.4%

KibufB Kibbie-Urban land-Wauseon complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

19.3 1.9%

LvnhbB Livonia sandy loam, dense substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

3.2 0.3%

LvnubB Livonia-Urban land complex, dense substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

111.4 10.8%

LvnucB Livonia-Urban land-Brems, loamy substratum complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

17.5 1.7%

RaphaB Rapson sandy loam, sandy substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

6.3 0.6%

RapheB Rapson-Kibbie sandy loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes

5.7 0.6%

RaphfB Rapson-Kibbie sandy loams, dense substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

3.8 0.4%

RapuaB Rapson-Urban land complex, sandy substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

88.6 8.6%

Custom Soil Resource Report

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 5 of 6

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

RapueB Rapson-Urban land-Kibbie complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

103.9 10.1%

RapufB Rapson-Urban land-Kibbie complex, dense substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

82.8 8.0%

RvfaaB Riverfront sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes

48.9 4.7%

RvfaaC Riverfront sandy loam, 4 to 8 percent slopes

28.3 2.7%

RvfabB Riverfront sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded

12.7 1.2%

RvfuaB Riverfront-Urban land complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded

10.3 1.0%

RvfubB Riverfront-Urban land complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

14.9 1.4%

SloabA Sloan silt loam, calcareous, 0 to 1 percent slopes

6.0 0.6%

UrbaoB Urban land-Fortress family complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

27.7 2.7%

UrbaqB Urban land-Riverfront complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes

29.9 2.9%

UrbarB Urban land-Riverfront complex, dense substratum, 0 to 4 percent slopes

58.1 5.6%

Totals for Area of Interest 1,032.8 100.0%

Custom Soil Resource Report

MMeszaros

Attachment 3 - Page 6 of 6

Wetlands Map Viewer

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Part 303 Final Wetlands Inventory

Wetlands as identified on NWI and MIRIS maps

Soil areas which include wetland soils

Wetlands as identified on NWI and MIRIS maps and soil areas which include wetland soils

December 4, 2023 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi

0 0.25 0.50.13 km

1:10,425

Disclamer: This map is not intended to be used to determine the specific

MMeszaros

Attachment 4 - Page 1 of 1

RVSDS LTCAP Phase 2 – Threatened & Endangered Species Review

LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48150

project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1929 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) State Species of Special Concern. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as creeks and small rivers in a variety of substrates. No in water work will occur during the project.

The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1933. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as dry upland meadows with dense coverage of grasses and forbs. It can also be found in marshy areas, fencerows, and woodland edges. Nests are often found tucked under rocks, logs, discarded lumber, metal sheeting, and hay bales left in fields over winter. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1932 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Nodding rattlesnake Root (Prenanthes crepidinea) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as floodplain forests. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 2004 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Stiff Gentian (Gentianella quinquefolia) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as alkaline soils in marshy meadows, in mucky areas along river and stream banks, and wooded edges and hillsides. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1916 and is considered historical.

OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Showy Orchis (Galearis spectabilis) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as rich deciduous woods, often near temporary spring ponds in sandy clay or rich loam soils, or in shady, rich microhabitats alongside common spring ephemerals. Vigorous colonies can spread into more open habitat. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1933 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

Twinleaf (Jeffersonia diphylla) State Threatened. MNFI describes the habitat for this species as mesic forests with rich, loamy soils and in floodplain forests. A desktop review of the surrounding landcover has determined that no suitable habitat is located within the project area. The last observation of this species in within 1.5 miles of the project area occurred in 1933 and is considered historical. OHM has determined no effect to this species.

If additional information is needed, please contact me via email at wade.rose@ohm-advisors.com.

Sincerely, Wade Rose, OHM Advisors Ecologist

"#$%&'()#*+,-*(./%(0/12(34"5()$26#(3785("#&-9/2(:($2;(<$=2#(>/+2-= ? @+#%=()#*+,-*(A#2#%$-#;(/2(B#&(::5(434C

B9*D,$=926()#&/%;(:(-/(E(/.(E()#&/%;*(F/+2; ? B$-$G$*#(HD;$-#;(/2(B#&(3:5(434C

>/II/2

J$I#

"&9#2-9.9& J$I#

F#;#%$, K$*-

LG*#%M#;

B$-#

8,#I#2- >$-#6/%=

N$DD926

O%#&9*9/2

"9-#(/.

LG*#%M$-9/2

P#*- B/&+I#2-$-9/2(/.

