Laserfiche WebLink
On October 7, 1994, ALJ Child entered an order granting <br />DMG's motion to intervene. Accordingly, OSM hereby replies to <br />certain statements made by DMG in its September 20 and October 5, <br />1994, briefs. <br />I. <br />DISCUSSION. <br />1. DMG's position is that to determine AOC, the <br />Division looks at surrounding landforms, not just <br />the exact area disturbed by mining, and whether <br />the drainage blends into the surrounding <br />topography (Tr.-II, 395-96, 402-03). These <br />requirements were met. <br />DMG's September 20, 1994, brief at 13. <br />The definition of AOC in the Surface Mining Control and <br />Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1328, requires <br />that, to determine AOC, a different standard be applied to the <br />surface configuration and drainage patterns of reclaimed land. <br />DMG, in its statement above, applies the wrong standard for <br />determining whether AOC has been met with regard to the surface <br />configuration of reclaimed land. <br />As defined in SMCRA, AOC means: <br />[T]hat surface configuration achieved by backfilling <br />and grading of the mined area so that the reclaimed <br />area, including any terracing or access roads, closely <br />resembles the general surface configuration of the land <br />prior to minims and blends into and complements the <br />drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all <br />highwalls and spoil piles eliminated . <br />2 <br />