(Abstract from Proceedings of the First Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, held in Las Vegas, NV, April 19-23, 1998, prepared by the Subcommittee on Hydrology of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data)

A decision support system (DSS) has been developed for use on the San Juan River Basin in Arizone, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah through a collaborative effort by the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The DSS includes a watershed modeling framework, a river and reservoir-operations modeling framework, and a relational data base that links the two modeling frameworks. The Modular Modeling System (MMS), which is an interface to a variety of modules for simulating water, energy, chemical, and biological processes, data-analysis tools, and model-building tools, comprises the watershed modeling framework. The RiverWare Systems Model, which is a general purpose, interactive model-building tool that integrates multipurpose reservoir-operations, including flood control, navigation, recreation, water supply, water quality, and power economics, comprises the river and reservoir-operations modeling framework. The DSS developed for the San Juan River Basin provides water managers a useful tool to manage, utilize, and schedule delivery of water resources.

(Abstract from Proceedings of the First Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, held in Las Vegas, NV, April 19-23, 1998, prepared by the Subcommittee on Hydrology of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data)

The U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Reclamation are collaborating to link a watershed modeling framework, the Modular Modeling System (MMS), with a routing and reservoir-management modeling framework, the RiverWare Systems Model, resulting in an integrated system of water-resource models and relational data bases that can be used in the management of water resources in the western United States. The joint effort is termed the Watershed and River System Management Program and the first study basin is the 18,750 square kilometer San Juan River basin in Colorado and New Mexico. Application of a watershed model to this large basin with extensive hydrologic and physiographic variability requires a realistic distribution of precipitation. An algorithm to distribute precipitation in the basin was developed that incorporated weather-type (WT) information and precipitation data from multiple National Weather Service precipitation stations in the basin. Distribution of precipitation estimated by using the WT algorithm was compared to the distribution estimated by using the algorithm provided within the MMS framework. Average error in simulated annual runoff for water years 1949-93, which was 16.5% when using precipitation distributed with the MMS algorithm, decreased to 11.4% when using precipitation distributed with the WT algorithm.

(Abstract from Proceedings of the First Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, held in Las Vegas, NV, April 19-23, 1998, prepared by the Subcommittee on Hydrology of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data)

The Watershed and River System Management Program (WARSMP) is a cooperative program between Department of the Interior agencies. The WARSMP is sponsored by the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Science and Technology Research Program of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).

The purpose of WARSMP is to develop, test, and implement a framework for the management of water resources in the Reclamation Act States. The framework is a fully-integrated data-centered decision-support system of physical process models-- Modular Modeling System (MMS), resource-management models -- RiverWare, forecast models, data-management interfaces and graphical user interfaces. The MMS and RiverWare are linked through a data management system-- Hydrologic Database, as are a point and click GIS tool-box, queries and displays, and real-time data and processing.

Beginning in fiscal year 1997, the collaborative work of the program focused on the Yakima River Basin. The Yakima River Basin is representative of water-use and water-resource management in the West, and management of its waters is one of the most difficult tasks the USBR undertakes in the western United States. Program elements are being accomplished jointly by the USGS and USBR.

¹U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA

²U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, WA

(Abstract from U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4284)

Precipitation-runoff and streamflow-routing models were constructed and assessed as part of a water-quality study of the Willamette River Basin. The study was a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and was coordinated with the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study of the Willamette River. Routing models are needed to estimate streamflow so that water-quality constituent loads can be calculated from measured concentrations and so that sources, sinks, and downstream changes in those loads can be identified. Runoff models are needed to estimate ungaged-tributary inflows for routing models and to identify flow contributions from different parts of the basin. The runoff and routing models can be run either separately or together to simulate streamflow at various locations and to examine streamflow contributions from overland flow, shallow-subsurface flow, and ground-water flow.

