Laserfiche WebLink
concentrations from QR well GA1 also indicate that mining has not <br />• influenced the water quality in the aquifer in this area. The last <br />two years of conductivity. values from well GH1 indicates an <br />increasing trend has started. These increases are within natural <br />variations and likely not caused by mining. Future monitoring will <br />define whether a long term trend has started. The remainder of the <br />QR wells are located east of the present mining activities and <br />could not have been affected. <br />The water quality in the four HI aquifer wells, GBS, GH2, GF4 <br />and GP3 which are close to but have not been influenced by mining. <br />The remainder of the HI wells east of the areas mined have not been <br />affected by mining either. <br />The conductivity plot at Third White Sandstone well GB2 have <br />• probably been affected by mining, but the change is within natural <br />variations in this aquifer. Mining could have caused <br />concentrations to vary in Third White Sandstone well GH3 but the <br />variations observed are within the natural variation. Third White <br />Sandstone wells GC2, P8 and P9 are east of the mining and observed <br />changes in water quality in these wells has to be natural. The <br />increase in conductivity in well GC2 is a natural increase in the <br />concentrations in this well. <br />Significant changes in conductivity concentrations have been <br />observed in the alluvial wells GC3, P1, J1 and Coy. The changes in <br />the Flume alluvial wells has to be natural, while some of the <br />changes in J1 water could be due to mining. The conductivity of <br />water.:-from alluvial well J1 'was :low and' steady in 1990. The <br />• changes in Pyeatt alluvial well P1 are thought to be natural <br />because they are similar to those observed prior to mining in this <br />6-3 <br />