Laserfiche WebLink
the HI aquifer. The H and I coal seams and sandstone between these two coals have: been • <br />termed the HI aquifer and has been mined in the A, B, and C pits, currently only thE: A pit <br />mines the H and I coal seams. The 3rd White Sandstone (G coal and sandstone below) <br />and 2nd White Sandstone (F coal and sandstone below) are monitored at seven locations. <br />H pit currently mines the G coal seam. The Lewis Shale is monitored at one location. The <br />Johnson and Pyeatt Gulch alluvial aquifers are monitored at one site in each of these <br />drainages while the Flume Gulch alluvium is monitored at two locations. The 1995 <br />hydrologic monitoring report, Hydro-Engineering (1996), presents the discussion of the <br />monitoring results through 1995. The table on the tan pull-out index provides basic well <br />data for all wells monitored in 1996. <br />Spoil springs with flows greater than 5 gpm are required to be monitored to further <br />define the ground-water quality. Only the flows from the East Pyeatt spring and the • <br />Johnson Gulch spoil spring were greater than 5 gpm during 1996. <br />Table 1-1 (page 1-3) presents the pit and well dewatering data and volume of <br />water used for dust depression for Trapper Mine for 1996. This data shows that, on an <br />average, approximately 52 and 23 gpm were pumped from the Trapper Mine pits and <br />dewatering wells, respectively. The average pit pumping rates were 27.5, 19.3 and 5.5 gpm <br />for the D, A and H pits, respectively. This data is useful in interpreting water-level changes <br />and consumptive use. <br />Surface-water flow and quality were monitored at the Flume (S-1 ), West Buzzard, <br />Johnson, No Name, Ute, Grouse, Coyote, Elk and East, West and Middle Pyeatt drainages <br />during 1996. Discharge through the Coyote and East Pyeatt drainages was from springs, <br />except for approximately one and three months discharge from Coyote Dam and East <br />1-2 l <br />