appendix e groundwater recharge and surface water

Appendix E

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY REPORT

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

REVISION OF THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA BLUE MOUNTAIN MINERALS MINE

Prepared for Blue Mountain Minerals, Inc. 24599 Marble Quarry Road

Columbia, CA 95310

Prepared by Condor Earth Technologies, Inc.

21663 Brian Lane Sonora, CA 95370

209.532.0361

May 4, 2012 Condor Project No. 2526Z/T9

Copyright © 2012, Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND – THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA REVISION ............... 1 2.1 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................. 1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 2

3.0 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................. 2 3.1 GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 REGIONAL AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................... 3 4.1 THE NORTHERN KARST PLAIN ................................................................................................ 3 4.2 AQUIFER DISCHARGE ................................................................................................................ 3 4.3 VINE SPRING ................................................................................................................................. 4 4.4 LORD SPRING ............................................................................................................................... 4 4.5 AQUIFER RECHARGE AT THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA ............................................. 4 4.6 THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL FILL REVISION ON GROUNDWATER RECHARGE . 5

5.0 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................... 6 5.1 GENERAL COMMENTS ON SURFACE RUNOFF FROM AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA

REVISION ....................................................................................................................................... 6 5.2 SEASONAL WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 7 5.3 HEC ANALYSIS FOR SPILLWAY AND RIP RAP CHANNEL DESIGNS ................................ 8 5.4 THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL FILL REVISION ON SURFACE HYDROLOGY ......... 10

6.0 HYDROLOGY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 11

7.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 11

ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Agricultural Fill May 2010 Topography Figure 3 Northern Karst Plain Figure 4 Vine Spring Discharge Figure 5 Vine Spring Discharge and annual Cumulative Rainfall Figure 6 Project Runoff Site Plan Figure 7 Ag Fill Revision Conceptual Details

TABLES Table 1 Flow Measurements at Vine Spring (1988) Table 2 Flow Measurements at Vine Spring (2002-2011) Table 3 Tons of Material Placed in Agricultural Fill

PHOTOS

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

REVISION OF THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA BLUE MOUNTAIN MINERALS MINE

Columbia, Tuolumne County, California

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for Portola Minerals Company doing business as Blue Mountain Minerals and is for his use only. This report is a technical document addressing a proposed project to revise the portion of the Blue Mountain Minerals mine known as the Agricultural Fill Area. The Agricultural Fill Area Revision (Revision) is proposed adjacent to the Blue Mountain Minerals mine site which is located in Tuolumne County, as shown on Figure 1. The regulatory and environmental settings of the site are described in the Project Background. The Groundwater Hydrology section includes descriptions of the geology, hydrogeology, and methodology used to estimate the groundwater recharge affecting the flow of springs. Potential impacts to groundwater from the proposed project are evaluated at the end of this section. The Surface Water Hydrology section describes the climate, watershed characteristics, and methodology used to estimate the surface water runoff affected by the proposed project. Potential impacts of surface water runoff are evaluated at the end of this section. The last section, Summary and Recommendations, summarizes the impact evaluations and provides design recommendations to mitigate potential impacts. 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND – THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA REVISION 2.1 REGULATORY SETTING

The Blue Mountain Minerals mine operates in accordance with a conditional use permit from Tuolumne County. There is an Integrated Surface Mining and Reclamation Plan approved by Tuolumne County. Tuolumne County is the local lead agency for monitoring Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) compliance. Stormwater sampling and reporting are conducted under the General Industrial Stormwater Permit (Order No. 97-03-DWQ). Tuolumne County conducts annual inspections in December, but winterization measures are required to be in place before the start of the rainy season (October 15th), per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and SMARA. SMARA requires stormwater systems to be capable of managing runoff from a 20-year, 1-hour storm. The SWPPP is reviewed and updated annually. The proposed Revision will require amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, Reclamation Plan, and SWPPP. All materials deposited in the Agricultural Fill Area and in the proposed Revision are classified as Group C mining wastes that are inert and pose no water quality threat other than turbidity. The fill material is from two sources, rock and soil mined directly from the pit, and silt-size and clay-size material excavated from process water settling ponds. These materials are removed periodically to maintain freeboard in the process water ponds. Process water is discharged by authority of Water Code section 13264(a)(2) and monitored according to the Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program (Board Order No. 99-032) adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). The fill material is end-dumped and compacted by haul trucks and other heavy machinery. The fill is placed in accordance with the Reclamation Plan to limit surface runoff (Photo 2). Surface reclamation is ongoing as the fill is placed (Photo 1).

Groundwater Recharge and Surface Water Hydrology for Revision Agricultural Fill Area

Blue Mountain Minerals Page 2

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Agricultural Fill Area is mostly in the NE ¼ Section 3 T. 2 N., R. 14 E. The proposed Revision is to the southeast of the existing Agricultural Fill Area in the NW ¼ Section 2, T. 2 N., R. 14 E. (Figure 1). The Revision includes approximately 26.7 acres of undisturbed ground to the east of the existing Agricultural Fill Area. The Revision is located partly on an upland surface of relatively low relief and partly on adjacent hillsides that range in elevation from about 1,920 to 2,100 feet above sea level. Final reclaimed fill will be sloped at 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3H:1V) and will not exceed natural slopes on adjacent hillsides. Maximum elevation of the final fill will be approximately 2,135 feet and will include fill placed on the natural hillside to an elevation of about 2,100 feet. Final slope contours and the footprint for the Revision area are shown on Figure 2. Northwest of the Revision are the mine quarry and the existing Agricultural Fill Area composed of disturbed ground that will be reclaimed as valley oak woodland and annual grassland. Surrounding land use to the north, east, and south is naturally-vegetated open space with pine and scrub oak forest. Residential and agricultural land uses are approximately ½ mile to the south (uphill) near the intersection of Marble Quarry Road and Parrots Ferry Road. 3.0 GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 3.1 GEOLOGY

The rocks exposed in the area of the Blue Mountain Minerals mine and underlying the Agricultural Fill Area are metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of the Paleozoic Calaveras Complex. Within this geologic unit, the most abundant rock types and the principal resource for the Blue Mountain Minerals mine are calcareous and dolomitic marbles included in the geological unit labeled “Pzc” on the geological map on Figure 3. To the east, tectonically inter-layered metamorphic rocks (schist and phyllite), become more abundant. The rocks of the Calaveras Complex have undergone at least two periods of deformation resulting in two sets of north to northwesterly striking, near vertical foliations. In the quarry, the exposed contact between calcareous and dolomitic marble forms a southeasterly plunging synform (Carey Haughy, personal communication). The metamorphosed carbonate rocks contain openings along rock joints and fractures including solution-enlarged fractures and solution cavities. Most of the solution structures are filled with clay-size to silt-size residue from dissolution of the marble and erosion of overlying rock and soil. Several large caverns have been encountered; the most notable was the dry McNamee Cavern located approximately 1,400 feet west of the quarry pit and extending to a depth of about 140 feet from a surface elevation of 1,470 feet. To the west of the Blue Mountain Minerals mine, diorite (an igneous intrusive rock) of Mesozoic age has intruded the Calaveras Complex. A wedge-shaped lobe of diorite extending eastward from the main intrusive body and east-west trending diorite dikes have been observed in the area between the marble quarry pit and the Agricultural Fill Area. Other intrusive igneous rocks include steeply dipping diorite dikes with west northwest strike and andesitic dikes with northeast strike and steep southeast dip.1 Several metamorphosed diorite dikes have been encountered in the diamond drill holes drilled at the Agricultural Fill Area (DDH 89-7 and 89-8).

