Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memorandum To: File <br />Page 2 <br />Table 1 <br />Summary of Modeling Approaches <br />September 28, 2001 <br /> Average Daily Daily Pattern Daily Input <br /> Monthl model Model Model Model <br />File set name E1kRvr Dl Elkl Dl Elk2 Dl Elk3 <br />Baseflow generation Calculated from Monthly baseflow Monthly baseflow Daily baseflow <br /> monthly input distributed distributed per daily calculated from <br /> uniformly through distribution of daily input <br /> month historical a e <br />Demand Calculated from Monthly demand Monthly demand Monthly demand <br /> monthly CU and distributed distributed distributed by <br /> average monthly uniformly through uniformly through interpolating <br /> efficiency month month monthly values <br /> assumed to <br /> represent mid- <br /> month <br />Reservoir targets Monthly input Monthly targets Monthly targets Monthly demand <br /> distributed distributed distributed by <br /> uniformly through uniformly through interpolating <br /> month month monthly values <br /> assumed to <br /> represent mid- <br /> month <br />The models were developed using the Calculated calibration data set, and comparisons were made <br />between the historical Clark gage and the simulated gage for each daily model. This step served as a <br />calibration step and demonstrated how closely the models replicated actual observations. Accordingly, <br />these runs are referred to within this memorandum as "calibration runs". <br />A new demand was then added to all four models. The results of the daily models (i.e., the simulated <br />daily gage values) were compared with each other. They were also compared with daily streamflows <br />that were estimated by taking monthly model gage results and disaggregating them to daily using the <br />pattern of the historical daily gage. This method has been used in some CRDSS applications, and is <br />referred to here as the "USFWS method". This step was to evaluate the models' ability to represent a <br />new demand known to change within the month, and to compare it with an approach that disaggregates <br />model response rather than input. These runs are denoted the "future scenario runs." <br />This memo describes each model and the input file set in a general way. For the modeler who needs <br />guidelines to develop a data set similarly, an appendix describes input and DMI command files in <br />complete detail. Results are presented at the end of the main body of this memo. <br />TaskMem2Final.doc f3OYLE <br />