Laserfiche WebLink
all of the sites. The Pyeatt aquifer system was selected for this purpose. Section 2.7.7.3 presents the <br />aquifer information on this site. The piezometric surfaces in Map M32 indicate that the shallow aquifer <br />system in Pyeatt obtains a significant amount of groundwater from the Second White Sandstone (SS <br />above G) while the Third White Sandstone (SS below G) is restricted from yielding a large amount of <br />water to this system. The heads in the Third White Sandstone are estimated to be significantly below the <br />Pyeatt shallow system in the area of wells P4 and P5 (see Map M32). A width of approximately 1700 feet <br />of the Second White sandstone could yield 33 gpm; the flow measured in the Pyeatt aquifer system near <br />well P-1. The Second White Sandstone is thought to contribute the majority of the water in the Pyeatt <br />system. <br />In September, 1985 Trapper initiated a study to identify the possible alluvial valley system in Flume <br />Gulch. In cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, a soils map and soil description was <br />completed. Appendix H, Part II, presents the preliminary results of the work. Through the use of test pits, <br />depth to water was found to be at least 66 inches. None of the soils within the potential AVF qualify as <br />prime farmland. Further, the alluvial potential of the Flume Gulch does not meet the criteria of an AVF as <br />defined in the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. In no case will Trapper actually mine <br />through the suspect area; rather mining will occur a considerable distance upstream of this location. <br />Based on these facts, Trapper contends the impact mining would have on the potential AVF if it exists <br />within the Flume Gulch drainage system is minimal and no additional study or reporting requirements are <br />necessary. <br />A preceding section titled "Post-mine Surface Water Quality" describes possible discharges of water from <br />the toe areas of the Horse Gulch and Buttress fills. Based on that description, these discharges are not <br />expected to be large enough to significantly degrade alluvial ground water downstream from the fills. <br />4-238k <br />PRb <br />g121(CR