Laserfiche WebLink
CON90GICWTION COAL CO. 12 CH 94-6-R <br />When IDMM decided that Coasolidatioa'e sits met the AOC <br />requiremeata, it employed its customary site-wide ataadard. In <br />other words, it did not base its decision on whether the Radolph <br />site looked almost identical poet-miaiag ae it had pre-mining. <br />Rather, it emaparod the pre- sad post-mining criteria over the <br />600 plus sere site. IDbBI was aware that the Ditch A-1 was <br />longer, deeper, sad situated differently from the pre-mining <br />stream oa the Sadolph property. IDMt4 was sears that <br />Coasolidatioa required a permit revieioa to build Ditch A-1 sad <br />greeted the Applicant's request with modification o! that <br />revision. <br />IDb4( personnel testified that thn 6tate's primary <br />consideration is iaapaeking for reclamation is reatoriag tarmable <br />ground. The State coasidere toEal pit area is judging ADC and <br />relies heavily on pre-mining voila maps furnished by the Soil <br />Coaaervatiaa 9erviea. The IDI+hS•witneee testified that these maps <br />reflect an average slope range rather than as exact slope by <br />slope maasuremeat. IIaiag this range, IDMM insures thaE the Cate(. <br />mining site refleeta this average post-mining. <br />OSM, on the contrary, examined a particular parcel of the <br />entire mixing operation and found that the Ditch A-1 did not <br />compliment the existing area or. look like the pre-mining stream. <br />Ditch A-(.traveled a different path from the existing stream on <br />the 1Cadolph property and was deeper sad wider is spots (Tr. il- <br />43, 54-57, 255). When OSM wrote the tea day notice to IDlQt it <br />was aware that IDba4 had studied the problem at length and given <br />the property owner its final decision b'aead oa that study. OSM <br />had to be aware that Illinois uses a permit wide method of <br />judging AOC. OSM has sot c~aimad that Illinois acted in as <br />arbitrary manner is reaching its dacisioa that Consolidation has <br />achieved AOC. o6M sia~ly disagrees math IDMfQ oa the issue of the <br />&sdplph property. <br />At the time this NOV ryas issued, OSM operated under ' <br />directive INE-2d is judging AOC. Approximate Original Contour is <br />defined in thin directive as realematioa which results is the <br />reclaimed area closely raeembliag the gnaeral surface <br />configuration of the land prior to miaiag and which blends into <br />sad complnmeats the drainage yattera of the aurroundiag terrain. <br />8lghwalla and spoil piles. meet be eliminated. The directive <br />poiata out that Coagreea recogaixed that there would be <br />diffareaoes is pre- sad post-mixing topography. AOC <br />detsrmiaatioas often rely principally oa the judgment oP the <br />regulatory authority.' Ia thir case, the State of Illinois is the <br />regulatory authority. 30 C.B.R. 3 913.10 (1993). <br />The O8~[ directive also states that AOC is achieved through a <br />reasosaable readeriaQ of the approved poetmiaiag topoyrapbp. 0811 <br />l.aspeetore should examine general surlaee conliguratioa for pre- <br />