Laserfiche WebLink
tour. Indeed, OSM had inspected the site in April of 1993 and at <br />that time had discussions with DMG representatives concerning <br />backfilling and grading (Tr.-I, 158-63). However, OSM did not <br />express any concern about whether the post-mining contour would <br />meet AOC standards (Tr.-I, 163). Kerr began and completed the <br />amended plan in late 1993 and early 1994; OSM agrees that Kerr <br />has complied with the state permit requirements (Tr.-I, 208; <br />Tr.-III, 475).**2 <br />At no time prior to the circumstances concerning the issu- <br />ance of the present NOV did OSM formally object to, or start pro- <br />ceedings to formally object to, the permit revisions approved by <br />the Division concerning final contour. Rather, OSM later issued <br />an NOV which ordered abatement actions not required by the state <br />permit and actions which may require a revision to that permit <br />(M. Longs deposition, p. 41, allowed into record at Tr.-III, <br />495). The type of action OSM undertook in this case violates the <br />DMG's primary jurisdiction over permitting, reclamation, and en- <br />forcement issues governed by its cooperative agreement with OSM. <br />This type of action should not be allowed. <br />2** In addition, it should also be noted that the present config- <br />uration of the land supports the uses and objectives for the land <br />and surrounding areas established by the Bureau of Land Manage- <br />ment which owns and manages the surface and minerals rights <br />(Tr.-II, 321, 335). <br />-14- <br />