ENFORCE30735 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ' i Mr. Steven G. Renner 2 As an aid in rendering this decision, my agency had the benefit of viewing a very clear and detailed videotape of the areas of the minesite at issue. While we recognize that application of the concept of AOC carries with it a certain amount of subjectivity and that a certain element of deference needs to be given to primacy States in making AOC determinations, it is nevertheless clear in this case that the postmining contours do not closely resemble the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining, nor complement the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain. Indeed, there is a prominent and significant void in a ridgeline where there was none before surface mining operations were conducted. Consequently, the postmining drainage of the disturbed area is no longer divided and distributed along the ridge as it was before mining, but now runs in one direction through the depression created by the absence of the original ridgeline. On this basis, I concur with the AFO in its determination that your agency has not under 30 CFR 842.1 1(b)11-(ii)(6111) shown good cause for not taking appropriate action in response to the TDN and, therefore, I hereby order a Federal inspection. In closing, I have been informed that Kerr has filed for administrative review before the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of a Federal Notice of Violation issued on May 25 by the AFO concerning the same AOC issue on the adjacent Federal lands portion of the permit area. While perhaps the preferred procedure under the facts of that case and the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement between the State of Colorado and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement might have been for the AFO to have issued a TDN instead of taking direct Federal enforcement, events deciding the ultimate outcome of this case have been set in motion. Sincerely, Ed Kay Deputy Director