Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />' are greater than the HI aquifer would have likely contained in this <br />' area prior to mining, as expected. TDS in backfill aquifers should be <br />elevated for several years after mining until the readily dissolveable <br />' constituents are removed. <br />' The QR aquifer is monitored downgradient of a portion of the <br />mined E pit at well GF6. TDS measurements from this well have been <br />steady except for the 1986 value at approximately 200 mg/1 higher. <br />' Additional monitoring is needed to define if a sic3nificant trend is <br />developing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ll <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />The U aquifer is also monitored in well. GZ2, which is <br />approximately one mile upgradient of U well GF2. A steady <br />concentration in well GZ2 has been observed. The December, 1982 <br />measurement for TDS is thought to be too low because the DSSUM value <br />indicates the TDS should be close to the other values. TDS was <br />significantly higher at this upgradient well than it. is at well GF2. <br />Wells GBB1 and GBB2 have been influenced by cement contamination <br />and, therefore, their TDS values have also been significantly affected <br />by the cement. The December, 1985 and August, 1986 samples from well <br />GBB1, after the mechanical bailing of this well, is thought to <br />represent water quality conditions of the Third White Sandstone fairly <br />well at this site. Plota of wells GBB1 and GBB2 (sere Figures B-20 and <br />B-21) should not be used to indicate changes in tihese two aquifers. <br />The alluvial aquifer TDS at well GBB3 has been fairly steady with time <br />3-5 <br />