Watershed Model Summary #659
Comments
Ideas of items to include in summary:MapsProducts developed for 2020 State Plan minor basin summaries:
Items in State Plan Appendix Model Error and Predictive Uncertainty:
Analyses developed for VWP modelling projects:
HARP 2018-2019 Dashboard PDFs (DEQ model vs USGS gage comparisons):
|
|
In order for the Analysts to help summarize the watershed model summary, we have started on a document that outlines our work from the summer and fall. This document will hopefully give background information about the switch from hspf to hsp2, and then more specific information on the steps that we have taken to adapt data from h5's, analyzing it, and how data is in VAHydro. In the appendix we will provide example figures/graphs on examples about the analysis we have done. Finally, a summary on key statistics of the analysts' work and next steps in the project for the spring. Table of contents for now:
Does this sound like a useful piece of documentation for the final report from the harp project? Is there anything that we should add? We can start working on this, and then at some point in January provide a draft for review. |
|
Yes - I almost capitalized and bolder:).
Thanks,
S
… On Dec 16, 2022, at 4:32 PM, juliabruneau ***@***.***> wrote:
In order for the Analysts to help summarize the watershed model summary, we have started on a document that outlines our work from the summer and fall. This document will hopefully give background information about the switch from hspf to hsp2, and then more specific information on the steps that we have taken to adapt data from h5's, analyzing it, and how data is in VAHydro. In the appendix we will provide example figures/graphs on examples about the analysis we have done. Finally, a summary on key statistics of the analysts' work and next steps in the project for the spring.
Table of contents for now:
Introduction
Watershed Modeling by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
The Hydrological Simulation Program (HSP)
3.1 HSP Model Run and VAHydro Data Processing Workflow
3.1.1. Data from HSP Model Runs
3.1.2. Organizing Data
3.1.3. Summarizing Data
3.1.4. Data in VAHydro (ftables??)
Statistics on HARP Analysts’ Work
Next Steps in the Project
References
Appendix
A. Example Figures
B. List of Scripts and Their Uses
Does this sound like a useful piece of documentation for the final report from the harp project? Is there anything that we should add? We can start working on this, and then at some point in January provide a draft for review.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#659 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC4K423HZNUTJITJOJ7W4OLWNTNVFANCNFSM6AAAAAASQZWWHE>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
|
@juliabruneau Yes, I think this list looks great and will form some excellent documentation of your work on this project! For the watershed model summaries we've started outlining here, I believe the idea is to come up with a way to produce a dynamic R Markdown, capable of receiving inputs for watershed of interest and model runs of interest, then the script will produce a tidy document characterizing model validation and error analysis comparing scenario runs of HSPF to HSP2, or HSP2 to HSP2, or HSP2 to usgs gage and so on. The R Markdown document would contain maps, figures, tables and metric comparisons. |
|
See latest mapping script: #749 |
New Metric GenerationThe I have included these stats in addition to the pre-existing l90, l30, l7 & l1 stats:
I used the pre-existing riverseg: PM2_4860_4670 and gageid: 01643700 from the rmd file, since I'm not 100% sure how to match gages with river segments. |
|
Automated testing: https://github.com/HARPgroup/vahydro/issues/309 |
json errorRan the chunk: Received this error: This is the source of the error (line 4): |
Hydr files for hsp2 and hspf for segment JL1_6770_6850 should be ready for comparisonThese parameters are for running the rmd: |
Work In Progress 4/10 & 4/12
Currently using
Quality with Matching the time series with
|
|
This is excellent progress @juliabruneau -- I have one suggestion for the
|
Matching datasets and Bar PlotsThe code to use I took a random 3rd dataset; it kept the same start date, and changed the end date of all the datasets to 1991: The 90-day low flow bar plot generated using the IHA |
Model Performance Scatterplots & %-Diff BoxplotI was able to generate scatterplots for all different low flow scenarios. Right now, the output figure height should still be edited so that the figures aren't as squished. But this is what it looks like right now: Here's a closer look of just one plot of each:
Update: Created a %-Diff Boxplot:
|
Loop bugThis loop is not generating unique datasets for some reason: Result - named uniquely but the data is identical from model2: input data in the zoo function: |
Model Comparison with 3 DatasetsScatterplots
Future Work
Creating functions would significantly shorten the markdown, since we do have to have many lines within these ggplot figure generation codes (different labels and axis names & a legend if 3 models).
Example JUST to generate l90 figures with 3 Models: First Loop: Second Loop: |
gregexec() error preventing knitting -- only analyst w/ this problemI've been getting this error from rendering and chunk-running the rmd: and it shows up from this line: |
Pulling length with additional params argumentsAdditional variables now need to be set within the render command which are used to locate and read in the length needed by @megpritch |
Current use & example using render() to knitUse: Examples: (megan's)
|
Less FTABLE Clutter
Still some undesirable overlap on the y-axis with the channel length, but the depths are now more readable. We also removed the extra FTABLE plots showing the channel from different angles. |
|
@megpritch Nice work! |
Experimenting w/ % difference for metrics
|
|
Test CIA routine on Rappahannock. Looks tight:
|
|
Testd beaver creek (subwatershed): |
Checklist for completing the Rmd.
_hydrd_wy.csvI want to think of how we'd like to present model results to characterize the validation of the new hsp2 system as well as general model error analysis. Last WSP we did a basic error analysis in an appendix, based on error between models and usgs gages but got feedback from public comment period that it would benefit from more context, graphics, etc. We also did appendices with "minor basin" summaries, tho these were heavy on narrative and light on data (just summary flow stats).
So I see this as an opportunity to work on a flexible watershed summary that includes usgs error analysis. Something that is usable in both wsp and permit analysis, something that benefits the public understanding but also can benefit us modelers, and also be used for model validation (it should be also able to compare model to model).
This will ultimately form the "final report deliverable" for the harp project.
Retrieving JSON objects with all model results in them
Running the RMD
Compare 2 hsp2/hspf models
3 models Including OM, hspf and hsp2
Resulting Document Layout:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: