Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pit No. 1, such a statement is not supported by the record. <br />Inspector Rathbun determined, based on his review of the permit <br />documents and inspections of the mine, that all of the material <br />removed from pit No. 1 was within the permit area for the mine <br />and its recovery was "definitely" available for reclamation of <br />the ridge. Tr., 84-85; see also Tr., 80-81, 171, 245-46, 356, <br />375, 404-06, 408, 413-14, 420-21, 460-61, 472-75, 487-88, 497- <br />508. <br />Also, Kerr's statement is inconsistent with the fact that, <br />according to DMG, the disturbed material within the permit area <br />swelled in volume, after coal was removed, by 24 percent. Tr., <br />404-05, 413-14. If the material swelled by 24 percent, it stands <br />to reason that there is sufficient material available to restore <br />the ridge within pit No. 1 to AOC. <br />6. The SMCRA program applicable to the federal lands <br />in Pit 1 is the Colorado State program, not the <br />Federal lands program. <br /> <br />This conclusion is supported by the intent of <br />Congress expressed in section 523 of [SMCRA], <br />which authorizes the Federal Lands Program. <br />Section 523(c) provides that the Secretary may <br />enter into cooperative agreements "to provide for <br />State regulation of surface coal mining and <br />reclamation operations on Federal lands within the <br />State, " Section 523(b) clearly shows <br />Congress'•intent that a Federal Lands Program or <br />an approved State Program shall apply to federal <br />lands in a State, but not both. The introductory <br />phrase of subsection (b) states: <br />The requirements of the Federal <br />lands program or an anuroved State <br />program for State regulation of surface <br />l0 <br />