Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Because the entire streamflow record was used to calibrate the NWSRFS model, independent <br /> <br />tests of validation could not be undertaken as part of this study. The success of the NWSRFS as a <br /> <br />forecasting tool, however, suggests that the model has the capability to simulate the effects of changes in <br /> <br />temperature and precipitation. In addition, a critical assumption of this research is that the NWSRFS model <br /> <br />is able to simulate adequately runoff under climatic conditions different from those for which the model has <br /> <br />been calibrated. While there are reasons for believing that the model possesses this capability for moderate <br /> <br />climatic changes, the use of this model (or any moclel) may be problematic if simulated conditions differ <br /> <br />significantly from calibrated conditions. For example, changes may occur in plant-transpiration rates and <br /> <br />in vegetative cover under a C~ -altered climate. These types of changes and their effect on streamflow are <br /> <br />Table 3: Summary of calibration results for the NWSRFS model <br /> r2 r2 Mean Annual Monthly Volume <br /> Daily Monthly Flow RMS Error <br />Model Flows Flows % Bias (tat) <br />Two-elevation 0.94 0.92 -1.25 3.62 <br />White River 0.92 0.88 -0.36 7.98 <br />East River 0.93 0.91 1.05 6.98 <br />Animas River 0.93 0.93 1.14 10.9 <br /> <br />15 <br />