2019-10-22_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A.BECKWITH FONTANARI OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS I SNOWCAP BOND APPLICATION SL-1 1 I PC.4 (Magers Report; Pg. 11.) Though Mr. Magers speculated that erosion caused the change in surface tension cracks between 1981-85 and 1991, the 2016 Fontanari inspection and 2018 Bond Release Inspections did not reveal significant surficial evidence of erosion. Instead, the 1991 surface crack evolved into a series of major sinkhole lines running in the same direction and pattern Mr. Magers noted decades earlier. The continued depressions in Tract No. 71 and the irrefutable evidence of new and additional sinkholes in other locations of the Study Area as discussed hereafter, also refute Snowcap's claim that subsidence has ceased. Stated simply, neither Snowcap nor this agency can ignore that the lands beneath the Study Area are fluid and moving as a result of the prior and continuing collapse of coal tunnels from room-and-pillar mining. The release of the bond posted to cover remedial repairs of subsidence damages should not be granted [unless and until the subsidence damages are properly addressed in accordance with Snowcap's repair and remediation obligations. Thus, as set forth below, Fontanari makes the following comments and objections to Snowcap's Application. II. AUTHORITY Snowcap's application is made pursuant to Rule 3.03, Regulations of the Mine Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (Coal Rules). That Rule permits release, in whole or part, of the requisite performance bond if Snowcap can demonstrate certain conditions are satisfied. Specifically, Snowcap must establish the reclamation required under Rules 3.05, 4.16, and 4.20 has been accomplished as to the lands the bond covers. Snowcap must also establish that it has, in accordance with its reclamation plan, repaired or reclaimed the surface lands to allow the land to be used in either the same manner it was prior to any mining being conducted or, any higher or better use compatible with surrounding areas. (Coal Rules 4.16.1, 4.16.2(1).) Further, Snowcap must establish that it has adopted subsidence control measures to prevent material damage to the surface land use and has mitigated any such damage's effects. (Coal Rule 2.05.6(f)(iii)(C)V); 4.20.3(1), see also Minor Revision #82 (12.15.2015), Finally, Snowcap must further establish that it has preserved and protected surface and ground water users' rights from adverse effects resulting from the coal mining activity, including any water augmentation plan required under its Permit. (Coal Rule 2.05.6(3)(a)(ii).) Snowcap has not and cannot make these showings, given the Study Area's continued subsidence and the water quality issues. Accordingly, Fontanari provides his objections and comments pursuant to Coal Rule 3.03.2(3).