Laserfiche WebLink
RESPONSE: See responses to Description of Worst Possible <br />• Consequences No. I and No. 2 above. <br />4. The applicant proposes no monitoring plan in relation to State <br />Highway 13, the Railroad Spur, or the Yampa and Williams Fork <br />rivers and their associated alluvial valley floors. It is probable <br />that monitoring programs will be required for these structures and <br />renewable resource lands, which will be impacted during the <br />life-of-mine. <br />RESPONSE: See responses to Description of Worst Possible <br />Consequences No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 above. <br />Subsidence Survey <br />The subsidence survey contained within the application is concise and <br />• thorough. In my opinion, the applicant should be commended for this <br />component of the application document. <br />RESPONSE: No response necessary. <br />Subsidence Control Plan <br />I. The application briefly addresses subsidence control for the AMOCO <br />Oil pipeline, on page 2.05.6(6)-45. The applicant proposes to <br />undermine the pipeline during the initial five year permit period. <br />As referenced above. I believe the applicant's treatment of this <br />potentially environmentally sensitive structure is far too brief. <br />The original permit for the Eagle mine complex provided a <br />subsidence control plan to protect the pipeline from the <br />potentially damaging consequences of surface subsidence. The <br />pipeline was protected through the maintenance surface subsidence. <br />The pipeline was protected through the maintenance of a buffer zone <br />• of limited extraction within the No. 5 mine room and pillar <br />workings. Before this sensitive structure can be subsided, the <br />39-28 <br />