Laserfiche WebLink
• precipitation. Some of the decline may be caused by the adjacent <br />mine dewatering in D pit. <br />Water levels for well GA2 (Figure A-2) have responded <br />similarly to those in well GA1. The water levels showed a net <br />decline of approximately six and one half feet for the year. Water <br />levels in the KLM aquifer in this area rose in the past due to <br />higher rates of recharge, while the decline the last four years is <br />thought to be mainly caused by the decline in recharge. <br />Well GB1 is.located downslope of the toe of A pit, where the <br />H and I coal seams were mined during 1985. Figure A-3 shows that <br />water levels were rising at a steady rate during the period 1985 <br />through September 1987. Well GB1 was airlifted for production in <br />September of 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 for monitoring of the <br />recovery of water levels. Data presented from September through <br />September of each of the last three years shows the recovery of <br />water levels after production. This data indicates that the <br />recovery of water levels in well GB1 is very slow with water levels <br />not reaching the aquifer static level prior to being airlifted the <br />next year. Well GB1 is monitored only for water-level data and is <br />airlifted annually to test the responsiveness of the well. Due to <br />the very slow recovery of water levels, a more accurate static <br />~~,~f~~ ~ water-level would be obtained by not air lifting this well. Air <br />~~J~ lifting of this well should be dropped because the current water- <br />level data is not useful and well GB5 monitors the HI aquifer in <br />this area. <br />• Water levels for well GB2 the last three years have gradually <br />2-5 <br />