text:
ADRM
jje1000 said:
Would not mind if the Planetarium was replaced by something of the calibre of Vagelos Education Center. It's actually a bit too flashy IMO, but scale is quite similar to what's being proposed for this site.
http://www.dsrny.com
Any project should ideally have some connection to the ROM- imagine if there was a de Young-style observation deck on top for ROM visitors.
I wasn't under the impression there are any renderings of the DSRNY proposal here; is that not the case?
Just basing my thoughts on the zoning study above and what was previously proposed for the site. The actual proposal may look very different.
Reactions: AlvinofDiaspar
ProjectEnd
U of T / DSRNY are certainly taking inspiration from the Vagelos Education Centre but not looking to ape it in a new location.
Reactions: ADRM and AlvinofDiaspar
Nice to know that- I do like the way the Vagelos Centre allows you to experience the city from multiple vantage points, so I hope they introduce something like that for the site.
Something to look forward to:
At first, the school and architecture firms architectsAlliance and Diller Scofidio + Renfro planned to turn the existing space into a recital hall, or a centre for the astronomy and astrophysics program. Ultimately, the school said it would demolish the building – but they will still have a planetarium-like experience somewhere else on the campus.
"That process right now is deeply in the schematic phase. The architects are meeting with academic leaders," Mabury said, and the artists' renderings for the new building should be ready by the summer.
http://www.citynews.ca/2017/01/25/north-carolina-man-fighting-save-toronto-planetarium/
Possibly this?
"Plans are also in the works for a new 14 storey timber building"
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/14/u-of-t-listed-among-torontos-top-polluters.html
Reactions: junctionist, ADRM and AlvinofDiaspar
School of Cities announced:
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-s-new-school-cities-bring-wide-ranging-experts-together-address-urban-challenges
Reactions: RonThom
Also, I saw rendering of this. AFAIK the design is certainly not yet set in stone, but what I saw was 14 stories, using wood and glass with some ondulations on some floors of the walls of the eastern face floors. The pedestrian way on the southside of the old house on Queen's Park will remain and will have a series of (three iirc) cantilevering boxes, one over the other over the other, kind of like a geometric ships bow. Looked fresh and very nice. Most of the old house will remain too.
Among a number of things, a certain difficulty in designing the site was around the need for semi-trailers getting down to the ROM loading dock.
Reactions: interchange42
canarob
In place of Toronto's McLaughlin Planetarium, some golden architecture
The 15,700-square-metre centre would house a collection of academic programs for the University of Toronto, as well as a new 250-seat recital hall for its music department
www.theglobeandmail.com
If approved, the building would rise on a crowded site next to the museum, in front of the university's main music building and next to its law school. It would contain a 250-seat recital hall, an "urban lab" for public events and more, all stacked up along a staircase that slices diagonally upward to the sky.
source:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-in-place-of-torontos-mclaughlin-planetarium-some-golden-architecture/
Reactions: Benito, Johnny Au, AlvinofDiaspar and 6 others
Toronto/EY
I don't mind the building overall.
In fact, I quite like the warm-windows side(s).......not so sure about the treatment at the other end.
But I always have reservations about context in this town where we insist on plunking size, and very contrasting style next to heritage properties.
The building feels a bit 'heavy' for the spot it's in.
Plunk it on the west side of St. George, south of Harbord, and you could hardly go wrong.
Here, I'm not quite as sold.............though it's far better than some earlier ideas for this site.
An environmentally conscientious, libertarian inclined, fiscally conservative, socialist.
Reactions: alklay, billyt23 and condovo
thefreak
Northern Light said:
But I always have reservations about context in this town where we insist on plunking size very contrasting style next to heritage properties.
Ya agreed it's a lovely building but just crammed into the space. Especially the south portion of the building. It will be touching the music building and connected to it by walkway. It's right up against the herritage building. The open space is actually a lot smaller than what is depicted in the render.
I would prefer to see something like the new law building that plays off existing architectural elements of the herritage structure. Very cool design though.
AlexBozikovic
My piece, again, is here. Another image, and site plan:
mjl08
If the Planetarium has to go, I'll gladly take that proposal (barring no Cheapening™)
Love the little plaza, too.
Also, add another top-notch international firm to the list of those with projects in the TO pipeline (or under construction or semi-recently completed): DSRNY; Snohetta; F+P; Gehry; Piano; 3XN; BIG; Henning Larsen; etc.
smuncky
was curious as to how the new plan sits on the existing site.
@smuncky
"The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.†-Alex Steffen
Reactions: Johnny Au, Northern Light, Bayer and 3 others


Peer Review Response: A Report by DWR/Reclamation in Reply to the Peer Review of the CalSim-II Model Sponsored by the CALFED Science Program in December 2003 Table of Contents 1.
DWR/Reclamation Response to Specific Issues............................................................................... 5 4.1.
Conceptual Level....................................................................................................................5 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.2.3. 4.2.4. 4.2.5. 4.2.6. 4.2.7. 4.2.8. 4.2.9. 4.2.10. 4.2.11. 4.2.12. 4.2.13.
Implementation Level ..........................................................................................................11 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.3.3. 4.3.4.
Model Testing .......................................................................................................................18 4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3. 4.4.4.
Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 25 6.1.
Summary...............................................................................................................................25 6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.1.4.
Land Use Based Demands .............................................................................................................A-1 Central Valley Production Model .................................................................................................A-2 Matching of Demands and Supply................................................................................................A-2 Groundwater Pumping Logic........................................................................................................A-2 Groundwater Export......................................................................................................................A-2 Results from CalSim-II Historical Operations Study .................................................................A-2 Appendix B.
Data Management ..........................................................................................................................C-1 Graphical User Interface ...............................................................................................................C-1 Solution Controller.........................................................................................................................C-2 Appendix D.
Documentation Management ........................................................................................................D-1 Appendix E.
Conceptual Model .......................................................................................................................... E-1 Spatial Representation ................................................................................................................... E-2 Water Use Efficiency...................................................................................................................... E-2 Rainfall-Runoff Modeling.............................................................................................................. E-3 Consumptive Use Model ................................................................................................................ E-4 Modularity ...................................................................................................................................... E-5 Appendix F.
