Laserfiche WebLink
DMG's position is that to determine AOC, the Division looks <br />at surrounding landforms, not just the exact area disturbed by <br />mining, and whether the drainage blends into the surrounding to- <br />pography (Tr.-II, 395-96, 402-03). These requirements were met. <br />OSM's own policy directive provides that if the determina- <br />tion of AOC by the state is reasonable, the state's decision <br />should stand. The DMG's determination here was reasonable and is <br />supported by the evidence in the record. Given that DMG has pri- <br />macy, OSM should not second guess DMG's determination concerning <br />AOC, especially where there is no environmental benefit to <br />requiring Kerr to redisturb the land.**1 <br />OSM's actions here have not only violated the cooperative <br />agreement concerning the DMG's authority to determine whether to <br />issue an NOV, but also undermined DMG's prior permitting deci- <br />sions made in 1990 and 1993 concerning the final approved con- <br />1** It should be noted that the DMG has not given final approval <br />pursuant to the bond release of Kerr's compliance with AOC re- <br />quirements provided in the permit (Tr.-I, 40, 212-13; Tr.-II, <br />351). Thus, an AOC violation had not occurred at the point when <br />OSM issued the NOV. AOC is ripe for violation when all the back- <br />filling and grading requirements are completed, and the DMG has <br />issued a proposed decision to release the bond and has asked for <br />concurrence in bond release from OSM. Until that time, the obli- <br />gations concerning contour have not been released. Accordingly, <br />the proper procedure here would have been for OSM to disagree <br />with the bond release, rather than to issue an NOV for an alleged <br />violation of the requirements of AOC. <br />-13- <br />