WSPC02170

• File Number: 8283.200
• Description: Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Computer Models-Colorado River Decision Support System-Ray
• State: CO
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/3000
• Title: PRYSH-Requirements for an Integrated Modeling System to Support Water Resources and Power Operations-Draft
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OOuJ(~1t

r
i:

I'.
t
,
L

f
L

r
f
I

r
L

.!'
,
i

r
l..

[
L
t
i

r
t

F)
t

"..,
r
-

~

Analysis Tools

summary of key parameters at each project and for the overall system for a given period of
time (i.e., daily for 14 days; daily for 14 days coupled with weekly for 6 months).
Examples of key parameters for each project include: inflow, elevation, storage, discharge
(turbine and spill), and generation. When daily routing is employed and/or water quality
issues are important, key parameters could also include flow, elevation, temperature, and DO
at specified locations. System parameters such as system storage, available flood control
storage, system energy-in-storage, system generation, should also be available. This
information must be available in report and graphic format, as specified by the user.
Graphic displays should be coordinated with the formats being utilized by the DSS system
status displays. The user must also be able to specify which projects to include in the
analysis. Finally, if the model has been run multiple times (e.g., to compare the effects of
forecasted inflow), it must be possible to compare and statistically analyze model runs.

Reservoir System Perfomw.nce. In addition to being able to view and inspect model output
directly, it must be possible to interpret these results in comparison to performance criteria
or targets at individual proJects and on a system-wide basis. For example, to evaluate a
model run with respect to multipurpose objectives, graphics and reports should be available
to document violations of minimum flow requirements for water quality, actual vs targeted
elevations for summer recreations, actual vs targeted releases for recreational floatways,
actual vs targeted generation, etc. These capabilities must be available for single and
multiple runs and allow for comparison between runs. It should be possible to evaluate
violation and/or achievement of targets in terms of extent (severity), duration, and frequency.
Access to statistical analysis procedures will be required to support this function. The user
will be responsible for developing the reservoir system performance criteria.

Model Perfomw.nce. The capability must exist to compare model results to observed
conditions for the same forcing hydrology and operational constraints (i.e., special
operations, outages, etc).

Multi-Objective Tradeoff Analysis

The analysis tools must also include capabilities for evaluating the tradeoffs involved in
meeting multiple reservoir system objectives. It is expected that in this version of the
PRSYM model, tradeoff analysis will be based upon the use of multiple runs under varying
operating assumptions and constraints. The use of more formalized multi-criteria evaluation
techniques, however, can be explored. The most cost-effective methodology should be
implemented at this time. Nonetheless, procedures must be developed to present the tradeoff
analyses in a clear and precise manner that is useful in an operational decision making
environment. The user must work closely with the consultant and/or subcontractor in
defining multi-objective criteria or targets.

5-2