1 Golder Associates, Pit Slope Stability Analyses for Final Reclamation Slopes, Blue Mountain Quarry, Columbia, California,

2004.



4.0 REGIONAL AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS Regionally, the calcareous and dolomitic marble underlie an area of relatively low relief extending from south of Columbia northward to the Agricultural Fill Area (Figure 1). Large portions of the area were denuded by placer mining in the 19th century. Elevations range from less than 2,200 feet in the vicinity of the airport to about 1,900 feet in the Agricultural Fill Area. Cave formation and karst topography are present throughout much of this low-relief area (hereafter referred to as a karst plain). Typically karst limestones and marbles can be productive aquifers because percolating soil water dissolves rock to make wide openings that store and transmit water. Surface drainage in the area of the karst plain is only well developed where the topography steepens to the north toward the Stanislaus River canyon and to the south toward Sonora. Elsewhere on the low-relief karst plain the drainage is internal (few topographical outlets) causing substantial infiltration of rainfall via solution structures, joints, and fractures and underflow of groundwater. Historical groundwater elevations at springs and wells in the marble aquifer range from about 2,040 to 2,050 feet in the karst plain south of the airport to an apparent groundwater divide at Columbia Airport. Springs located south of the airport (Springfield) flow southward while those located north of the airport (Gold Spring, Vine Spring, and Lord Spring) flow northward. 4.1 THE NORTHERN KARST PLAIN

The northern portion of the karst plain shown on Figure 3 occupies about 1,010 acres and extends northward from the groundwater divide near Columbia Airport. The groundwater elevations range from approximately 2,060 feet at Gold Spring to 1,895 feet at Vine Spring and Lord Spring. The apparent groundwater gradient is from south to north with surface discharges at Gold Spring, Vine Spring, Lord Spring, and lesser outlets. To the west and east, groundwater elevations range from 2,060 feet to more than 2,090 feet. The northern karst plain is bounded by the topographic divides to the east and the west. The marble aquifer, designated as Pzcm on Figure 3, underlies approximately 566 acres of this area. Recharge to the aquifer in this area is from two main sources, infiltration of surface water (from natural precipitation and runoff from adjacent hillsides), and groundwater underflow from surrounding areas. The metamorphic rocks to the east and the intrusive igneous rocks to the west do not transmit groundwater well; however, there may be significant underflow from the karst areas to the south depending on the characteristics of the southern groundwater divide. The igneous rocks near the existing Agricultural Fill Area are an effective groundwater barrier. The igneous rocks do not dissolve in percolating soil water and are massive, dense rock with few openings for groundwater flow. Groundwater has not been encountered north of the igneous rock barrier in the mine quarry pit or in drill holes extending to depths of approximately 1,200 feet in the vicinity of the pit. Stained fractures are evident to a vertical depth of about 100 feet (elevation approximately 1,800 feet) in core from diamond drill holes installed in the area of the Agricultural Fill Area (DDH 89-7 and 89-8). This indicates that the subsurface igneous rock barrier backs up groundwater in the marble aquifer. Several metamorphosed diorite dikes were encountered in the drill holes. 4.2 AQUIFER DISCHARGE

Discharges from the marble aquifer in the vicinity of the Agricultural Fill Area are by way of surface flow from Gold Spring, Vine Spring, Lord Spring, and lesser outlets. Dry caverns occur at lower elevations in the mined area north of the igneous rock barriers indicate groundwater outflow is small. While no flow measurements are available for flow from Gold Spring and Lord Spring, we have used an average accumulated outflow of 200 gallons per minute (gpm) for estimating purposes, based on observations (Photo 7). Average measured flows from Vine Spring are 326 gpm (Table 2). Vine Spring and Lord



Spring are localized discharge zones that are controlled by their relative position with respect to the igneous rock flow barriers between the Agricultural Fill Area and the mine quarry to the north. The hydrogeological environment is similar for both springs and both are natural discharge points from the aquifer. 4.3 VINE SPRING

Vine Spring is located on the west side of the Agricultural Fill Area at an elevation of approximately 1,890 feet (Figure 2, Photos 4 and 5). What is locally referred to as Vine Spring in this report and by a long historical convention, is not the map feature labeled Vine Spring on the USGS topographic map, but it is the unnamed spring on the map north of Marble Quarry Road, indicated by an arrow on Figure 1. The spring is located within a small ponded area created by a rock wall embankment along the western edge of the pond (Photo 4). Discharge from the spring flows west from the pond in a man-made ditch. Rate of discharge has been measured intermittently from 1988 to 2001 and every 2 weeks thereafter at a weir (Photo 5). The available flow data quantified as gpm are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and plotted for comparison on Figure 4. Measured flows have ranged from 96 to 816 gpm. The rate of discharge varies with the season and the amount of rainfall. Measured flows typically rise through the fall and winter, peaking in February to April. Discharge rates diminish after April until the beginning of the next water year in October. All flow data are plotted on Figure 5 with cumulative annual rainfall data by water year (October 1 to September 30) from the California Department of Water Resources database, New Melones Station (NMS). 4.4 LORD SPRING

Lord Spring is located to the north of the Agricultural Fill Area (Figure 3) and discharges to a small pond created by a concrete structure in a well-defined valley (Photos 1, 6, 7, 8). Although no measuring device has been installed, the rate of discharge is a fraction of that from Vine Spring. Some water from the small pond is piped for use in dust suppression at the mine. The remaining water flows to New Melones Reservoir. 4.5 AQUIFER RECHARGE AT THE AGRICULTURAL FILL AREA

Average annual recharge is the positive water flux to an aquifer. Recharge is the sum of annual inputs which typically include percolating precipitation, man-caused imports, and groundwater inflow. Discharge is the negative flux from an aquifer. Typical components of discharge are flow from streams and springs, pumping, and groundwater outflow. When an aquifer is in balance, recharge equals discharge. By estimating discharges, it is possible to calculate the average recharge per acre. The geohydrology of the northern karst plain is typical of an aquifer in balance that can be evaluated from spring flow discharges. This is because the igneous rock barrier described above impedes outflow of groundwater causing the available aquifer storage to fill each year and overflow at the surface through perennial springs at the northern end of the basin. This annual decanting of the aquifer is shown by the hydrographs on Figure 4. The total volume of overflow each year is equal to the annual recharge.