8L

0/12 )$26# "#&-9/2 >/+2-=

� Q!�����R �����S�T

U !����

���RS��

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�]S��� ��̂�!!��_�U������� à bX�c\d

��� ��e ��������� ��b��X��a� � ���b���X� �a��������� � ���b���X f�T��

� Q���g

\����RS��

�S�������

�Q � ����W�XW

� � h�]���hS�R�� Y!T�S���

���XW�XW���

i��S�� ��

Ŝ �!S� ���S� ���Zc�_��S����̂

������!�QS�����

��� ��e ����������� f�T��

��Ŝ T S�����

Z�!�����

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�j_��U � ��� ��e ��������� ��b��X��a� � ���b���X� �a��������� f�T��

R������

Z�������!!� k���k���S!��

V � ���bW��W �a

Y!��� Z[ �eUhc_h� Q��� !����c� ���b����Qd�

��� ��e ��������� � ���b����� � ���b���X� �a������� � ���b f�T��

/012,,��.�/� ������3��4� ��'5�6,5

��� ��2 ��������� ��4��7��8� � ���4���7� �8��������� � ���4���7� �8

1�&��

9 9 9

"#$%&'()#*+,-*(./%(0/12(34"5()$26#(7385("#&-9/2(:($2;(<$=2#(>/+2-= ? @+#%=()#*+,-*(A#2#%$-#;(/2(B#&(775(434C

B9*D,$=926()#&/%;(7(-/(E(/.(E()#&/%;*(F/+2; ? B$-$G$*#(HD;$-#;(/2(B#&(375(434C

>/II/2

J$I#

"&9#2-9.9& J$I#

F#;#%$, K$*-

LG*#%M#;

B$-#

8,#I#2- >$-#6/%=

N$DD926

O%#&9*9/2

"9-#(/.

LG*#%M$-9/2

P#*- B/&+I#2-$-9/2

/.(8L

0/12 )$26# "#&-9/2 >/+2-=

� Q!�����R �����S�T

U !����

���RS��

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�]S��� ��̂�!!��_�U� ������̀ab X�c\d

��� ��e ���b�� �� ��X� a������ ���X� �a�������� f�T��

��Ŝ T S�����

Z�!�����

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�g_��U � ��� ��e �� ��X��a���a f�T��

R������

Z�������!!� h���h���S!��

V � ��� W��W �a

Y!��� Z[ �eUic_i� Q��� !����c� ����Qd�

��� ��e ���������b�� �

��X��a�������� �b��� ��� �X���a����� �����b��� � ���X���a� ���������b�

� V̂ ��!��� j������S��� ���T!!�

�Q � ����W�Y Y!��� Z[ \�g_��U Uife\\��_�U� ��Qd�c\d

��� ��e ���b�� �� ��X� a���������� �X���a��������

"#$%&'()#*+,-*(./%(0/12(34"5()$26#(7385("#&-9/2(:($2;(<$=2#(>/+2-= ? @+#%=()#*+,-*(A#2#%$-#;(/2(B#&(775(434C

B9*D,$=926()#&/%;(7(-/(E(/.(E()#&/%;*(F/+2; ? B$-$G$*#(HD;$-#;(/2(B#&(375(434C

>/II/2

J$I#

"&9#2-9.9& J$I#

F#;#%$, K$*-

LG*#%M#;

B$-#

8,#I#2- >$-#6/%=

N$DD926

O%#&9*9/2

"9-#(/.

LG*#%M$-9/2

P#*- B/&+I#2-$-9/2

/.(8L

0/12 )$26# "#&-9/2 >/+2-=

� Q!�����R �����S�T

U !����

���RS��

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�]S��� ��̂�!!��_�U� abX�c\d

��� ��e ���a�� ��b��X�

������b���X� f�T��

��Ŝ T S�����

Z�!�����

V � ����W�XW

Y!��� Z[ \�g_��U � ��� ��e ��b��X�� f�T��

R������

Z�������!!� h���h���S!��

V � ���bW��W

Y!��� Z[ �eUic_i� Q��� !����c� ���b����Qd�

��� ��e ���������a�� � b��X�� �a��� ���b� �X��� �����a��� � �b���X��� ���������a� � ���b f�T��

� V̂ ��!��� j������S��� ���T!!�

�Q � ����W�Y Y!��� Z[ \�g_��U Uife\\��_�U� ������̀��b� ��Qd�c\d

��� ��e ���a�� ��b��X�

����������b� �X���

!"#$%&'(")*+,)'-.$'/.01'23!4'(#15"'6274'!"%,8.1'9'#1:';#<1"'=.*1,< > ?*"$<'(")*+,)'@"1"$#,":'.1'A"%'664'323B

A8)C+#<815'("%.$:'6',.'D'.-'D'("%.$:)'E.*1: > A#,#F#)"'GC:#,":'.1'A"%'264'323B

=.HH.1

I#H"

!%8"1,8-8% I#H"

E":"$#+

J#), KF)"$L":

A#,"

7+"H"1, =#,"5.$<

M#CC815

N$"%8)8.1

!8,"'.-

KF)"$L#,8.1

O"), A.%*H"1,#,8.1

.-'7K

/.01 (#15" !"%,8.1 =.*1,<

� P������� Q���

�� ���Q

�R � �S�TU�TU

V ��� W XYWZ[

X \[X�U

�[]XY

���̂� ��Y�P� �S�T��_� ̀a�bcd

��� ��[ ���a������� e�f��

� R �����g �����Q�f

P� ���� ���gQ��

] � ����U�TU

V ��� Zh c�iQ��� ���̂� ��Y�P� ������_SàT�bcd

��� ��[ ���a�� ��̀� T��S������̀� �T���S����� e�f��

� R���j c����gQ�� �Q�������

�R � ����U�TU

� � X�i���XQ�g�� V f�Q���

���TU�TU���

W��Q�����

�Q̂ � Q�����Q�

Zb Y��Q����̂

������ �RQ�����

��� ��[ a������� e�f��

� c���������̂ R�f��Q��� ���i�

] � ����U��U �a

P���� W X�i���XQ�g� V��j

������P������� _̀T����W k

��� ��[ ���a���� e�f��

� �Q����g ���� ����j�U

�QQ�

V���������

] � ���aU� U

V ��� � X�i���XQ�g� V��j�����Q�� b�Q�Qi�����e�� �f �̀�����a��_��

Rd��̂������ V���� �����

��l���R����� �

��� ��[ ���a e�f��

� ������g������ Z������� � m���m���Q ��

] � ���̀U��U �S

V ��� Zh �[PXbYX� R���� ����b���

Rd�

��� ��[ ���������a� ��̀��T��S� ���������a� � ���̀���T� �S��������� �a��� ���̀� e�f��

01� 2 �2345//��1�2� ������6��$�

*7�8/7

��� ��5 ���#�� ��$�

4�)��

9 9 9

� !"#$%& '()*'%+,"%-,./%01�2%&!/3 %4052%� #*6,/%7%!/8%9!:/ %;,(/*: < =( ":%& '()*'%> / "!* 8%,/%? #%442%101@

?6'A)!:6/3%& #,"8%4%*,%B%,+%B%& #,"8'%C,(/8 < ?!*!D!' %EA8!* 8%,/%? #%042%101@

;,FF,/

G!F

�#6 /*6+6# G!F

C 8 "!)

H!'*

ID' "J 8

5) F /* ;!* 3,":

K!AA6/3

L" #6'6,/

�6* %,+

ID' "J!*6,/

M '* ?,#(F /*!*6,/%,+

5I

-,./ &!/3 � #*6,/ ;,(/*:

� N������O �����P�Q

R�����

���OP�

S � �T�TU�VU

�T

W�

�� XY Z�[P��

�\�����]�R���T�T� _̂̀aV�bZc

��� ��d ���̀��e��a��V� _��T���a���V� �_���T���� f Q��

� N���g

Z

���OP�

�P������

�N � �T��U�VU

� � h�[���hP�O�� W�Q�P���

���VU�VU���

i��P���

�P\��P ����P� ���Xb�]��P����\

��NP�����

��� ��d �̀�T���� f Q��

O����

X���� j���j���P��

S � �T�aU��U

W� �� XY �dRhb]h N� �������b� �T�a����Nc�

��� ��d ���������̀��e� a��V��_��T� �����̀���e� �a���V���_� �T��������� �e���a���V� �_���T����� �̀���e���a f Q��

� S\���� � k������P�� ����Q��

�N � �T��U�W W� �� XY Z�l] �R RhfdZZ��]�R� �T����̂T�a� ��Nc�bZc

��� ��d ���̀��e��a��V� _��T�������a� �V���_���T� f Q��

LIVONIA, MICHIGAN 48150

RVSDS

2C/3C Grouting Manholes Preliminary Environmental Assessment Technical Memorandum March 4, 2024

Abstract

• Number of Manholes assessed: 198

• Number of Manholes with trees tagged: 28

• Number of potential wetlands needing further assessment: 29

• T&E species needing further assessment: 7

Introduction

OHM Advisors performed a preliminary environmental assessment in February 2024. The investigation, conducted by OHM Field Ecologists Seth McRobb, Wade Rose, Melissa Meszaros, and Kayla McRobb, included a desktop review and subsequent on-site evaluation of the areas immediately adjacent and leading to the 2C/3C manholes that are slated to be regrouted. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to describe the methodology and results of the environmental assessment and to provide supporting documentation.

Methodology

Desktop Review The EGLE Wetlands Map Viewer aerial imagery and wetland inventory maps were reviewed to…