Laserfiche WebLink
• recovered with the recovery of levels in Pit C. The large lag in <br />recovery indicates that a different stress on the aquifer caused a <br />large portion of the drawdowns. <br />Water levels in the GF wells are tabulated in Tables A-4 and A-5 <br />of Appendix A. Only a very few measurements are ,available for wells <br />GF1 through GF4. Wells GF1 and GF3 are flowing wells while the casing <br />on well GF2 was recently extended so it is no longer a flowing well. <br />Well GF4 was recently constructed. The two measurements for well GF2 <br />and the three measurements for GF4 indicate that 'the water levels in <br />the aquifer at well GF2 in this area are rising and the water level in <br />the aquifer at well GF4 is declining. <br />Figure A-12 shows that the water level in backfill well GF5 has <br />steadily risen since its installation. Water levels in well GF6 rose <br />similar to those of QR well GA1 until late 1983 and since have only <br />very gradually risen. The same factor which cau:>ed the water level <br />rises in well GA1 probably caused the rises in well GF6. <br />Figures A-14 and A-15 present the water leve:L changes for wells <br />GZ2 (U aquifer) and GZ3 (QR aquifer). Water lEavels have steadily <br />declined since 1981 in this well while levels have been fairly steady <br />in the QR aquifer in well GZ3. Impact from mining in this area could <br />be expected to be the greatest in the QR aquifer ire this area. <br />Water level data for the three GBB wells is presented in Table <br />A-6. Figures A- 16, A-17, and A-18 present the wz~ter-level elevation <br />plots for the three wells. Water levels were steadily declining in <br />wells GBB1 and GBB2 during 1984 and 1985 while water levels in the <br />alluvial well, GB83, were relatively stable. Th.e decline in water <br />levels in wells GBB1 and GBB2 is thought to be due to their poor <br />completion in their respective aquifers. Well GBB1 was bailed dry on <br />August 20, 1985. The water level in well GBB1 was near the bottom of <br />the well the next day and recovered only eight and three feet, <br />respectively, in the first and second months following the bailing. <br />This data shows that the aquifer has a very low transmitting ability <br />or that the well and aquifer are poorly connected. Well GBB1 was <br />bailed with a mechanical bailer on October 23, 1985 with pieces of <br />cement being removed while lowering the depth of the well to 155 feet <br />or approximately 5 feet short of the original well. depth. This well <br />development enabled the well to return to a flowing well within 24 <br />hours of the development. This data shows that t:he well was not in <br />good connection with the aquifer prior to the mechanical bailing. <br />Well GBB2 was not bailed, but its well completion is thought to be <br />retarding inflow to the well from the aquifer, also. <br />• Water level data for the P wells is presented in Table A-7 of <br />Appendix A. Water level in alluvial well P1 declined through 1982 and <br />2-3 <br />