Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES A.BECKWITH <br /> FONTANARI OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS/SNOWCAP BOND APPLICATION SL-1 1 /PG. 11 <br /> This sink hole is in direct line with the single rock trail shown in Fontanari Exhibit 18 <br /> and in direct line with the new sinkhole lines found at the Subsidence Event F location. <br /> I Snowcap's bond cannot be released until it proposes and completes adequate <br /> reclamation plans to address the known subsidence. <br /> To claim that there has not been surface subsidence within the Study Area since Mr. Magers' <br /> 1993 Report ignores the obvious. Photographic and documented evidence discussed and <br /> itemized in these objections and Comments demonstrates clearly - and beyond reasonable <br /> dispute - that subsidence remains and continues in the Study Area. Surface tension cracks <br /> have repeatedly and consistently opened and closed, only to resurface in longer, larger, and <br /> deeper fissures that close and reopen as a line of deep, large sinkholes. Subsidence <br /> depressions in Tract No. 70 remain large and visible - yet, unresearched or treated. To this <br /> day, new sinkhole lines are opening in the Study Area - all of which are above mine tunnels <br /> that collapsed either during their active working (1992 Powderhorn Mine Map) or after <br /> shaving of pillars in retreat mining. Indeed, the presence of collapsed coal tunnels is the <br /> common element between Tracts Nos. 70, 71, and 23. <br /> The DRMS inspector need only examine that portion of the Carey Tract west of Carey <br /> Pond and bordering Tract No. 71. There was no mining beneath this tract its surface is <br /> level, without any depressions, sinkholes or voids. DRMS therefore cannot accept Snowcap's <br /> invitation to believe that the unconsolidated aggregate will shift, subside or splinter of its own <br /> accord. The movements discussed here, and in the Magers Report, are the direct result of <br /> collapsed coal caverns, and any invitation to the contrary must be rejected as simply <br /> implausible. <br /> Snowcap has an obligation to complete its reclamation and repair the Study Area to back <br /> to a condition sufficient to support its use at the time the coal permit was issued i.e., to <br /> support livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. To do so necessarily requires surface irrigation <br /> to promote native grasses (and, hopefully, to discourage invasive weed species such as cheat <br /> grass). Flood irrigation is not viable due to the numerous (and continuing emergence) of <br /> sinkholes and sinkholes lines. As evidenced by the 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2014 water <br /> incidents, the applied surface water simply disappears down the hole, thwarting any irrigation <br /> efforts. The sheer number of sinkholes and depressions in the Study Area militates against the <br /> hole-by-hole repair plan TR-69 contemplated. Sprinkler irrigation is therefore necessary to <br /> sustain the Study Area's usage, and this requires pressure that can only be achieved through <br /> piping the conveyance to the Fontanari properties: i.e., the Martin Crawford Ditch. <br /> B. SNOWCAP HAS NOT PROTECTED OR PRESERVED FONTANARI'S <br /> SURFACE WATER RIGHTS. <br /> Coal Rule 2.05.6(3(a)(ii) requires Snowcap, as the permit holder, to protect and <br /> preserve all surface water rights holders from adverse effects arising from mining or post- <br />