Laserfiche WebLink
since these wells are downgradient of the mining. The water-levels <br />in this area have beaen fairly steady the last three years. Water <br />levels in these two wells may have fully recovered or may have <br />i <br />ceased recovery due to the below normal precipitation. <br />The water levels in the three GE wells :stabilized in 1990, <br />which is thought to be due to the length of time since dewatering <br />stopped at the adjacent underground operation. It may also be <br />partly attributed to lower recharge rates and/or the mine <br />dewatering that started in C pit (1988) and B p'.t (December, 1989). <br />Water levels in the backfill areas are depressed and are not <br />likely to ever recover to pre-mine levels. Ma~~ 2-1 shows that the <br />levels in the backfill and downgradient aquifers are close. Well <br />pairs GD3-GD2 and GF11-GF6 present water levels that are very close <br />in water-level elevation for the backfill and downgradient 9R <br />aquifer well. Mining is significantly increasing the permeability <br />of the mined aquifers which is a benefit re7.ative to potential <br />yields from the aquifer. The increased permeability will likely <br />not allow water levels to recover to pre-mine levels in the <br />reclaimed pits except near the northern (down-dip) end of the mined <br />area, where levels will be above their pre-:nine level. Water i <br />levels in the native aquifer downgradient of th~~ mining will likely <br />stabilize above their pre-mine levels. <br />The conductivity of water in backfill wel:.s GD3. GF5 and GF11 <br />are fairly similar to those of the native aquii'.ers in these areas. <br />Conductivity for GF5 is approximately 1.5 times the pre-mine value. I <br />Conductivity for backfill well GF7 is muc'z higher than the <br />6-2 <br />