Laserfiche WebLink
public or the environment exists, the cooperative agreement gives <br />OSM oversight authority and allows it to act only after it has <br />given the state the opportunity to act and the state has failed <br />to do so without good cause. Thus, the inspection done by OSM in <br />the present case was not pursuant to enforcement of a federal <br />program. Consequently, the first provision concerning enforce- <br />ment of federal programs in which OSM may act without allowing <br />the state to act first is inapplicable. In this case, the second <br />provision applied and OSM was required to give the DMG ten days <br />of notice prior to issuing its own NOV. By failing to comply <br />with the procedures set forth in 30 C.F.R. §§ 842.11(b) <br />and 843.12(a)(2), OSM has violated the cooperative agreement and <br />has undermined DMG's enforcement authority concerning the issu- <br />ance of the NOV. <br />C. Approximate original contour determination <br />Another ramification of OSM's action is that it not only <br />undermined the DMG's authority to determine whether to issue an <br />NOV, but also undermined its prior permitting decisions made in <br />1990 and 1993 concerning the final approved contour. OSM <br />inspected the site in April of 1993 and at that time had discus- <br />sions with DMG representatives concerning backfilling and grading <br />(Tr., 158-63). Kerr began and completed the amended plan in late <br />1993 and early 1994; OSM agrees that Kerr has complied with the <br />-9- <br />