PERMFILE108423 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ ~j^; W ~~ ~1'l - ~. 003 e ~'~~,~ DEPART~IEYT OF THE ARivIY ~~~ ~ CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRSCT DENVER REGUL\TORY OFFICE. 9301 SOUTH 1VADSWORTH BOULEVARD LI1?LGT~~ON. COLOR:\DO 301_8-6901 September ?. 200 Ms. Suzanne Janzen Lafarge North America Inc. 1400 West 64`s Avenue Dem'er. CO 80221 ~~ .ice RE: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, Duckworth Property, Jurisdictional Wetland Area IC-lA (Idaho Creek Wetland) -Non-jurisdictional Wetland Areas IC-1B, IC-1C, SE-1 and 1, 2, 3 and -1 Corps File No, ?0038050? Dear GIs. Janzen: I have reviewed this project located in the NE '/< of Section 16, T2N, R68 W, Weld County, Colorado on behalf of Lafarge North America Inc. This review was in accordance with Section~404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation activities associated with a dredged and fill project, into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams, their surface connected wetlands and adjacent wetlands and certain lakes, ponds, irrigation and drainage ditches that have a nexus to interstate commerce. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, a preliminary Jurisdictional Determination has determined that wetland azea IC-IA (Tdaho Creek Wetland) maybe waters of the U.S. If a proposed activity requires work within the above-described waters of the U.S., a proponent of the project should notify this office for proper Department of the Army permits. This jurisdictional delineation is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. 3ased upon the ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Cnli;? W; SrP Ag°^c`y n''~ir-'~l^^^ C'nnk ('nlmtTy ii S 4rmy C'n ~a of Fnginrerc, No. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001), the Department of the Army's (DA) regulatory authority over isolated, non-navigable, intrastate waters has been eliminated if the ;ole nexus to interstate commerce was use of the waters by migratory birds. It is apparent under the ruling above that the DA does not have the authority to regulate work in wetlands 1, 2, 3 and 4. These wetlands are not waters of the U.S. and therefore non-jurisdictional. No permit or other authorization b~ the DA is required for work in these wetlands. Wetland area SE-1 does not flow to an interstate water. The wetlands at IC-IB and IC-1C site were created by man-induced irrigation and would revert [o uplands if the imgation activity were to be cut off. In that regard, these wetlands are not waters of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Department of the army Permit will not be required for any work in these wetlands.