Laserfiche WebLink
Springs #22-24 : Wet Canyon (Tables 14, 15, 16) . Springs in <br /> Wet Canyon were identified by sandstone outcrop areas in the stream <br /> bank. Flow ranged from 2 gpm at #23 to no flow at #24. Conduc- <br /> tivity and pH compared closely at springs # Is 22 and 23 . The flow <br /> and water quality at spring #22 measured during the 1989 Survey was <br /> a result of surface water runoff flow as indicated by the different <br /> water quality. <br /> Springs #26 and #27: Pratt Canyon (Tables 17 and 18) . <br /> Springs in the canyon originate from the interface of shale and <br /> sandstone. Flow ranged from 2 to 3 gpm with pH and conductivity <br /> measured at 8. 1 to 8.2 and 381 to 589, respectively. Both springs <br /> were dry during the 1989 Survey. <br /> Spring #28: Sawmill Canyon (Table 19) . One spring was <br /> identified in Sawmill Canyon originating from a shale outcrop. <br /> Flow was less than one gpm with pH of 7 .7 and conductivity of 563 . <br /> The spring was dry during the 1989 Survey. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> With the exception of Santistevan and Wet Canyons, water <br /> encountered during the spring and seep survey is the result of <br /> seepage contributing little, if any, to sustained surface flow. Of <br /> the 18 spring monitoring points, 12 were found to be dry during the <br /> 1989 Survey. Water originates from the interfaces of shales, <br /> sandstones and minor coal seams not proposed to be mined by WFC. <br /> Analysis of the water indicates a mineralized condition with <br /> varying quality and quantity, responding directly to amounts of <br /> precipitation received in the drainage. Currently, uses of the <br /> water are for livestock and wildlife with no irrigation or domestic <br /> supply. <br /> -80- <br />