The primary source of recharge to the aquifer is precipitation. Precipitation on the 1,010 acres north of the groundwater divide is approximately 29.8 inches per year2. Not all precipitation recharges groundwater. Precipitation that does not recharge groundwater is stored in soil for use by plants in summer or runs off the surface via streams and smaller drainages. Runoff accumulates in surface depressions or is exported via surface drainages. Surface drainages over the marble aquifer are poorly developed. Natural processes and removal of soil infill during hydraulic mining exposed depression-focused recharge areas where surface water is trapped and percolates through fractures and caverns to the aquifer. For this reason, recharge in the northern karst plain will be greater than in many other geologic settings. Natural recharge equal to 30 percent of annual precipitation has been measured in other limestone aquifers.3 Based on the estimated average discharges from springs (526 gpm), annual recharge from all sources over the entire basin is about 10.1 inches per acre year (34 percent of annual precipitation). Total recharge calculated in this way includes the net of water imported and exported for domestic purposes and ignores surface runoff. Tuolumne Utility District imports water for residential users in Columbia, Gold Springs subdivision, and the multi-family dwellings at the corner of Marble Quarry and Parrots Ferry Roads, and exports water as municipal sewage. The ratio of man-caused imports to exports is approximately 1.54, a significant input to the basin water budget. Surface runoff from the karst terrain only occurs when soils are saturated. Based on the analysis described in the Surface Water Hydrology section below, surface runoff could be on the order of 20 to 30 percent of annual rainfall, a significant output to the basin budget. For recharge estimation purposes we have assumed these inputs and outputs are offsetting. Recharge in inches per acre from land at the Revision will be less than the basin-wide rate calculated above for two reasons. First, the hills in this area are underlain by schist and are steeper than in most of the basin, so depression-focused recharge is less prominent. Second, there is no residential use, so no net input from domestic supply water imported to the basin. Published estimates of recharge rates in semiarid non-karst terrains range from <1 to 17 percent of annual precipitation5. A liberal estimate of annual recharge through the Revision lands is likely less than 5 inches per year (17 percent of annual precipitation). 4.6 THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL FILL REVISION ON GROUNDWATER

RECHARGE

The history of flow measurements at Vine Spring can be used to assess the impact from prior fill placement. The approximate amount of fill placed by year is shown in Table 3. In 1988-89, when there had been no fill at all deposited in the Agricultural Fill Area, the spring flow ranged from 96 to 306 gpm (Table 1), generally lower than other years at comparable times of the year (Figure 4). This lower flow was directly related to lower annual rainfall, shown on Figure 5. By the end of 2011, a total of 2,648,297 tons of material had been deposited in the Agricultural Fill Area, while the Vine Spring flows ranged from 127 to 816 gpm. It can be seen by inspection of Figure 4 that monthly high spring flows were recorded in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2011, despite progressive fill placement. From these data it is concluded that spring flow fluctuations are not measurably reduced by fill placement in the existing Agricultural Fill Area. Peak spring flows appear to be primarily influenced by annual rainfall, rather than by fill placement.

2 Average Annual Precipitation is from the sum of monthly averages adjusted to the site using the GIS Raster; California

Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation, 1961-90, by Chris Daily and George Taylor; Oregon State University; April 1998. 3 Driscoll, Daniel G., and Janet M. Carter, 2001, Hydrologic Conditions and Budgets for the Black Hills of South Dakota,

Through Water Year 1998. U.S Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report, 01-4226, page 57, Figure 30. 4 Tuolumne Utilities District, 2012, Kelly Klyn, Personal Communication. 5 Wood, Warren E. and Ward Sanford, 1995, Chemical and Isotopic Methods for Quantifying Ground-water Recharge in a

Regional, Semiarid Environment. Ground Water V.33,3,458-468.



Build out of the Revision will not create an extensive reservoir of unsaturated material that could absorb future percolating soil water and substantially reduce recharge to the aquifer feeding the springs for very long. The fill is placed in a manner that promotes retention and percolation of runoff as shown on the panoramic Photo 2. During wet seasons, seepage is observed at the toe of fill slopes within the Agricultural Fill Area. This indicates that the fill material is saturating during placement. Once fill is initially primed with water to its field capacity and is buried below the depth of evaporative influence (1 to 2 meters) soil water will percolate to the water table through the fill. While it may take longer to reach the water table than is currently the case, once the annual flux to the water table is established, recharge will be similar to the current rate. Build out of the Revision will not impact the water table or flow from the springs. The proposed Revision area includes approximately 26.7 acres as shown on Figure 2. At a rate of 5 inches of natural recharge per year, described above, the Revision lands contribute approximately 11 acre feet per year (af/yr) to the aquifer.6 Even if we unrealistically assumed the complete loss of infiltration recharge at the Revision area for an initial period of time, such loss could only cause decrease in the groundwater table of less than an inch.7 The estimated recharge from the Revision is less than 2 percent of the combined annual aquifer discharge from Lord Spring and Vine Spring (686 af/yr). As can be seen from Figure 4, Vine Spring discharge measurements typically vary seasonally from 175 to 450 gpm. Minimum spring flows year-to-year vary by over 100 percent depending on rainfall (Figure 5). Therefore a 2 percent change in total volume would be an indistinguishable difference within the fluctuations due to rainfall alone. Criteria for identifying “substantial reduction” of flows from springs have not been set by Tuolumne County; however, a reasonable threshold of significance would be if the impact is detectable. Given the high variability in the spring flow data on Table 2 and the strong influence of seasonal rainfall shown on Figure 5, changes in flow rates from springs of 10 to 20 percent would be difficult to detect. The maximum potential impacts to recharge from the Revision are much less than this detectability threshold. From the above discussion, Condor concludes that the Revision would not substantially diminish the water table, nor interfere with groundwater recharge such that any existing groundwater uses or flow from springs would be substantially reduced. 5.0 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 5.1 GENERAL COMMENTS ON SURFACE RUNOFF FROM AGRICULTURAL FILL

AREA REVISION

The final fill slopes shown with green contours on Figure 2 approximately split the future runoff after final build-out into the two drainages that originally carried the runoff, thus avoiding redirection of excessive runoff into basins that haven’t carried it naturally. The final configuration of the Revised area will be sloped and reclaimed. The lowest north slope of the fill in the vicinity of Lord Spring has already been shaped and planted with grass and other vegetation (Photo 1). Final slopes in the southwestern part of the fill area have also been reclaimed and planted with a variety of trees and grass. Properly reclaimed and vegetated slopes should not concentrate runoff or promote erosion downstream. Inspections conducted in accordance with SMARA provide annual opportunities to observe and correct undesirable erosion associated with diverted runoff. Much of the runoff from the Revision footprint naturally flows

