Laserfiche WebLink
Results -Check Mode <br />Results of operating the surface water model in check mode include a listing of 1) calculated <br />baseflows at all points in the model; 2) all diversions; 3) all instream flows; 4) all water rights <br />(sorted by priority); and 5) a summary of all structures, water rights and operating rules. This <br />report (rg.xtb), is very useful for reviewing how the StateMod code has interpreted user supplied <br />input and was heavily relied on during initial model creation and debugging. <br />Execution of StateMod in check mode also creates an initial output request file (rg.xou). This file <br />may be hand edited to request only select data be extracted and available for reporting. During <br />Phase lc efforts, all output were requested and reviewed during model calibration. <br />Results -Historical Simulation <br />The Phase lc model includes model execution in simulation mode using historical diversions as <br />demands. In addition, historical end of month (EOM) contents at modeled reservoirs are used as <br />EOM targets. <br />As described above, calibration efforts during the historical simulation runs focused on three <br />areas: comparison of historical observations to modeled 1) stream flows at gage locations; 2) <br />diversions; and 3) reservoir EOM contents. Each of these comparisons are discussed below. The <br />referenced Attachments illustrate these comparisons graphically. <br />As noted previously the Phase lc surface water model includes changes to the operations file <br />(*.opr) to simulate current practices of Division 3 to administer the Rio Grande Compact. <br />Calibration efforts also focused on results of applying Compact operating rules and comparisons <br />of historical and simulated Compact requirements and deliveries <br />Modeled Stream Flows <br />Attachment 1 illustrates comparisons of modeled stream flows to historical observations at <br />several key stream gages. As shown, these comparisons are very favorable and demonstrate less <br />than 1% deviation in the model results from historical gaged flows. Comparisons at individual <br />gages represented in the model are shown in Table 3. <br />The results shown in Table 3 demonstrate a considerable improvement in model calibration over <br />Phase la and Phase lb model results. Most notable are stream comparisons at the gage located on <br />La Jara Creek at Gallegos Ranch (ID 8238000). Calibration of stream flows at the La Jara Creek <br />gage improved by roughly 10 percent. Calibration at the gage Culebra Creek at San Luis (ID <br />8250000) also improved, by roughly 30 percent. By contrast, calibration at the stream flow gages <br />on the Rio Grande downstream of Monte Vista was slightly less favorable using the Phase lc <br />model. This is may be due to problems with assignment of return flow locations of aggregated <br />structures and/or the assignment of locations of depletive effects of well pumping. Calibration at <br />the Trinchera Creek gage below Smith Reservoir continued to be somewhat poor. The District 35 <br />Water Commissioner has indicated periodic problems recording accurate stream flows at this <br />gage. <br />Modeled Diversions <br />In the historical simulation model runs, shortages are defined as the difference between the <br />amount of water historically diverted by ditches and the amount of water delivered in the <br />C:Acdss\Task8-8.doc Phase lc Model September 27, 2000 -Page 10 of 17 <br />