United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Washington, D.C. 20240 

On June 23, 2020, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (“OSMRE”) issued a directive 

under transmittal number 1003, which contained policy guidance relating to Approximate Original Contour and 

associated requirements for backfilling and grading. This issuance inaccurately notes that it had been approved 

by “Lanny E. Erdos, Acting Director.” Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, there are limited specific ways 

in which an official may become “Acting” in a position subject to Presidential appointment and Congressional 

confirmation, such as the OSMRE Director position. As none of those ways apply to Mr. Erdos, he is not Acting 

Director but rather had exercised properly delegated authority when he signed the directive. Accordingly, to 

ensure proper documentation, OSMRE is providing the attached corrected directive, reflecting the proper title of

“Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the OSMRE Director.” 
United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Date:___________________ 

Subject: Approximate Original Contour

Subject Code: INE-26 

Approval: : Lanny E. Erdos, Principal Deputy Director Signature 

Transmital Number: 1003 

1. Purpose. The purpose of this directive is to provide policy guidance, and procedures for

determining whether backfilling and grading have met the requirements of approximate original

contour as defined in section 701(2) of the Act, sections 701.5 and 710.5 of the regulations and

the corresponding definitions in approved State programs. This guidance may prove particularly

important for: interim program sites where the permits lacked the detail and clarity on premining and post-mining topography expressed in permanent program permits; isolated or fringe

areas not represented by typical cross-sections; or for any site where the postmining topography

does not exactly match that anticipated in the approved permit; generally, deference will be

given to the state regulatory authority.

2. Summary of Changes. Defining Approximate Original Contour. As defined in section

701(2) of the Act and sections 701.5 and 710.5 of the regulations, approximate original contour

(AOC) means that surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area

so that the reclaimed area, including any terracing or access roads, closely resembles the general

surface configuration of the land prior to mining and blends into and complements the drainage

pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and spoil piles eliminated. Water

impoundments may be permitted where the regulatory authority determines that they are in

compliance with the implementing regulations corresponding to section 515(b)(8) of the Act .

(1) Background: In modifying the phrases’ original contour and "surface

configuration, in the definition of AOC with the terms approximate and general,” respectively, 

Congress recognized and acknowledged that there would likely be differences between the premining and postmining topography. Furthermore, the reclamation of any mine site must take into 

consideration and accommodate site-specific and unique characteristics of the surrounding 

terrain and approved postmining land uses. Consequently, AOC determinations must necessarily 

retain a certain amount of subjectivity and often rely principally on the expertise and judgment of 

the state regulatory authority, which has been given the primary responsibility for such decisions 

under the Act 

3. Policy. Before concluding that any AOC violation has occurred and reshaping of

already reclaimed areas is required, evaluations to determine whether AOC has been achieved

shall be conducted in accordance with the considerations and procedures below. Site-specific

cases where AOC is difficult to assess within the context of these procedures shall be resolved
2

through consultation with the regulatory authority and the appropriate Field Office Director. 

Reasonable deference should be given to the state regulatory authority.

4. Responsibilities. As defined in section 701(2) of the Act, sections 701.5 and 710.5 of 

the regulations and the corresponding definitions in approved State programs.

5. Procedures. 

 (1) Role of Permitting. Because backfilling and grading represents the largest single 

cost in reclamation and, once completed, is followed by topsoil replacement and revegetation, 

both the permittee and the regulatory authority should have a clear understanding of the final

approximate postmining topography prior to mining. The permittee needs this information so 

that he may determine if mining is profitable and know that once topsoil replacement and 

revegetation proceeds, additional regrading will not be required. The regulatory authority should 

know so the appropriate bond can be set, contemporaneous reclamation standards can be 

enforced, and environmental disruption and topsoil loss associated with a second regrading can 

be avoided. Therefore, the anticipated postmining topography must be determined in the 

permitting process with typical cross-section or contour maps depicting both the pre-mining and 

anticipated postmining slopes with sufficient clarity and detail to enable a comparison to 

determine if AOC has been achieved. Where the postmining topography described in the 

approved permit lacks adequate detail or does not closely resemble the general land 

configuration before mining, a permit modification may be required in accordance with the state 

counterpart of 30 CFR 774.13.