6 Recharge (af/yr) = 5 x 26.7/12, where Revision area recharge = 5 in, Revision area = 26.7 ac, 1/12 = ft/in 7 Water table rise = 5 x 26.7/1010/0.25 = 0.5 in, where Revision area recharge = 5 in, Revision area = 26.7 ac, basin area = 1,010

ac, porosity = 0.25.



west and is directed through two culverts under the road to Vine Spring shown in Photo 3. This provides a convenient point for monitoring runoff control measures during implementation of the Revision. Natural drainage from the hill slopes east of the Revision area will be intercepted by fill placement as depicted by blue arrows on Figure 6. During placement of fill, runoff from the watershed will be controlled and retained in the disturbed areas, or spilled through facilities designed for peak flows during design storm events. Runoff calculations described below predict the volume and rate of flows that could occur. After full build out, future runoff from the Revision watershed (green arrows on Figure 6) will flow along the swale created by the fill and the natural topography east of the Revision, and will exit via existing drainages to the north or south. The slope gradients of channelized runoff at the seams between the final fill and the natural hillside (19 percent to the north and 33 percent to the south, shown on Figure 6) will require armoring with rip rap to compensate for the greater erosion potential. Splayed aprons at the foot of the rip rap channels (Figure 7) will reduce flow depth and assist in dissipating erosive energy where channelized runoff is directed to the natural drainage courses. 5.2 SEASONAL WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS

Condor employed a seasonal water budget analysis to evaluate the monthly volumes of stormwater accumulating in the Revision area in an average year. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) rainfall loss method was utilized to estimate excess precipitation or the amount of precipitation that would result in direct runoff. The SCS is the former name of the current Natural Resources Conservation Service. Precipitation data for this analysis was compiled from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) database. Condor used the precipitation data from the Sonora Ranger Station rainfall station and a correction factor was applied to geographically adjust the data to the site. The watershed catchment area located to the east and upslope of the Revision was delineated based upon the USGS Columbia Quadrangle photo-revised in 1973 and the October 21, 2011 aerial topography flown by Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Inc. Aerial topographic data were used for determining runoff patterns and to assist in delineation of the site’s watershed(s). The total combined area of the watershed(s) studied is approximately 97.4 acres. Monthly precipitation totals were reduced to approximate only those storms large enough to generate runoff because smaller rain events are lost in the watershed to such factors as infiltration, storage, and interception. The SCS Curve Number (CN) model estimates excess precipitation as a function of precipitation, soil type, land use, and antecedent moisture conditions. The SCS method defines four hydrological soil groups A, B, C, and D. Group A is typically sandy soil with the lowest runoff potential, whereas Group D is typically higher in clay content and has the highest runoff potential. Conservatively, hydrological Soils Group D was assumed for the modeling described herein; although there is data to support Group C soils and Group B soils in some places. If B or C soils are used, percolation increases and the predicted runoff will be reduced. Land use of the upslope watershed east of the Agricultural Fill Area is currently a wooded area consisting of oaks and other vegetation. The Agricultural Fill Area itself was assumed to be exposed dirt and haul roads. Antecedent moisture conditions of the watershed soils were assumed to vary by season. The seasonal water budget analysis used by Condor assumes that the revision will include a stormwater storage/settlement pond (retention basin) that will be reconstructed and configured eastward as the fill is placed. The retention basin will collect runoff from the wooded upslope area to the east of the site as well as localized runoff from parts of the existing Agricultural Fill Area and Revision. This retention basin will capture storm runoff and attenuate the event hydrographs (i.e., diminish the peak flow). For the purpose of this analysis, the retention basin capacity was assumed to store water approximately 12 feet deep and contain approximately 40 acre-feet of storage. This size of containment was chosen specifically to avoid



jurisdictional dam criteria. A monthly water balance was constructed to determine the monthly maximum accumulation in the retention basis (inflows minus losses) for a year of average precipitation. Inflow was assumed to be solely from the rainfall runoff, and the losses included evaporation and infiltration. Average monthly pan evaporation data from Knights Ferry 2 ESE station8 was utilized in the water balance. A pan factor of 0.79 was applied to model evaporation from open bodies of water. Infiltration was based upon an assumed hydraulic conductivity of 5 X 10-6 centimeters per second through 2 feet of saturated pond bottom sediments. Storage depth was factored into the estimated infiltration. Average annual runoff was estimated monthly to account for stored water in the retention basin each month. Retained stormwater increased each month of the rainy season until March when maximum average annual runoff accumulation was approximately 35 acre feet. The water balance includes a worst case scenario of adding the runoff from selected statistical storms to the retention basin in addition to the maximum average-year stormwater stage calculated above. Statistical storms were developed based on data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Stormwater runoff volumes from a 100-year, 24-hour storm; a 20-year, 24-hour storm; and a 20-year, 1-hour storm were calculated, although only the smallest of these storms is required to be managed under SMARA. The calculated runoff volumes from the three statistical storm scenarios were then separately added to the maximum average-year stormwater stage to predict when the retention basin will spill. Summary results of the water balance are provided in Table A.

Table A – Summary Results for Water Balance

Statistical Storm

Statistical Storm Runoff (ac-ft)

Maximum Stored from

Annual Average Runoff (ac-ft)

Total Combined Runoff (ac-ft)

Assumed Storage Capacity

(ac-ft)

Overflow Volume (ac-ft)

100-yr, 24-hr 33.6 35.0 68.6 40.0 28.6 20-yr, 24-hr 23.3 35.0 58.3 40.0 18.3

20-yr, 1-hr 0.4 35.0 35.4 40.0 0.0 The results of the water balance indicated that the modeled future pond (12 feet deep with total storage of 40 af) may not overflow under annual average conditions, but may overflow under the combination of maximum stage from annual average runoff plus either of the 24-hour storms modeled. 5.3 HEC ANALYSIS FOR SPILLWAY AND RIP RAP CHANNEL DESIGNS

To estimate peak flow for hydraulic designs, Condor developed and ran two models using the computer modeling software Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) Version 3.5 program. The program was developed by the Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. HEC-HMS is used to model precipitation-runoff processes in various types of watersheds. HEC-HMS is capable of conducting various hydrologic simulations based on the data that is entered into the program such as watershed characteristics, precipitation depths, time of concentrations, and others. The first HEC-HMS model considered a very early phase of the Revision. The scenario from the water balance of applying the design storm on top of the maximum storage stage from annual average 8 California Department of Water Resources Evaporation from Water Surfaces in California.



