2009-01-12_PERMIT FILE - C1996083A

Home Browse Search

DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET REPLY TO SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958142922 ATfENPON OF June 16 , 2 0 0 3 r1 LJ I • Regulatory Branch (200375208) Mr. J. E. Stover J. E. Stover & Associates 2768 Compass Drive Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Dear Mr. Stover: We are responding to your written requests dated May 12, and May 19, 2003, on behalf of Bowie Resources Limited, for a jurisdictional determination on three separate areas associated with the Bowie #2 mine. The property is located within Section 15, Township 13 South, Range 91 West, Delta County, Colorado. Based on a site inspection by Nick Mezei of this office on June 10, 2003, we determined that none of the three locations visited at the time are .jurisdictional waters of the United. States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The first .location, near_the.entrance_to.Bowie Mine #2 consisted of a steep Swale with less-than l/4 acre of drainage area, and not having any wetland vegetation. There was not a bank associated with the Swale, and there was not an ordinary high water mark within the Swale. Therefore, this Swale is not a waters of the United States. It should be noted that this Swale is likely draining into a waters of the United States further downslope, and therefore, care must be taken to prevent any fill material from migrating to the downslope area from the Swale. The Swale location addressed herein is located on a segment of a, topographic map you provided, titled Bowie No. 2 Mine Vicinity Map, and dated 5/5/03. The second location consisted of an area containing sedges and two willow clumps. It is an area about 130 feet long by 60 feet wide west of the substation on the property, and is labeled Sub-Area A on a plan view titled Bowie Resources Wetland Evaluation - April 30, 2003, also labeled as Figure 2. An inspection of the lowest portion of this area revealed a very hard surface soil, very low moisture content at the root zone, and soils of low chroma and value_.(10YR3/2). Although root oxidation was evident, other portions of-the soil did not'. evidence mottling. The letter report indicated that hydrology was absent at the time of the wetland characterization (April 30) and hydrology was also absent during the site visit on June 10. This area appeared to receive moisture from a very small drainage area, after which the moisture likely seeps quickly into the m R- a s A PPRovaD ~/g~o3