Laserfiche WebLink
levels under the same conditions may be higher. Springs are not expected to develop at • <br />the north end of the D and F pits. <br />The water-level changes for the HI aquifer have generally been influenced less by <br />slightly less than average recharge during the last three years. The mining upgradient of <br />HI wells GB-5 and GF-4, which occurred several years ago, has been long enough in the <br />past to allow water levels to fully recover. The water levels in these HI aquifer wells seem <br />to be varying only slightly with changes in recharge rates. Water levels are not likely to <br />ever recover to their pre-mine level in well GB-5. The elevation of the backfill springs likely <br />limits the head buildup in the backfill aquifer, which, in tum, limits the maximum head in <br />the downgradient coal aquifer. Similar water-level responses are being observed in the <br />two backfill equivalent HI aquifer wells GF-5 and GF-7. Water levels seem to have reached <br /> • <br />recovered levels in these two wells. The development of backfill springs may limit the <br />maximum water level in some of these areas of the A pit. <br />The water levels in the three GE wells stabilized in approximately 1990. This is <br />thought to be due to the length of time since dewatering stopped at the adjacent <br />underground operation. The additional water-level rise in the last five years in wells GE-1 <br />and GE-2 is likely due to increased recharge and some additional recovery from mine <br />dewatering. <br />Water levels in the backfill areas are depressed and are not likely to ever recover to <br />pre-mine levels except near the northern end of the mine area. Map 2-1 shows that the <br />levels in the backfill and downgradient aquifers are similar. Well pairs GD-3 & GD-2 and <br />GF-11 & GF-6 present water levels that are very similar in water-level elevation for the <br /> • <br />backfill and downgradient QR aquifer well. Mining is significantly increasing the <br />6-2 <br />