Laserfiche WebLink
E DESERADO MINE <br />]BLUE MOUNTAIN ENERGY <br />3607 County Rd. 65 <br />Rangely, CO 81648 <br />(970)675-4300 <br />fax (970)6754399 <br />January 28, 2010 <br />Mr. Dan Hernandez <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RECEIVED <br />FEB 01 2010 <br />Divislul, ui rceL;jamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />RE: Perimeter Markers <br />Dear Mr. Hernandez: <br />Sorry for the delayed response to the issue of perimeter markers at the Deserado Mine. Earlier <br />on we were under the impression that the Division was in the process of asking the OSM for <br />clarification of the intent of the regulations requiring perimeter markers. Later when the <br />Division issued the opinion that markers were to be placed at the very edge of all approved <br />disturbance, without OSM issuing any findings, we were busy with a drilling program, drill hole <br />abandonment, shaft plugging, reclamation and various other activities we considered needing <br />more immediate attention prior to the end of the year. <br />BME has never questioned the need to comply with Sections 4.02.3 and 4.02.4. Appropriate <br />means of complying with 4.02.3 was brought up as part of Technical Revision 53 in 2000. What <br />we felt was an acceptable plan was approved by the Division at that time. Since then various <br />personnel changes have occurred at the Division along with changing interpretations of these <br />somewhat vague regulations. Through various discussions with you and members of your staff, <br />you should be aware that we do not currently share the same interpretation as to the necessary <br />actions required to comply with Sections 4.02.3 and 4.02.4. Following an extensive review of <br />both Federal and State regulations we would agree that changes are appropriate within BME's <br />current practices addressing perimeter markers. However, these changes do not necessarily <br />reflect the plan of action requested by the Division. <br />We feel that the Division's interpretation that perimeter markers are intended to mark and <br />coincide with the edges of essentially all approved disturbances is incorrect. It is our position <br />that the term "perimeter" follows Merriam-Webster's definition #2, `a line or strip bounding or <br />protecting an area.' This could, but does not necessarily coincide with the edge of all areas <br />affected by surface operations or facilities.