My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10010
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP10010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:56:55 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:04:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8449.700
Description
Cherry Creek
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
9/1/1995
Author
Halepaska & Assoc.
Title
Phase 1 Baseline Water Quality Data Collection Study for the Upper Cherry Creek Basin - Final Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />lcnA <br /> <br />Soulember 1995 <br /> <br />Fina1 R....n. PIIase I Oaoe6ae Wit... Oualilv Dota CoDec:tioa Sladv <br /> <br />either from the well being sampled or from a production well adjacent to the monitoring well <br />being sampled. The cross-sectional saturated area has been calculated based on the water level <br />measured at each monthly site visit and the estimated geometry of the alluvial materials at that <br />location. The hydraulic gradient has been calculated based on topographic gradients in the <br />vicinity of each cross-section where underflow is being measured. An example of how this <br />Darcy calculation is made is shown in Figure 8, and the input to the equation for each station <br />is presented in Table D-3 (Appendix D). <br /> <br />The range of underflows that have been observed at each of the monitoring well cross-section <br />locations is shown in Figure 5, and are summarized in Table 0-2 (Appendix D). As the range <br />of values shows, there is very little seasonal fluctuation in alluvial underflows by location, as <br />indicated by the small range from maximum to minimum values. Alluvial flows generally <br />increased from an upstream to a downstream location, although alluvial underflow was relatively <br />constant through Parker (MW-4 through MW-6)(Figure 9). <br /> <br />The water quality data from the ground water monitoring wells indicate similar quality to the <br />surface water stations, although there appears to be larger fluctuations spatially. Ammonia- <br />nitrogen concentrations are at, or below, the detection limit (0.2 mg/L) at all stations throughout <br />the year. <br /> <br />Concentration profiles through the study reach for the major constituents of concern (nitrate, <br />total dissolved phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus) are shown in Figure 9. Similar to <br />the surface water stations, the nitrate-nitrogen concentrations observed in the alluvial aquifer are <br />higher than those observed for total dissolved phosphorus or SRP. While there are several <br />changes in the l2-month average nitrate concentrations throughout the reach (as high as 3.5 <br />mg/L) , the average nitrate concentration at MW-I was approximately 1.5 mg/L, while the <br />nitrate-nitrogen concentration going into Cherry Creek Reservoir was approximately 2.2 mg/L <br />(Figure 9). While the nitrate-nitrogen loading increased from approximately 20 Ibs/day at <br /> <br />-10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.