Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 8 <br /> <br />awarded a discharge permit for the well. <br /> <br /><:;) <br />N <br />..... <br />N <br /> <br />The model was also used to identify head and flow changes at the Yampa Spring as a result of <br />discharge from the Redstone well. The predicted head and flow changes were compared to <br />observations made at the Yampa Spring during the first test. Measurements made at the spring <br />did not indicate that an impact had occurred, despite the prediction of small changes. The <br />conclusion was that due to the large flow of the spring, reduction in flow was negligible and not <br />measurable. <br /> <br />As a backup to the earlier results, a second flow test was scheduled and performed with the <br />monitoring assistance from the U.S, Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The <br />Redstone well was allowed to flow at an average discharge rate of 1830 gpm for 4 days. After <br />the flow period, recovery of the aquifer was also monitored for an additional 4 days. During <br />the flow and recovery periods, the observation network included the Redstone well, the Wright <br />no. 1 well, 3 USBR wells (alluvial), theYampa Spring, Graves Spring, Hobo Spring, and the <br />US Geological Survey's streamflow-gaging station on the Colorado River (Figure 3). In <br />addition, barometric pressure was continuously recorded. <br /> <br />During the second test of the Redstone well, head decreases were observed in all observation <br />wells, including the USBR alluvial wells. In addition, springs within a radius of 2,500 feet of <br />the Redstone well showed decreases in flow during the flow period of the well test. For <br />example, the flow rate of the Graves (B) Spring was reduced by 13 gpm (a 22 % reduction) <br />during the test, and returned to the pretest flow rate during the recovery period. Ge1don (1989) <br />reports that the Yampa Spring, which is greater than 4,000 feet from the Redstone well, did not <br />respond to flow from the Redstone well during the second test. <br /> <br />In addition to the actual flow test, the well was permitted to flow for several months after the <br />test while the G1enwood Springs resort drained and refilled the pool and performed various other <br />. <br /> <br />Michael J. Galloway <br />ConsultIng Hydrogeologlst <br /> <br />Project 1016 <br />