1. Introduction The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) have jointly developed a computer model called CalSim-II that simulates much of the water resources infrastructure in the Central Valley of California and Delta region. CalSim-II provides quantitative hydrologic-based information to those responsible for the planning, managing and operating the State Water Project (SWP) and federal Central Valley Project (CVP). CalSim-II is a particular application of software developed primarily by DWR called CalSim. CalSim is a generalized water resources tool that can be applied to most reservoir-river basin systems. CalSim was recently renamed by DWR and Reclamation to WRIMS (Water Resources Integrated Modeling System). For consistency, however, the name CalSim rather than WRIMS will be used throughout this report. In 2003, the CALFED Science Program commissioned an external review panel to provide an independent analysis and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of CalSim and CalSim-II. Specifically the review panel was asked (Strategic Review, p3) to answer the following questions below: (note: The Strategic Review report used the upper case "CALSIM" for the engine and the upper case "CALSIM II" for the application. In the seven questions below, as extracted from that report, the word "CALSIM" appears to imply both the engine CALSIM and, more importantly, the application CALSIM II. For consistency in this report, the words CalSim will be used for the engine and CalSim-II for the application) 1. Is CALSIM a reasonable modeling approach for current and proposed applications and problems? 2. Do other modeling approaches show similar or greater promise and flexibility for such problems? 3. What are the major comparative strengths and weaknesses of the current CALSIM approach and alternate approaches? 4. What are the major scientific, technical, and institutional limitations, uncertainties, and impediments for current and proposed applications of CALSIM? 5. What model, software, and data developments, special studies or tests would be beneficial to improve CALSIM for current and proposed uses? 6. How might CALSIM development and applications be managed and overseen to improve the quality assurance of the model results for current and proposed applications? 7. What are the panel suggestions for long-term use, development, or replacement of the current suite of models and data available for the current and proposed uses of CALSIM? The Peer Review was held November 13-14, 2003. The panel's responses to the above questions were published in "A strategic review of CALSIM II and its uses for water planning, management, and operations in central California" (Strategic Review, December 4, 2003), herein referred to as the Strategic Review. This report is a response from DWR and Reclamation to the Strategic Review. The following information clarifies issues raised by the Peer Review, outlines the priority of development, and addresses current and future development work.
2. Goals of CalSim-II Development The Department of Water Resources (DWR) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) strive to develop, maintain, and apply CalSim-II as the simulation model of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project best representing the two projects for planning and management studies. It is intended to serve organizations with an interest in the CVP/SWP management with the goals of developing and maintaining the best available technical tools for planning and management studies.
6. Application/Software Extensions (priority listed in order after 5, although many of these projects have been initiated (Table 2)). a. Modular Application of CalSim (section 4.2.6) b. Demand Management and Supply Augmentation Schemes (Conjunctive Use) (section 4.2.9). DWR and Reclamation plan to explore partnerships with stakeholder groups and outside resources to support implementation of some of these priority items in a comprehensive manner.
4. DWR/Reclamation Response to Specific Issues 4.1.
DWR and Reclamation do not agree with the comment stated.
DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated.
2a DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated and staff is currently working on it as part of our immediate needs for CalSim-II. A work plan is being developed by both DWR and Reclamation and will be shared with the public in the very near future. 2b DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated and consider it important to address in the short term with a target date of January 2007. 2c DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated but considers it should be addressed on a longer term with a target date of January 2011. Where there is agreement (i.e., 2) then DWR and Reclamation attempt to fit the response within their projected timelines. Sometimes there is agreement and disagreement on an issue (e.g., 1, 2) indicating disagreement with portions of the comment but agreements on other parts.
Despite the coordinated effort, documentation activities have often been given second priority to the production of model studies. Both DWR and Reclamation acknowledge the need to prioritize and supplement the Review and Documentation Team effort with additional resources to complete the documentation task. A brief description of the proposed CalSim-II documentation management system is given in Appendix D.
Detailed simulation of some system elements, allowing modeling of non-linearities, and potential reduction in run time.
Iterative solution of a cycle. A cycle will repeatedly be solved until the userspecified convergence criteria are met (or maximum number of iterations). This will increase the ability to model nonlinear aspects of the system.
Automation of writing decision variables and constraints for multi-period optimization. The CAM model (briefly described in Appendix B) uses a timeconsuming manual process for defining the MIP for multi-period optimization. This may be automated by introducing arrays for decision variables and constraints.
Dynamic computation of decision variable weights. This will allow increased flexibility of the MIP.
Streamlining of cycling MIP solutions. Cycles will be streamlined to eliminate the need for separate "Single Study Runner" and "Multi-Study Runner". This will allow a single GUI to be used for all CalSim simulations.
Expanded use of DSS pathnames. A single DSS output file may be used for all "multi-step" studies. Transfer files may be eliminated, reducing time-consuming reading/writing to hard drive.
expanded. Initially DWR supported a web-based software bug reporting and archiving system. This system needs to be reactivated. DWR and Reclamation intend to publish a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ). This will eliminate many wasted hours of model user's time due to minor software bugs and idiosyncrasies. DWR accepts the need to provide centralized support. Given the agencies current workload and resource constraints it seems that it may be best to contract this to a third party. 4.3.4.2. Error Checking The Strategic Review identified automated error (p5) and input/output (p24) checking for increased productivity. Staff from DWR, Reclamation, and other agencies or consultants has developed several spreadsheets for such purposes. A short-term goal of DWR is to collect, refine, and develop such spreadsheets into a series of standard pre and post processors that become a standardized set of tools. In addition, development of the next version of CalSim (v2.0) software may include expanding the solvers capability to track potential errors in setting up input data. 4.3.4.3. Gaming Stakeholder participation will be sought to develop a gaming interface for the next version of CalSim (v2.0). 4.3.4.4. GUI A CalSim-II geo-referenced network schematic is under development by Reclamation. The primary purpose of this project is to provide a communication tool between CalSim-II users, agency management, project managers, and the public. Geo-referencing the network provides quality control and a spatial connection between the system and the topography. The general CalSim GIS toolbox can be applied in any geographic location and features drag and drop icons with connector linkages for easy modifications. CalSim-II network schematic developments also anticipate future integration options. GIS is capable of generating CalSim code based on the network representation to run an application, storing pertinent meta data and coverage information, and has online integrated mapping system capabilities. In addition, the CalSim GIS toolbox has been applied to the SWP and CVP system and is now under review. Alternative options (public domain) for schematic generation are also in discussion.
Search for a public domain GUI for the construction and editing of the river basin topology.
Optimize the reading and writing of data to HEC-DSS.
A monthly time-step may poorly represent regulatory requirements, such as X2, which may be met on the basis of 14-day running average EC, or 3-day running average Net Delta Outflow Index.
