GENERAL46727

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/5/1995
• Doc Name: MOUNTAIN COAL CO WEST ELK MINE PN C-80-007
• From: DMG
• To: LARRY & ELAINE MAUTZ
• Permit Index Doc Type: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

= >, ~ _
9 I _
• III III III IIIIIII III
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmenl o! Natural Resources
131) Sherman SI., Room 21 5
Denver, Colorado 80207
Phone: [phone]
FA%: (1071 8 } 7-A I06
October 5, 1995
I~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCE
Roy Ruiner
Larry and Elaine Mautz `'°ve""°`
1938 Highway 133 TamesS Lochhaid
E.ecvnve Direanr
Paonia, CO 81428 Mlchae~B. EOng
Divivon Uvr~clw
RE: fountain Coal Company; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mautz;
The Division has received two letters dated September 15 and 18,
1995 from you, which discuss the repairs done by MCC, the problems
with those repairs, and additional damage to the cabin. In
response to your complaint and to follow-up my previous inspection,
I conducted an inspection on September 27, 1995 with Mr. Mautz and
Norm Every.
During the inspection, we drove on the Lone Pine Gulch road where
it begins at Highway 133. I observed work completed by MC,C at the
upper culvert (in a group of four) and regrading work done where
the slide had previously blocked the road below your cabin. When
we arrived at the cabin you stated that you were satisfied with the
road work done by MCC.
The Division has reviewed aerial photographs of the area
surrounding your cabin that were taken, also on September 27, 1995.
It appears that the slide which blocked the road was local in
nature and not extensive. Mining by Mountain Coal Company (MCC)
most likely did not contribute to the slide. It appears that MCC
has performed a fix that should limit future problems with this
road. The same seems to be true in regards to the springs which
are causing the Lone Pine road to be muddy. It is important to
note, that unless damage to the road can be attributed to mining,
the road is not regulated by the Division.
During our inspection, Mr. Every stated that MCC will compensate
you for the diminished value of the cabin. This is allowed under
our regulations. Mr. Every said that an appraisal has been done on
the cabin, but it was not available at the time of our inspection.
He said that the diminished value would be based on this appraisal
and an investigation by a structural engineer. It is my
understanding that this proposal was acceptable to you and you
would review any figures and reports MCC produced. The Division
also understands that you are not satisfied with the repairs to the
cabin made by MCC. During the inspection you stated that you did