conditions was modeled in HEC-HMS. The first model accounts for a 12-foot deep retention basin of approximately 40 acre-feet of storage. In this case, the 100-year, 24-hour storm was assumed to occur on top of maximum monthly stage in the retention basin. The hydrographs flowing to the retention basin were then storage-routed through the remaining storage capacity and assumed to discharge through a 10-foot wide rip rapped spillway located at the southeast interface of the Revision and existing terrain. The peak volumetric flow passing over the spillway was modeled at approximately 37 cubic feet per second (cfs). The second HEC-HMS model considered the future final configuration of the Revision after the last retention basin configuration has been filled. In this case, there is no storage routing and thus no hydrograph attenuation. The second model assumed that offsite water collected upslope of and at the interface of the Revision and the existing terrain is routed in channels sloped at 1 percent grade to the north and to the south from the divide shown on Figure 6. Again, the 100-year, 24-hour storm was selected for modeling. On the south side of the Revision, the 1 percent channel connects to a rip rap channel sloped at 33 percent that conveys the water to the flatter terrain in the meadow below. On the north side, the 1 percent channel connects to a channel sloped at 19 percent that conveys water to the existing Lord Spring drainage. The peak volumetric flow rates modeled in these channels were 45 cfs to the south and 42 cfs to the north. Due to the similarity in resulting flow results and to aid in the ease of construction throughout the Revision project, a standardized cross section for spillways and rip rap lined channels sized for the maximum anticipated flows was considered. Condor prepared a feasible conceptual design shown on Figure 7. The section will be composed of a 10-foot bottom width with side slopes graded 2H:1V. The 1 percent sloped channels behind the final Revision will be 2 feet deep and all other channels and spillways will be 3 feet deep. All channels will be over-excavated to allow for lining with 2.5 feet of rip rap (0.7 feet of Caltrans Class No. 3 beneath 1.8 feet of Caltrans Class Facing). On the steep channels north and south, the rip rap composite layer shall be placed over a 12 ounce non-woven polypropylene geotextile such as GSE NW12 or approved equal. Rip rap should be concrete grouted as needed to prevent scour and erosion if and when it occurs. The plan view shown on Figure 6 depicts the general locations and flow line slopes of the proposed channels and spillways. Typical conceptual profiles and cross section are shown on Figure 7. At the base of the steep channels, an apron flares from 10 feet wide to 30 feet wide is proposed to dissipate hydraulic jumps and assist in reducing flow depth and velocity. The proposed apron channels are a minimum of 3 feet deep with 2H:1V side slopes cut into existing grade. The aprons are again lined with rip rap as shown on Figure 7 and are sloped at 1 percent maximum in the direction of flow. In the case of the aprons, the geotextile fabric and 0.7 feet of Caltrans Class No. 3 rip rap will be overlaid by 2.6 feet of Caltrans Class Light rip rap. Rip rap in the aprons should be concrete grouted, unless the alternate apron design shown on Figure 7 is used. The area downstream of the aprons should also be graded to 1 percent or flatter and be level graded perpendicular to the flow. Concentrated flow paths should be removed during the grading operations to allow for a shallow dispersed flow downstream of the aprons. This area should be vegetated with appropriate long term grasses and vegetation to prevent erosion.



5.4 THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL FILL REVISION ON SURFACE HYDROLOGY

There is no blue line stream or intermittent blue line stream shown on USGS mapping in the vicinity of the Revision area. The nearest downstream FEMA flood hazard areas surround the New Melones Reservoir, a dam-controlled river reservoir that would not be significantly affected by stormwater discharges from the proposed project (Figure 3). The fill of the Revision area will be accomplished in a manner similar to the existing Agricultural Fill Area where precipitation runoff is retained in the disturbed lands and, if necessary, released through an engineered spillway similar to that shown on Figure 7. So far, no stormwater releases have been necessary from the existing Agricultural Fill Area. Released stormwater would be sampled in accordance with the Stormwater Monitoring Program and controlled by Best Management Practices (BMPs) enforced by SMARA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Runoff from the small (approximately 80 acre) natural watershed to the east of the existing Agricultural Fill Area will be captured by the base of fill for the Revision. Runoff water that would naturally flow off the hillside south of Vine Spring will be retained in the disturbed area of the Revision fill until the fill is substantially completed. Spillways for the retention basins in the Revision area should be sized to accommodate the expanded watershed. A conceptual design for one such spillway is shown on Figure 7. If an overflow were to occur in response to a rare event this could contribute additional runoff with turbidity; however, the site will be operated under a SWPPP to mitigate and monitor impacts from any such authorized releases. Proper design of the retention basin to maximize residence time will minimize potential turbidity impacts. At the end of the Revision fill period, the hillside runoff will be directed along the boundary of the Revision fill and the natural hill slope as shown on Figure 6. Water accumulated behind the final fill placement and directed along the fill boundary with pre-existing topography poses a potential erosion threat due to the steepness; however, a rip rapped conceptual channel design was developed for this site, shown on Figure 7, to mitigate potential erosion. The project includes annual SWPPP updates with BMPs to control stormwater discharges. The stormwater retention basins described above will not fall under the jurisdictional criteria of the California Division of Safety of Dams. The retention basin modeled accommodates the SMARA design storm protection on top of the average annual maximum seasonal accumulation. Releases from the stormwater retention basins, if needed, would be directed to natural drainages that would otherwise have carried runoff from the same watershed, and therefore are not likely to exceed the capacities of naturally developed drainages. From this discussion Condor concludes that with implementation of proper BMPs required by SMARA and prudent site management, the Revision will not result in excessive erosion or siltation on or offsite. We further conclude that a properly conducted filling operation in the Revision area should not result in discharges that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite. Condor concludes that capturing of natural runoff from the watershed east of the Revision potentially exposes runoff to turbidity in the retention basins. Stormwater releases from rare storm events have the potential to release turbid stormwater, and properly designed and constructed retention basins and other stormwater management practices will minimize potential turbidity impacts. Other than turbidity, stormwater releases would not cause degradation of water quality because the material is an inert Group C mine waste.



6.0 HYDROLOGY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Condor recommends the following language be included in the project description:

• The Revision area will be added to the SMARA Reclamation Plan and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

• The fill will be placed in accordance with a Fill Management Plan designed specifically for this site. The Fill Management Plan will take into account the sequencing of land preparation, fill placement and stormwater control measures, and will identify the design storm event for the retention basin(s).The Fill Management Plan will be reviewed annually by the mine operators prior to the rainy season, and will be modified as needed to account for the changing configurations of the watersheds, retention basins, spillways, and rip rapped channels.

• At all times stormwater retention basins will be smaller than jurisdictional dams as specified by DSOD.

• Throughout the filling operation, stormwater retention/settling ponds will be equipped with an engineered spillway structure/system designed to allow for a controlled discharge from the pond in time of discharge. Spillways for retention basins will be located in such ways as to maximize residence time for settling of suspended solids, and shall be re-engineered and re-constructed as needed to accommodate maximum anticipated flows from the design storm events whenever new stormwater is captured by fill placement. The spillways will discharge into the downstream drainage in which the existing upslope area drains now.

