Laserfiche WebLink
risen, probably due to being downgradient of the reclaimed mine • <br />pit. <br />Well GB5 also monitors the HI aquifer at the toe of A pit. <br />Water levels in well) GB5 (Figure A-5) graduall;~ rose from 1984 to <br />March 1988. Water levels during the rest of 1988 and the first <br />half of 1989 remained stable. The water levels have gradually <br />declined since 1989. The majority of this water-level response is <br />thought to be due to recovery of the aquifer since mining in A pit <br />moved away from this area. Levels probably recovered in this area <br />much faster due to the high precipitation during 1983 through 1986. <br />The stabilizing of the levels and the recent declines could be <br />partially caused by 'the decline in recharge sine 1986 (see Figure <br />2-1, page 2-17, for variation in precipitation.. <br />The GC wells are: approximately two and one-half miles from the <br />nearest mining in the H and I coal seams. liell GC1 has shown <br />considerable water-level fluctuation, which is thought to be all <br />natural. Figure A-6 shows that water levels have demonstrated <br />little variation since 1987, indicating very little change in <br />storage in the HI aquifer in this area. Water Levels responded to <br />the increase in recharge during 1984 and 1985. <br />The water levels from the Third White Sandstone well (GC2) <br />show that water levels had been fairly steady from 1984 through 1 <br />1987. The hydrograph for this well shows an o~~erall decline from <br />1988 through 1990. The 1991 water levels indicate that the <br />recharge to this aquifer may lag the above normal precipitation by <br />one year. The hy,drographs for both GC1 .and GC2 fluctuate • <br />2-6 <br />