My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-02-01_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981018
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981018
>
2010-02-01_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:59:09 PM
Creation date
2/2/2010 3:06:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
2/1/2010
Doc Name
Response to Letter on Perimeter Markers
From
Blue Mountain Energy
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
JDM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and Markers ... (3) The perimeter of the permit area must be clearly marked by durable and <br />easily recognized markers or by other means approved by the department. Each marker must be <br />visible from each adjacent marker, or markers must be joined by fencing or other durable means <br />approved by the department. Such markers must be designed so that their visibility will not be <br />reduced in general by operation of equipment, weather effects, and other normally occurring <br />effects. The markers must be in place before the start of any mining activities. " <br />Indiana's rules governing coal mining and reclamation operations state: "312 IAC 25-6-71 <br />Underground mining; signs and markers.... (c) The perimeter of the permit area shall be clearly <br />marked before the beginning of underground mining activities. " No mention is made of <br />otherwise marking along the edges of surface operations and facilities of underground coal <br />mines. <br />Appropriate Perimeter Marker Placement <br />There are various ways of complying with `Perimeter marker' requirement for an underground <br />mine. Marker placement could follow any of the following scenarios and meet the requirements <br />found in 30 CFR 817.11(d) and CCR 407-2 4.02.3. <br />• Place markers at the outer edge of the `permit area'. <br />• Place markers at the outer edge of the approved disturbance. <br />• Place markers at or between either of the first two options. <br />Using the Deserado Mine as an example the `permit area' option would consist of approximately <br />31 miles of markers, the `approved disturbance' option approximately 92 miles of markers, and <br />the `between' option approximately 23 miles of markers. It should also be noted the `between' <br />option would allow a more strategic layout of the markers enabling the operator to utilize high <br />points in the terrain and avoid treed areas to maximize the distance between markers while <br />maintaining a line of site between them. This, of course, is if traditional posts are used. to mark <br />the perimeter. <br />There are several ways in which the perimeter could be `marked'. The more traditional method <br />is to place a monument on the ground such as a specially marked post, cairn, fence, dozed path, <br />ditch, etc. This method relies on the human placement and additional interpretation as to its <br />proper location. This also requires additional alteration of the environment, utilizing resources, <br />and leaving visual impacts that detract from the natural setting. <br />A much more contemporary method to mark the perimeter is the use of modern GPS technology. <br />Such technology allows the user to better manage the resource as the perimeter now becomes <br />continuous and does not rely on the operator or inspector to locate monuments or extrapolate <br />between them. This method of marking the perimeter of the permit area minimizes the <br />placement of markers where they would serve no useful purpose. In addition, removal of <br />markers would not become an issue, continued maintenance would be simple, changes could be <br />easily implemented, and adverse visual impacts to the public lands could be minimized. This
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.