Laserfiche WebLink
Getty Task 2 Page 16 March 1, 1983 <br /> <br />A piezometric surface contour map developed from the output data for the <br />final calibration simulation is presented oa Figure 4. Although this map is <br />similar to that presented oa Figare 1, these are some significant differences. <br />The calibration process provided some additional insight into the hydrology of <br />the study area. It was de termiaed that the elevation of the Tow Creek Area <br />Monad near Section 5, TSN, E86W, as inferred oa Figure 1, could not be <br />maintained without causing a significant rise in the elevation of piezometric <br />head to the southeast of this feature. Accordingly, the maximum elevation <br />utilized is this area of the model ras 7000 feet instead of the 7100 feet <br />_ shown oa Figare 1. Ia sdditioa, it was de term iced that recharge ras needed is <br />' the area where Fish Creek passes over the outcrop and enters the basin to <br />obtain a reasonable match rith the data presented on Figare 1. <br />~, Upoa achieving calibration, the amount of floc through the agnifex ras <br />calculated. The amounts of recharge to the sgaifer by location are: <br />r <br />1. Tie ken Lease Groundwater Mound 19 gpm <br />2. Tow Creek Area Mound 23 gpm <br />;• 3. Fish Creek Outcrop Area S gpm <br />4. Trout Creek Outcrop Ares 43 gpm <br />The total aa:onnt of recharge, and discharge since the aquifer is at steady <br />state, is 90 gpm. This value seems very reasonable given the 1240 gpm <br />increase in flow noted for Fish Creek previoasly. <br />Values of all model variables, with the ezceptioa of apparent specific <br />yield and storage coefficient, for the calibrated model are tabulated is <br />Appendix A. <br />C <br />