Laserfiche WebLink
misinterprets the nature of the AOC obligation and the DMG's role as the regulatory <br />authority subject to oversight by OSM. <br />As explained in Section B of Kerr's Proposed Decision (pp. 14-16), compliance <br />with AOC is not an ongoing obligation to be measured by Kerr's belief from time to time. <br />Rather, it is the end result of the backfilling and grading process to be measured at the <br />time the DMG proposes Phase I bond release. Ken's AOC obligation continues secured <br />by its bond if the DMG does not approve the Phase I release. At most, any unapproved <br />delay in achieving the AOC end result could constitute a violation of the <br />contemporaneous reclamation standard, which is not alleged, instead of the AOC <br />standard. In addition, OSM's allegation of an AOC violation overstepped OSM's <br />oversight role, by assuming the DMG would approve the Phase I release before the DMG <br />made any such decision. OSM's oversight role is to ensure that the DMG appropriately <br />enforces the Colorado AOC standard, not to assume that the DMG. will fail to do so <br />before it has reached any decision. <br />OSM also speculates that the NOV was necessary to avoid erosion on the <br />backfilled slopes of Pit 1 and to prevent Kerr from wasting its money by replacing topsoil <br />and revegetating Pit 1 before the AOC issue is resolved. OSM's Proposed Decision at 13. <br />Kerr showed this speculation has no foundation in the record at page 16 of its Proposed <br />Decision. Kerr committed to temporary stabilization of Pit 1 by the fall of 1994, which <br />the DMG requires if this matter remains unresolved for an extended time. Tr.-II 352-55; <br />Tr. -III 453-55. In addition, Kerr testified that it has not and will not spread topsoil or <br />attempt revegetation while the AOC issue is unresolved. Tr.-II 357, Tr.-III 453-55. <br />~o3eai, favv~ g <br />