Laserfiche WebLink
Comment noted. <br />10. Your cross sections are nice...yet on D-D' you can again see the challenges with the data <br />set....it still is too "bumpy". <br />Comment noted. <br />Task 43.2 -Bedrock Aquifer Rock Properties: <br />11. I didn't read this section carefully as it is not my direct expertise, but why do you not <br />reference the Specific Yield cross section of the Denver Basin (figure 4) published by Woodard <br />et al. in 2002? (Woodard, L.L., Sanford, W., and Raynolds, R.G., 2002, Stratigraphic variability <br />of specific yield within bedrock aquifers of the Denver Basin, Colorado; Rocky Mountain <br />Geology, v. 37, p. 229-236.) <br />The study team feels that the data included in the cited reference have already been incorporated <br />into this study from other sources. However, this will be evaluated more fully in future phases to <br />determine if additional corehole data appear to warrant inclusion in this study. <br />12. I can't understand from the text at the bottom of p. 14 and top of p. 15 if you used the Kiowa <br />core data or not. I do see the data point showing up on the maps. <br />The Kiowa corehole data were used and are shown on the figures as described in the Phase 1 <br />Task 43.2 Technical Memorandum. The pumping test data are cited from the South Metro Study <br />rather than from the Lapey study since the South Metro report notes reinterpretation of some of <br />those data from the Lapey report; the laboratory data from the Lapey study are cited as such and <br />are shown in the figures, an example being the specific yield value shown in Figure 16 in T8S <br />R3W. <br />13. I will never endorse the process of taking all the measured aquifer properties in a poorly <br />defined aquifer, then averaging them, to arrive at a "useful" number for the entire basin. This is <br />not a geologically reasonable thing to do when there are variations of the magnitude that you <br />indicate. Furthermore, as I trust you and your colleagues realize, the basin is fundamentally <br />asymmetric (aquifers on west side are much coarser and sandstone-rich than the shale-rich and <br />lignitic aquifers on east side). Most measurements of rock properties are probably made from <br />within the more sandstone-rich zones giving your numbers a bias to better quality). I do <br />however realize that for the purpose of your report this may be the only choice you have, but <br />recognize then, the limited utility of your results. <br />We recognize the spatial variability of the aquifer property data and have presented all of the <br />data by aquifer. However, for the purposes of general discussion we felt there was value in <br />presenting summary information. <br />Task 44.2 -Bedrock Aquifer Water Levels: <br />14. We will all agree here the issue is the availability of good data. Be sure to cite the sources of <br />your water level data. (You need to add the State Reports for after 1999). <br />