Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />and 83-03 show fluctuations which are apparently related to dewatering and subsidence associated with <br />Mines 5 and 6. Wells TR-4 water levels appear to be slightly rising since 2008. Levels in TR-7A and 81-01 <br />in 2010 are very consistent with that seen in 2006 through 2009. The water levels in 83-01 (Figure 7) have <br />been on the rise since monitoring was reactivated in 2006. The water levels in well 83-02 (Figure 8) are <br />consistent with those found since minotoring was reactivated in 2006. The water level decline of about 150 <br />feet from 1987 to mid 1990 in well 83-02 was determined to be related to mine dewatering as Mine 5 <br />workings approached the location of the well. The more abrupt 200 foot decline in water levels observed in <br />1990 is thought to be a drawdown response due to subsidence as it is located only a few hundred feet <br />horizontally from an F seam longwall panel which was mined in a similar time frame. The water level <br />stabilized until 1994 when it recovered to the 1983 levels. <br />Wells TR-4 and 83-03 are located at greater distance horizontally from the active operations for mines 5 and <br />6. Water levels in Well TR-4 (Figure 4) historically appear to be related to the fluctuations observed on all <br />three of the down gradient Middle Sandstone Wells: 81-01, 83-01 and 83-02. The water level decline in TR-4 <br />prior to 1984 and the subsequent recovery up to 1988 closely parallels the trends observed in Wells 81-01 and <br />83-01. The decline during the first part of 1991 also parallels the trend in these two wells. However, the <br />rapid decline during the last part of 1989 and the first part of 1990 appears to follow the trend observed in <br />Well 83-02 although the magnitude of decline is considerably less. Unusually large fluctuations for TR-4 for <br />1999 through 2000 have been attributed to a faulty pressurized line system. <br />Well 83-03 (Figure 9) is the Middle Sandstone monitoring well located furthest (more than 1.5 miles) from <br />is active underground operations for Mines 5 and 6. The overall trend from 1984 through 2000 and again in <br />2006 to date suggests a similar trend to the other Middle Sandstone wells. The long term decline could be a <br />pressure response due to the overall drop in potentiometric levels in the Middle Sandstone in the vicinity of <br />Mines 5 and 6. The water levels in the Middle Sandstone wells had either recovered or stabilized in 1995. <br />Note that there was a drop of about 13 feet in water level, followed by a subtle rise. <br />Monitoring results through year 2001 and again in 2006 to date (Fig. 10) showed no apparent change in the <br />water levels in the Twentymile Sandstone that could be attributable to mining activities. During 2010, 9 <br />Mine well, and wells 259 and 84-01 remained stable as compared to 2006 through 2009. Note that in 2006 <br />the first reading of the 9 mine well appeared elevated, and subsequently leveled off and has been stable <br />through 2010. The elevated reading may be attributed to an error in monitoring equipment, as a pressurized <br />reading was first attempted, and subsequent readings have used a water level meter. <br />The groundwater gradient in the Middle Sandstone in the vicinity of the mining operation generally decreases <br />from the southeast to the northwest as reflected on Figure 11. The piezometric contour map of the <br />Twentymile Sandstone is presented as Figure 12. This gradient remains generally consistent with previous <br />years, according to 2010 measurements. <br />Water Ouality <br />The 2010 field parameter data for No. 5 Mine well do not suggest any significant mining related water quality <br />impacts to the Trout Creek Sandstone. The water quality data for this Trout Creek Sandstone well is <br />summarized on Tables 5 and 6. A plot of field conductivity measurements is presented in Figure 13. Note <br />that conductivity values for the No. 5 Mine well appear elevated to levels seen in the early 1980's, but appear <br />to be in the same range as the former Okie Plaza well. This may be related to consistent pumping at this site. <br />Page 4 <br />GAEnvironmentaAEMPMENAHM2010\Empire201 OAHR. doc