06-30-2003 Bayport Expansion Review CommitteeMeeting

Browse Search

• • substantially more wetland acreage would be under the jurisdiction of the Corps, thus requiring more mitigation than currently proposed. 231. In the Bayport FEIS, the Galveston District found only 19.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands that would be impacted on the proposed Bayport site, with the remaining 126.7 acres of wetlands being considered non jurisdictional. 232. The Galveston District has determined that the majority of the wetlands within the Bayport Project location are non jurisdictional because their only surface water connection to navigable waters is by overland sheet flow. 233. Upon information and belief, the Galveston District is the only district in the United States that does not consider overland flow as sufficient hydrologic connection in determining adjacent/jurisdictional wetlands. 234. Plaintiffs are awaze that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Seattle District considers overland flow to be a sufficient hydrologic connection to establish federal jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to navigable waters. 235. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the Fort Worth District and the New Orleans District each use overland flow as sufficient criteria for determining federal jurisdiction. 236. If the Galveston District's illegal rule pertaining to overland sheet flow were discarded, the majority of the wetlands at the proposed Bayport Project location would be considered to be waters of the United States and classified as jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. 30.