DWR and Reclamation have implemented a version control system for CalSim-II's text-based input files. The system allows model users web-based access to a central database. Model studies can be downloaded from the database, changes made locally to the model, and the revised data input stored back in the central location. The system has not been fully adopted, due in part to the lack of in-place model development/model management protocols. The current text-based version control system will be replaced by an analogous version-control feature with the release of the nexe version of CalSim (v2.0) that is centered on a relational database. DWR and Reclamation agree that it is a high priority to develop enterprise database capabilities for the next version of CalSim (v2.0), so that central data management and version control can be implemented. 4.3.4.15. Water Quality DWR is currently working with MWD to develop a water quality module for CalSim. The first-phase of the project would permit the user to specify inflow concentrations, and concentrations for agricultural and urban return flows for various conservative constituents. CalSim would calculate the resulting water quality throughout the network using constituent mass balance. Water quality calculations would be post-processed at the end of each time-step. A second phase of development would allow the model user to specify water quality targets as drivers in the optimization procedure. 4.3.4.16. Weights The objective function weights establish the priority for releasing water from storage and making deliveries to different parts of the network. DWR and Reclamation accept that the process of weight setting is as much an art as a science. Currently the creation of a successful set of weights requires a sophisticated model user or a very patient one that is willing to submit to a time consuming trial and error process. A systematic and standardized approach is needed to generate weights, once the user has defined relative priorities (Strategic Review, p24). The acceptability of CalSim-II results and ease of model use are subject to some debate and concern, partly due to the current difficulties in weight setting. DWR and Reclamation support the idea of research into a method of automatically assigning values to individual weights to represent the underlying water right-based allocation rules, contractual and institutional requirements, regulatory policy layers and operating rules simulated in CalSim-II. 4.3.5. Administrative Issues 4.3.5.1. Resources DWR and Reclamation will explore and work with other public agencies; at local, regional, state or federal level, to seek needed resources to continue the development work proposed in this response plan.
4.3.5.2. Model Management DWR and Reclamation will also seek new opportunities and avenues, both private and public, to broaden the management base for the existing and future model developments. Currently there is an interagency team coordinating this effort. 4.3.5.3. Peer Review DWR and Reclamation believe that peer review enhances the acceptability of the modeling tool. The agencies may suggest peer reviews of modeling components it deems necessary. 4.3.5.4. Public Involvement DWR and Reclamation will work with all interested parties, both public and private, to seek technical input in developing and enhancing the current and future modeling components. 4.3.5.5. Sustainability The proposed Model Management Team (DWR, Reclamation and others) will work to develop a strategy in this important area. 4.3.5.6. Training and Education The agencies modelers will continue to support, to the extent resources permit, to broaden the model users' base for appropriate use of models. The Proposed Model Management Team may also be charged with this responsibility.
4.4.1. Calibration and Validation Model calibration is the process of fine-tuning the value of various model parameters, so that model results match the observed data. Validation is the subsequent testing of the model against data that has not been used in the calibration to obtain an independent assessment of the model's accuracy. The need for testing, calibration and validation of CalSim-II is one of the most controversial issues raised in the Strategic Review. Some of the peer review panel recommended that further validation of the model is required through the comparison of model results to recent historical data. However some in the modeling community express their doubts on the usefulness of such a comparison (CalSim-II in California's Water Community – Musing on a Model, p158). The Strategic Review (p129) notes that for the Murray-Darling Basin model, validation is considered to be less important. The Murray-Darling Basin model is calibrated using a long period of data. In contrast validation is carried out using only two to three years of data. In discussing the merits of calibration it is important to distinguish between physical parameters that remain essentially constant (e.g. stream-bed conductance), and behavioral parameters that may change and adapt (e.g. reservoir operating policy). Water use parameters such as irrigation efficiency may fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Where possible the value of parameters should be determined from direct observation. This may not be possible for some parameters such as regional scale reuse of water.
The accretions and depletions between the project reservoirs and the Delta are calibration terms. They have been determined so that at a historical level CalSim-II will exactly match historical gage data if reservoir releases are fixed at their historical level and groundwater pumping and stream-aquifer interaction are fixed at their assumed historical values.
Calibration of groundwater use has not been carried-out due to the lack of historical data.
The stream-aquifer model in CalSim-II is calibrated to the more sophisticated Central Valley Groundwater Surface Water Model (CVGSM).
The CalSim-II hydrology is calibrated to net consumptive use rather than stream diversions and return flows. CalSim-II may therefore not simulate well diversions to particular irrigation districts.
The hydrology adjustment to account for the impact of land-use change on rainfallrunoff has not been calibrated or validated.
Calibration or validation of district-scale diversions in CalSim-II cannot be undertaken without increasing the resolution of the model.
DWR and Reclamation modeling staff continue to work with project operators to define operating rules that correctly capture current (rather than historical) operational policies.
Following re-calibration of CVGSM1, the CalSim-II groundwater model is refined and re-calibrated.
DWR and Reclamation develop methods to validate assumptions regarding land use change impacts on rainfall-runoff.
Major revisions to the underlying IGSM software and the input data sets to CVGSM have been made by DWR since the development and calibration of the CalSim-II groundwater module.
Modeling groundwater pumping is modified to a land-use based approach. DWR has identified through land use surveys areas that are dependent on groundwater, areas that rely on surface water and areas that use groundwater as a contingent supply. The spatial resolution of CalSim-II should be refined to distinguish between these three land types.
After the completion of the above, CalSim-II should undergo a limited validation exercise using different recent year types. Validation of local project operations has been shown to work well with the recent model enhancements to the San Joaquin Valley. Working with local districts has resulted in successfully calibrated hydrologic parameters so that CalSim-II has matched recent historical storage and flow data. 4.4.2. Sensitivity Analysis The primary goal of CalSim-II sensitivity analysis is three-fold: (1) to verify if the key model input parameters are working properly within their reasonable range of variations; (2) to determine the impact of each parameter on selected model results; and (3) to set up priorities for potential refinements of model input parameters. Some of the parameters being evaluated are: SWP demands, target carryover storages, reservoir inflows, agricultural and urban water use, water use efficiencies, Delta water quality requirements etc. This sensitivity analysis had been undertaken by DWR and will be coordinated with Reclamation. 4.4.3. Uncertainty Analysis Uncertainty analysis uses probabilistic descriptions of model inputs to derive probability distributions of model outputs and system performance indices (Strategic Review, p73). CalSimII users need not only stand alone for absolute model results but also the degree of confidence they can place them. For example, what is the 95% confidence limit on the exceedence curve of project exports from the Delta? Hydrologic uncertainty is expressed through the use of a 73-year time series. There is currently no measure of data input uncertainty. Appendix H of the Strategic Review focuses on ways to identify and quantify uncertainty. DWR and Reclamation agree that a method of implementing uncertainty analysis for CalSim-II needs to be defined. One approach is to simulate historical operations and use the statistics of goodness of fit to identify the uncertainty. An alternate approach is to identify plausible ranges of input parameters and to repeat model runs using high and low values of complimentary parameters (e.g. low efficiency in conjunction with high demands). This approach is more akin to the multiple future scenarios adopted by the California Water Plan Update.
4.4.4. CalSim-II Historical Operations Study The primary purpose of the CalSim-II Simulation of Historical SWP/CVP Operations Study (DWR, 2003) was to evaluate the ability of CalSim-II to represent CVP and SWP operations, in general, and the delivery capability of the projects, in particular, when compared with a recent historical 24-year period. The following paragraphs discuss issues regarding this study raised in the Strategic Review.
