Laserfiche WebLink
Hernandez, Daniel <br />From: Ryan Z Taylor [rztaylor@fs.fed.us] <br />Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:50 PM <br />To: Hernandez, Daniel; Kaldenbach, Tom <br />Subject: MCC signs and markers. <br />Dan, <br />Sorry for the delay. Thanks for the references, and after reviewing some of them, we wanted to continue to express our <br />concerns. <br />First and foremost, the signs and markers issues haven't appeared to be an issue in the past, so we are wondering what <br />has initiated the recent sign/marker concerns? Was there an incident that brought the lack of perimeter markers into <br />light? If so, we would like to know about it. <br />Regardless, we understand the States wishes to come into line with their laws and regulations, but to our knowledge this <br />hasn't been an issue in the past, and doesn't appear to be an issue with the other two mines in the valley (none of which <br />are required perimeter markers around individual disturbances. <br />From CSCMRA this appears to be the basis for the State regulations on the markers: <br />(18) "Permit area" means the area of land indicated on the approved map submitted by the operator with his application, <br />which area of land shall be covered by the operator's bond as required by section 34-33-113 and shall be readily <br />identifiable by appropriate markers on the site. <br />This is located in the "Performance Bond" section of the law, so we're making the assumption that the purpose of the <br />markers is to delineate "bonded" liabilities. As the surface management agency, we have no problem with determining <br />which disturbances are mine facilities and which are not, in addition we've never heard of a member of the public <br />complain, or have issues in determining mine facilities from other forest uses. <br />We would like to point out the wording "appropriate" from section (18). In our opinion, having markers around each <br />disturbance is not appropriate. The Forest Service, as the surface management agency, doesn't want or need additional <br />markings to determine whether or not the disturbance is related to a mine permit. In addition, for most of the permit area, <br />it would be next to impossible to post markers on the edges of disturbance, prior to construction, due to vegetation. Due to <br />the dense brush, heavy equipment would be needed just to clear the areas that need to be marked. <br />Also, under Rule 4.02.1 Specifications. - Signs and markers required by 4.02 shall:.... (4) Conform to local ordinances <br />and codes. We don't see why our signing policies as mentioned in the previous email would qualify? <br />Lastly: <br />4.02.3 Perimeter Markers. <br />103(18) The perimeter of a permit area for surface coal mining activities, or in the case of underground mining activities, <br />the perimeter of all areas affected by surface operations or facilities, shall be clearly marked before the beginning of <br />surface coal mining operations. <br />In our opinion, the spirit of this rule is met by Rule 4.02.2 Mine and Permit Identification Signs. Other than the rule itself, <br />there doesn't appear to be a need from either an agency or public standpoint for perimeter markers around each <br />individual disturbance. The Permit boundary signs, at the few publically accessible entrances to the permit area appear to <br />meet the need. <br />Regards, <br />Ryan <br />Ryan Z. Taylor - Geologist / Minerals Administrator <br />Paonia Ranger District <br />Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forest <br />403 N. Rio Grande Avenue