Laserfiche WebLink
24 <br />Pump discharge during the tests were all on the order of 1 gpm. • <br />The source of a portion of the pump discharge was the water standing in <br />the well bore. Thus, the pumping rate from the aquifer itself was substan- <br />tially less than the pump discharge. The equations used for analysis of <br />the data do not account for this discrepancy. The effect is to cause <br />the transmissivities derived by this procedure to be greater than actually <br />exist. Therefore, the transmissivities reported in Table 1 should be <br />regarded as upper limits, the actual values being somewhat smaller. In <br />any case, the values shown in Table 1 are very small, indicating very <br />poor aquifers. In fact, neither of the zones tested would be regarded <br />as aquifers at all in most contexts <br />The values of storage coefficient reported in Table 1 suggest that <br />both the coal and overburden are confined aquifers. We are fairly con- <br />fident that the coal seam is, indeed, a confined aquifer with little or <br />no communication with the overlying waters. Evidence to this effect is <br />provided by the fact that the piezometric surface for the coal seam, <br />throughout the project area, is lower than the piezometric surface for <br />the overburden. This observation is depicted in the cross-section in <br />Figuru 4. <br />Pump test data in the overburden provide an estimate of storage <br />coefficient on the order of 10_q in the vicinity of wells 117, 118 and '_ <br />i19. This value certainly suggests that the overburden aquifer is con- <br />fined at this ]ocation. Furthermore, the static water levels in wells ~_ <br />117, 118 and 119 stood well above the interface between the Laramie and 1'-.. <br />the overlying blow sand. This observation supports the conclusion that <br />the overburden waters are confined in the vicinity of these wells. <br />Comparison of static water levels in the remaining overburden wells with =i <br />