2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 10 First, from 1981 to 2003, the lands at issue were owned by Powderhorn Coal Company or Snowcap itself. Neither of these entities planted surface crops to prevent erosion. Both these entities allowed the surface to "go to seed", as it were. In 1989, Powderhorn Coal Company demanded cessation of irrigation on the Carey and 71 Tracts because sinkholes and sub -surface fissures caused by the mining activities in these tracts were allowing the irrigation water to enter the active mine chambers. Second, agricultural pursuits require water and irrigation. Efforts to irrigate in 1989, and 2014, resulted in immediate and complete loss of irrigation water due to sinkholes caused by Snowcap's collapsed mining caverns. Third, in the period 1880-1900, the lands were owned and cultivated in orchards by Mr. George Crawford: founder of Grand Junction. Fourth, aerial photos taken September 11, 1937 showed extensive orchard cultivation of Tracts 71 and the Carey property. [Appendix N] Fifth, aerial photos taken in 1954 aerial photo (from Mesa County GIS website) also showed continued cultivation of orchards in the area. [Appendix O] Sixth, none of the water rights applicable to the Fontanari and Carey lands have ever been determined to be "abandoned". But for Snowcap's sinkholes and subsurface fissures, Fontanari and Carey would be farming surface crops of some relevant type at present. The absence of current agricultural pursuits on Tract 71 can be set entirely at the feet of Powderhorn and Snowcap coal companies. Roof and pillar collapses have created sub -surface fissures and cracks and surface sinkholes. Application of irrigation water to the surface causes the immediate loss of that water. To grow agricultural crops on the surface, Fontanari must install cast iron pipe in all transmission ditches. This prevents water loss caused by subsidence and sinkholes. Fontanari must then select a crop which the damaged condition of the land will allow to be irrigated without losing the water. For example, Tract 71 would accept orchards which can be irrigated by the drip system. The drip system localized water application and prevents down -sinkhole loss associated with flood and sprinkler irrigation. (E) Snowcap Does Not Accept HBET's Recommended Repair Plan HBET recommends 25 ft deep excavations within a 100 foot radius of the air ventilation shaft. After such digging, HBET recommends installation of compaction grouting to "plug" the anomalies in the belief this will stop the loss of surface irrigation water. [Pgs. A-14-14-3] Each grout hole will be more than 25 ft. in depth. [Id] There will be two sets of holes: primary and secondary. Primary holes will be spaced 10-20 feet apart in a grid pattern. [Id] Secondary holes would be half -spaced between the primary holes. [Id] This would constitute 50 +/- holes and plugs within the 100 ft. radius. HBET then recommends even more grout holes around each sinkhole: presumably, the irrigation ditch and the rock pile. [Pg. A14-14-4] Finally, HBET recommends yet more grout compaction holes to "map" the pathways to the air ventilation shaft. HBET does not make any other recommendations. [Id] Notably, HBET does not recommend any action for the Carey Pond. Perhaps, this is because there was no identifiable connection between the Carey Pond and any other surface subsidence. HBET acknowledges that compaction grouting within grid pattern holes is "more expensive that excavation...". [Id] Perhaps, for financial reasons only, Snowcap rejects HBET's proposal and, instead, states it will dig only two holes: one at the air shaft and one 25 ft. northwesterly from the air shaft. Each excavation will be only 16 feet deep and will be flared to