Laserfiche WebLink
mitigation for all impacted aquatic resources (wetlands) regardless of jurisdiction. Impacts to non jurisdictional <br />wetlands are considered "indirect" impacts, and the Corps can require mitigation for their loss. See Appendix B <br />to 33 CAR Part 325 (NEPA regulations). Also, see the below informal guidance from HQ, which relates to <br />NEPA scope of analysis: <br />HQ (teleconference 1(24(01): Permits and applications involving both waters that are cleazly not regulated and <br />waters that are still regulated, such as a tributary to an interstate river system, must be handled cazefully. In such <br />cases, the waters we no longer regulate should be reviewed in the context of the overall scope of analysis. Tn <br />other words, where a permit is required for filling the tributary or its adjacent waters, we would view the project <br />in terms of our scope of analysis. L` the entire project is in our NEPA scope of analysis, then we would view the <br />impacts to the isolated waters as indirect impacts. Based on this approach, the Corps can mitigate for their loss, <br />because they are aquatic from a technical standpoint (1987 Wetland Delineation Manual), even though we do not <br />have jurisdiction over such waters directly. <br />2.5. Purpose and Need. <br />2.5.1. Basic Project Purpose. <br />The basic project purpose is to mine aggregate. <br />2.5.2. Overall Project Purpose. <br />The overall project purpose is to mine aggregate for use in Weld and Larimer Cotmfies, with subsequent <br />development of azeas for commercial, residential, and open space uses at the project site. <br />2.5.3. Need for the ProjeM. <br />Aggregates in sufficient supply, accessibility and marketability aze needed in the Weld and Larimer County <br />regions for transportation and infrastructure construction. <br />2.6. Water Dependency. <br />Since the aggregate mines do not need to be constructed in the existing waters of the US (aggregate can be extracted <br />from non wetland areas), the project is not water dependent. <br />2.7. Impacts and Mitigation. <br />Impacts to all jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands as a result of mining include: <br />5.44 acres of oxbow wetlands (labeled "C" on Attachment 1 Mining Plan, impacted by Cells 3 and 4), <br />0.85 acres of tailwater wetlands (labeled "B" on Attachment 1 Mining Plan, impacted by Ce114) and <br />0.25 acre of isolated oxbow wetlands (labeled "C prime" on Attachment 1 Mining Plan, impacted by Ce114). <br />A total of b.54 acres of wetlands will be impacted as a result of mining operations. <br />This amount of disturbance represents the greatest acreage of wetland avoidance economically feasible for the <br />project. As mitigation for disturbance of the wetlands, the permittees agree... <br />To create 3.50 acres of oxbow channel wetlands on the project site (labeled "oxbow mitigation" on <br />Project: Green & Goissant Aggregate Mining Applicant: Loveland Ready Mix, Inc. Pg 1 ] of 53 <br />Carps File No: 200180205 Waterway: Hig Thompson Wetlands, Weld County, CO <br />