REV02378 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 14- The application, however, makes no attempt to identify the apparent existing and reasonably potential future ground water uses outside the diatreme but still within 2 miles down-gradient of the affected lands. Drawing G-1 shows numerous, presumably dome>.:c or industrial, wells in the host granite surrounding the diatreme as well as along various natural drainages where they may possibly be completed in associated colluvial-alluvial bodies. CC&V should fully satisfv [he requirements of this Rule, i.e. indicate the existine and reasonably potential future ground water uses within 2 miles down-gradient of the affected lands F. Rule 6.4.20 (9) (b): The applicant is required to submit, at a minimum, ground water data collected during 5 successive calendar quarters or as specified by the Division as necessary to adequately describe baseline conditions. The application refers to the existence of 5 successive quarters of data for a number of wells proposed as future ground water monitoring sites for Amendment 8. Adequate ground water quality data, however, has not been supplied for the proposed new wells located in Poveny Gulch and Squaw Gulch or the area of the new ADR processing pond. CC&V should fully satisfy the reouirements of this Rule or indicate, in the absence of adequate data, how the requirements of this Rule will be satisfied. G. Rule 6.4.20 (12): The applicant is required, where necessary to demonstrate that the Environmental Protection Plan requirements are being met, to propose a water quality monitoring plan for both surface and ground water. Tn company with Drawing 10.1, the application does propose a ground water monitoring plan applicable for Amendment 8. However, this plan, as described in the application, eliminates most of the current ground water monitoring wells/locations appearing on Figure B-1 together with all existing ground water permit conditions and points of compliance. The Cresson Project clearly has the potential to adversely affect the quality of ground water in its area where ground water has not been classified by the WQCC. Rules 3.1.7 (2), (3) and (6) require, in such case, that permit conditions protective of the existing and reasonably potential future uses of the ground water that may be affected by such an operation be established, included in a permit modification such as Amendment 8 and that points of compliance shall also be set. It is, therefore, the Division's position that if the more limited ground water monitoring plan proposed is to be accepted in conjunction with the proposed expansion of the operation, then the existing permit conditions and points of compliance for the Grassy Valley, Wilson Creek and Arequa Gulch locations should be retained. In addition, if the Division determines that the ground waterqua]ityjustifies it, permit conditions should be established and points of compliance set for Poverty Gulch, Squaw Gulch, the Vindicator Valley and the area of the new ADR processing pond. CC&V should commit to retain the current eround water permit conditions and points of compliance for Grass~Valley Wilson Creek and Arequa Gulch as well as to oroaose permit conditions and Points of Compliance for locations in Povertv Gulch. Squaw Gulch the Vindicator Vallev and the area of the new ADR processing pond. H. [n the event the area is hit with a 6.0, or greater, magnitude earthquake, it could adversely affect the VLF toe berm. If the epicenter is located within ]00 miles from the VLF, CC&V should commit to having the toe berm inspected by a register professional engineer. Any damage to the toe berm must be documented and a proposal for remediation of the damage (if am') must be submitted to the Division within 30 days.