2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 ‎(42)‎

• Permit No: C2008086
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 2/22/2008
• Doc Name: PDEIS Appendix D Coordination and Consultation
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
^ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
® Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Tributaries within the
proposed project impact area have been determined to have no more than an insignificant and speculative impact on the physical, chemical,
and biological of the down stream TNW (Colorado River) or its RPW tributaries.
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e.,
presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all
that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a
finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
® Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, sh•eams): Crossings impact an average of 200 linear feet of dry wash,
Dry wash average width 2.11 (ft). Based on the average wash dimensions, for 180 dry washes, approximately 2 acres of dry washes will be
impacted.
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and,
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: WestWater Engineering.
^ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
^ Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: www-atlas.rugs.gov.
® USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HTJC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: USGS 1:24,000 Mack, CO., Ruby Canyon, CO., Badger
Lake, CO., Howard Canyon, CO.
® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey.
Citation: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.Qov/app/
® National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: www.fws.gov/nwi/
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
^ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): USDA NAIP 2005.
or ®Other (Name & Date): WestWater Engineering,
^ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
® Applicable/supporting case law: Rapanos.
® Applicable/supporting scientific literature: USGS Badger Wash Study (1957-197?).
^ Other information (please specify): RGL 07-02
B. ADDITIONAL COi\~JENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
where checked and
Wash, CO., Highline
WestWater Engineering Page 23 of 23 COE Jurisdictional Determination Request
DBMS 41