2010-01-25_PERMIT FILE - C1981044A ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: C1981044A
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 1/25/2010
• Section_Exhibit Name: 2.05 Operation and Reclamation Plans
• Media Type: D
• Archive: Yes

compazisons of these data indicate that TDS concentrations are quite similar upstream and downstream of the mine.
Thus, there is no observable effect of mining on conductivity levels and total dissolved concentrations in the Williams
Fork River. As expected, conductivity decreases with increasing flow rate in the rivers. This is due to the effects of
snowmelt and high rainfall diluting the water.
Plots of total recoverable iron measurements for the Williams Fork River are presented in Figures 58AK and 58AL for
upstream station WF-1 and downstream station WF-2, respectively. The comparisons of these data indicate that total
recoverable iron concentrations are nearly identical upstream and downstream of the mine on the Williams Fork
River. The annual means in some years show slight increases at the downstream station due to slightly higher
concentrations for the annual maximum total recoverable iron concentrations. However, water quality differences
appeared to be within the statistical variation at each location. Total recoverable iron generally increases with
increasing flow rate in the river. This is due to the increase in suspended solids, which includes forms of iron, which
appear in the analysis of total recoverable iron.
Plots of pH measurements for [he Williams Fork River are presented in Figures SEAM and 58AN for upstream station
WF-1 and downstream station WF-2, respectively. The comparisons of these data indicate that there is no trend in pH
or observable difference in pH upstream and downstream of the mine on the Williams Fork River.
Plots of total suspended solids measurements for the Williams Fork River are presented in Figures 58A0 and 58AP
for upstream station WF-1 and downstream station WF-2, respectively. The comparisons of these data indicate that
total suspended solids concentrations are nearly identical upstream and downstream of the mine on the Williams Fork
River. Total suspended solids increase with increasing flow rate in the river.
Protection of Public Parks and Historic Places
No public parks are located within the permit or adjacent areas; therefore, the EC operation will not affect any public
parks. Likewise, the operation will not affect any places included or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Because no public parks or historic places will be adversely affected by the EC operation, this section
of the regulations is not applicable.
Surface Minine Near Underground Minine
EC will conduct underground mining only. The only surface activity will be the ongoing reclamation of previously
mined and now abandoned strip pits.
2.05.6(6) SUBSIDENCE MONITORING, SUBSIDENCE SURVEY, AND SUBSIDENCE CONTROL PLAN
These sections present the necessary subsidence information required by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation
Division for EC's Eagle Mine Complex. An inventory of all structures and renewable resource lands in the permit
area has been performed, and a determination of material damage or diminution of use for areas of planned mining has
been incorporated herewith. A subsidence control plan and a limited subsidence monitoring program are presented for
the appropriate mining areas. An inventory of all structures and renewable resource lands is presented on Table 78,
Inventory of Structures and Renewable Resource Lands. The locations of all structures and renewable resource lands
are shown graphically on the Structures and Renewable Resources Map (Map 25).
Structures
The following structures have been identified within and adjacent to the permit area:
• Mine Facilities (not undermined)
• Mine Facilities (presently undermined)
• Mine Facilities (to be undermined)
Permit Revision 04-34 2.05-48 Revised 7/2/04