Laserfiche WebLink
aquifers would be expected to be large in this surficial aquifer and may have not been defined at the <br />Trapper site. <br />Sulfate concentrations in well GF4 were fairly steady in 2016 while the sulfate <br />concentrations in well GD -3 overall were fairly steady in the last five years. Sulfate concentrations <br />in well P-8 overall been at similar levels for the last several years. Concentrations have overall been <br />steady in well GF -11 for the last ten years after declining from a peak. Sulfate concentrations have <br />overall increased during 2006 through 2016 in well GMP -1. Sulfate concentrations in well GF -7 <br />were variable but overall gradually declined for the last several years to a level less than its <br />maximum level in the early 1990's. Sulfate in wells GD -3, GF -7, GMP -1, GF -11 and P-8 have likely <br />been affected by mining while the remainder of the increases could be from natural variation, mining <br />or a combination of both. <br />The pH values for all of the Trapper wells are within the range of natural values for these <br />aquifers. The pH values for the four backfill wells are within the range observed in the other <br />aquifers. <br />High SAR values are naturally common in the Trapper ground water. Mining does not seem <br />to have affected the SAR values at this site. Sodium values at well GF -7 have varied significantly <br />but, overall, have been fairly steady over the last few years. <br />The minor constituent variations have been erratic. No changes in these constituents are <br />thought to be attributed to mining. The 2016 radium 226 concentrations have been small, except for <br />a higher value from well GF -6 in 2016 which is thought to be a laboratory outlier. The variations in <br />radium 226 concentrations are thought to be natural. <br />Trapper Mining Company 6-5 <br />2016 Annual Report <br />