Laserfiche WebLink
the alluvial aquifers would be expected to be large in this surficial aquifer and may have not been <br />defined at the Trapper site. <br />Sulfate concentrations in well GF -4 were fairly steady in 2017 while the sulfate <br />concentrations in well GD -3 overall were fairly steady in the last six years. Sulfate concentrations in <br />well P-8 overall have been at similar levels for the last several years. Concentrations have overall <br />been steady in well GF -11 for the last eleven years after declining from a peak. Sulfate <br />concentrations have overall increased during 2006 through 2017 in well GMP -1. Sulfate <br />concentrations in well GF -7 were variable but overall gradually declined for the last several years to <br />a level less than its maximum level in the early 1990's. Sulfate in wells GD -3, GF -7, GMP -1, GF - <br />11 and P-8 have likely been affected by mining while the remainder of the increases could be from <br />natural variation, mining 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 2017 radium 226 concentrations have been small which <br />shows that the higher value from well GF -6 in 2016 was a laboratory outlier. The variations in <br />radium 226 concentrations are thought to be natural. <br />6.2 SURFACE WATER <br />Trapper Mining Company 6-5 <br />2017 Annual Report <br />