Appendix F Environmental Data for Alternative Route Evaluation

Similar documents
David Magney Environmental Consulting

White Mountain National Forest Saco Ranger District

US 83 Relief Route. City of La Joya City of Peñitas Hidalgo County. November 15, 2012

The following criteria shall be applied within the boundaries of the AO District:

2.0 Physical Characteristics

Preliminary Site Evaluation

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

Bradley Brook Relocation Project. Scoping Notice. Saco Ranger District. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

FEASIBILITY CRITERIA

Thornton Water Project. Larimer County Route Study and Project Update September 12, 2017

FHWA P/N Guidelines. Corridor Relationship. Highway 22 Segment 1 - US 169 to CSAH 2 Relevance / Documentation of Need

CHAPTER III: TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS & PERMITS

SITE ELEVATION AMSL...Ground Elevation in feet AMSL STRUCTURE HEIGHT...Height Above Ground Level OVERALL HEIGHT AMSL...Total Overall Height AMSL

Section II. Planning & Public Process Planning for the Baker/Carver Regional Trail began in 2010 as a City of Minnetrista initiative.

White Mountain National Forest Saco Ranger District

GRAIN BELT EXPRESS CLEAN LINE

Version Isolated & Non-Waters Only 1 of 3

12. Summary and Comparison of Impacts among Routes

US 380 FEASIBILITY STUDY

at: Accessed May 4, 2011.

STORNETTA BROTHERS COASTAL RANCH

STUDY REPORT TR-08 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ATTACHMENT A CTS SITE ASSESSMENT

DOYLE SPRINGS PLANNING UNIT Kern-Tule River Watershed

Appendix I: Wetlands and Vernal Pools Functions and Values

Cultural Resource Management Report Deer Valley 4wd Restoration and Blue Lakes Road Maintenance Project R

Attachment G STREAM IMPACTS. Ridge Road Extension Alternatives Analysis

Classifications, Inventory and Level of Service

Article 11 Airport District

Decision Memo Ice Age Trail Improvement (CRAC 37)

Public Notice ISSUED: December 10, 2018 EXPIRES: January 9, 2019

Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process: Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward

I. INTRODUCTION EAST COAST GREENWAY STUDY PURPOSE

APPENDIX 3-I-B. Alternative Route Assessment Around Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Rule Governing the Designation and Establishment of All-Terrain Vehicle Use Trails on State Land

Office of Commercial Space Transportation: Notice of Availability, Notice of Public

Wilderness Areas Designated by the White Pine County bill

AGENDA ITEM 5 D WAKULLA ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE (WEI) TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

OCEANVIEW 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE REINFORCEMENT PROJECT ROUTE SELECTION STUDY REPORT

APPENDIX F AIRSPACE INFORMATION

PULLMAN-MOSCOW REGIONAL AIRPORT Runway Realignment Project

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION STATEMENT June, 1999

Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources in Chatham Park

ALPINE PIPELINE RIVER CROSSINGS 2009 MONITORING REPORT

Document prepared by MnDOT Office of Aeronautics and HNTB Corporation. MINNESOTA GO STATE AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN

Silver Creek Plunge Campground Reconstruction

3.0 EXISTING PARK & RECREATION SPACE

Sudbury to Hudson Transmission Reliability Project

Daisy Dean Trail 628/619 ATV Trail Construction

MCARTHUR SWAMP PLANNING UNIT Pit-McCloud River Watershed

ARTICLE III: LAND USE DISTRICTS 385 PRIVATE USE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT

SECTION 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

SAN ANTONIO RIVER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. April 27, 2009

Chapter Seven REFERENCES

Town of Oakfield Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan

Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the FlightScan

SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES [RECODIFIED AS 49 U.S.C. 303(C)]

STORY MILL COMMUNITY PARK

MODEL AERONAUTICAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA

BACKGROUND DECISION. Decision Memo Page 1 of 6

Conservation Area Management Statement

Decision Memo for Desolation Trail: Mill D to Desolation Lake Trail Relocation

-NOTE: NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION PURPOSES-

White Mountain National Forest

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Master Plan Update

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge Y 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16 X Wetland appears to be a contiguous hydraulic system, draining towards Goff Mill Brook.

Electric System Serving Pierce County Current system and future investments. Janet Olsen Steve Botts

APPENDIX F List of Commitments

Electric System Serving Pierce County Current system and future investments

Segment 2: La Crescent to Miller s Corner

C. APPROACH FOR IDENTIFYING THE BEST ROUTES FOR THE NEEDED TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

TRAILS WHERE TO FIND TRAILS IN NOVA SCOTIA

ZTL ARTCC. Asheville Regional. Air Traffic Control Tower. Standard Operating Procedures AVL B. Effective: May 1, 2011

THOMAS A. SWIFT METROPARK Introductions History Present Conditions Future Development Plans Implementation Strategies Statistics

DRAFT GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MIDDLETON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MOREY FIELD. Revised 12/12/03

Phoenix Habitat Restoration Projects

Finn Creek Park. Management Direction Statement Amendment

ANAGEMENT. LAN November, 1996

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION STATEMENT June, 1999

MetroAir Virtual Airlines

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RE-EVALUATION

2012 Mat Su Valley Collision Avoidance Survey

Appendix B CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

Draft Concept Alternatives Analysis for the Inaugural Airport Program September 2005

SECTION 32. Airfield and Aircraft Operations

Te Manahuna Consulting

SAN ANTONIO RIVER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. August 6, 2008

MORGAN CREEK GREENWAY Final Report APPENDICES

Wallace Falls State Park Classification and Management Planning Stage 3 Preliminary Recommendations July 18, 2018 Sultan City Hall

County of Riverside - PSEC Project General Habitat Assessment Appendix A

The Baker/Carver Regional Trail is intended to

Environmental Assessment and Final Section 4(f)

Topo Map Explorer. Adapted from: An original Creek Connections activity. Creek Connections, Box E, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania, 16335

ORDINANCE NO. _2013-

Maya s Creek Crossing Hwy 17 N acres $185,000 Fort Davis, Texas

City of Chelan Shoreline Public Access Plan

2.0 PARK VISION AND ROLES

FAA A-GIS and e-alp at Valley International Airport

CHAPTER FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Field Rules. Revised January NOTICE: Turbine powered aircraft of any kind are prohibited.

Transcription:

Appendix F Environmental Data for Alternative Route Evaluation

(This page intentionally left blank)

Cooks Point 138-kV Transmission Line Project Appendix F Index to Appendix F Environmental Data by Alternative Route Routes 1 through 15... E-1 Routes 16 through 26... E-2 F-i

Cooks Point 138-kV Transmission Line Project Appendix F (This page intentionally left blank) F-ii

