Laserfiche WebLink
SQVT BY~ 29-96 : 3=33PM : WSC~PD-~ 303 832 8106:# 2/ 6 <br />the EA, OSM has the same concerns with respect Co its pending <br />decision on the mining plan approval for PR-3. In order to <br />determine whether proposed PR-3 addressed the mitigation measure <br />in the EA concerning Foidel and Middle Creeks, OSM reviewed the <br />proposed permit application and Colorado's May 9, 1996, proposed <br />decision and findings of compliance document for PR-3. <br />Because the mitigation required is directly ~ patted by the <br />negative alluvial valley floor (AVF) determination, OSM reviewed <br />the negative AVF determination. In addition, OSM reviewed TCC's <br />specific plans to address erosional impacts to the stream <br />channels. OSM is concerned that the EA'e required stream <br />mitigation may not have been adequately addressed in the permit <br />f r <br />application. ~J2. --~ n, ~t ~~~ ~ S /PQS-m~-a~}~~2 ~•- d ~'''d)~t~rr, ~C <br />q,zP,r., 7 ~ ~ ~nL C,-e~ k. ~x~,,.; <br />Negative AVF Determination Both Foidel Cr~ek and Middle Creek <br />WI.¢,,' , <br />stream channels are designated as AVFs. However, Colorado <br />proposes in its proposed permit decision for PR-3 to reverse the <br />AVF determination for portions of the stream segments within the <br />proposed permit area. Colorado's Rule 2.06.8(3)(c), concerning <br />the criteria for AVF determinations, specifies a finding based <br />upon streams of sufficient size and inherent productive potential <br />to support agricultural activities. Colorado Rule 1.04(8) <br />defines "agricultural activities" as including pasturing or <br />grazing of livestock. It appears that segments of lower Foidel <br />Creek and Middle Creek no longer qualify ae AVFs based on the <br />minimal size of farmable acreage with farmable referring to <br />