Laserfiche WebLink
p. 2 <br />material damage.to the surface ...... to maintain the <br />value and reasonable forseeable use of surface lands". <br />Mr. Greenlee of Western Coal admits that their sub- <br />sidence has caused material damage to our surface lands, <br />(See paragraph 2 of Greenlee's letter to Frank Nisley <br />dated August 31, 1982 enclosed), This again puts Powder- <br />horn in violation. <br />(c) Artidle 4.20.3 mandates that the mining company promptly <br />mitigates any damage. The act continually uses the lang- <br />uage "reasonable forseeable uses" in setting the stage to <br />determine damages. Mr. Nisley was hired by Western Coal <br />to establish the monitary value of damage done to our lands <br />by subsidence. Mr. Nisley's land values were only 6696 of <br />those determined by other appraisers, yet we agreed to <br />settle using his figures (see letter to Greenlee from Nisley <br />dated October 28, 1982), Mr, Greenlee gave us oral assur- <br />ances that Powderhorn would either buy our land or pay <br />damages as set forth in the Nisley appraisal. Mr. Greenlee <br />now refuses to honor this agreement and distinctly puts <br />his company in violation of the act, Pursuant to rule <br />2,07.6 (2)~h) there is every indication of an intent not <br />to comply with the provisions of the act, <br />2. The Division erred in not issuing a "notice of violation" to <br />Powderhorn for failing to keep adequate subsidence survey <br />records. <br />3. The severe subsidence which has occurred and which is currently <br />occurring in the applicant's adjoining mining operations <br />negates the assumption of "absence of subsidence" used in <br />assessing the effect of future mining on Rapid and Cottonwood <br />Creeks. The applicant's statements of hydrologic effects in <br />Section 2.05.6 of Volume V should be required to have <br />supporting subsidence evidence. <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Paul B. Alexander <br />Managing Partner <br />Powder Mountain Ranch <br />