Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />LJ <br />' early 1986. The GD2 water levels in the last three years have <br />fluctuated but generally been fairl.v steady. This decline in water <br />i levels since 1986 is thought to mainly reflect i;he lower rates of <br />recharge due to the reduced precipitation amounts since 1986. Some <br />of the past rise r_ould have been caused by increased ground water <br />flowinz downt=radient due to the minim and. ther=fore. some of the <br />recent decline in water level could be the result of levels <br />returning to pre-mine conditions. The fL.ictuations in water levels <br />for well GD2 are thought to be mainl,v from n.stural changes in the <br />9R system. <br />Well GD3 was installed in the D pit backfill material <br />upgradient of well GD2 during ,July 1988. Figure A-10 plots the <br />• water-level data collected for well GD3. The overall decline in <br />water levels in the backfill material near well GD3 indicate this <br />aquifer is sensitive to the average decline in prer_ipitation. <br />Figures A-11. A-12 and A-1.3 present the water-level changes in <br />the 9R. HI, and Third and Second White S~sndstone aquifers, <br />respectively, at the GE site. Water levels in the OR and HI <br />aquifers have shown little change in 199'? with a gradual decline. <br />Water levels ir. well GE3 show a gradual decline in 1992. <br />Water-level rises have been much less in the Third and Second White <br />Ssndstones and grester in the ~,R acuifer in this area. Mining has <br />occurred within 2~GL~ feet of these wells in an ad.iar_ent underground <br />permit, while the rlos5s± rr.ining in Tr~pFer"s B and C pits is <br />apnreximately ZL7470 feet away. The ma.iority of the historical <br />• drawdowns observed at these wells was probably not due to Trapper <br />~_., <br />