Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Paragraph (B) indicates that an area would not be an alluvial valley floor if there is <br />insu uient water to suppport subirrigation agricultural activities. The fact that there are <br />22 subirrigated acres which had historically been developed into pasture and are still <br />subirrigated indicates that Armand Draw is an alluvial valley floor. <br />Paragraph (C) negates the presence of an alluvial valley floor if the area is generally <br />overlain by a thin veneer of colluvial deposits. Information provided by Seneca Coal <br />Company (SCC), on Page 7 of Attachment 16-3 does not support this requirement for a <br />negative deterrrunation. <br />SCC determined that Armand Draw is not an alluvial vane floor based on poor water quality <br />since manganese and pH were above recommended levels for irriggation. The Division believes <br />this justification does not comply with the requirements of Rule 2.()6.8(3)(c)(ii), and therefore <br />cannot make a negative deternunat~on on the basis of water quality. <br />Based on the lack of information to support a negative determination for the presence of an <br />alluvial valley floor in Armand Draw, the Division wdl have to find that an alluvial valley floor <br />does exist in Armand Draw. If it is SCC's intention to Proceed with the Yoast mining plan as <br />proposed, SCC will need to provide the Division additional information, as required by Rule <br />4.24, for operations affecting Armand Draw. <br />If you or your staffs have questions or need additional information, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Susan L Burgmaier <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />SLB\022795D.WP <br />M. Aluvilla and G. Wcndl 2 Febnwry 27, 1995 <br />