Laserfiche WebLink
1 ~,.., <br />to OSM, that AOC had been achieved. A representative of the <br />State testified for Consolidated that the State "examines the <br />total pit area in its consideration of AOC, rather than <br />considering one isolated area such as the Kadolph property [where <br />the AOC violation was alleged to exist]." Consolidated Coal at <br />8. AIJ Torbett found that the State's measuring AOC "by consi- <br />dering a permit-wide area" did not violate SMCRA or the Illinois <br />regulatory program and, accordingly, vacated the notice of <br />violation. Consolidated Coal at 14. <br />In comparison, both DMG and Kerr take the position that the <br />Colorado regulatory program, as applied to the Marr Strip Mine, <br />allows AOC to be measured by reference to landforms that exist <br />well beyond the permit area of the mine. See Ex. No. A-23 (map, <br />introduced by Kerr, comparing the post-mining configuration of <br />the land within pit No. 1 to "similar areas" outside of the <br />permit area); Tr., 258-66. See also Kerr's September 20, 1994, <br />proposed decision at 20-21; DMG's September 20, 1994, brief at <br />12-13. <br />Thus, Consolidated Coal is neither controlling nor particu- <br />larly relevant, if at all, to this proceeding. <br />In any event, a fundamental problem exists with regard to <br />DMG's position that AOC is to be determined by reference to <br />landforms in the surrounding countryside--namely, DMG does not <br />have a policy on how much land is to be included in the reference <br />area. None of Kerr's witnesses, as is illustrated by the <br />6 <br />