• Final improvements will include placement of rip rap for armoring steep drainage swales where concentrated runoff occurs. Flared aprons will be constructed to dissipate concentrated runoff at the base of fill slopes.

7.0 LIMITATIONS The information contained herein is provided as a conceptual guideline to be used by Blue Mountain Minerals in planning the future revision of the Agricultural Fill Area and should not be considered an engineered design. Specific site conditions not considered in the conceptual design could affect the performance. This analysis assumes that the retention basins will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the storage geometry described in this analysis. Additionally, the retention basins will be equipped with engineered spillway structure/systems designed to allow for a controlled discharge from the basins in time of discharge. Rip rapped channels and aprons have been conceptually designed solely for the purposes of anticipating hydrological impacts of the Revision and evaluating the feasibility of future construction. The spillways and constructed channels should discharge into the downstream drainage in which the existing upslope area drains now. The results of this analysis are based upon data provided/developed by others and the assumptions described herein. This analysis does not reflect soil, subsurface, and land use variations that may occur across the site through time, including the effects of extensive logging or removal of vegetation. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until additional site exploration is performed or construction is initiated. If variations are found to occur, Condor should be given the opportunity to review and revise the results in this document in light of any new data and, if appropriate, conduct additional investigations and/or calculations.

Groundwater Recharge and Surface Water Hydrologyfor Revision Agricultural Fill Area

Blue Mountain MineralsPage 12

This analysis is based upon data available at the time of this analysis and assumptions contained herein,and are invalid if:

1. The assumed watershed areas studied, soil types, and/or site configuration change or are found tobe invalid.

2. The assumptions contained herein change or are found to be invalid.

3. The future retention basin is constructed in a manner that differs from that modeled.

4. The recovery of more data, data from a closer location, or the collection or generation of new datachanges the assumed conditions of the site and surrounding region.

5. Any other change is implemented that materially changes the project from that proposed at thetime of this analysis.

Respectfully submitted,

CONDOR EARTH TECHNOLOGIES, ;

/fri

‘John H. Kramer, Ph.D.CA Registered Geologist No. 4228CA Certified Engineering Geologist No. 2535CA Certified Hydrogeologist No. 182

uc

P:\2000j,rj’2526’2526Z Ag Fill Revision\Reports\FR 20120504 Rev Ag Fill Revision Hydrology BMM.doc

— Gio Del Papa, PECA Professional Engineer No. 59974

CONDO

FIGURES

PROJECTSITE

BLUEMOUNTAINMINERALSMINE

AGRICULTURALFILL AREAREVISION

N.T.S.

Intrusive igneous barrier to groundwater flow - mafic plutonic rocks and cross-cutting andesite dikes

JDM JKCHECKED BY:CREATED BY:

SCALE

JOB NO.

DATE

2526Z6 March. 2012 BLUE MOUNTAIN MINERALS PROJECT

AGRICULTURAL FILL SITE

NORTHERN KARST PLAIN

Intrusive igneous barrier to groundwater flow - mafic plutonic rocks and cross-cutting andesite dikes

File No.

FIGURE3

2526Z_F4.mxd

21663 Brian LaneSonora, CA 95370Office - (209) 532-0361Fax - (209) 532-0773www.condorearth.com

ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYING GISCondor Earth Technologies, Inc.

NE 1/4 SEC.3, T.2N., R.14E.

1:24,000

´Groundwater Flow Direction

Mzpm - Mafic plutonic rocks (Diorite to gabbro)

Pzcm - MarblePzc - Calaveras Complex

0 2,0001,000Feet

National Flood Hazard Layer (NHFL)

P:\2000_prj\2526\2526Z Ag Fill Expansion\Data\D_20120314 vine_sp_weir(NMS).xls F4 Flow Chart

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flow

(in

GPM

)

Time

FIGURE 4Vine Spring Discharge

Tuolumne County, California

1988

1989

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

P:\2000_prj\2526\2526Z Ag Fill Expansion\Data\D_20120314 vine_sp_weir(NMS).xls F5 Flow Chart w Rain

02468101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Rai

n (in

ches

) fro

m D

WR

-NM

S St

atio

n D

ata

Flow

(in

GPM

)

Time

FIGURE 5Vine Spring Discharge and Annual Cumulative Rainfall

Tuolumne County, California

Vine SpringVine Spring (gpm)Annual Cummulative Rainfall

TABLES

< Correction Factor is y = 0.0005x 2 + 1.0503x >

Previously CorrectedDate Time Reported Flow Flow

mm/dd/yy hh:mm GPM GPM7/6/88 8:30 156.4 1987/7/88 1:45 166.9 2147/8/88 8:00 166.9 214

7/11/88 8:00 156.4 1987/12/88 10:00 156.4 1987/13/88 11:00 156.4 1987/14/88 1:00 141.2 1777/15/88 8:45 141.2 1777/18/88 9:00 141.2 1777/19/88 9:20 141.2 1777/20/88 9:00 136.2 1707/21/88 9:20 136.2 1707/22/88 11:30 136.2 1707/25/88 9:00 136.2 1707/26/88 9:00 136.2 1707/29/88 9:30 141.2 1778/1/88 9:00 146.2 1848/2/88 10:15 136.5 1708/3/88 11:00 141.2 1778/4/88 11:00 141.2 1778/5/88 11:00 136.5 1708/8/88 11:00 141.2 1778/9/88 1:15 131.2 163

8/15/88 9:20 136.5 1708/16/88 9:45 126.4 1568/24/88 9:00 141.2 1778/31/88 9:30 107.5 1309/7/88 10:15 80.8 96

9/14/88 10:15 89.4 10711/1/88 11:00 156.4 198

11/10/88 1:30 161.6 2062/13/89 2:13 177.5 2293/15/89 1:30 227.2 3065/9/89 2:30 210.0 279

5/18/89 9:00 210.4 2798/11/89 7:35 166.9 214

Blue Moutain MineralsFlow Measurements at Vine Spring

Corrected for a Caprolletti Trapizoidal Weir

Table 1

File: P:\2000_prj\2526\2526Z Ag Fill Expansion\Data\vine_sp_weir(NMS).xls

< Caproletti weirs have the end notch cut at a 4V:1H ratio. >Where Q = [3.234+(5.347/(320h-3))+(0.428*h/do)]*Lh3/2

Date Person TimeWater Height

Flow (gallons/minute)