(2) Inspection Criteria. AOC is achieved through a reasonable, but not necessarily 

exact, rendering of the approved postmining topography. Inspectors shall determine whether 

AOC requirements have been met by applying the following three elements contained in the

definition of AOC.

a. General surface configuration. The reclaimed area should closely resemble 

the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining. This should not be interpreted, 

however, as requiring that postmining contours exactly match the pre-mining contours or that 

long uninterrupted pre-mining slopes must result in the same. Rather, the general terrain should 

be comparable to the pre-mined terrain; that is, if the area was basically level or gently rolling 

before mining, it should retain these general features after mining. Rolls and dips need not be 

restored in their original locations, and level areas may be increased or terraces created in 

accordance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.102(g) or 817.102(g) through the 

formation of shorter, steeper slopes, provided those slopes can support the post-mining land use 

and blend with the surrounding terrain.

b. Drainage. The test applied to determine if the reclaimed area blends into 

and complements the drainage pattern of the surrounding area is whether water intercepted 

within or from the surrounding terrain flows through and from the reclaimed area in an 

unobstructed and controlled manner that does not damage or degrade immediately adjacent 

areas.
3

c. Highwalls and spoil piles. All highwalls, spoil piles, and depressions, 

except small depressions needed to retain moisture, shall be eliminated in a manner that blends in 

with the surrounding terrain. This element should not be interpreted as necessarily requiring · 

spoil from the first cut to be transported to fill the last cut in the area - mining, provided 

highwalls are eliminated and both cuts are graded to blend in with the surrounding terrain such 

that through drainage is achieved. (See 42 FR 62643, December 13, ·1977; 44 FR 15227, March 

13, 1979; and 48 FR 329ll, July 19, 1983).

(3) Oversight of State AOC Determinations. Where a permit contains little guidance 

depicting the postmining topography and backfilling, and grading has been completed, as may 

often be the case with interim program mine-sites, any earlier guidance on or acceptance of the 

reclamation by the regulatory authority should be given considerable deference. This is because 

the regulatory authority has the primary responsibility for interpreting what constitutes AOC at a 

given mine-site and, at the time, the permittee who received such guidance acted reasonably in 

construing the State's acceptance as assurance that AOC requirements had been met according to 

the State's counterpart to 30 CFR 715.14 or 816.102, as appropriate, or the permittee would not 

have proceeded with resoiling and revegetation. One purpose of oversight is to determine if a 

decision of the regulatory authority was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. While a 

subsequent different AOC opinion of an OSMRE inspector demonstrates the subjectivity 

inherent in interpreting AOC, it serves no useful purpose to substantially disturb a stabilized and 

reclaimed mine site when the regulatory authority has exercised its discretion in good faith and 

remains satisfied that the applicable program standards, including restoration of AOC and postmining land use capability have been met. Since environmental goals may be frustrated through 

the additional siltation and further degradation from a second topsoil removal and replacement, 

regrading, and revegetation, unless one or more of the three principles enumerated above have 

been clearly violated, the acceptance by the regulatory authority should stand.

6. Reporting Requirements. None.

7. Effect on Other Documents. Supersedes the policy memorandum entitled 

"Approximate Original Contour” from the Acting Director, dated June 13, 1985.

8. References. 42 FR 62643, December 13, 1977.; 44 FR 15227, March 13, 1979.; 48 FR 

32911, July 19, 1983.

9. Effective Date. Upon signature.

10. Distribution. By electronic format. 

11. Appendices. None.

12. Annexes. None.

Contact: Program Support Directorate, Division of Regulatory Support.