Laserfiche WebLink
a decision of the regulatory authority was <br />reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. <br />while a subsequent different AOC opinion of <br />an OSMRE inspector demonstrates the subjec- <br />tivity inherent in interpreting AOC, it <br />nevertheless serves no useful purpose to <br />substantially redisturb a stabilized and <br />reclaimed minesite when the .regulatory au- <br />thority has exercised its discretion in <br />good faith and remains satisfied that the <br />applicable program standards, including <br />restoration of AOC and postmining land use <br />capability, have been met. Since environ- <br />mental goals may be frustrated through the <br />additional siltation and further degrada- <br />tion from a second topsoil removal and re- <br />placement, regrading, and revegetation, <br />unless one or more of the three principles <br />enumerated above have been clearly vio- <br />lated, the acceptance by the regulatory au- <br />thority should stand. <br />Here, OSM issued the NOV for failure .to restore a ridge to <br />what it considered AOC (Tr., 190-91). The premining contour had <br />a solid north-south ridge (Tr., 51). The plan that Kerr complied <br />with left an east-west notch or depression in the ridge (Tr., <br />73). However, there are broken ridges in the vicinity of the <br />mined area similar to the ridge in its present form (Tr., 289-90, <br />290, 293, 295, 313, 315-18, 398-400, 448). In addition, Randall <br />Price of DMG testified that if the ridge were restored to premin- <br />ing condition, he would have concerns about stability, and prior <br />to requiring any change in contour, he would do a stability study <br />(Tr., 392). <br />The notch in the final contour also made a change in the <br />-13- <br />