Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SoutLiM.eGroundwater Model Development Repor/ <br /> <br />Dcl. II, 200/ <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />and limitations of the SB-74 model that water managers must be mindful of when <br />considering results of the SMWSS regional groundwater model. <br /> <br />-) <br /> <br />Section 3 of this report provides background information that supports this Development <br />Plan. It begins by summarizing aspects of the modeling that have been already addressed <br />in previous reporting to the board, including modeling objectives, critical modeling <br />issues, systems to be modeled, and requirements of the regional model (all these issues <br />were addressed in the Model Requirements memorandum which was submitted on <br />1/8/01). Section 4 summarizes the results of the Comparative Modeling Study, which <br />was designed to assess the need for explicitly incorporating fine-grained aquifer interbeds <br />in the regional model (details of which can be found Hydrosphere's 3/15/01 letter report <br />to the board). Section 5 describes our detailed review of the State Engineer's SB-74 <br />Denver Basin groundwater model, and Section 6 provides a detailed comparison of SB- <br />74 model parameters to more recent hydrogeologic data on the basin that was acquired <br />from water providers in the study area. <br /> <br />Based on this foundation, we provide in Section 7 a model development plan that <br />addresses two key issues: (I) our approach to adaptation of the SEO's SB-74 Denver <br />Basin groundwater model for prediction ofregional heads in the South Metro area, and <br />(2) our recommended approach to address local (well and well-field) drawdowns under <br />specified pumping scenarios. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />-) <br /> <br />Hydrosphere Resource Consultants <br />1002 Walnut Suite 200. Boulder, CO 80302 <br />PO Box 445. Socorro, NM 81801 <br />