4.4.4.2. Allocation to Project Contractors (Strategic Review, p68) Real-time allocation rules are moving targets that are year-specific and are based on entitlement requests, hydrology forecasts, initial storage conditions (both north and south of the Delta), and many other operational considerations. As such, allocation rules are very closely tied to each historical year's operation, and are not easily amenable to general mathematical formulations under a wide range of hydrologic conditions for use in the CalSim-II modeling studies. Knowing this, DWR does agree in general with the reviewers' observation that current allocation rules in the model tend to deliver water more uniformly over the dry period. Current allocation rules in CalSim-II have been designed to operate the system at a fixed level of development, present or future, which tend to maximize long-term deliveries while protecting the average annual deliveries during the historical dry periods of 1987-1992 and 1928-1934. This rule reduces the potential variability of deliveries from year to year. During the dry period of 1987-1992, more water was delivered by the SWP and the CVP during the first years of the drought and less during the latter part when compared to the delivery values of the Historical Operations Study. Although CalSim-II does not capture the potential variability of deliveries during dry periods, the simulations are useful for quantifying the total amount of deliveries over dry periods and providing information for more detailed analyses designed to address this variability. At this time, DWR will continue with the method currently used in CalSim-II for allocating water. 4.4.4.3.
both the "with-action" and "without-action" model runs, except the action itself, and the focus of the analysis is the differences in the results. The Strategic Review (p9), however, suggests that the assumed relative accuracy of a comparative analysis may be incorrect as: "…it relies on the assumption that the model errors which render an absolute forecast unreliable are sufficiently independent of, or orthogonal to, the change being modeled that they do not similarly affect the forecast of change in outcome; they mostly cancel out." CalSim-II and its predecessors DWRSIM, PROSIM, and SANJASM were originally conceived for comparative analysis. However, for endangered species consultation, biological assessments, facility re-licensing efforts under FERC, or local planning efforts by project contractors and local agencies, absolute values of delivery reliability or other performance measures are required. DWR and Reclamation recognize the requirement of CalSim-II to provide absolute predictions, and consequently the need for further work in refining model inputs and quantifying the likely range of model error. Relying on analysis of long periods (anywhere from a few years to the period of record) through calculation of statistical parameters and development of exceedence data may be useful for absolute predictions. Reliance on individual monthly values or yearly averages is not recommended. The relative accuracy of a comparative analysis can be demonstrated through sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity to model inputs can be compared between a stand-alone study and a comparative analysis. In the comparative sensitivity analysis, a unit change of input to both the "with" and "without" project model, results in a change in the difference in the model outputs. CalSim-II is constantly improving. DWR and Reclamation will consider, through discussions with stakeholders, the relative priorities of (1) refining the current model to improve its accuracy, and (2) quantifying the level of accuracy of the current CalSim-II model.
5. Development Priorities Table 2 summarizes current CalSim/CalSim-II development projects and recommends priorities for future development. These are categorized according to immediate needs, shortterm priorities, and long-term priorities. The time frame for the short and long-term priorities is January 2007 and January 2011, respectively. Comments and references in Table 1 can be matched (in general) with those in Table 2.
6. Summary and Conclusions 6.1.
accurate. Many of the data concerns relate to the input hydrology. Priorities for the two agencies are: 1) Documentation of the CalSim-II's conceptual model and associated data inputs 2) Overhaul of the CalSim-II hydrology, with the development of updated hydrologic inputs supported by calibration and or validation 3) Integration of CalSim-II and CVGSM2 (or alternative) system representation and data set 4) Extension of hydrologic data to 2002 or beyond 5) Validation of CalSim-II using different year types 6) Uncertainty analysis 6.1.3. Software Improvements to the CalSim software should focus on the release of the next version of CalSim (v2.0). This represents a major restructuring of the model, with the replacement of text input files with a relational database. This will provide the functionality to implement many of the Strategic Review recommendations: modularity, version control, and documentation (metadata). The database will allow users to quickly query constraint sets and decision variables, and more easily follow model coding logic. Elimination of the FORTRAN compiler and the use of a public domain solver will make the software more accessible. Other important software development goals are: 1) Development of a GUI for construction of reservoir river-basin topology and the input and output of data 2) Creation of a common post-processing utility (using third-party tools such as Micosoft Excel) that streamlines the comparison of model results across model runs 3) Update and expand the CalSim user's manual and provide centralized support to CalSim/CalSim-II users 4) Reduce model run times by implementing better data transfer efficiency, increased modularity, and a more efficient solver 5) Develop a stripped-down CalSim-II for training of new users 6) Develop and automated procedure for weight setting 7) Develop multi-period optimization capabilities 6.1.4. Long-term Development Models take time to develop. Substantial thought should be given to the problems and type of analysis that CalSim will have to address in the next five to ten years, and the likely available resources within DWR and Reclamation. DWR and Reclamation will seek involvement from local agencies in model development. With modeling needs clearly defined, a strategy should then be devised for how to go from the current state of the model to the desired state of the model within the given timeframe.
The following remarks are extracted from the CalSim-II peer review panel "A unique aspect of CALSIM II is the high degree of cooperation between federal (i.e. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and State (i.e. California Department of Water Resources) interests in its development. This kind of cooperation is rare, and in fact this may be the only such example of such coordination for a system of this scale and complexity…..CALSIM II can provide a showcase for other states as to what can be accomplished with Federal and state cooperation for river basin management." (Strategic Review, p18): "We believe the use of an optimization engine for simulating the hydrology and for making allocation decisions is an appropriate approach and is in fact the approach many serious efforts of this kind are using." (Strategic Review, p2) "…CALSIM II represents a state-of-the-art modeling system that is similar in general concept, while differing in specific details, to other data-driven river basin modeling systems such as ARSP, MODSIM, OASIS, REALM, RiverWare, and WEAP." (Strategic Review, p4) DWR and Reclamation believe that CalSim-II is an adequate model for planning studies for new storage and conveyance facilities in the CVP & SWP systems. For certain applications of CalSim-II as described in section 4.4.5, absolute values of CalSim-II results are required as projected estimates of future system performance. For such applications of CalSimII, full discussion of all pertinent assumptions and careful examination of input data must accompany presentation of CalSim-II results. Many enhancements described in this Response Plan, when properly implemented, will greatly improve the performance of CalSim-II, thereby expanding the applicable scope of the model and enhancing the level of public acceptance. Sustained effort will be required to accomplish the planned enhancements. Periodic review and updates of the planned enhancements will also be part of this sustained effort.
The total of stream diversions and groundwater pumping must be less than the land use based demand. This demand is calculated from an assumed cropping pattern and monthly crop evapotranspiration, and takes into account the monthly and annually varying precipitation.
