ENFORCE35173

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 1/31/1995
• Doc Name: Letter Vacating NOV
• From: DMG
• To: MOUNTAIN COAL CO
• Violation No.: CV1994033
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

_z

iii iiiiiiiiniii iii
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
January 31, 1995
Mr. Phil Schmldt
Mountain Coal. Company
West Elk Mine
P.O. Box 591
Somerset, CO 81434
Re: Mountain Coal Compauy, NOV No. C-94-033
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
Roy Romer
Governor
)amen 5. Lochhead
EzeCUlive DIrMOr
Michael 8. Long
Division Oirecror
I have reviewed all We information submitted in your November 4, 1994 letter, your
November 29, 1994 letter, the December 19, 1994 response of this office, your January 6, 1995
response, and the information you presented at our January 24, 1995 meeting concerning the
above-referenced NOV. Based on all of the evidence presented, and my discussions with
Stephen Brown of the Colorado Attorney General's Office and my program staff, I have decided
to vacate Notice of Violation (NOV) No. C-94-033.
As you lmow, the issue raised in this NOV is whether you violated your permit and the Colorado
coal program regulations (regulations) when you mined beyond your lease boundary in November
1994. You have argued that you in fact did not mine beyond the permit boundary indicated on
the map submitted with your original permit application, though you have admitted that the map
boundary is in error as to the true boundary of the lease upon which you based your application
for this area of the proposed mine. In fact, your surveyor determined upon discovering the brass
marker indicating the exact boundary of the section in question, that you had mined beyond that
lease boundary. Your argument rests on your interpretation of the regulations that the permit
boundary is determined solely by the map submitted as part of the permit. Jn your view, even
though you in fact exceeded the lease boundary upon which this area of your permit was based,
you did not exceed the permit boundary because the permit boundary is determined by the area
indicated on the application map lather than the actual lease boundary.
This office's December 19, 1994 determination not to vacate the above-referenced NOV was
based on the well-settled surveying principle that brass cap monuments are defuritive on locating
section boundaries, and that if a discrepancy exists between the boundary that appears on a map
and a boundary as indicated by a brass cap, the brass cap boundary controls. In this case, the
boundary depicted on the map is a more general description of what the boundary actually is as
indicated by the brass cap.
~.'..
~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES