A friend of mine who works at the park also made an interesting comment this morning, think it's worth sharing here;
"All I can say at this point is so basically, the ground underneath the coaster has been softened up to the point of fear of collapse and sinkholes. Years ago when they were first talking about removing Rolling Thunder, they saw the ground and was like the ground was to unstable for 2 massive wooden coasters on the same plot of land, so they removed it and when constructing Toro they beefed up the concrete foundation to support the coaster. But it's gotten worse over the past 5 years and now we have this. The struggle now is, does Selim want to sink money into the coaster to get the foundation updated, or do we tear it down and build something new in a different plot of land? They know they can't fix erosion and the creek, it's Natural and runs under the park, they can't just remove it."
I think your friend has probably been given some bad information. If there is actually this much concern about sinkholes or collapsing, then the ride probably would have never been reopened in the first place. Coasters tend to have pretty tight tolerances for settlement (dirt compaction beneath the foundation which results in the foundation sinking slightly). That much settlement would raise enormous safety concerns and legal ramifications if it was discovered that the park knew about it. And if there is that much settlement truly occurring, then reinforcing the foundation is likely to be prohibitively expensive. Plus, if there is truly a risk of a sinkhole opening up underneath, then it's pretty much a lost cause.
But furthermore, it also directly contradicts what is being reported. The article states that inspectors "identified structural damage affecting multiple wooden track support columns." Columns are less likely to be affected by settlement than horizontal pieces of the structure. It also states that the damage "could have been caused by excessive wear and tear that's not appropriately addressed." Settlement does not qualify as wear and tear in my eyes. These inspectors are experts and have no incentive to lie.