Laserfiche WebLink
I. Introductions and Discussion (Agenda Items 1 and 2) <br />A. Draft technical memoranda will be sent to all attendees <br />B. Rick McLoud made the point that there maybe more information and data available <br />from the utilities and water users who are not present at this meeting. Ray Alvarado <br />indicated they were following up. Ray Bennett indicated through the other more <br />general public involvement, there would be a continuing effort to obtain additional <br />data that is out there. <br />II. Presentation of Groundwater Data (Agenda Item 3) <br />A. Groundwater Study Area and Aquifer Configuration Data <br />1. CDM is currently finishing Phase 2, data collection. Phase 3 (field data collection <br />and alluvial modeling) began in fa112005. <br />2. USGS has initiated their own model of the Denver Basin, and the South Platte <br />Decision Support System (SPDSS) is working closely with the US Geological <br />Survey (USGS) to insure there are not competing models. <br />3. Bob Longenbaugh asked about the inclusion of recent data from oil and gas logs. <br />The more recent data may not be included in the SPDSS database. The Division <br />of Water Resources (DWR) responded that they were not used since the Senate <br />Bill 85-5 (SB5) effort. Dave McElhaney of DWR noted that oil and gas well logs <br />are not automatically brought over from the Oil and Gas Commission to DWR. <br />Suzanne Paschke noted there are many oil and gas logs in DWR's database. <br />4. Willem Schreuder asked what the control points were. Gordon McCurry (CDM <br />Project Manager) responded that they are points selected by CDM, based on <br />geologic and topographic data, which help control the contouring process for <br />areas at the edge of boundaries. <br />5. Mark Palumbo asked if the USGS study done on the west side of the Denver <br />Basin, post-SB5 was used, and the response was yes it was. <br />6. CDM looked at SB5 maps and compared them to the SPDSS effort and found <br />an overall good correlation. <br />7. Jon Ford asked if silt was included in net sand thickness because he believed it <br />was included in SB5 work. Gordon McCurry indicated that the net sand <br />thickness reported may contain the thickness of silt, based on interpretation of <br />the geophysical logs by various individuals at the State Engineer's Office. <br />8. Question from Ray Alvarado about quality of data. Gordon McCurry gave a <br />description of the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) that was used. <br />USGS and CDM will cooperate in looking at outliers and other QA/QC. <br />9. Question from Rick McLoud about availability of direction of flow in aquifer. <br />Gordon McCurry indicated that that data will be available electronically, via <br />9 <br />