OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 2

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 246

February 1993

Karen Jacobs, Esquire

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals

300 West Jefferson Street - Suite 300

P.O. Box 10137

Springfield, Illinois 62791-0137

TOPIC: PRIME FARMLAND CONVERSION 

INQUIRY: The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) intends to route a state 

road through prime farmland owned by a coal company. The prime farmland has been 

mined and revegetation has been established; however, productivity requirements have 

not yet been met. IDOT intends to purchase the land from the coal company rather than 

use its eminent domain powers. Does the state's purchase of the prime farmland and 

subsequent conversion of the land to some use other than farmland relieve the coal 

company from the prohibition against decreasing aggregate prime farmland acreage? 

Or, is the coal company obligated to make up for the "converted" farmland by 

constructing it elsewhere on the permit area? Has any IMCC member state dealt with 

this or similar issues?

SEARCH RESULTS: A survey of seven IMCC member states was conducted by 

telephone. None of the states contacted has experienced this situation. Responses can 

be divided into four categories. These are as follows: 

SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 

1. State's purchase of the land releases the coal company from the prime 

farmland requirements.

1. ALABAMA 

2. INDIANA*

2. Coal company should request a change of the postmining land use to highway.

1. *INDIANA: A land use change would facilitate bond release. 
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 2

2. PENNSYLVANIA: If the land use is changed to highway, the operator would not 

have to meet the prime farmland productivity standards. Bond could be released 

once construction began on the highway.

3. VIRGINIA: Change the postmining land use to state road; make sure EIS and 

other required studies are conducted.

4. WEST VIRGINIA: Revise the land use for the entire permit or only the section 

required for the road, as needed. 

3. Revise the permit to delete the proposed road acreage; release the bond for the 

area deleted.

1. KENTUCKY: There should be cooperation, not competition, between branches of 

state government, especially since IDOT could use its powers of eminent domain 

to acquire the right-of-way for the road.

4. Acquire the land by eminent domain.

1. OHIO: This would be the clearest way to address the problem if restoring other 

areas on or adjacent to the permit is not an option. If something less than 

eminent domain is used, clear documentation would be required that the state 

took action beyond the control of the coal company.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Those surveyed stated that one of SMCRA's aims is to prevent the reduction of prime 

farmland because of mining. Nothing in SMCRA would prevent a state from reducing 

prime farmland by building a highway after successful productivity standards are met. 

One federal decision, EAGLE FOUNDATION, INC. v DOLE, 813 F2d 798 (7th Cir 

1987), is enclosed. The court found that the routing of a limited access highway running 

through a county conservation area was reasonable where there was proper planning to 

minimize harm and there were no other feasible alternatives.

ATTACHMENTS

1. EAGLE FOUNDATION, INC. v DOLE, 813 F2d 798 (7th Cir 1987).