Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5534 <br /> <br />(' <br /> <br />indicates that Alternative 2 is estimated to require 381 wells and Alternative 3A is estimated to <br />require 298 wells, for a difference of 83 wells. It does seem reasonable to conclude that <br />Altemative 2 will require more wells than Alternative 3A, but the number of additional wells <br />should be considered to be a rough estimate, In the draft report, Alternative 3A was selected <br />over Alternative 2, even though Alternative 3A requires more wells and has a greater <br />estimated overall cost. If the difference in the number of required wells has been <br />overestimated (due to underpredicting the well capacities), then the cost disadvantage of <br />Alternative 3A would be even lower, and it would still be the preferred alternative, However, <br />planners should also be aware of the possibility that the modeling might underestimate the <br />required number of wells, meaning that the cost difference between Altematives 3A and 2 <br />might be greater than estimated. Without additional data on the performance of wells as the <br />aquifer becomes unconfined and the water table drops into the aquifer, it seems unlikely that <br />the reliability of the local well model can be improved significantly. <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />In conclusion, we feel that the modeling that has been performed provides adequate <br />information for allowing planners to choose a preferred alternative between the various water <br />supply alternatives being considered for the South Metro Study Area, However, we caution <br />that the regional model in its current form may be inappropriate to use to assess other <br />groundwater issues in the basin, We feel that there are improvements that could still be <br />made to the regional model. Attempts were made to address some of the problems inherent <br />in the SB74 model as summarized by Stan Robson (USGS) and the SB-74 Technical <br />Review Committee, However, we believe significant questions remain regarding the ability <br />of the model to accurately simulate stream/alluvial aquiferlbedrock aquifer interactions. <br />Similarly, we believe the ways in which the models address aquifer layering and well <br />production under unconfined conditions continue to need refinement. Ultimately, to improve <br />the modeling effort, additional field work may be needed in these areas, As well <br />performance data are collected as the Denver Basin aquifers gradually drain, additional <br />evaluation of the predictive capability of the local well model could be made as well. <br /> <br />References <br /> <br />1, Hydrosphere, Inc; HRS Water Consultants; Black & Veatch, Inc.; Rick Giardina & <br />Associates; Trout, Wflwer & Freeman, P,C.; and Mulhern MRE, Inc., August 2003, Draft <br />(Privileged and Confidential) South MetrO Water Supply Study, variously paginated. <br /> <br />(' <br />'- <br /> <br />. Page 4 <br />