Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit Page 27-D <br />Table G-4. Water Balance Calculations for Evaporation from Line Camo Pit <br />Year Max open water <br />surface and historic <br />consum five use74 Max water loss <br />(based on 55 iNyr) Additional acres wlo <br />irrigation and historic <br />consumptive use Balance Notes <br />All 5.9 A-R 6.50 A/10.34 A-ft -4.44 O eratin loss <br />1 0.72 A11.14 A-ft 3.3 A-ft 6.50 A/10.34 A-ft -1.14 2.45 of 6.50 A <br />2 1.06 A/1.69 A-ft 4.86 A-ft +7.39 A/11.75 A-ft -11.33 Add 7.39 A <br />3 2.05 A/3.26 A-ft 9.4 A-ft +1.95 A/3.1 A-ft -9.89 Add 1.95 A <br />4 2.05 A/3.26 A-ft 9.4 A-ft -9.89 <br />5 4.38 A/6.96 A-ft 20.08 A-ft +0.61 A/0.97 A-ft -0.18 Add 0.61 <br />6 11A/17.41 A-ft 50.19 A-ft 35.7 A/56.76 A-ft -23.98 <br />Note: "Year 6" is the reclaimed state, with three ponds and no irrigation except of newly reclaimed areas. <br />8. Prohibited actions necessary to protect water systems: <br />None known at this time, other than compliance with best management practices, which forbid the discharge of <br />heavily sediment-laden waters and implementation of spill control and countermeasures actions to prevent <br />discharge of a spilled substance. The riverside buffer zone (outside the permit boundary) is established for a variety <br />of reasons, including protection of possible small wetlands areas, preservation of an uninterupted floodway and <br />floodplain, and prevention of downstream water degradation due to sedimentation. Use of the drainage pipe and a <br />catch basin or other structure which can be closed allows for positive control of discharges, and therefore a <br />reasonable opportunity to inspect and prevent discharge of any materials which might have an adverse impact on <br />water systems. The mining is planned to prevent negative impacts on ground and surface water and to make <br />maximum use of existing water resouroes in accordance with state water law. <br />9. Wetlands information: <br />US Department of Interior, National Wetlands Inventory Map, Boggy Draw Quadrangle, 1998, identifies only two <br />wetlands within 500 feet of the proposed permit boundary and none within the permit area. The two identified are on <br />the banks of the river and are classified as "Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily flooded. <br />No impact is anticipated. Because these wetlands are associated directly with the river, rather than with <br />groundwater, it is anticipated that any drawdown of groundwater would have no reasonable potential to adversely <br />impact vegetation in these areas, particularly given the seasonal nature of the drawdown. <br />10. Floodplain information: <br />The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)15 for the area shows the 100-year floodplain and base flood elevations (BFE) <br />for the area of the pit.~s This infornation is shown on Map F-2. Part of the Line Camp Pit is proposed to be located <br />in the 100-year floodplain. However, no part of the operation is planned to be located within the floodway, that is, the <br />path in which floodwaters are generally moving. Although the floodway has not been delineated, the pit is clearly in <br />a backwater and not within the present floodway, based on vegetation, soil types, and geometry. A portion of the <br />field proposed for use for the pit provides back-water storage for floodwaters. The pit would actually excavate large <br />volumes of earth below the base flood elevation, thus increasing the storage capacity of the 100-year floodplain at <br />that point along the river, and thus reducing the impact of floodwaters downstream by reducing the amount of water <br />available, both during mining and after reclamation. To prevent "pit capture" (among other reasons), the pit is <br />proposed to be located no closer than 200 feet from the river at the nearest point, and a greater distance for most of <br />the length of the pit. The construction of vegetated stockpile berms along the pit side closest to the river will also <br />further reduce the ability of the river to change its curent channel, which at this point is relatively straight and along <br />the east side of the valley. Because of the curent channel configuration, there is a greater chance of stream course <br />14 Based on 1.59 acre-feet per acre. <br />15 Prepared by Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Administration <br />16 This data was confirmed by a USACE map furnished by a neighbor as part of a comment fetter. <br />Four States Aggregates, LLC 15 MAR 2001 <br />Application for Permit: Line Camp Pit M-2001-001 FSA-LCP-D2-001 _ <br />