The assumed cropping pattern used for CalSim-II is based on an agricultural economic production model that is calibrated to recent observed water use and cropped acreage. As such, CalSim-II implicitly accounts for the cost of groundwater pumping, which limits farmer's willingness to pump water.
For areas that have access to both surface water and groundwater, groundwater is the secondary or contingent resource. Groundwater pumping occurs only after the model has tried to maximize service water deliveries given the various operational constraints (minimum instream flows, Delta water quality requirements, minimum reservoir levels and reservoir carryover storage targets).
Groundwater pumping may only be used to satisfy the demands of overlying landowners. No groundwater is exported from the overlying watershed (except in the form of surface water return flow or tailwater that results from irrigation using groundwater).
The above bulleted items are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
(CU) model. The CU model simulates soil moisture conditions for 13 different crop types over the historical period. Irrigation demand is triggered when soil moisture falls below a specified minimum. The CU model calculates the crop consumptive use of applied water. The consumptive use is subsequently multiplied by water use efficiency factors to obtain a regional water requirement to be met from stream diversions or groundwater pumping. Agricultural demands in the Delta are represented more simply as an overall mass balance between precipitation and crop evapotranspiration.
Central Valley Production Model The Central Valley Production Model (CVPM) predicts cropping patterns, land use, and water use within the Central Valley by considering land availability, water availability and cost, irrigation technology, market conditions, and production costs. CVPM was used in the California Water Plan Update (Bulletin 160-98) to forecast future agricultural acreage. CVPM has recently been updated and extended into a statewide model, known as CALAG. CVPM is a regional model of irrigated agricultural production and economics that simulates the decisions of agricultural producers (farmers) in the Central Valley. The model assumes that farmers maximize profit subject to resource, technical, and market constraints. Farmers sell and buy in competitive markets, and no one farmer can affect or control the price of any commodity. To obtain a market solution, the model's objective function maximizes the sum of producers' surplus (net income) and consumers' surplus (net value of the agricultural products to consumers). The model is calibrated using recent historical irrigated acreage, applied surface water and groundwater pumping for 21 sub-regions in the Central Valley. The model includes information on pumping depth and pumping costs.
Matching of Demands and Supply Within the Sacramento Valley CalSim-II always meets the land use based demand.
Groundwater Pumping Logic In the Sacramento Valley demand is met by a mix of surface water and ground water. Farmers and urban municipalities may have access to either one or both of these supplies. In CalSim-II a minimum groundwater pumping is specified to represent those demands that only have access to groundwater. The CalSim-II code is written so that demands are first met by groundwater pumping, up to the minimum specified volume. It is subsequently met by surface water diversions up to the contract amount for project demands and up to its availability for riparian demands. Any difference between demand and supply is finally met by additional pumping. No shortages occur. Minimum groundwater pumping volumes are based on water years 1981-1993 of the historical CVGSM run.
Groundwater Export There are a total of seven basins that represent the Sacramento Valley floor north of the Delta. There is no export of groundwater from the sub-basin. Groundwater is pumped only to meet the demands within each sub-basin. The CalSim-II logic allows a certain percentage of pumped groundwater applied as irrigation to flow to the stream network as return flow.
CalSim-II to represent CVP and SWP operations, in general, and the delivery capability of the projects, in particular, through the simulation of recent historical conditions (water years 19751998). The following is an extract from that report. Does CalSim-II overestimate the availability of surface water in the Delta by meeting Sacramento Valley in-basin use through excessive groundwater pumping? The mix of surface water and groundwater used by the model to meet Sacramento Valley consumptive demands depends primarily on project water allocation decisions and levels of minimum groundwater pumping that are specified in the model. Over the 24-year period average annual net groundwater extraction in CalSim-II as compare to estimates based on the Central Valley Groundwater Surface water Model (CVGSM) is lower by 378 taf. The average annual net stream inflow from groundwater in CalSim-II is 190 taf greater than estimated by the CVGSM for the same period. The combined affect of dynamically modeling groundwater operations in CalSim-II (pumping, recharge and streamaquifer interaction) leads to 188 taf/yr less water being available to the Delta. For the 1987-92 period the combined effect results in 46 taf/yr additional water being available to the Delta. Thus the Historical Operations Study concludes that the current representation of groundwater in CalSim-II results, on average, in an underestimate of the water available at the Delta.
DWR and Reclamation have implemented a version control system for CalSim-II's text-based input files. The system allows model users web-based access to a central database. Model studies can be downloaded from the database, changes made locally to the model, and the revised data input stored back in the central location. The system has not been fully adopted, due in part to the lack of in-place model development/model management protocols. The current text-based version control system will no longer work with the release of the next version of CalSim (v2.0) that is centered on a relational database. DWR and Reclamation agree that it is a high priority to develop enterprise database capabilities for the next version of CalSim (v2.0), so that central data management and version control can be implemented. Geographically Referenced Network Schematic DWR and Reclamation are working cooperatively to develop a GIS based geo-referenced schematic of CalSim-II which would allow a user to interactively query attributes (e.g., reservoir or channel physical characteristics or all references to a node or link in the WRESL files), and time series data. Public Domain Solver DWR is currently working with the LBL to investigate the possibility of replacing the current XA solver in CalSim with a public domain solver.
This effort is currently being extended to the Delta east-side streams.
the San Joaquin River irrigation activities to electrical conductivity conditions in the main stem of the San Joaquin River. The purpose of the module is to improve the CalSim-II salinity estimate at Vernalis through: (1) San Joaquin River westside flow disaggregation; (2) salt balance along the San Joaquin River main stem (nodes between Lander Avenue and Vernalis) by assigning EC values to the disaggregated flows. CalSim Water Transfers Tool (Screening Model) The Water Transfers Tool (WTT) currently being developed for DWR will be a separate, smaller application from CalSim-II but will incorporate the major hydrologic, SWP/CVP system, and operational features of the larger model. Changes in the land use-based diversion requirements included in the model -by Depletion Study Area (DSA)- will serve as a surrogate for a variety of fallowing, crop change, conservation, and groundwater substitution transfers. Stored water transfers will be simulated through a surrogate reservoir concept at the location of the transfer and limited to upstream storage capacity availability. The WTT will be developed through a layering approach to allow for a large number of transfers at varying priorities for purchase and conveyance.
Appendix C. Software Development Proposed Plan The original CalSim 1.0 program was initially released to the public in 1999. Since that time, updates have been made to refine the original software and add capabilities as required by users. In that time the manner in which CalSim based modeling has been used has grown in terms of the number of users, the complexity of the regulatory environment needed to be simulated, and an increase in the scope and detail of the system required to be modeled. These and a number of other concerns led to the recognition that in order to achieve a robust and fully acceptable model of the current CalSim (v1.2) program required improvement. The development of the next version of CalSim (v2.0) is intended to create a more robust modeling environment for the increasing number of users and complexity of system representation. These improvements fall under three categories of data management, a graphical user interface, and the solution controller.
