Laserfiche WebLink
average precipitation. 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 />for the water to flow through the aquifer to the monitoring well. <br />Figure A-1 presents the water-level elevations for wells GA-1 and GA-2. Well GA- <br />1 has shown a decline of water levels in 1996 with the water level approaching the bottom <br />of the well. It is likely that mining in the Pit 0 has affected water levels in these two vvells. <br />Wells GP-1, GP-5 and GP-6 are useful in defining natural variations in the QR aquifr:r for <br />1996. Water levels in each of these three wells show a rising trend for the last two years. <br />Wells GP-2 and GP-8 are used as a baseline for precipitation/recharge impacts on the KLM <br />aquifer in 1996 and showed steady water-level elevations in 1996. Well GA-2 I.KLM <br />aquifer) is adjacent to GA-1 and went dry in 1994 and remained dry throughout 1995 and <br />1996. <br />Figure A-2 presents water levels versus time for wells GB-1, GB-5, GF-5 and P-5. <br />The wells are completed in the KLM, HI, HI backfill and 2nd White Sandstone aquifers, <br />respectively. Figure A-2 shows steady increases in water levels for GB-1 since air-lift <br />production ceased in 1993. Recovery in this well may still be from the earlier air-lift <br />production. Water levels have slightly increased in wells GB-5 and GF-5 in the last few <br />years. HI wells GC-1 and GP-7 should show natural variations in this aquifer for 1996 and <br />their water levels have been fairly steady for 1996. Water-level elevations in well P-5 have <br />been fairly steady for the last couple of years except for a decline observed during the last <br />half of 1996. Water levels continue to rise in well GB-2, probably in response to recovery <br />at its location downgradient of a reclaimed pit (see Figure A-3). <br />'~ <br />2-4 <br />