The 11,500-square-mile Willamette River Basin was partitioned into 21 major basins and 253 subbasins. For each subbasin, digital data layers of land use, soils, geology, and topography were combined in a geographic information system (GIS) to define hydrologic response units (HRU's), the basic computational unit for the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). Spatial data layers were also used to calculate noncalibrated PRMS parameter values. Other PRMS parameter values were obtained from 10 nearby calibrated subbasins of representative location and character.

About 760 miles of the Willamette River system were partitioned into 4 main-stem networks and 17 major tributary networks for streamflow routing. Data from time-of-travel studies, discharge measurements, and flood analyses were used to develop equations that related stream cross-sectional area to discharge and stream width to discharge. These relations were derived for all 21 stream networks at approximately 3-mile intervals and used in the Diffusion Analogy Flow model (DAFLOW) in streamflow routing.

Ten representative runoff models and 11 network-routing models were calibrated for water years 1972-75 and verified for water years 1976-78. These were the periods with the most complete and widespread streamflow record for the Willamette River Basin. Observed and estimated daily precipitation and daily minimum and maximum air temperature were used as input to the runoff models. The resulting coefficient of determination (R2) for the representative runoff models ranged from 0.69 to 0.93 for the calibration period and from 0.63 to 0.92 for the verification period; absolute errors ranged from 18 to 39 percent and from 27 to 51 percent, respectively. Bias error for the runoff modeling ranged from +13 to -32 percent. Observed daily streamflow data were used as input to the network-routing models where available, and simulated streamflows from runoff model results were used for ungaged areas. Absolute error for the network-routing models ranged from about 21 percent for the Molalla River model, for which 70 percent of the subbasin was ungaged, to about 4 percent for the Willamette main-stem model (Albany to Salem), for which only 9 percent of the subbasin was ungaged.

With an input of current streamflow, precipitation, and air temperature data the combined runoff and routing models can provide current estimates of streamflow at almost 500 locations on the main stem and major tributaries of the Willamette River with a high degree of accuracy. Relative contributions of surface runoff, subsurface flow, and ground-water flow can be assessed for 1 to 10 HRU classes in each of 253 subbasins identified for precipitation-runoff modeling. Model outputs were used with a water-quality model to simulate the movement of dye in the Pudding River as an example.

(Abstract from U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4110)

Precipitation-runoff models for 15 gaged and ungaged watersheds in the Lake Tahoe Basin were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in support of the U.S. Department of Interior implementation of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 (public Law 101-618). Precipitation-runoff simulations were made using the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System, a physically-based watershed model designed for simulating alpine-snowmelt runoff. Nine gaged tributaries in the Lake Tahoe Basin were modeled using an approach similar to a paired-basin analysis. Procedures were then developed for regionalizing model parameters to simulate runoff from the six ungaged areas. Lastly, lake-storage volumes for Lake Tahoe were simulated using the reservoir-routing module of Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN and the total tributary inflow from the gaged and ungaged tributaries.

Physiographic watershed characteristics were defined with hydrologic-response units using a spatial data base of natural-resources information designed specifically for the Lake Tahoe Basin. Calibrated model parameters were regionalized with the aid of a geographic information system and software for relational data-base management. Hydrologic-response units in the ungaged areas were matched to similar units in the gaged subbasins and calibrated parameters from the gaged subbasins were transferred to the ungaged subbasins.

To assist in indexing the subbasins to the appropriate climate sites and to determine the precipitation and temperature lapse rates, a climate analysis was made using 19 climate sites in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River Basins. The analysis defined, first, the monthly relations between the altitude of climate sites and the mean precipitation and mean temperature rates, and second, the short-term spatial variability, using principal-component analysis to identify those climate sites that vary together at monthly levels. Results from the analysis show no strong, regional precipitation-altitude relation, especially during the winter months when most of the annual precipitation occurs. This suggests that the rain-shadow effect of the Sierra Nevada influences precipiation at the sites as much as altitude. The principal-component analysis indicated that about 93 percent of the monthly precipitation variability is shared among all of the sites, once seasonality is removed. These results appear to refute an assumption that, on a regional scale, natural clusters of synchronized precipitation variation exist in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee River Basins.

