Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Y <br />Mr. Dan T. Mathews <br /> <br />2 <br />of noncoal waste. Moreover, in addition to the Colorado rules, the approved <br />permit in this case identifies lumber in the "Special Materials Handling" <br />section as a noncoal waste material that will be stored and disposed of in <br />such a way as to meet the requirements of the Colorado program. Because the <br />MLRD follow-up inspection of August 21 found additional noncoal waste <br />materials at the subject minesite, and in the absence of any information in <br />the record clearly indicating that debris has been stored or disposed of <br />properly, i have reason to believe that a violation of the Colorado program <br />may exist and, for that reason, I am hereby ordering a Federal inspection. <br />The second violation at issue (Part 4 of the ten-day notice) alleges that the <br />operator failed to prevent establishment of noxious weeds on the elopes of <br />Sediment Pond A and cites a violation of Colorado rule 4.15.2(2) as the rule <br />believed to be violated. Rule 4.15.2(2) refers to the requirements species <br />moat meet to be approved for use in reclamation. In your request for review <br />you note, and the Albuquerque Field Office acknowledged, that it had cited an <br />incorrect regulation for the ten-day notice in relation to this alleged <br />violation. <br />You also state that the Albuquerque Field Office subsequently relied on the <br />Colorado Guideline for Management of Noxious Weeds on Reclaimed Land to <br />support its conclusion that lII.RD's response was inappropriate, but that you <br />could not issue a citation based on this document because MLRD'e guidelines do <br />not have the force of law or regulation. I agree with this contention based <br />on my reading of section 1.15 of the Colorado program which states that <br />guidelines are not binding on permitteee and on the fact that the noxious weed <br />quidelinee have not been incorporated by the Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement as a part of the approved Colorado regulatory <br />program and are, therefore, unenforceable at this time. Given the incorrect <br />citation in the ten-day notice, and that, in particular, the noxious weed <br />quidelinee are not part of the approved Colorado regulatory program, I hereby <br />--- -reverse the-determination of the Albuquerque Field Office Director. <br />However, since you found the weed management plan in the approved permit to be <br />vague and non-committal, I am pleased that you are requiring the permittee to <br />modify it. I trust that the weed plan modification will adequaKely resolve <br />the matter. <br />Sincerely, <br />W. Hord Tipton <br />Deputy Director <br />operations and Technical Services <br />