2016-07-28_REVISION - M1980244 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/28/2016
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review Response
• From: Newmont
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: TC1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

7.1 Carlton Tunnel Flow
• Page 2: The Pre-mining Carlton Tunnel Flow is listed as 1,691 gpm. This is the value that
was used for calibration of the Finite Difference Hydraulic Model. Is this value correct?
RESPONSE. Yes. The value refers to the Carlton Tunnel flow before the advent of
substantial surface mining within the Cripple Creek Diatreme, that is prior to 2002. The
flow reduced somewhat thereafter, due to VLF and mining activities.
8.1 MLE-2 Analysis
• Page 3: The table provided under this section does not appear to include revised flow values
for facilities under AM-11. Would adding these values change the results of this model?
RESPONSE.No. There have been no changes to the footprint of surface mine facilities in
Amendment 11.
APPENDIX 2—HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION, CC&V/DECEMBER 2015
2—CC&V Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Program
• Page 3: The text states"approximately 9 surface water monitoring locations and 17
ground water monitoring locations are considered compliance sites". Further down, the
text states "the compliance locations for current surface water and ground water
monitoring discussed in this report are shown on Figure 2-1". However, Figure 2-1
appears to only show locations for 6 surface water monitoring sites, and 13 ground water
monitoring sites. Please revise Figure 2-1 to include,at a minimum,all compliance
monitoring sites.
RESPONSE: The number of compliance monitoring points for surface water and
groundwater is correct as is presenting in Table 11-1 and 11-2 in the Project Description
and on Page 3 of the CC&V Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Program. Updated
tables are provided in Attachment 2. Three of the nine surface water sampling locations
are located near the Carleton Tunnel Discharge, which is not shown on Figure 2-1 due
to scale. Figure 2-1 has revised to show a larger area with new Figure 2-1 a and 2-1 b
that show detail of the permit area and Carleton Tunnel area, respectively(See
Attachment 2).
The 17 groundwater compliance sampling locations were listed in Table 11-2 of the
Project Description. It is unclear why these locations were not plotted on Figure 2-1.
Since December 2015, the SGMW--S has been dry but is still checked on a quarterly basis
as a compliance point. In addition, there are 4 wells located in Arequa Gulch that are
monitored on a regular basis to establish baseline conditions. Figure 2-1 has been
updated to include the sample locations and is provided as Attachment 2 to this
submittal. Tables with the sample location name, location description and coordinates
are provided for both surface water and groundwater locations in Attachment 2. Table 1
provides a list of the quarterly and monthly compliance surface water sample locations
and Table 2 provides a list of the quarterly groundwater sample locations.
3 —Wilson Creek,Bateman Creek, Theresa Gulch
3.1 Current Conditions
• Page 4: The text states that the Wilson Creek drainage is shown on Figure 1-1.
However,this drainage is not labeled on Figure 1-1. Please revise Figure 1-1 to
label this drainage.
Page 14 of 28