Differences between streamflow measured at gaging stations and simulated by the model were evaluated for the entire simulation period, which for most subbasins was from October 1980 through September 1996. Though not included in the statistical analysis, the historic January 1997 flood was modeled for each of the gaged subbasins. Simulation bias for daily mean streamflow ranged from -9 to 0 percent for the calibration period and from -5 to +8 percent for the verification and validation periods; relative error ranged from +1 to +38 percent and from -5 to +74 percent for the calibration and verification periods, respectively. Simulation bias for annual mean streamflow ranged form -5 to +4 percent and relative error ranged from -1 to +18 percent. Sime of the difficulties in modeling the Lake Tahoe Basin can be attributed to the following: (1) the frequency of winter rain and rain-on-snow storms affecting much of the Lake Tahoe Basin area, thereby affecting snow accumulation and melt rates; (2) increasing urban development; and (3) a significant subsurface and ground-water storage component in some of the modeled subbasins. Thus, parameters most sensitive to simulating runoff were determined to be the nondistributed parameters. In particular these parameters are the subsurface and ground-water routing coefficients, which mainly affect runoff timing and sitribution, and the monthly temperature-dependent parameters, which affect snowmelt rates and precipitation form.

About 50 percent of the total Lake Tahoe inflow, as determined in this study, is from the ungaged areas. Comparison of runoff indices for the ungaged basins to the associated gaged basins indicates that the ungaged areas have similar runoff proportions and seasonal distributions. The estimated relative error for daily mean streamflow from the aggregated ungaged areas ranged from +12 to +36 percent. Simulated total tributary inflow to Lake Tahoe averaged 409,000 acre-feet annually for water years 1981-96, which is within the range estimated in previous studies.

To determine the sensitivity of the Lake Tahoe water-budget componenets, a reservoir-routing module of Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN was constructed to simulate daily lake-storage volumes for Lake Tahoe. Tributary inflow simulated in this study, estimated lake-surface precipitation and evaporation, and outflow measured at Tahoe City were used as inputs to the model. In simulating lake storage, deviations from observed storage levels result when bias in one or more of the lake water-budget components is over an extended period. Differences between the observed and simulated storage traces, which were significant for most years, were not caused by errors (bias) in inflow alone, but were exacerbated by errors associated with the precipitation and evaporation components of the water budget.

(Abstract from U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4282)

The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990 provides a foundation for developing operating criteria for interstate allocation of water in the Truckee River and Carson River Basins of western Nevada and eastern california. The Truckee-Carson Program of the U.S. Geological Survey is assisting the U.S. Department of the Interior in implementing the Settlement Act by developing a modeling system to support water-resource planning and management. The U.S. Geological Survey's Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) was used to simulate streamflow from seven gaged subbasins, six reservoir catchments, and three ungaged areas in the upper Truckee River Basin. PRMS is a physically based, distributed-parameter watershed model designed to analyze the effects of precipitation, temperature, and land use on streamflow and general basin hydrology. Each subbasin was partitioned into hydrologically homogeneous subareas called hydrologic response units, or HUR's whereby the physical properties affecting streamflow are quantified at the HRU level. A geographic information system, relational data-base software, and other computer programs were used to delineate HRU's, to assist in regionalizing model parameters, and to facilitate the construction of the 16 watershed models.

Results of modeling the gaged subbasins in general suggest satisfactory simulation at daily, monthly, and annual intervals, though there exists a bias in simulating runoff during the 1995-97 period. Bias in simulating daily mean runoff ranged from -6 to +4 percent for the calibration period and from -7 to +18 percent for the verification period; relative error ranged from -20 to +47 percent and from -6 to +41 percent for the calibration and verification periods, respectively. For the full modeling period, monthly mean runoff bias ranged from -4 to +5 percent, and relative error ranged from -21 to +17 percent. For the full modeling period, annual mean runoff bias ranged from -7 to +7 percent, and relative error ranged from -9 to +11 percent. Observed winter runoff (November through February) contributes, on average, from 15 to 30 percent of the annual runoff and is expressed as sharp, short duration runoff peaks. Most of these peaks were fairly well modeled, though runoff during years of below-average precipitation was often oversimulated. Spring runoff (April through June) typically ranges from 50 to 65 percent of the annual streamflow.

