2017-02-16_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

What is needed on the Carey Property is appropriate testing, something that has never been done. According to Mr. Justus' letter (i) SCC is required to investigate any such hydrologic communication between the mine and the surface and prepare a "Repair and Reclamation Plan"; (ii) SCC considers sealing the said vertical shaft as an optional "preventative measure" even though there is no current or existing hydrologic communication; and (iii) SCC is willing to make good will gestures that it characterizes as "gratuitous reclamation". Consideration of these three points can only lead to the conclusion that: 1. There is a level of uncertainty existing in the investigations performed by SCC to date as well as the sufficiency of the current Repair and Reclamation Plan; 2. Future conditions may result in hydrologic communication where it does not currently exist; 3. Because of the uncertainty of those future conditions SCC has offered offering a gratuitous reclamation measure to mitigate for such potential hydrologic communication and the associated damage rather than conducting the appropriate investigations. Carey is unwilling to provide a concurrence letter for this proposed gratuitous reclamation plan for this non -hydrological repair. SCC itself has determined that these repairs are not necessary and there is no basis for a concurrence letter. An optional repair to an uncertain problem is a poor substitute for a realistic remediation plan, nor should it be allowed to relieve SCC of liability for the potential hydrologic communication or subsidence of our surface lands, or the potential uses thereof. As repeatedly stated by and on behalf of Carey, based upon the scientific and technical information supplied to DRMS by experts for the Fontanari Group, there is no realistic way to restore the Carey Property to its condition prior to mining operations or prevent further subsidence. There will be continued subsidence for many years to come, something that will have a substantial effect upon Mr. Carey's ability to use his property for agricultural, mining or other purposes. Thus trust funds are going to be needed to deal with further instances of subsidence and the causes thereof. Not to be overlooked is the issue of the continuing trespass of a refuse pile onto the Carey Property. This has been pointed out in the past, but ignored by Snowcap Coal. Attached to this letter as Exhibit A is a diagram showing the area of encroachment as well as the area of subsidence on the Carey Property. This issue was previously discussed in Carey's Response of October 27, 2016 to SCC's proposed plan.