ENFORCE27353

• Permit No: C1984065
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/23/1990
• Doc Name: TEN DAY NOTICE 90-02-351-1 TV 5
• From: OSM ALBUQUERQUE
• To: MLRD
• Violation No.: TD1990020351001TV5
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-.
Mr. Dan T. Mathews
3
(1) The Division determines that an operator has not met the commitments
of an approved weed management plan * * *," On page 8 of the Guideline,
it states that "* * * pond embankments should be considered priority
treatment areas * * *." Upon AFO's review of the permit in Volume VI.
II - 5.2 Weed Control (page 57}, there is an approved management plan
for weed control.
Due to the weed management plan existing in the approved permit, AFO
believes MI.RD is required to write an NOV for the permittee's failure to
implement its approved permit. This is consistent with the Guideline
noted above. AFO deems MLRD's response to be inappropriate.
In violation 5 of 5, the TDN cites Rule 4.15.5(1) as the rule believed
to have been violated. The TDN states that the operator failed to
control grazing.
Your response states that Rule 4.15.5(1) was inappropriately cited and
that no erosion or damage to the area can be attributed to grazing. AFO
concurs with the improper rule citation because the uncontrolled grazing
was alleged to be occurring on the topsoil stockpile and sediment pond A
berm. AFO is concerned that the uncontrolled grazing may have resulted
in the establishment of noxious weeds on the pond berm. The approved
permit addresses this situation at Volume VI. II - 5.0 Protection of
Newly Seeded Areas; II - 5.1 Fencing by stating "* * * grazing results
in apparent weed invasion, decrease in productivity of the stand, or
excessive erosion and livestock trails, fences will be replaced
* * *." AFO believes that if uncontrolled grazing has not adversely
impacted the pond berm's vegetation, it appears to have allowed weed
invasion. AFO believes that MI.RD should request that the permittee
consider fencing the berm to prevent a future violation.
Concerning the unco_ntr_olled grazing of the topsoil stockpile, MLRD's
response does not address the area of concern; i.e., protection of
stockpiled topsoil via vegetation. Rule 4.06,3(2)(a}(i) requires "An
effective cover of non-noxious quick-growing annual and perennial plants
* * *." AFO believes that uncontrolled grazing may preclude achievement
of this performance standard.
Based on site conditions, there appears to be a grazing problem that can
be controlled by fencing. Again, AFO believes that MI.RD should request
that the permittee consider fencing the topsoil stockpile to prevent a
future violation of uncontrolled grazing impacting maintenance of the
topsoil stockpile's effective vegetative cover.
AFO deems MLRD's response appropriate because no violation apparently
exists at this time in that topsoil resources have not been lost at this
time due to erosive action as a result of the grazing impacts. However,
AFO believes that uncontrolled grazing of the topsoil pile may cause
conditions which constitute a violation of the regulations in the future
if steps are not taken to control the livestock.