Laserfiche WebLink
• these areas. Conductivity for GF5 is approximately 1.5 times the <br />pre-mine value. Conductivity for backfill well GF7 is much higher <br />than the naturally observed concentrations and will probably be <br />higher for several years before returning to pre-mine <br />concentrations. Major constituent concentration in water in this <br />well may be starting to gradually decline. The water quality in QR <br />wells GD2 and GF6 has been only slightly affected by the upgradient <br />mining. The conductivity concentrations for QR well GAl also <br />indicate that mining has not significantly influenced water quality <br />in this aquifer in this area. The last three years of conductivity <br />values for well GE1 indicate the well may be stabilizing from an <br />increasing trend. These increases are within natural variations <br />• and probably not caused by mining. Continued monitoring will <br />define whether a long term trend exists. The remainder of the QR <br />wells are located east of present mining activities and could not <br />have been affected. <br />The water quality in the four HI aquifer wells, GBS, GE2, GF4, <br />and GP3, which are close to active mining, have not been influenced <br />by the mining. The remainder of the HI wells east of the areas <br />mined have not been affected. <br />The conductivity plot of the 3rd White Sandstone well GB2 <br />indicates it has probably been affected by mining, but the change <br />is within natural variations for this aquifer. Mining could have <br />caused concentrations to vary in 3rd White Sandstone well GE3 but <br />the variations observed are also within natural variation. The 3rd <br />• White Sandstone wells GC2 and GP9 are east of the mining and, <br />6-3 <br />