Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />Kerr's proposed decision at 10. <br />Nothing in SMCRA, the implementing Federal regulations at <br />30 C.F.R. Chapter VII, or the Colorado program requires that, to <br />determine whether the AOC requirements of section 4.14.1(2)(a) of <br />the Colorado program have been met, OSM must first evaluate the <br />environmental impact of changes to a drainage or render an <br />opinion on the adverse effect of the changes on water users or <br />wildlife. Thus, whether or not OSM made such an evaluation and <br />could offer such an opinion is irrelevant to the issue of whether <br />Kerr failed to achieve AOC at pit No. 1 in violation of section <br />4.14.1(2)(a), as cited in the Federal NOV. <br />5. Rerr used all available spoil in backfilling and <br />grading Pit 1 and the 720 Pit. Tr.-iI 377-78. <br />Kerr's proposed decision at 10. <br />Technically, the term "spoil" does not apply to the <br />disturbed material within pit No. 1. "Spoil" is defined in the <br />Federal regulations to mean "overburden that has been removed <br />during surface coal mining operations." 30 C.F.R. § 701.5. <br />Also, "overburden" is defined to mean "material of any nature, <br />consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a coal deposit, <br />excluding topsoil." 30 C.F.R. § 701.5. Pit No. 1 involved the <br />mining of a near-vertical seam of coal running east-west through <br />a prominent north-south running ridge. Tr., 82-83; Ex. Nos. G-3, <br />G-5. Extraction necessarily required the removal of material on <br />either side of the coal seam, resulting in a large east-west gap <br />through the ridge. Tr., 457-58; Ex. No. A-42. Since the <br />8 <br />