Laserfiche WebLink
Results <br />The results of the analysis are presented under the following sections: <br />• 1976-1996 Average Stream~a~e Comparison <br />• Dry-Year Stream~a~e Comparison <br />• Wet-Year Stream~a~e Comparison <br />• 1976-1996 Average Diversion Comparison <br />• A~~re~ate Diversion Comparison <br />• Reservoir Comparison <br />• 1976-1996 Crop Consumptive Use Comparison <br />• Dry-Year Crop Consumptive Use Comparison <br />• Wet-Year Crop Consumptive Use Comparison <br />1976-1996 Average Streamga~e Comparison <br />For both the Previous CRDSS results and the Enhanced results, the streamgage calibration is <br />considered very good. The "goodness of fit" coefficient, r~, is greater than 0.95 for all <br />streamgages, and equal to 1.00 (exact fit) for most gages for both the Previous CRDSS and the <br />Enhanced analysis. Figure 2 is a representative time-series plot of the Yampa River at <br />Steamboat Gage (ID=09239500), showing that simulated streamflows match well on both an <br />annual and monthly basis. Figure 3 shows a representative scatter plot of historic measured <br />versus Previous CRDSS and Enhanced analysis results. As shown, and reinforced in Table 1, <br />the Enhanced analysis predicts streamflows that are representative of historic conditions. <br />Table 1 <br />Streamgage Calibration Results -Historic Model <br /> Previous CRDSS Results Enhanced Results <br />streamgage % Difference RZ % Difference RZ <br />09237500 -Yampa River bl Stagecoach Res -1 % 0.97 6 % 0.95 <br />09239500 -Yampa River at Steamboat Springs 0 % 1.00 1 % 1.00 <br />09241000 -Elk River at Clark 0 % 1.00 0 % 1.00 <br />09247600 -Yampa River below Craig -1 % 1.00 3 % 1.00 <br />09249750 -Williams Fork at Mouth 0 % 1.00 0 % 1.00 <br />09251000 -Yampa River near Maybell 0 % 1.00 2 % 1.00 <br />09260000 -Little Snake River at Lily 0 % 1.00 8 % 1.00 <br />Difference = (measured -predicted)/measured <br />VariableEff Taskl-5 3 of 17 November 5, 2001 <br />