5/8/2002 KH 8:00 AM 3.9 3515/9/2002 CH 11:15 AM 3.4 2775/10/2002 CL 8:00 AM 4.1 3915/14/2002 CL 8:00 AM 4.0 3715/15/2002 CL 12:30 PM 4.0 3715/17/2002 CL 12:00 PM 4.0 3715/20/2002 CL 8:50 AM 4.1 3915/21/2002 CL 11:20 AM 4.1 3915/21/2002 CH 3:45 PM 3.7 3245/22/2002 CH 7:20 AM 3.9 3555/28/2002 CH 12:15 PM 3.6 3096/3/2002 CL 9:05 AM 3.5 2956/12/2002 CL 1:50 PM 3.8 3326/23/2002 CL 10:50 AM 3.3 2606/27/2002 CL 7:25 AM 3.5 2957/4/2002 CH 10:00 AM 3.4 2777/9/2002 CH 12:00 PM 3.3 2607/24/2002 CH 2:20 PM 3.0 2288/7/2002 CH 2:40 PM 3.0 2288/23/2002 CL 10:15 AM 3.0 2289/4/2002 CL 10:20 AM 3.3 2609/18/2002 CL 10:40 AM 2.8 19710/3/2002 CL 10:30 AM 2.8 19710/16/2002 CL 10:45 AM 2.6 18210/31/2002 CL 11:10 AM 2.6 18211/13/2002 CH 3:15 PM 3.1 24411/27/2002 CL 10:35 AM 2.8 19712/11/2002 CL 9:20 AM 2.6 18212/29/2002 CL 12:00 PM 3.8 3321/8/2003 CL 10:40 PM 3.4 2771/21/2003 CH 3:15 PM 3.2 2542/4/2003 CL 11:15AM 3.1 2362/21/2003 CL 10:10AM 3.1 2443/10/2003 CL 11:40AM 3.1 2443/19/2003 CL 10:50AM 3.1 2444/3/2003 CL 9:20AM 3.1 2444/16/2003 CL 1:56PM 3.4 277

Flow Calculations for a Capolletti Trapizoidal Wier corrected for velocity of approach (using the Rehbock Formula)

Table 2Blue Mountain Minerals

Flow Measurements at Vine Springs (2002-2011)Capolletti Trapizoidal Weir

P:\2000_prj\2526\2526Z Ag Fill Revision\Data\D 20120314 vine_sp_weir(NMS).xls T2 2002-2012 1 of 5



4/30/2003 CL 2:30PM 3.8 3325/14/2003 CL 12:56 PM 4.3 4115/27/2003 CL 10:13AM 4.9 5236/12/2003 CL 8:55AM 4.9 5236/24/2003 CL 6:58AM 4.1 3917/15/2003 CL 7:25 AM 2.6 1827/23/2003 CL 8:30AM 2.3 1427/30/2003 CL 9:39AM 3.5 2958/5/2003 CL 10:02 AM 3.6 3048/25/2003 CL 12:05PM 3.3 2609/8/2003 CH 9:10 AM 3.0 2289/17/2003 CL 9:35AM 3.1 24410/3/2003 CL 8:50am 2.9 21210/15/2003 CL 9:06am 2.9 21211/4/2003 CL 10:02am 3.0 22811/10/2003 CL 12:48pm 3.2 25211/26/2003 CL 1:05pm 3.5 29512/10/2003 TM 11:40AM 3.0 22812/31/2003 JN 12:00 PM 3.8 3321/8/2004 CL 9:10AM 3.8 3321/23/2004 CL 11:21AM 3.9 3552/9/2004 CL 1:47PM 4.1 3912/26/2004 CL 9:56am 4.3 4113/9/2004 CL 7:37am 3.8 3323/24/2004 CL 9.34am 3.8 3324/8/2004 CL 10:43am 3.8 3326/15/2004 CL 10:25AM 2.9 2126/30/2004 CL 10:00 AM 3.8 3327/16/2004 CL 7:52AM 2.9 2127/28/2004 TM 1:30PM 2.8 1978/13/2004 CL 9:25AM. 2.5 1688/30/2004 CL 10:22 AM 2.4 1559/8/2004 CL 8:45AM 2.4 1559/15/2004 CL 8:20 AM 2.2 1379/30/2004 CL 10:36AM 2.5 16810/22/2004 CL 1:50pm 2.8 19710/26/2004 CL 10:40AM 3.3 26011/9/2004 CL 9:45AM 3.1 24411/26/2004 CL 10:05AM 3.3 26012/10/2004 CL 11:00AM 3.3 26012/28/2004 CL 10:35AM 4.5 4551/11/2005 CL 11:05AM 4.3 4111/26/2005 CL 10:15AM 5.0 5472/8/2005 CL 9:30AM 4.5 4552/23/2005 CL 8:45AM 4.3 4113/9/2005 CL 8:30AM 4.1 3913/23/2005 CL 8:25AM 4.7 4844/6/2005 CL 8:58 AM 5.3 596




4/30/2005 CL 9:20 AM 5.4 6225/10/2005 CL 8:30 AM 5.3 6135/25/2005 CL 7:45 AM 5.3 6136/7/2005 CL 8:20 AM 5.3 5966/22/2005 CL 9:00 AM 4.9 5237/14/2005 CL 7:30 AM 4.4 4337/27/2005 CL 7:30 AM 4.1 3918/12/2005 CL 10:50 AM 3.9 3519/8/2005 cl 9:30 AM 3.6 3139/21/2005 cl 9:45 AM 3.1 24010/12/2005 cl 10:00 AM 3.1 24011/8/2005 cl 11:10 AM 3.3 26711/29/2005 cl 11:25 AM 3.3 26712/6/2005 cl 9:30 AM 3.4 2811/4/2006 cl 9:45 AM 4.3 4261/18/2006 cl 10:20 AM 4.5 4552/9/2006 cl 9:35 AM 4.3 4112/22/2006 cl 9:40 AM 4.3 4113/14/2006 cl 9:45 AM 5.3 5964/6/2006 tm 2:30pm 5.5 6485/10/2006 CL 11:00AM 4.3 4115/30/2006 CL 10:45 AM 3.9 3516/7/2006 cl 10:45am 4.3 4266/21/2006 cl 9:30 AM 4.0 3717/11/2006 cl 9:15am 4.0 3718/2/2006 cl 9:10 AM 3.8 3328/16/2006 cl 9:15 AM 3.9 3519/6/2006 cl 9:20 AM 3.9 3519/20/2006 cl 9:24 AM 3.8 33210/31/2006 Cl 1:50 PM 3.8 33211/9/2006 cl 9:15 AM 3.9 35111/29/2006 cl 10:48 AM 3.9 35112/9/2006 cl 10:15 AM 4.3 41112/27/2006 cl 12:25 PM 4.5 4551/10/2007 cl 9:45 AM 4.3 4111/31/2007 Cl 1:40 PM 3.9 3512/7/2007 CL 11:45 AM 3.9 3512/22/2007 CL 1:50 PM 4.3 4113/12/2007 cl 10:50 AM 4.5 4554/11/2007 CL 12:20 PM 4.8 5004/22/2007 cl 1:30 PM 4.5 4555/17/2007 cl 12:45 PM 4.5 4555/22/2007 CL 11:20 AM 3.6 3136/7/2007 cl 10:35 AM 3.5 2956/28/2007 CL 8:42 AM 3.5 2957/31/2007 cl 2:35pm 3.3 2608/10/2007 cl 11:00 AM 3.0 2288/21/2007 cl 9:40 AM 2.8 197