The ungaged areas and reservoir catchments were indexed to the gaged subbasins of closest geographic and hydroclimatic similarity for the purpose of transferring distributed and nondistributed parameters. HRU-distributed parameter values were generally transferable when physiographic conditions were similar. Nondistributed parameter values were transferable from the template subbasin when hydrogeologic conditions were assumed similar; otherwise, regionalized estimates were used. Modeling results indicated runoff simulations were sensitive to adjustments made to nondistributed, temperature-dependent parameters and the subsurface and ground-water flow-routing coefficients. These parameters in particular affect runoff timing for individual rain or snowmelt events, the shape of the baseflow recession part of the hydrograph, and overall seasonal distribution of runoff.

Streamflows for two of the ungaged areas along the main-stem of the Truckee River were also reconstructed using differences in flow from upstream and downstream gages. These reconstructed flows were unsatisfactory for comparative purposes due to the cumulative error associated with using several gaging station records. However, most of the ungaged areas are at low altitudes that are assumed to contribute little to snowmelt runoff.

No reliable daily inflow data were available to calibrate models for the reservoir catchment. Therefore, the models for these subbasins were constructed in a manner similar to the ungaged areas. Reservoir inflows were reconstructed using a water-balance approach. No statistical analyses were used in comparing the reconstructed inflows to the PRMS simulated inflows due to the uncertainty in the reservoir-surface precipitation and evaporation components of the water balance. Graphical analyses of monthly reconstructed reservoir inflows and simulated inflows indicate satisfactory correspondence between the two data sets.

Battaglin, W.A., Hay, L.E., Parker, R.S., and Leavesley, G.H., 1993: Applications of GIS for modeling the sensitivity of water resources to alterations in climate in the Gunnison River basin, Colorado: Water Res. Bull. V. 25, no. 6, p. 1021-1028.

Brendecke, C.M., Laiho, D.R., and Holden, D.C., 1985: Comparison of two daily streamflow simulation models of an alpine watershed, J. Hydrol. v. 77, p. 171-186.

Brendecke, C.M., and Sweeten, J.G., 1985: A simulation model of Boulder's alpine water supply, in Proceedings of 53rd Annual Meeting of the Western Snow Conference: Boulder, Colorado, pp. 63-71.

Carey, W.P., and Simon, A., 1984: Physical basis and potential estimation techniques for soil erosion parameters in the Presipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS): U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep. 84-4218, 32 p.

Cary, L.E., 1991: Techniques for estimating selected parameters of the U.S. Geological Survey's Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System in eastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming: U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep. 91-4068, 39 p.

Emerson, D.G., 1991: Documentation of a heat and water transfer model for seasonally frozen soils with application to a precipitation-runoff model: U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Report 91-462, 97 p.

Flügel, W.A., and Lüllwitz, Th., 1993: Using a distributed hydrologic model with the aid of GIS for comparative hydrological modelling of micro- and mesoscale catchments in the USA and Germany, in Wilkinson, W.B., ed., Macroscale modelling of the hydrosphere: IAHS Pub. no. 214, p. 59-66.

Flügel, W.A., 1995: Delineating Hydrological Response Units by Geographical Information System Analyses for Regional Hydrological Modelling using PRMS/MMS in Drainage Basin of the River Brol, Germany, Hydrological processes, vol. 9, no. 3/4, p. 423.

Hay, L.E., Battaglin, W.A., Parker, R.S., and Leavesley, G.H., 1993: Modeling the effects of climate change on water resources in the Gunnison River basin, Colorado, in Goodchild, M.F., Parks, B.O., and Steyaert, L.T., eds., Environmental modeling in GIS: Oxford Univ. Press, p. 173-181.

