Abstract
The data required to drive distributed hydrological models are significantly limited within mountainous terrain because of a scarcity of observations. This study evaluated three common configurations of forcing data: 1) one low-elevation station, combined with empirical techniques; 2) gridded output from the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF); and 3) a combination of the two. Each configuration was evaluated within the heavily instrumented North Fork American River basin in California during October–June 2000–10. Simulations of streamflow and snowpack using the Distributed Hydrology Soil and Vegetation Model (DHSVM) highlighted precipitation and radiation as variables whose sources resulted in significant differences. The best source of precipitation data varied between years. On average, the WRF performed as well as the single station distributed using the Parameter Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM). The average percent biases in simulated streamflow were 3% and 1%, for configurations 1 and 2, respectively, even though precipitation compared directly with gauge measurements was biased high by 6% and 17%, suggesting that gauge undercatch may explain part of the bias. Simulations of snowpack using empirically estimated longwave irradiance resulted in melt rates lower than those observed at high-elevation sites, while at lower elevations the same forcing caused significant midwinter melt that was not observed. These results highlight the complexity of how forcing data sources impact hydrology over different areas (high- versus low-elevation snow) and different time periods. Overall, results support the use of output from the WRF model over empirical techniques in regions with limited station data.
Intercomparison of Meteorological Forcing Data from Empirical and Mesoscale Model Sources in the North Fork American River Basin in Northern Sierra Nevada, California*