10/31/2007 BK 1:33 PM 3.0 22811/13/2007 BK 11:11AM 3.0 22812/2/2007 BK 10:00 AM 3.0 22812/22/2007 BK 10:30 AM 3.0 22812/30/2007 BK 11:00 AM 3.0 2281/5/2008 BK 1:00 PM 3.0 2281/18/2008 BK 11:40 AM 3.8 3321/31/2008 BK 10:00 AM 3.8 3322/9/2008 BK 5:10 PM 3.2 2542/20/2008 BK 11:06 AM 5.1 5702/29/2008 BK 12:30 PM 5.0 5473/18/2008 BK 10:30 AM 3.5 2953/25/2008 BK 9:35 AM 4.3 4113/30/2008 BK 2:00 PM 4.0 3714/1/2008 BK 9:15 AM 4.5 4554/20/2008 BK 2:34 PM 4.0 3714/30/2008 BK 6:15 PM 3.5 2955/18/2008 BK 8:00 PM 3.5 2955/30/2008 TM 2:45 PM 4.0 3716/5/2008 JD 2:46 PM 3.5 2956/23/2008 JD 12:52PM 3.5 2957/7/2008 JD 12:21PM 3.5 2957/22/2008 JD 12:02PM 3.3 2608/4/2008 JD 12:42PM 3.3 2608/15/2008 JD 8:06AM 3.3 2608/27/2008 JD 7:50AM 3.0 2289/9/2008 JD 8:13AM 2.8 1979/24/2008 JD 8:59AM 2.8 19710/10/2008 JD 9:12AM 2.3 14210/23/2008 JD 8:27AM 2.5 16811/7/2008 JD 10:32AM 2.5 16811/19/2008 JD 10:12AM 2.5 16812/4/2008 JD 8:28AM 2.5 16812/17/2008 JD 9:03AM 2.8 1971/8/2009 JD 12:48PM 3.0 2281/20/2009 JD 9:13AM 3.0 2282/3/2009 JD 7:38AM 3.0 2282/12/2009 JD 9:35AM 3.3 2602/26/2009 JD 9:25AM 3.5 2953/12/2009 JD 8:21AM 4.0 3713/25/2009 JD 8:36AM 3.5 2954/2/2009 JD 8:48AM 3.3 2604/20/2009 JD 9:19AM 3.0 2285/1/2009 JD 8:02AM 4.0 3715/19/2009 TM 10:15AM 3.7 3246/9/2009 JD 9:15AM 3.5 2956/23/2009 JD 8:10AM 3.3 2607/2/2009 JD 8:27AM 3.0 228




7/16/2009 JD 8:20AM 3.0 2287/29/2009 JD 7:52AM 3.0 2288/13/2009 JD 8:39AM 2.8 1978/25/2009 JD 8:38AM 2.8 1979/8/2009 JD 8:53AM 2.3 1429/23/2009 JD 8:23AM 2.3 14210/6/2009 JD 8:47AM 2.5 16810/23/2009 JD 8:14AM 2.5 16811/5/2009 JD 9:37AM 2.5 16811/19/2009 JD 9:30AM 2.5 16812/3/2009 JD 9:06AM 2.3 14212/17/2009 JD 8:44AM 2.8 19712/31/2009 JD 7:49AM 3.3 2601/14/2010 JD 8:47AM 3.3 2601/28/2010 JD 8:30AM 4.0 3712/11/2010 JD 8:38AM 4.0 3712/26/2010 JD 1:59PM 4.0 3713/11/2010 JD 9:47AM 4.5 4553/25/2010 JD 8:23AM 4.5 4554/8/2010 JD 8:28AM 4.5 4554/22/2010 JD 8:39AM 4.8 5005/5/2010 JD 8:59AM 4.5 4555/19/2010 JD 8:10AM 4.3 4116/7/2010 JD 8:49AM 4.0 3716/18/2010 JD 11:27AM 3.8 3327/1/2010 JD 8:07AM 3.8 3327/15/2010 JD 7:58AM 3.5 2957/29/2010 JD 8:33AM 3.5 2958/11/2010 JD 9:22AM 3.5 2958/26/2010 JD 8:02AM 3.5 2959/9/2010 JD 8:01AM 3.5 2959/23/2010 JD 7:58AM 3.3 26010/7/2010 JD 8:38AM 3.0 22810/21/2010 JD 7:43AM 3.0 22811/4/2010 JD 9:03AM 2.8 19711/18/2010 JD 9:12AM 3.0 22812/2/2010 JD 10:23AM 3.3 26012/15/2010 JD 12:21PM 3.5 29512/30/2010 JD 9:53AM 5.0 5471/13/2011 5.0 5471/27/2011 JD 7:46AM 5.3 5962/9/2011 JD 8:33AM 5.3 5962/23/2011 JD 9:30AM 5.0 5473/10/2011 JD 8:25AM 5.3 596


Table 3Tons of Material Placed in Agricultural Fill

Year Tons of fill Cummulative tons2000 158,417 158,4172001 92,055 250,4722002 335,070 585,5422003 192,695 778,2372004 150,705 928,9422005 115,090 1,044,0322006 351,360 1,395,3922007 212,170 1,607,5622008 206,925 1,814,4872009 220,860 2,035,3472010 240,570 2,275,9172011 372,380 2,648,297

P:\2000_prj\2526\2526Z Ag Fill Expansion\Data\D_20120314 vine_sp_weir(NMS).xls T3 Ag-fill

PHOTOS

Agricultural Fill Area Page 1

Photo 1: Looking north to Lord Spring from final reclaimed Agricultural Fill Area slope.

Agricultural Fill Area Page 2

Photo 2: Panorama of Agricultural Fill Area looking east. Hillside of proposed revision area to the left, with Agricultural Fill Area in foreground. Note internal drainage. Vine Spring is to the right of the photo.

Vine Spring Page 3

Photo 3: Culverts under road to Vine Spring (2' and 3' diameter) carry runofffrom proposed revised Agricultural Fill Area slopes.

Photo 4: Vine Spring comes to surface in wooded area.

Photo 5: Weir below Vine Spring measured at 600 gpm.

Lord Spring Page 4

Photo 6: Lord Spring Basin Photo 7: Lord Spring Flow estimated at approximately 100 gpm in January2011.

Photo 8: Lord Spring pipeline and water tank.

appendix e groundwater recharge and surface water

Documents