Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES A. BECKWITH <br />FONTANARI OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS / SNOWCAP BOND APPLICATION SI; I I / 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 />3. 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 ]pining. Indeed, the presence of collapsed coal tunnels is the <br />common element between Tracts Nos. 70, 71, and 23. <br />The DBMS 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 />