Laserfiche WebLink
of all types, including some old tailings. All of these materials have some metal sulfide minerals which were not <br />extracted by the old mines. <br />MONITORINGr-' <br />WELL M ITORIrG WELL �, a• <br />GWA GW -2 <br />J Permit Area 34.19 acres <br />Figure 3: Map of Groundwater Well Locations <br />Chapter 5 - Data Comparison <br />Shallow and Deep Well Samples <br />An analysis was conducted to determine whether the water sampled from shallow and deep locations within each <br />well were similar enough to take a representative average for each well. This analysis concluded that the shallow <br />and deep well samples are, in fact, not similar enough for a representative average. The relative percent difference <br />between the two well samples for each well was, on average, around 46 %. This indicates that almost half of the <br />parameters tested were significantly different between the shallow and deep well samples. This can be explained <br />by the fact that the upper water zone could have more influence from the old waste rock or other materials that <br />were left by the old mine over 100 years ago. There is also some similarity between the shallow and deep well <br />samples. The data used in this analysis along with the corresponding relative percent difference calculations can <br />be found in Appendix B. <br />Well Water and Surface Water Data <br />An analysis was conducted to determine whether the waters sampled from the shallow and deep locations within <br />each well were similar to the nearest surface water. The purpose of this analysis was to conclude whether surface <br />water was impacting any of the wells, and also whether there was a trend between a certain depth of well and <br />surface water. Each well sample result was compared with the geographically closest surface water sample result. <br />The surface water and well water samples were taken within 24 hours of each other to insure the data is <br />comparable. The relative percent difference for each well and its corresponding surface water sample was <br />calculated. For the June sample date, the average relative percent differences ranged from 51% to 98 %. A similar <br />result was found for the July sampling period with relative percent differences ranging from 40% to 71 %. This <br />indicates that the well samples were significantly independent of the surface water samples. This means that the <br />well samples were likely measuring true groundwater that was seeping through the old piles and not the nearby <br />4 <br />