Laserfiche WebLink
undisturbed sites had water level increases of one to two feet. <br />The GF7 response is considered a natural response to increased <br />recharge to the backfill aquifer. <br />Wells GF6 and GF11 are completed in the QR aquifer and "QR" <br />backfill, respectively. They are located downgradient and in the <br />backfill of the inactive E pit. GF11 is 1150" upslope and <br />upgradient of GF6. Both wells reversed former declining trends <br />beginning sharp water level increases in early 1993 (Figures A-19 <br />and A-21). GF6 ended the year with a 13.1 ft. increase and GF11 <br />with a 28.1 ft. increase. The backfill area here is at a higher <br />elevation than the QR aquifer and may receive more snowfall, <br />therefore a stronger recharge in the spring. The GF6 response is <br />likely dampened by having lower transmissivities than the backfill. <br />A new haul road upslope and upgradient of these wells may have <br />concentrated recharge in this area through damming or channeling <br />runoff, increasing infiltration into the backfill. <br />The GP1 and GP2 wells (Figures A-22 and A-23) are located in <br />an undisturbed area near the eastern boundary of the PA. They <br />provide a natural baseline for the QR and KLM aquifers. The water <br />levels have been relatively steady during 1993 with GP1 ending up <br />one foot from 1992 and GP2 with no change. <br />GP3 and GP4 are less than 1000" downgradient from A pit. Both <br />are flowing wells, completed in the HI and KLM aquifers, <br />respectively. Figures A-24 and A-25 show similar responses from <br />1985 through 1993. Water levels in both wells fluctuated over a <br />five to ten foot range in 1993. Well GP3 shows a year-end decline <br />2-8 <br />