Laserfiche WebLink
since these wells are downgradient of the mining. The water-levels • <br />in this area have be~sn fairly steady the last three ,years. Water <br />levels in these two' wells may have fully recovered or may have <br />r_eased recovery due 'to the below normal precipitation. <br />i <br />The water levels in the three GE wells stabilized in 1990. <br />which is thought to ~oe due to the length of time since dewatering <br />stopped at the .ad.iacent underground operation. It may also be <br />partly attributed to lower recharge rates and%or the mine <br />dewatering that started in C pit (1988) and B pit (December, 1989). <br />Water levels in the backfill areas are depressed and are not <br />likely to ever recover to pre-mine levels. Map Z-1 shows that the <br />levels in the backfill and downgradient aquifers are close. Well <br />pairs GD3-GD2 and GF11-GF6 present water levels that are very close <br />in water-level elev;stion for the backfill and downgradient 9R <br />aquifer well. Minine: is significantly increasing the permeability <br />of the mined aquifers which is a benefit relative to potential <br />yields from the aquifer. The increased permeability will likely <br />not allow water levels to recover to pre-mine levels in the <br />reclaimed pits except. near the northern (down-dip) end of the mined <br />area, where levels will be above their pre-mine level. Water <br />levels in the native ,squifer downgradient of the mining will likely <br />stabilize above thei:^ pre-mine levels. <br />The r_onductivity of water in backfill wells GD3, GF5 and GF11 <br />are fairly similar to those of the native aquifers in these areas. <br />Conductivity for GF5 is approximately 1.5 times the pre-mine value. <br />Conductivity for backfill well GF7 is much higher than the • <br />i g_~ <br />