Laserfiche WebLink
and, until temporary relief is granted, Kerr is subject to issuance of a failure to abate cessation <br />order and mandatory civil penalties of not less than $750 per day under 30 CFR §845. ] 5(b). <br />The criteria andjustitication for granting temporary relief are set forth below, with the <br />facts pertinent to temporary relief. Amore extensive statement of the facts is set forth in the <br />Application for Review, which is incorporated herein by reference. <br />TEMPORARY RELIEF WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH OR <br />SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC OR CAUSE SIGNIFICANT. IMMINENT <br />ENVIRONMENTAL HARM TO LAND. A1R. OR WATER RESOURCES. <br />The NOV was issued following a Phase [bond release inspection conducted jointly by <br />the DMG and OSM, with participation by the Bureau of Land management, the State Boazd of <br />Land Commissioners, and Kerr representatives. In January 1994, Kerr completed backfilling and <br />grading of the two mining pits in the permit azea in accordance with the terms of the Permit <br />approved by the DMG and tiled a request for bond release in April 1994. The NOV alleges that <br />the final surface configuration resulting from this backfilling and grading does not meet the <br />approximate original contour ("AOC") requirements of the State program, even though it <br />complies with the corresponding provisions of the Permit with minor exceptions identified by <br />DMG which Kerr is addressing. <br />Thus, the NOV suggests no likelihood of significant, environmental harm because the <br />environmental issue raised is what constitutes compliance with the AOC requirements of the <br />State program. Indeed, if OSM had reason to believe there was a significant threat of imminent <br />environmental harm, they would have issued a cessation order instead of an NOV. <br />Nor would granting temporary relief adversely affect the health or safety of the public. <br />The Mine is located in a remote part of Jackson County, Colorado, which is very spazsely <br />populated. Furthermore, the substantive question of what constitutes AOC raised by the NOV <br />does not suggest exposure of the public to adverse health or safety effects in any way. <br />II. KERB MEETS THE CRITERION OF SHOWING A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD <br />THAT THE DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW WILL BE <br />FAVORABLE TO KERR. <br />The Interior Board of Land Appeals recently interpreted this criterion for <br />temporary relief in Powderhom Coal Co. v. OSM, 129 IBLA 22 (3/18/94). The IBLA stated the <br />standazd to be met as follows: <br />NU./ b+.9a <br />