Data Management Proper data management is an essential component for applications relying on large amounts of data. The text-based structure of the current CalSim application is sufficient for small numbers of users. However, as the complexity of the model and number of users increases, the greater the chances are for mismanagement of data. Integration of a relational database management system for CalSim's data storage formalizes the collection of data into a state-of-the-art management tool. Version control, integrity of data (validity of data is still required on the user side), reduction of duplicated data, and ease of linking with a graphical user interface are all advantages of using a relational database system. Client/server functionality of the database provides for a central repository of benchmarked and finalized projects. Users may connect as a client to the database server to send and receive updates. The client may keep a local copy of the database on their computer and update with the server as desired. Incorporation of metadata into the relational database is a significant step forward in automated documentation. As data is entered or manipulated the author and date is automatically recorded. A text area is also available for user comments and documenting the source of the data. Protocols on what users should record in this field have been developed by the CalSim-II Review and Documentation Team. A tool will be developed that will ease the adoption of the next version of CalSim (v2.0) by automating the transfer of existing text files into the database.
user interface (GUI) is being developed for this purpose. All data required for running CalSim simulations is interfaced through this single menu-driven GUI using standard windows features. A hierarchical visualization of the relation of Projects, Simulations, and Cycles is the main component of the GUI. Properties of these components are viewable/editable through a standard point-and-click window. WRESL and Lookup tables are viewable/editable through similar standard windows. Standard editing features such as searching and copy/paste will also be provided. The next version of CalSim (v2.0) GUI controls the management of projects which encapsulate any number of simulations. User privileges defined in the database allow for management of projects and simulations by controlling who may modify such data.
Elimination of the FORTRAN compiler. Reduces cost. Investigation of alternative MIP solvers. Potential cost reduction. Streamlining relationship of 'projects', 'simulations', and 'cycles'. Embedded 'cycles'. Replaces the Multi-Study Runner by allowing 'cycles' to contain other 'cycles'. Introduction of 'layers'. Collection of data (WRESL, tabular lookup, etc.) that allows for modularity of data across 'projects'. Cycles may contain any number of 'layers'. Layers are overlaid one on top of the other and may overwrite previously defined data. Protocols will be developed for sufficient need of using 'layers' (i.e. geographic subsystems, regulatory components, etc.). Iteration of a 'cycle'. A single 'cycle' may iterate on its solution until convergence criteria is met. Increased use of DSS path names. Using the 'cycle' name in one of the DSS path names facilitates the use of embedded cycles and eliminates the need for the costly run-time transfer files. Pre/Post-MIP 'state variables'. Some 'state variables' are functions of 'decision variables'. These are evaluated after the MIP solver but remain on the current time step. Direct writing of 'state variables' to the results file. Eliminates the need to send unnecessary decision variables and constraints to the solver to get 'state variables' in the results file. Dynamic calculation of 'decision variable' weights. Increases ability to control the MIP for each 'cycle' and time step.
This documentation system will become fully integrated within the next version of CalSim (v2.0) data management system and will be linked to the CalSim logic and data. The data management system will require a standardized set of documentation fields and meta data. Finally, the management system will be capable of generating a variety of media products with graphics, linking, indexing and searching options.
Documentation Management The current documentation techniques are cumbersome for the CalSim-II modeling community to maintain. A variety of formats such as text documents, comments in the code, spreadsheets, supporting model reports, and PDFs are housed in several different locations. The formats and locations make it almost impossible to update all aspects of a modification with absolute certainty. Therefore, a documentation management system is proposed that utilizes a database to organize and maintain the information. The system will be used as a "central-file" for all model documentation. The new system will track and maintain a documentation history similar to features in the next version of CalSim (v2.0) data management system. Existing documentation will also be rolled into the new management system.
It is anticipated that the organized and centralized documentation management system will be the new standard for CalSim documentation procedures. Linkages between the documentation and the code will eliminate undocumented or overlooked topics. New documentation coverage will address deficiencies and multi levels of detail will support both the novice and expert. The document management system is also expected to be an integral and priority component of the CalSim work effort.
Both DWR and Reclamation agree on modifying and enhancing the hydrology development for CalSim-II. At this time, different proposals are being considered; but no agreement has yet been finalized (including the approaches discussed below).
The proposed new water demand areas are shown in Figure 11-2. Both project and nonproject demands may be present in one planning area. Different project demands in a single planning region may be differentiated according to their water source, type of contract (with the CVP, SWP or local project), type of use (M&I vs. agriculture), cropping pattern, and water use efficiency. However non-project demands within a planning region are represented as a single aggregated unit. This proposed refinement of CalSim-II's spatial resolution could lead to greater engagement of local irrigation districts and water agencies.
It is also proposed to replace the existing representation of agricultural demand with an explicit representation of on-farm applied water demands, reuse (both intra-district and interdistrict), conveyance losses, and operational spills. Different conveyance loss factors would be applied to the different contractors and non-project diverters according to their water source. The proposed approach is shown diagrammatically in Figure 11-3.
Monthly precipitation that is used consumptively through evapotranspiration.
Alternatively, a region may be represented in more detail, broken-down into constituent irrigation districts with arcs showing conveyance losses, reuse, and operational spills. This more detailed representation is required for defining the relationship between surface water deliveries, groundwater pumping and return flows. Once these relationships have been established, the detailed model can be switched to the 'black box' representation to simplify the CalSim-II model and reduce run-times. The more detailed model can be used for analyzing impacts of water conservation measures. DWR is considering implementing this dual modular approach for a test area, such as the Feather River Basin, that has a very complex internal structure of diversions from different sources and reuse between irrigation districts.
The hydrology at future levels of development would be integrated in the simulation and developed on-the-fly allowing for modifications to land use (especially during dry periods) and/or modifications for meeting demands from surface water and groundwater.
The spatial resolution would be enhanced, and allow for GIS technologies for use in calculating water demands by element of CVGSM (or alternative), rather than DSA.
The accretions calculations will be more physically based, and would eliminate the use of the CU model and the Depletion model and their limitations for the valley floor areas. Currently IGSM2 uses the NRCS (SCS) method for calculating rainfall/runoff components.
There would be a marked theoretical improvement in modeling groundwater flow and the surface water - ground water interaction, and allow for carrying conjunctive use studies.
