Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• 1) also declined significanty in 2000, which should be natural even though mining in the HI <br />aquifer exists nearby downgradient of this well. <br />Water-level increases in well GMP-1 are mainly due to the movement of Pit A to <br />the east of this area. The gradual water-level declines in well GD-3 in 2000 are due to less <br />recharge in the last three years when compared to the previous three years. Wells GB-1 <br />and GB-2 had increases in water level, probably due predominately to mine activities. <br />Mining is moving farther away from these wells with time. The water levels in KLM well <br />GP-2 have significantly decreased over the last two years, which may be due to mining. <br />Water-level changes are discussed in more detail in the following section. <br />2.1.Z WATER-LEVEL CHANGES <br />Water-level changes for 2000, as well as ali historical data; are presented in <br />Fgures A-1 through A-16 in Appendix A. The wells are grouped acrnrding to aquifer <br />where possible but, in most cases, are grouped by similar water-level elevations. Table A- <br />1 presents a tabulation of the water-level elevations for each of the monitoring wells. <br />Figure 2-1 presents the total annual precipitation at the Trapper Mine from 1978 through <br />2000. Precipitation declined from a high in 1983 to a low in 1988 and had increased again <br />to a peak in 1993 with a below average value in 1994. The years 1995 through 1997 had <br />above average precipitation relative to the Trapper Mine record, while 1998 through 2000 <br />were slightly below. Water levels in many of the wells reflect the natural variations in <br />recharge. These changes may lag the actual precipitation events due to the time it takes <br />the head change to move through the aquifer to the monitoring well. <br />• <br />2-3 <br />