2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (10)

Home Browse Search

Rationale for Proposed Decision to Approve TR -69 April b, 2017 Page 8 of 9 20. Whether, as claimed by Snowcap, the landowners have "abandoned" all agricultural pursuits due to alleged "bad soil" or, rather, whether the soils have clear arability and the subsidence damages caused by Snowcap's intentional collapse of the underground coal caverns have prevented the landowners from farming the surface with appropriate crops and irrigation methods. The lands in question are not a renewable resource as defined by the Rules. As such, pursuant to Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are not required to mitigate any subsidence damage. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 4.20.1(1), operators are not prohibited from room and pillar mining. Further, this comment is outside the scope of TR -69. 21. Fontanari reserves the right to assert additional issues for hearing determination as the identity and need for which arise from further discovery, pleadings and testing occur in the future. Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) states that a request for a hearing "shall contain a brief and plain statement of facts which indicate the requestor may be adversely affected, and briefly summarize the issues to be raised by the requestor at the hearing." Only the objections specifically stated in the Beckwith and Stutz letters should be heard and considered by the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB). 22. Because of the uncertainty of those future conditions SCC has offered a gratuitous r e c l a m a t i o n 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. 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. 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