The extent of the simulation areas would be extended to include Tulare Basin.
development. A simple water budgeting approach by DSA then allows for calculating local water supplies (accretions). The accounting of groundwater in CalSim-II (and its predecessor DWRSIM) has undergone an evolutionary process. In the past the Depletion Model was used to calculate the additional groundwater pumping (above historical) required at a future level of development, along with future recharge of the past-pumped water using simple specified rules. This implicitly also fixed the historical surface-ground water interaction at future levels of development. In the current CalSim-II for the Sacramento Valley, a multiple-cell MC approach was used (each DSA represented by one cell), allowing for the interaction between cells and streams. The MC approach used actually emulated CVGSM in a very simple form, but allowed for ground water elevation accounting, and the stream-aquifer interaction. With IGSM2/CVGSM2 (or alternative) it is possible to enhance the hydrology input and the modeling of groundwater resources in CalSim-II, by eliminating the use of the CU model and the depletion analysis approach. DWR and Reclamation will investigate the different options of how best to achieve this objective.
Include Friant System, Tulare basin, Southern California, Colorado River. Hierarchical decomposition approach would allow development of separate models that can be linked through iterative process. CalSim-II should be expanded to include major non-CVP/SWP areas, especially the Tulare Basin, the Colorado River, and Southern California.
CalSim-II does not explicitly represent many of the management options in which policy makers are interested CalSim-II should be expanded to include local management options such as water conservation, reuse, water transfers, groundwater and conjunctive use management. Common tension for those who wish for greater detail and those who want less detail from the model. Need for more flexible, modular approach to modeling. Too complex. Not sufficiently detailed. Develop linkable modules of different complexity.
CalSim-II should be modular. Improve capabilities for real-time operations, gaming, ag demands, water transfers, Delta storage, carryover contract rights, refuge water demands, updated operations for Feather, Stanislaus, Upper American, San Joaquin, Yuba. For CalSim-II to remain a model of only the CVP and SWP seems technically and politically untenable. California's water system asked to be operated in an increasingly integrated manner. Widen geographical and functional scope of model. Better parameterize local supplies and demands.
CalSim-II should include risk-based power capacity evaluation and incorporation of indexed sequential hydrologic modeling. Hydropower should not be after-the-fact calculation, but explicitly included in system objectives.
Better capabilities for analyzing economic, water quality and groundwater issues.
Documentation required that describes applicability of model to different problems.
Need to calibrate the CalSim-II objective function so that CalSim-II model decisions correspond to those operators would make. Unless calibrated the model may produce overly optimistic answers. Need other approaches to representing hydrologic uncertainty and variability besides using historical record.
CalSim-II rule curves should reflect operator's behavior.
Develop protocols and records for identifying and correcting model errors and making model improvements.
Inclusion of routing requires look-ahead optimization ability. Daily releases are head dependent.
Consider use of response functions. A dynamically linked CalSim-II -CVGSM is not necessary to obtain accurate groundwater predictions. It would also lead to greater run times.
Possibility of using ANN for groundwater.
Soil moisture is not dealt with in a realistic manner within the CU model.
Develop protocols for data documentation and development.
Details of GW calibration should be available. The San Joaquin system should be added to the multi-cell model. The accuracy of using a coarse representation should be assessed. Better historical groundwater pumping data is needed to confirm whether the use of groundwater in CalSim-II is accurate.
Develop documentation and testing regime for developed data.
Update data. Use of economic factors in estimation of water demands. Preferred spatial scale for economic modeling is irrigation district scale.
Model developers should recognize the requirement that CalSim-II provide absolute values. Additional calibration required.
Need to improve CalSim-II's comparative as well as absolute capabilities. There has not been sufficiently systematic, transparent, and accessible approach to the development and use of hydrologic, water demand, capacity and operational data. The administration of data development is fragmented, disintegrated, and lacks a coherent technical or administrative framework. Needs to be greater coordination of data collection and analysis between different administrative units within DWR.
Need for version control, quality control, calibration, and verification.
Develop an explicit quality control program.
Input and output data sets from model runs should be archived in a central location.
Create automated mass balance checking procedure. Automated input and output checking is needed.
Link linear optimization model with non-linear simulation models.
Switch to public domain software for optimization, visualization, file management and data base support.
Introduce multi-period optimization for decision making based on uncertainty information.
Multi-period optimization could replace rule curves.
Performance based optimization should be added to WRIM's capabilities Ability to change geographic scope, spatial resolution, temporal resolution as required for the analysis.
Improved GUI for facilitating model input, setting of constraints and weights, operating the model, displaying and analyzing results.
CalSim lacks a comprehensive, graphical user interface for constructing and editing the river basin system topology. The complexity of CalSim would be greatly reduced with development of an object-oriented graphical user interface.
Develop GUI tied to databases with GIS display.
Need for version control, and database management software and protocols. Need systematic and objective method of setting weights.
Need capability to dynamic vary weights, as a function of the state of the system. Long run times preclude sensitivity analysis. Update solver to gain from efficiency improvements in the Branch and Bound algorithm and better sparse matrix analysis.
Improve capabilities for gaming involving stakeholders.
Develop output for a wider set of variables other than CVP_SWP e.g. groundwater depletion, water quality, supply reliability for non-project users, hydroelectric generation, indicators of ecological health. Add capability for automated debugging of infeasibilities.
Shortness of 2003 CalSim/CalSim-II Peer Review precluded technical analysis of CalSim-II. Such a technical review should be carried-out.
A peer review is required for each separate element of the model CalSim-II should be subject to a systematic and frequent review and testing program Develop strategy on how to sustain software development.
Produce strategic document that outlines short-term and longterm efforts, budgets, and responsibilities for model and data improvements, with policy for local agency and stakeholder involvement.
Local agencies, system operators, and consulting firms should be actively involved in the development and application of CalSim-II.
Stakeholders and policy makers are poorly guided in how to interpret model results. Studies have not contained the kind of written discussion and interpretation of results that would demonstrate that the authors have thought about the results and drawn conclusions.
CalSim-II should no longer be solely responsible to CVP-SWP managers but a broader range of technical managers from additional interests.
Create a broader interagency modeling consortium for developing operations planning models. Might require steering committee or governing board.
Hold seminars on CalSim-II to increase public confidence in model. Develop a formal common regimen to train CalSim-II users.
Documentation, calibration, testing, peer review should be extended to other models that provide data input for CalSim-II.
CalSim-II should be calibrated, tested, and documented for absolute and comparative use.
Evaluation of CalSim-II by comparison with historical operations should be more rigorous.
Model rules on carryover storage during drought should be examined so that they reflect the system will be managed in the future.
Comparison of simulated and historical deliveries suggests that the model underestimates storage in San Luis Reservoir.
Need for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.
Create external technical advisory body as part of a quality control program.
2a DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated and staff is currently working on it as part of our immediate needs for CalSim. A work plan is being developed by both DWR and Reclamation and will be shared with the public in the very near future. 2b DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated and consider it important to address in the short term with a target date of January 2007. 2c DWR and Reclamation agree with the comment stated but considers it should be addressed on a longer term with a target date of January 2011.
