Laserfiche WebLink
c) Under infiltration the operator states, "taken as an infiltration rate over the foot <br />print of the diaterme, the average Carlton Tunnel Portal flow represents an <br />infiltration rate of 6.99 inches per year or 37% of total precipitation of 19.58 inches. <br />This is a high infiltration rate; the expected value could be no more than 25 % <br />based on infiltration evaluations of mountain basins in Nevada". Do these <br />mountain basins in Nevada have the same geologic conditions and under ground <br />working developments as the ones encountered in the Cripple Creek Mining <br />District? Please provide the appropriate data to support your conclusions. In lieu <br />of the supporting data, the DRMS will require the operator to utilize the higher <br />infiltration rate taken as the average as stated above unless the supporting dat for <br />the mountain basins in Nevada is provided. <br />d) The operator states, "The Carlton Tunnel today captures essentially all the ground <br />water in the district. The flow from the Carlton Tunnel represents the collection of <br />ground water infiltration to the diatremal materials as described". Under the <br />infiltration section, the operator states," Evaluation of the data indicates that the <br />infiltration rate is not in fact representative of the ground water system in the <br />district. On an annual basis the infiltration rate has been computed in the same <br />way and the results are presented in Figure 5. This figure shows that the ground <br />water yield decreases with precipitation, indicating that some process other than <br />precipitation and infiltration is influencing the flow rates at the Carlton Tunnel. <br />Under "Impacts of Mining", the operator states, "The infiltration to the regional <br />groundwater system is driven by precipitation". The Division is a bit confused by <br />the conflicting statement. Is CC&V saying the discharge from the Carlton Tunnel <br />could be impacted by other unknown contributors, other than the rate of <br />infiltration from the mining district expressing itself as ground water flow at the <br />tunnel? Please explain. <br />E. CC&V'S consultants stated, "during development of the proposed MLE, project activities, <br />the net effect of the WHEX portion of the East Cresson Mine and the ECOSA is expected to <br />reduce flows to Grassy Creek. The current average annual flow rate is about 40 gpm. <br />Modeling results, including sensitivity analyses, suggests that during development the <br />average annual flow rate at GV-03 may range from 25 to 31 inches. Please provide a detailed <br />flow rate measuring plan for Grassy Creek and piezometer water level measuring plan for <br />the riparian areas for approval by the DRMS. Is the shallow alluvium aquifer that currently <br />feeds the wetlands in these areas disconnected from the bed rock aquifer? Has CC&V <br />conducted a well draw down pump test, to show these two aquifers are not connected? <br />What about existing fracture zones in the bed rock, what impact will additional mining <br />have on the transmissivity of water from the alluvial aquifer to the bed rock aquifer? With <br />out well draw down pumping tests to show the disconnection of the alluvial aquifer from <br />the deep bed rock aquifer, how can CC&V assure the Division that the wetlands will not be <br />permanently affected when mining extends beyond the elevation of the alluvial aquifer? <br />CC&V's hydrologic consultants recommended that the operator supplement additional <br />water to the Grassy Valley Creek to maintain flow rates similar to those currently observed <br />throughout the year due to the expected impact of mining in the Wild Horse East Cresson <br />Mine Expansion area, which will lower the water shed feeding the creek & wetlands. The <br />expected decrease based on the mass balance will range anywhere from 20 % to 30% of the <br />total flow. Where would this supplemental water come from? Where is the warranty for the <br />purchase of this water in Exhibit "L"? Worst case scenario, the Division would like to see <br />analyzed would be that the proposed mining activities could cut of the flow in Grassy <br />9