ENFORCE24827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COV90LIDASIQN GOAL CO. 17 ~ CS 9~-6-R mining sad post-mining comparability. For example, land which was level ba#ora mining should retain Chia general chnracteriatic. Leval arena may ba inareaead provided that elopes era capable o£ supporting poet-minS.ag load use sad blend with aurroundis-g terrain, AOC should also be judged by hex well the water iataraeptod within or frtmd ourrouadiag areas flora through and from the reclaimed area without obstruction or spillage. Ia addition, highxalla and spoil pilau must bq eliminated. The directive iastruats. that there ie no aeetul purpose served rhea a eta6111zed reclaimed sits is redieturbad in situations whore the State has exercised good lnith discretion and romaine satisfied thaC the site masts its standards. Drainage, eurlnce coaiiguratioa, ar highwall alimfaation standards muse have been ar violated before the environment ie tampered with n second tine. ' Bvidenca brought forward at the hearing daapoastrated that there wan ao ia~adiate threat to the environment os to citimeas by the presence of Ditch A-1. There is no highwall on the site sad drainage is not obstructed (Tr. 81-84, iS3-54, 159, 197-98, 745-27). The argument canters around whether Ditch A-1 masts the reguiremant that general aurlaoa aoniiguratioa be achieved. 08M xitaessaa argue that slopes around the ditch are steeper than the elopea.oi the pre-mining stream sad that the ditch has became a major iaator is eha topography (Tr. 54-57). it xs.a eatimatad that pro-mining slopeq ware tea percent. Some of the elapse around Ditch A-1 are 18-,ZO percent (Tr. 99-114). The Applicant arguae that the post-mining slopes are ao higher than the raaQe provided by the 6oi1 Coasarvatioa maps. Although a pro-mining slope ie ten pereeat, IDI~S allows a particular elope ' to. equal the top of the saga !Quad is pro-mining maps. Fos example, ff the maps shw an overall range of slopes at tea to 18 percent, a tea peraaaf pre-mi+~ slope would be allawad to remain as 18 percaat elope altos mining (Tr. 195,•109-15). ' OSM clearly disagrees with IDDh('e dacieion thin Consolidation permit mat AOC is spite of the changes in drainage sad the sine of the drainage area oa the lcadolph parcel. However, ao testimony wan offered which tended to show that the elate.came to this decision is an arbitrary or capricious manner or abuaed.ita diecsation. IDbOI aoaaidera Ditch A-1 to be a pwrt o! the overall permit, lfhw ths,aatire permit area was judged, the state considered topography, highxall elimination, nod drainage. Tho State eases genuinely satisfied that this permit hoe been restored to it^ approximate original aoateur. OB]3 is disaatisiied with the permit-wida.etandard utilized by the State, but that issue is not under coaaideration is thia~eme. illiaoia has followed its approved regu,latioaa. It decided that a