Laserfiche WebLink
questionable low value. Water levels at the Coy well gradually rose in the second half of <br />2002. The unconfined alluvial aquifer responds gradually to recharge changes. <br />Wells GF-6 and GF-il are completed in the QR aquifer and QR backfill, <br />respectively. Backfill well GF-11 is located on the downgradient side of the inactive E pit, <br />while well GF-6 is located downgradient of the pit. GF-il is 1150 feet upslope and <br />upgradient of GF-6. An overall small decline was observed in well GF-6 for 2002 while <br />steady levels were observed in well GF-11 (see Figure A-10}. The head in well GF-li is <br />greater than 17 feet above the head in well GF6. The water levels in the backfill aquifer <br />may be near the fully recovered (eves from mining. <br />The GP-1 and GP-2 wells (Figures A-11 and A-12) are located in a previously <br />undisturbed area near the eastern boundary of the PA. Well GP-1 provided a natural <br />' baseline for the QR aquifer until mine drainage started in the G pit. The water levels in <br />well GP-1 decreased in 2002 due to mine dewatering and possibly due to less recharge. <br />Water levels rose in well GP-2 in 2002. The decreases in wells GP-1 and GP-2 prior to <br />2001 were very similar. <br />Figure A-11 also presents water levels for GP-7 and GP-8, which are located very <br />near the eastern boundary of the PA. They are completed in the KLM and HI aquifers and <br />may provide undisturbed baseline data for these intervals but could be influenced by <br />mining for the last couple of years. Water levels in well GP-7 gradually declined in 2002 <br />while a larger decline was observed in well GP-8 for the last two years. Both of these <br />wells are thought to be showing natural responses but could be influenced by the mining <br />that is approximately 2500 feet away. The larger decline in well GP-8 indicates mining <br />may be causing some of this decline. <br />2-7 <br />