Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES A. BECKWITH <br />SNOWCAP COAL/ TR -69/ SUMMARY OF FONTANARI OBJECTIONS/ PG. 2 <br />In April and August, 2016, Snowcap conducted ERT testing of the Carey and 471 Tracts: <br />revealing two horizontal, sub -surface "anomalies" (No Further Description) situated in a triangle <br />between the sinkhole in the irrigation ditch (SW corner), the anomalies (N corner) and an <br />abandoned, and filled, air ventilation shaft located 100+/- yards east of the sinkhole (E comer). <br />Snowcap postulates that the water dumping into the sinkhole flows through these two <br />"anomalies"; falls into the air ventilation shaft; and then enters the coal caverns below. <br />Governing Regulatory Standard <br />Rule 4.20.3(2)(a), Coal Rules requires that reclamation activities return the surface of the <br />land to a condition capable of maintaining the value and reasonably foreseeable and appropriate <br />uses to which the land had been put prior to the inception of the underground coal mining <br />activity. The purpose in doing so is to make the surface usable by the landowner. <br />Historically, both Tracts were used for agricultural pursuits, with surface crops (orchards; <br />alfalfa) being flood irrigated by water delivered to the tracts from Rapid Creek, via the Martin <br />Crawford Ditch. Fontanari is the current owner of adjudicated water rights in Rapid Creek, <br />delivering 5.3 cfs via the Martin Crawford Ditch. (Fox Report) The soils in #71 Tract have been <br />tested and found to be ideally suited for any crop desired: so long as water and appropriate <br />fertilizers are applied. (CSU Extension Report; Ward Soils Laboratories Report) <br />Summary of Issues for Resolution <br />1. The existence and extent of the hydrologic communication between surface water and <br />underground coal caverns controlled by Snowcap Coal Company ("Snowcap") in Secs. <br />34-35, TIOS R98W, 6t' P.M., Mesa County. <br />2. The existence, cause and extent of surface subsidence, including sub -surface fissures, <br />cracks on and under lands owned by Fontanari and Carey. <br />Whether the Repair Plan proposed by Snowcap Coal, in TR -69, should be denied for <br />reasons which include, but are not limited to: (a) inadequate field inspection and <br />investigation; (b) inadequate engineering to correct and repair continuing surface and <br />sub -surface sinkholes and fissures; or, (c) the lack of a reasonable engineering probability <br />that the grout plugs proposed by Snowcap will successfully restore the lands in <br />accordance with Rule 4.20, Coal Rules. <br />4. Whether the Snowcap Repair Plan will achieve reclamation of Fontanari and Carey <br />properties to the extent required by Rule 4.20, Coal Rules <br />5. Whether the Fontanari Repair Plan should be adopted by the Board in accordance with <br />C.R.S..34-33-122(7) and Rule 4.20, Coal Rules. <br />