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COOKS POINT 138-kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3 ROUTE 4 ROUTE 5 ROUTE 6 ROUTE 7 ROUTE 8 ROUTE 9 ROUTE 10 ROUTE 11 ROUTE 12 ROUTE 13 ROUTE 14 ROUTE 15 1. Length of alternative route 18.8 18.5 20.5 20.5 21.5 20.1 17.8 20.7 20.0 23.4 19.6 18.3 18.8 18.9 18.1 2. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing transmission lines 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 6.2 6.2 10.5 1.7 4.3 3. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing public roads/highways 13.0 12.7 5.7 6.1 9.4 9.8 12.0 9.8 11.0 1.8 7.0 1.5 2.6 4.7 0.5 4. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to railroads 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 5.3 2.0 8.4 10.7 5. Length of alternative route parallel to apparent property boundaries 2.9 3.4 3.5 10.7 2.7 7.5 2.8 6.4 5.9 16.7 3.5 3.6 2.5 3.5 1.7 6. Total length of alternative route parallel to existing corridors (including apparent property boundaries) 16.2 16.4 18.2 17.1 18.3 17.6 15.1 16.5 17.3 19.6 17.2 16.5 17.7 18.3 17.2 7. Percent of route parallel to existing corridors (including apparent property boundaries) 86 89 89 83 85 88 85 80 86 84 87 90 94 97 95 8. Number of habitable structures within 300 ft of the alternative route 1 47 43 49 26 63 41 42 31 43 21 45 28 20 30 19 9. Length of alternative route across parks/recreational areas 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10. Number of additional parks or recreational areas within 1,000 ft of the route centerline 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 11. Number of pipelines crossed by the alternative route 3 4 7 7 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 4 4 17 12 10 12. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing pipelines 3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 13. Number of oil/gas wells within 150 ft of the alternative route 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 14. Length of alternative route through commercial/industrial areas 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 15. Length of alternative route across agricultural pastureland 4 11.6 11.8 10.4 8.3 11.3 10.1 11.2 11.6 12.1 9.2 12.3 9.7 11.2 11.9 9.9 16. Length of alternative route across agricultural cropland and orchards 4 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.1 3.4 0.9 2.4 2.5 1.2 0.5 3.5 2.4 2.2 0.3 1.9 17. Length of alternative route across agricultural land with mobile irrigation systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18. Length of alternative route across upland forest 5 1.4 1.6 4.2 5.4 3.4 7.2 1.8 4.3 4.0 9.2 1.1 4.2 3.3 3.1 3.6 19. Length of alternative route across riparian woodland 6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 20. Length of alternative route across emergent wetlands 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21. Length of alternative route across forested scrub/shrub wetlands 6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 22. Length of alternative route across 100-year floodplains 2.0 1.9 3.1 1.5 2.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.8 3.9 2.2 2.6 23. Number of streams crossed by the alternative route 27 25 41 20 35 27 24 27 36 30 34 30 29 31 25 24. Length of alternative route parallel to rivers, creeks, and streams (within 100 ft) 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 25. Number of known rare/unique plant locations within the ROW 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 26. Length of alternative route through potential endangered or threatened species habitat 7 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.0 0.5 3.2 0.4 3.0 1.2 5.3 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 27. Number of recorded cultural resource sites crossed by the alternative route 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Number of additional recorded cultural resource sites within 1,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 11 10 9 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 10 3 29. Length of alternative route across areas of low prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 0.6 1.4 2.5 7.2 3.0 2.4 1.9 3.5 1.3 8.1 2.2 2.9 4.0 2.6 3.8 30. Length of alternative route across areas of moderate prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 4.1 5.5 13.4 10.7 12.8 8.3 6.7 9.9 9.4 13.5 8.2 14.2 11.1 11.8 11.7 31. Length of alternative route across areas of high prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 14.1 11.6 4.6 2.6 5.7 9.4 9.3 7.3 9.4 1.7 9.3 1.2 3.7 4.5 2.6 32. Number of FAA-registered public/military airstrips with at least one runway greater than 3,200 ft located within 20,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33. Number of FAA-registered public/military airstrips having no runway greater than 3,200 ft in length located within 10,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34. Number of private airstrips located within 10,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 35. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 36. Length of alternative route across open water (lakes, ponds) 8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 37. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of alternative route centerline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave relay stations, and other electronic installations w/in 2,000 ft 6 5 2 2 3 6 6 3 5 1 9 4 1 0 1 39. Number of U.S. or State Highways crossed by the alternative route 6 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 5 1 2 2 2 40. Number of FM roads, county roads, or other street crossed by the alternative route 11 14 19 13 18 12 13 14 15 9 18 18 8 9 7 41. Length of alternative route within foreground visual zone of park/recreational areas (1/2 mile unobstructed) (no double count) 3.1 2.4 3.5 0.0 1.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.0 2.2 3.1 2.2 1.7 2.2 42. Length of alternative route within foreground visual zone of State and U.S. Highways (1/2 mile unobstructed) (no double count) 16.1 14.9 12.8 7.3 11.9 12.7 12.4 11.3 15.1 7.6 15.7 11.1 6.8 7.5 5.7 Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all length measurements in miles. All linear measurements were obtained from aerial photography flown in October 2017. 1 Due to potential horizontal inaccuracies of the aerial photography and data utilized, all habitable structures within 305 feet have been identified. Defined as parks and recreational areas owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church. 3 Only pipelines six inches and greater carrying petrochemicals were quanitified in the pipeline crossings and parallels 4 l l i Delineated from evaluation of EMST data, aerial photography, and site reconaissance observations. 5 Delineated from canopy cover analysis and inspection of aerial photography. 6 Riparian woodlands were delineated from evaluation of EMST data; forested/shrub wetlands were delineated based on NWI mapping of Palustrine Forested or Scrub/Shrub; and emergent wetlands were delineated based on NWI mapping of Palustrine Emergent. The jurisdictional status of these wetland systems (in reference to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) is not known as the study area was not delineated in accordance with USACE s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. 7 Delineated for USFWS federally-endangered Houston Toad. 8 Open water was determined based on areas mapped as open water by the NHD. F - 1

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COOKS POINT 138-kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. Length of alternative route 2. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing transmission lines 3. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing public roads/highways 4. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to railroads 5. Length of alternative route parallel to apparent property boundaries 6. Total length of alternative route parallel to existing corridors (including apparent property boundaries) 7. Percent of route parallel to existing corridors (including apparent property boundaries) 8. Number of habitable structures within 300 ft of the alternative route 1 9. Length of alternative route across parks/recreational areas 2 10. Number of additional parks or recreational areas within 1,000 ft of the route centerline 11. Number of pipelines crossed by the alternative route 3 12. Length of alternative route parallel and adjacent to existing pipelines 3 13. Number of oil/gas wells within 150 ft of the alternative route 14. Length of alternative route through commercial/industrial areas 15. Length of alternative route across agricultural pastureland 4 16. Length of alternative route across agricultural cropland and orchards 4 17. Length of alternative route across agricultural land with mobile irrigation systems 18. Length of alternative route across upland forest 5 19. Length of alternative route across riparian woodland 6 20. Length of alternative route across emergent wetlands 6 21. Length of alternative route across forested scrub/shrub wetlands 6 22. Length of alternative route across 100-year floodplains 23. Number of streams crossed by the alternative route 24. Length of alternative route parallel to rivers, creeks, and streams (within 100 ft) 25. Number of known rare/unique plant locations within the ROW 26. Length of alternative route through potential endangered or threatened species habitat 7 27. Number of recorded cultural resource sites crossed by the alternative route 28. Number of additional recorded cultural resource sites within 1,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 29. Length of alternative route across areas of low prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 30. Length of alternative route across areas of moderate prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 31. Length of alternative route across areas of high prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential 32. Number of FAA-registered public/military airstrips with at least one runway greater than 3,200 ft located within 20,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 33. Number of FAA-registered public/military airstrips having no runway greater than 3,200 ft in length located within 10,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 34. Number of private airstrips located within 10,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 35. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of the alternative route centerline 36. Length of alternative route across open water (lakes, ponds) 8 37. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of alternative route centerline 38. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave relay stations, and other electronic installations w/in 2,000 ft 39. Number of U.S. or State Highways crossed by the alternative route 40. Number of FM roads, county roads, or other street crossed by the alternative route 41. Length of alternative route within foreground visual zone of park/recreational areas (1/2 mile unobstructed) (no double count) 42. Length of alternative route within foreground visual zone of State and U.S. Highways (1/2 mile unobstructed) (no double count) Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all length measurements in miles. All linear measurements were obtained from aerial photography flown in October 2017. 1 Due to potential horizontal inaccuracies of the aerial photography and data utilized, all habitable structures within 305 feet have been identified. 2 Defined as parks and recreational areas owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church. ROUTE 16 ROUTE 17 ROUTE 18 ROUTE 19 ROUTE 20 ROUTE 21 ROUTE 22 ROUTE 23 ROUTE 24 ROUTE 25 ROUTE 26 19.6 21.8 20.6 18.5 17.1 19.3 17.6 17.8 19.3 18.8 19.4 9.2 11.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 14.1 2.1 4.3 10.1 0.5 0.6 2.3 4.6 5.3 4.6 5.3 0.3 5.4 0.3 3.7 12.7 12.3 4.2 0.0 8.4 4.5 6.6 0.5 6.6 10.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6 4.7 7.0 3.4 3.0 2.0 1.7 3.0 2.9 3.2 18.4 19.1 19.2 16.1 15.4 17.9 16.1 16.9 18.7 16.1 16.2 94 87 93 87 90 93 92 95 97 86 84 21 47 27 24 29 25 27 19 26 54 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 19 19 20 24 13 20 16 10 17 4 4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3 3 2 10 5 3 2 0 4 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4 12.5 12.6 12.1 10.9 9.5 11.8 8.9 9.7 11.5 11.4 11.9 1.6 2.9 1.1 0.5 1.0 2.8 2.4 2.0 2.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.6 3.9 5.6 4.6 2.8 3.8 3.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.6 5.1 2.0 1.4 1.1 3.8 1.3 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.1 36 45 36 27 18 35 21 24 35 27 27 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 10 2 2 3 3 3 2 11 11 4.3 4.0 3.2 4.2 3.1 3.9 2.8 3.8 3.3 0.4 0.4 10.9 13.4 13.5 12.1 12.3 12.1 13.3 11.8 13.9 3.9 3.9 4.5 4.5 3.8 2.2 1.7 3.3 1.5 2.2 2.1 14.5 15.0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 6 6 2 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 8 9 12 14 11 11 9 13 7 12 11 11 2.9 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 2.2 1.3 3.3 3.3 7.1 10.4 8.5 7.3 4.3 10.5 5.8 5.4 7.1 16.2 16.8 3 Only pipelines six inches and greater carrying petrochemicals were quanitified in the pipeline crossings and parallels 4 l l i Delineated from evaluation of EMST data, aerial photography, and site reconaissance observations. 5 Delineated from canopy cover analysis and inspection of aerial photography. 6 Riparian woodlands were delineated from evaluation of EMST data; forested/shrub wetlands were delineated based on NWI mapping of Palustrine Forested or Scrub/Shrub; and emergent wetlands were delineated based on NWI mapping of Palustrine Emergent. The jurisdictional status of these wetland systems (in reference to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) is not known as the study area was not delineated in accordance with USACE s 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. 7 Delineated for USFWS federally-endangered Houston Toad. 8 Open water was determined based on areas mapped as open water by the NHD. F - 2