My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2023-10-03_REVISION - M1977344 (22)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977344
>
2023-10-03_REVISION - M1977344 (22)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2023 8:56:09 AM
Creation date
10/4/2023 10:41:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977344
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/3/2023
Doc Name Note
App 4.5 Red Creek Quarry Baseline Water Information
Doc Name
Request For Amendment To Permit
From
Holcim (US) Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM2
Email Name
TC1
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1795
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).
View images
View plain text
Red Creek Quarry Baseline Water Investigation Section 5 <br /> <br /> <br />5-9 <br />DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. <br />elevations rise above the estimated limestone-sandstone contact. Groundwater elevations in Well 2S <br />are approximately four feet below the limestone-sandstone contact the entire monitoring period. <br />Simulated groundwater elevation contours from the steady-state EC model (BC 2023b, Appendix <br />3.7) indicate groundwater flow is generally to the northeast towards the Arkansas River. The <br />groundwater contours are based on an interpolated water table generated from the four on-site <br />monitoring wells in the northwest corner of the site. The interpolated water table introduces a <br />measure of uncertainty due to lack of measured groundwater data in the central, southern, and <br />eastern portions of the Site. <br />5.3 Flow Monitoring Results <br />Data recorded by the transducer installed in the flume plastic standpipe recorded the total of <br />barometric and water pressure at six-hour intervals. The transducer pressure data were <br />compensated for barometric pressure using the K1V6 weather station data. Comparing the pressure <br />readings from the transducer and the K1V6 weather station indicated the data trend well together; <br />however, the pressure range between the two data sets is slightly different as shown by the y-axis <br />scales in Figure 5-1. The transducer records both air and water pressure acting on the equipment <br />sensor; therefore, instances where the transducer pressure is greater than the barometric pressure <br />are the result of water pressure acting on the transducer. <br />Transducer data corrected using barometric data from the K1V6 weather station resulted in higher <br />calculated head values than the head measured by the staff gauge within the flume (Figure 5-2). The <br />difference in the head calculated using the transducer data and the measured staff gauge data is <br />likely the result of the differences in barometric pressure at the Site compared to the Fremont <br />County airport. The elevation of the K1V6 airport weather station is approximately 290 feet higher in <br />elevation than the flume installed in Red Creek. Differences in temperature between the Fremont <br />County airport and Red Creek may also cause the variations in pressure readings. <br />The pressure values from the K1V6 weather station were subtracted from the transducer pressure <br />readings in order to compensate for barometric pressure. Data on the height of water in the flume <br />measured against the staff gauge were reviewed to determine a correction factor to compensate for <br />the differences in elevation and temperature between the Fremont County Airport and the flume <br />location. An additional correction factor of 6.2 cmH2O was subtracted from the compensated <br />transducer data. The head values calculated from the corrected transducer data matched the <br />observed head values measured within the flume (Figure 5-3). <br />The corrected transducer pressure was converted to flow in cubic feet per second (cfs) using the <br />equation supplied by the EZ Flow Flume manufacturer (Equation 1). <br />Equation 1 <br />𝑑𝑙𝑜𝑤=3.978 𝑤 𝐻𝑑𝑎𝑑1.619 <br />where: <br />flow = cubic feet per second (cfs) <br />head = relative water level in flume (ft of H2O) <br />Flow rate data were calculated using both the head measurements from the flume staff gauge and <br />the correct transducer head data (Figure 5-4). The median calculated flow rate within Red Creek is <br />0.15 cfs, the lowest calculated flow rate was 0.04 cfs and the maximum calculated flow rate was <br />3.36 cfs. Visual observations of flow within Red Creek and measured flow with the flume staff gauge <br />indicate the flow in Red Creek is perennial. Flow rates calculated with the transducer data indicate
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.