Elimination of FORTRAN compiler Adoption of public domain solver.
Create broader interagency modeling consortium for developing operations planning models.


Am from Uganda originally, becoming the best actor is one of my dreams and am ready to provide productive work and quality services . I look forward to hear from you abo..
i am 34 years kenyan by birth from muranga county. am married to one lovely lady and we are blessed with a baby boy. i started acting right away from primary school where..
Enthusiastic and well mannered individual..


Quality universal gadget, which includes in itself searching through main foreign servers like Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, Amazon, Bing, Yahoo and others.
Hey Buddy!, I found this information for you: "Search ALL". Here is the website link: http://www.gadgetskit.com/gadgets/search-all/. Thank you.


A finance resume can get you into several different kinds of positions within the financial industry. You could become a financial advisor and help people to plan for the future, or your finance resume could allow you to be a business analyst. If you enjoy business and analyzing money, then building up a strong finance resume is something that you should consider.
The job responsibilities of your finance resume depend on what kind of industry you get involved with. You could be a financial consultant to people looking to retire, or you could be the manager of a finance firm. A finance resume could also open up the doors to a career as an auditor, or you could develop your finance resume into a productive career as a loan officer. The best part about a finance resume is that it opens the doors to a number of exciting and interesting career options, and most of the career options associated with a finance resume allow you to help people.
If you want to be able to put together a good finance resume as a personal financial advisor, then you will need to have a college degree in business or accounting. If you want to create a finance resume for something as high profile as a corporate treasurer, then you will need to get your Masters in business. Many people with accounting finance resumes are also certified public accountants along with having college degrees.
1. How do you write the header of a finance resume?
Your header provides employers with vital contact information: your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. List a current phone number where employers can easily reach you. Make sure you set up your voicemail with a professional-sounding greeting that includes your name so employers can know they have reached the correct person. Your e-mail address should likewise be appropriate; some combination of your first and last names is generally safe.
2. How do you list schools on a finance resume?
List your education in the last section of your resume. Most employers in the finance sector require or prefer a college degree, so do include yours even if you did not study a relevant field. Additionally, include postgraduate degrees, training courses, and certifications that pertain to your job. Do not include high school information.
As you see from our finance resume sample collection, candidates usually list the name of the school they attended, the type of degree, the field of study, and the graduation year. If you are currently studying or your degree is in a non-finance field, you can also list relevant coursework you have completed.
3. How can you highlight team experience on a finance resume?
Whether you are a seasoned professional pursuing a leadership position, or a new graduate applying for an entry-level job, employers in the finance sector want to know you can work productively with others. Providing examples of your effective teamwork does more to impress than just describing yourself as a team player.
Take a look at a finance resume sample to learn some good ways to tell employers about your collaborative abilities. The applicant in one of our samples mentions his role in training new employees and working with another department. Applicants for more advanced positions may list their experience leading a team.
4. Should you include references on a finance resume?
When you look at a finance resume sample on our site, you will note the lack of a references section. Resume professionals generally advise against taking up valuable resume space with a list of references. Also avoid writing that references are available upon request, as this phrase simply distracts without providing any information at all.
Instead, follow the instructions employers provide in their job postings. Sometimes, you will fill in a separate field for references in an online submission form. Other employers may want a separate list along with your other application materials. Some do not bother discussing references until you reach the interview stage.
5. How do you make a finance resume for a first job?
Many jobseekers struggle with composing a resume for their first job. You may need to exercise your lateral thinking and creativity to come up with experiences and skills that show your fitness for this job. Recent graduates can emphasize high performance in relevant coursework and other academic honors.
Your part-time jobs, volunteer work, and hobbies can also provide valuable experience you can put to work in the finance sector. Aim to showcase attributes such as leadership, money management, responsibility, fast learning, attention to detail, and organization. Using our step-by-step resume builder can make it even easier for you to create a great document.


Best car insurance VA. The Best Car Insurance Quotes Available Here at Rock Bottom Prices!
How the insurance company or a young, inexperienced drivers. The automobile against most of the larger national providers are not on their general outlook to life. So, how do you think of it to filing a claim. When calculating the risks which the best possible insurance cover each. During the insurance company the current market conditions to get the lowest rate, at least you will need to know on what is behind all this has been photographed with a misdemeanor and fined. Sometimes the amount of money on future best car insurance VA is the Preferred type of insurance. A favorite tactic is to make a big decision. But the best insurance for you to spend time with the ability to customise your quote. With the cash for such as taxes involved in, and suffering and other violations can be up to 5 miles per year depending on the money to pay the insurance in the less mileage you put on the table every. Now teenagers' often go training and start making videos.
BUT...same thing there...if you follow a number of ways to save money on your monthly insurance rate. Usually, it is very simple. A huge gap between the gas, lower petrol consumption is. HMOs encountered several problems when they are going to damage, theft and machinery damage can cause many problems. Many insurance companies are charging different costs associated with those who do, however, bringing up a tragically high proportion of the person should be best to keep your spending levels BELOW your means. I was left footing the bill for your vehicle insured, even though bankruptcy initially hurts. For cars that have a specific best car insurance VA companies only hold this. You can do it is low or comprised, they will be able to drive themselves and they were first introduced and came in this article prefers. You can legally take your money paying her car that is to contact a given budget of yours.


With the election days away, we have included links to all the articles pertaining to profiles compiled on the federal, state, and local Democratic nominees running for office this year. Please review them so they can help you make the best decision when voting these next two and a half weeks.
If you think we can do better than one in four children in Arizona living in poverty, then vote in November.
If you think we can do better than being near the bottom in the nation in education funding, then vote in November.
If you agree with gubernatorial candidate David Garcia that "no one should be left behind," then vote in November.
If you agree with Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Kathy Hoffman that the "future of Arizona is in our schools," then vote in November.
If you agree with Attorney General candidate January Contreras that public service should be about the "little guy and democracy" and the people, especially the most vulnerable (like those with pre-existing health conditions), need to be protected, then vote in November.
If you agree with Treasurer candidate Mark Manoil that local and state Arizona economic development would be better served with local community banks than Wall Street banks, then vote in November.
If you want Arizona to be the solar capital of the country and greater utility investments steered towards solar, water, and wind like Corporation Commission candidate Kiana Sears, then vote in November.
If you want the stench of Dark Money removed from the public arena as most of the Democratic local and state candidates want, then vote in November.
If you want public servants like this year's Democratic candidates that listen to their constituents and show up to public forums and debates, then vote in November.
If you want all civil rights protected, including the right for women to choose and the newly recognized rights for members of the LGBTQ community, then vote this November.
All elections are important. The 2018 elections may be more so because if the forces of reaction, intolerance, and backwardness are allowed to prevail, it may be a long time before we recover.
Please Remember To Vote In November.