Laserfiche WebLink
discussion) recovery equation was used to analyze the recovery of well F-1. <br />A large transmissivity of 25,000 gpd/ft was obtained for the fill of Flume <br />Gulch in the area of well F-1. The recovery of well F-1 to above its original <br />static water level is thought to be attributed to development of the well from <br />pumping. This pump test was the first time that water was produced from this <br />well. No drawdown was observed in Well F-2 from pumping well F-1. <br />Well P-1 was pumped for 70 minutes at an average rate of 6 gpm. The recovery <br />of this well indicated a transmissivity of 6300 gpd/ft for the Pyeatt alluvium <br />near well P-1. Table 2.7-28 gives the test data for well P-1 while Figure <br />2.7-31 presents the plot. <br />Well P-2 was observed for drawdown while pumping well P-3 at an average rate <br />of 5.9 gpm. Table 2.7-29 presents the drawdown data for well P-2 while Figure <br />• 2.7-32 gives the log-log plot of the drawdown data. The match of this data <br />with Theis' Type Curve produced a transmissivity of 6100 gpd/ft (est.).and a <br />specific yield of 0.012. This pump test shows that the thin sandstone in <br />well P-3 in the Lewis Shale is readily connected to the Pyeatt fill material. <br />The recovery test of well P-3 shows that the transmissivity of the Lewis <br />Shale sandstone is less than the Pyeatt fill material in this area. Figure <br />2.7-33 gives the analysis of the recovery data for well P-3 while Table <br />2.7-30 presents the recovery data. <br />The pumping and recovery data for well P-4 are given in Figure 2.7-34 and <br />Table 2.7-31. This well would not yield one gpm continuously. The trans- <br />missivities computed from the drawdown data (Jacob straight line method, see <br />pp. 98-100 of Ferris, 1962 for a discussion) and the recovery data are very <br />low. The transmissivity of the sandstone aquifer above the G coal seam <br />2-550