Jeton, A.E., 1999: Precipitation-Runoff Simulations for the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Report 99-4110, 61 p.

Jeton, A.E., 2000: Precipitation-Runoff Simulations for the Upper Part of the Truckee River Basin, California and Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Report 99-4282, 41 p.

Kuhn, G., and Parker, R.S., 1992: Transfer of watershed-model parameter values to noncalibrated basins in the Gunnison River basin, Colorado: AWRA 28th Annual Conference and Symposium, Managing water resources during global change, Reno, Nevada, November 1-5, 1992, p. 741-750.

Laenen, Antonius, and John C. Risley, 1997, Precipitation-Runoff and Streamflow-Routing Models for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Report 95-4284, 197 p.

Leavesley, G.H., Branson, M.D., and Hay, L.E., 1992: Using coupled atmospheric and hydrologic models to investigate the effects of climate change in mountainous regions: AWRA 28th Annual Conference and Symposium, Managing water resources during global change, Reno, Nevada, November 1-5, 1992, p. 691-700.

Leavesley, G.H., Lusby, G.C., and Lichty, R.W., 1989: Infiltration and erosion characteristics of selected tephra deposits from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington: Hydrol. Sci. J., 34(3).

Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Troutman, B.M., and Saindon, L.G., 1981: A precipitation-runoff modeling system for evaluating the hydrologic impacts of energy-resource development in Proceedings of 49th Annual Meeting of the Western Snow Conference: St. George, Utah, pp. 65-76.

Leavesley, G.H. and Stannard, L.G., 1995: The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System- PRMS, in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, Vijay P. Singh, ed., Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

Leavesley, G.H. and Stannard, L.G., 1990a: Application of remotely sensed data in a distributed-parameter watershed model, in Kite, G.W., and Wankiewicz, eds., Proceedings of Workshop on Applications of Remote Sensing in Hydrology: National Hydrologic Research Centre, Environment Canada, p. 47-64.

Leavesley, G.H. and Stannard, L.G., 1990b: A modular watershed-modeling system for use in mountainous regions: Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, n. 18, p. 380-383.

Leavesley, G.H. and Striffler, W.D., 1979: A mountain watershed simulation model, in Colbeck, S.C., and Ray, M., eds., Modeling of snow cover runoff: Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S. Army CRREL, 379-386.

Norris, J.M., and Parker, R.S., 1985: Calibration procedure for a daily flow model of small watersheds with snowmelt runoff in the Green River coal region of Colorado: U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep. 83-4263, 32 p.

Rankl, J.G., 1987: Analysis of sediment production from two small semi arid basins in Wyoming: U.G. Geol. Surv. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep. 85-4314, 27 p.

Reed, L.A., 1986: Verification of the PRMS sediment-discharge model, in Proceedings of the Fourth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference: March 24-26, 1986, Las Vegas, v. II, p. 6-44 to 6-54.

Rivera-Santos, J., 1990: Parameter estimation in conceptual precipitation-runoff models with emphasis on error analysis, in Tropical Hydrology and Caribbean Water Resources: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Hydrology and Fourth Caribbean Islands Water Resources Congress, San Juan, Puerto Rico, American Water Resources Association, p. 91-100.

Stannard, L.G., and Kuhn, G., 1989: Watershed modeling, in Britton, L.J., Anderson, C.L., Goolsby, D.A., and Van Haveren, B.P., eds., Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Land Management National Coal-Hydrology Program, 1974-84: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1464.

Troutman, B.M., 1985: Errors and parameter estimation in precipitation-runoff modeling: Water Resour. Res., 21(8), 1214-1222.

WMO, 1986: Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runoff: WMO Operational Hydrol. Rep. no. 23, WMO Publ. no. 646, WMO, Geneva.

see also the list at HASS

SMIC Home | SMIC Primer | What's New | To Do List | Feedback | Bulletin Board | List of Models | Table of Models