_REVISION - M1980244 ‎(31)‎

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Name: Adequacy Response
• From: Cripple Creek & Victor Gold
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM8
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~!... F
cc t, l'~ , 11
ii+ ;:
VII. 6.4.7F'~ EXFiIBTT G -Water Information
GENERAI: 3
.d,~s

The applicant"Fefers to subsection 6.7 under "Bxhibit G"page G-1. However, there Is no subsection h. J. If the
applicant' is `r'e'ferring to subsection 7, please indicate. Has CC& ~ ever vtol4ted its NPDES DtisCharge Permit
parameters ar 1lrequa and Carlton?
3 Kl _ ~.
Response: Tlie'discussion on page G-1 should reference only subsection 6.6. Thank you for identifying the
incorrtotreference.
CC&V has not been cited by the Water Quality Control Division ("WQCD") for a violation of the
NPDES permits for Arequa Gulch or the Carlton Tunnel. CC&V has recorded a few instances where a
parameter or flow rate was higher than that noted in these two NPDES permits. These instances have
occurred, howevor, when exceptoona] storm events have ooeurred in the arcs; for example, the heavy
snow received in late-April 1999. CC&V has provided information to WQCD related to these few
iii3tiiiiocs and WQCh has concurred that the instances are appropriately covered by the "upset"
provision of the discharge permits or has not taken further action. An upset condition is defined in the
NPDES petmtits as "an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncor$pliance with the permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of
the permittee." As such, CC&V is in compliance with its NPDES permits for Arequs Gulch and the
C'aritoir T_ unnel.
P '. ~~,
A.-. .. IJntler.'4,6./l, ppge 11, the oparatorstates, "due to the higher permeability of ehe dtatreme, arsd the
Itiweri;fg afrhe ground water table by the underground drainage runnels, precipitation rapidly
infiltrtiies, and surface water lows are only rarely observed, Those flaws ore not continuous in the
downstream direction, but may become more continuous abler the granodiorite is encountered. When
which granodtortte is encountered? Please explain.
Response,: The Geologic map, Drawing C-7, provides information on the location of various geologic features,
including the granodiorite. As shown on Drawing C-7, erattodiarite surrounds the Permit Area on the
south; east, and north. This formation has been extensively characterized by CC&V with the
inforiitetion submitted to the OMLR as part of hydrogeologic studies and the detailed geologic
inve`stigatians performed by CC&V for construction of the VLF (see "certification" reports), as parts of
Amendment Nos. 6 and 7. The characterization has shown the granodiorite as having fewer ftacttues.
than the breccias and phanolites of the volcanio diatreme and, as is documented in the geohydrologic
model t'or the nisuict (Volume II of [he Amendment No. 8 application), transmits less water than do the
diatretrial rocks. This characteristic means that surface water flows tend to lose less water in channels in
tti~:graiiodiorite than they do in the channels in the diatremal rocks. This "tighter" characteristic also is
cKtiraateristie of the rocks bounding the other sides of the diatreme, which are biotite gneiss, granite, and
a {'cripple GYeek Breccis."
I h.
B, fhr page S9, under 5.7.1.3 Surface Water Management, the operator states, "The SGOSA diversion
design~ir dircussed in Appendix 6, Volume ZY. There is no Appendix 6 in Volume IV. Plaasa revise the
text.. ; ,.
Response: ° Asistoted in the text referenced above, the Table of Contents far the Project Description, page TOC-
v in Volume I and by the Tab 6 at the beginning of Volume )V, the entire Volume IV is Appendix 6,
C;!veibui'den Storage Areas, Stability and 1~Iydrology &valuation. Therefore, the reference is coaect.
C, Ai•e ~wigre any known water rights, wells, eta. other than ident~ed in the permit.
~` T;
Y t