WSPC07048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cll'iJ:il provided the DNR team with a MODSIM prototype for the Gunnison Basin, Both the State and consultant team agree that the January 10 version does not meet the deliverable requirements of the contract. State review of that model indicated a number of model deficiencies including water imbalances, instances of improper priority allocation, and instances of improper delivery of storage water. We understand that a number of deficiencies may have been remedied by consultant team work since January 10. In addition to the technical concerns, DNR team concerns have continued on the usability and performance of the MODS 1M based model. The DNR team development effort or an alternative water resource planning model based on the old BESTSM model was renamed ST A TEMOD after significant modifications were made to I) handle complexities of the Gunnison River Basin, 2) improve output processing, 3) eliminate Green Mountain Reservoir specific code and 4) transfer the Gunnison River Basin data into the model. Initial program documentation has also been prepared. The DNR team believes that the current ST A TEMOD implementation in the Gunnison River Basin provides a valid base for comparisons to the January 10th prototype received from the consultant team. The DNR team has revisited the decision on what water resource planning model is most appropriate to use in CRDSS. The principal model reviewers on the DNR team were Ross Bethel, Ray Bennett and Ray Alvarado. The principal differences between the models were identified and reviewed in relation to CRDSS objectives. It is recognized that some of the criteria (usability, understandability) are subjective. REVIEW OF MODSIM AND STATEMOD The DNR team has had approximately seven months with which to become familiar with the MODS 1M model and approximately three months to become familiar with the STATEMOD effort, This team has reviewed major features, tested functionality, tested ease and flexibility of application, reviewed interfaces, assessed maintainability of the models, evaluated performance. etc. The MODS 1M based model used in this review is the consultant team work product provided to the DNR team on January 10, A check mark system has been used to reflect how well the model satisfies the objectives and goals of CRDSS. Up to three checks were used to reflect the results of the review. The basis for ranking is also briefly discussed. V'V'V' V'V' V' Good level of criteria for CRDSS Adequate level of criteria for CRDSS Unsatisfactory for CRDSS 2