Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and S00 feet respectively were used to obtain an estimate of 33 gpm for the <br />flow in the Pyeatt system near well P-1. The hydraulic gradients for [he <br />systems would be close to the stream gradients. Flow in the Second White <br />Sandstone aquifer is estimated to be 0.02 gpm/ft of width in the area of <br />wells P-4, P-5 and P-6. A transmissivity of 700 gpd/ft and a gradient of <br />0.04 ft/ft were used to obtain this estimate. This shows that approximately <br />1700 feet of the Second [White Sandstone would have to discharge to the Pyeatt <br />aquifer system to equal the quantity of water flowing in the fill near well <br />P-1. <br />The above discussion has shown that the geologic structure controls the <br />ground-water flow from the Upper Williams Fork aquifers in the area of the <br />potential Pyeatt AVF site. The same structure exists in the Johnson and No <br />Name Gulches (see Map M34) and would control discharge from the Upper Williams <br />Fork aquifers to these potential AVF sites. The steep gradient of the struc- <br />~ ture enables only Upper Williams Fork units which crop out just south of the <br />potential AVF sites to be available for discharge to the fill. Mining occurs <br />south of these outcrop areas, as in Pyeatt Gulch, and therefore mining should <br />not influence the ground-water balance of these systems. Wells were not <br />drilled in these two sites for this reason. <br />In summary, the hydrologic data show that the fill areas in Johnson, Pyeatt <br />and Flume Gulches are potential alluvial valley floors. An evaluation of the <br />~-~-~ <br />economic significance of these sites has not been attempted. Alternatively, <br />the potential to substantively affect Chese potential AVF's as a result of .,.. <br />mining activities is evaluated in Section 4.8.4 of this application. <br />2-576 <br />