Laserfiche WebLink
1.Conceptual framework uncertainty <br />2. Model parameter uncertainty <br />3.Calibration uncertainty <br />4. Predictive uncertainty <br />Metro Model 3 predicts future aquifer conditions under a projected range of water demand. Because it <br />is a steady-state model, it does not represent water levels for a specific day and time. Instead, it is <br />intended to illustrate where aquifer water levels will come to equilibrium under a given water budget <br />(recharge, pumping, baseflow). In other words, it illustrates where things will ultimately end up. <br />This ability to compare regional groundwater impacts under different demand and source <br />assumptions is what Metro Model 3 was designed, conceptualized, and calibrated for. It is used as a <br />planning tool to inform regional planning, support this Master Water Supply Plan, and assess potential <br />impacts associated with changes in regional pumping and/or land use change. <br />The single biggest contributor to predictive uncertainty is uncertainty in future water demand. There is <br />some uncertainty about how many people will live in the metro, where they will live, how much water <br />they will use, or if sources of water will remain the same. This is where input from city administrators <br />and engineers is critical; no one knows the city and its water supply better than the city or utility staff. <br />Therefore, Metropolitan Council has worked closely with city staff to learn more about population, <br />population served, per capita water use, water sources, and well locations. <br />Appendix 2 describes the method used to evaluate future water demand. The process included an <br />exploration of predictive uncertainty resulting from the variability of the historical data the projection <br />was based on and the use of different projection methods. Based on this work, water demand <br />projections are represented as a range of future conditions. <br />The Metropolitan Council recognizes the error in the model compared to the real world. This error can <br />be minimized when comparing model output to model output. Drawdown shows you the change <br />between two conditions, the starting and ending place doesn't matter as much as the difference <br />between the two conditions. Even with model error, the model is a valuable tool for informing water <br />supply planning in the region. <br />Table 2 - Uses for "out of the box" Metro Model 3 <br />Acceptable <br />Marginally Acceptable* <br />Not Acceptable <br />Compare regional <br />scenarios <br />General well field <br />placement <br />Localized well field <br />optimization <br />Compare sub -regional <br />scenarios <br />Estimate groundwater/ <br />surface water connections <br />Site specific evaluations <br />Identify areas where more <br />information is needed <br />Wellhead protection plans <br />Predicting time dependant <br />water table elevations <br />Identify possible problem <br />areas <br />*The model can be used as a "back of the envelop calculation" giving the user an idea of a starting <br />place for further analysis. <br />Metro Model 3 supports a flexible process for water suppliers and planners to explore a wide variety <br />of different water supply approaches under a range of potential future conditions. This type of <br />WATER SUPPLY MASTER <br />PLAN- Draft June 2015 <br />57 <br />