OASIS-WaterFALL_flow_comparison_(DWR)

OASIS, WaterFALL
& 
DWR’s 9+ PHABSIM Sites
Eflow Science Advisory Board Meeting
February 19, 2013
Fred Tarver, NCDWR
Buffalo Creek, DWR IFIM Site (127 mi2): OASIS ‐WaterFALL Comparison (1961‐2006, calendar yr.)(N=46)
min max mean median Standard Deviation Y‐intr (a) slope (b) Coeff. Deter.(R2) Std. Err. Corr. Coeff.(r)
OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y)
apr 58.7 76.6 289.1 288.4 155.8 159.8 154.2 166.0 58.784 53.411 32.708 0.815 0.805 23.834 0.897
mar 82.6 88.6 389.1 392.9 175.3 182.6 173.5 162.4 65.034 75.554 1.684 1.032 0.789 35.063 0.888
jan 45.9 24.8 326.6 354.5 146.1 149.7 141.3 148.4 61.694 68.405 6.977 0.977 0.776 32.741 0.881
nov 24.8 26.0 286.3 286.4 87.9 93.8 74.8 83.0 44.605 52.392 4.891 1.013 0.743 26.853 0.862
jun 10.4 50.3 279.9 289.4 97.9 126.5 95.9 130.1 48.506 47.337 44.673 0.835 0.733 24.743 0.856
aug 2.3 33.5 207.3 304.1 65.0 96.6 57.8 93.8 36.762 44.623 29.416 1.034 0.726 23.623 0.852
oct 12.2 31.7 156.0 194.1 66.8 86.6 61.5 83.7 33.219 40.281 18.360 1.022 0.711 21.912 0.843
jul 4.0 40.4 196.4 258.8 73.3 108.3 66.0 110.0 38.614 41.980 42.402 0.900 0.685 23.842 0.827
dec 31.2 21.3 249.7 275.3 118.9 120.7 112.0 113.4 50.498 61.754 1.595 1.001 0.670 35.853 0.819
may 33.1 61.9 271.7 288.5 119.8 141.8 111.0 148.0 54.592 49.086 54.419 0.730 0.659 29.006 0.812
sep 8.0 28.0 117.5 203.2 55.6 85.1 56.8 85.5 24.348 32.749 26.126 1.062 0.623 20.325 0.790
feb 67.0 48.3 300.9 300.3 159.4 163.8 162.0 164.3 53.638 58.979 39.602 0.779 0.502 42.073 0.709
Rocky River, DWR IFIM Site (55 mi2): OASIS ‐WaterFALL Comparison (1961‐2006, calendar yr.)(N=46)
min max mean median Standard Deviation Y‐intr (a) slope (b) Coeff. Deter.(R2) Std. Err. Corr. Coeff.(r)
OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y) OS (x) WF (y)
mar 16.3 16.9 123.1 133.8 56.3 54.6 51.6 53.1 28.969 24.536 15.782 0.691 0.665 14.364 0.815
apr 9.3 11.1 84.6 96.0 32.4 46.5 30.0 45.0 15.594 20.155 14.742 0.982 0.577 13.249 0.760
may 3.5 9.4 52.9 73.0 18.9 37.1 15.0 33.4 11.538 17.020 16.651 1.085 0.541 11.663 0.735
nov 1.0 0.8 90.2 65.4 19.1 16.5 14.6 7.8 16.782 17.346 2.536 0.735 0.505 12.340 0.711
oct 1.6 1.0 25.2 51.0 10.1 13.5 7.6 5.1 6.483 14.788 ‐2.320 1.561 0.469 10.903 0.684
dec 1.3 0.6 71.2 103.4 26.9 24.2 23.8 22.5 15.431 20.463 1.583 0.839 0.401 16.020 0.633
jan 10.1 0.6 144.8 125.4 45.4 38.5 40.4 38.0 27.204 23.446 13.747 0.544 0.399 18.384 0.632
jul 0.2 0.2 78.7 33.2 11.7 9.1 6.6 16.7 15.102 7.348 6.917 0.184 0.143 6.881 0.378
aug 0.2 1.9 33.2 54.7 9.1 13.5 7.4 9.8 7.348 11.404 8.450 0.561 0.131 10.753 0.362
sep 1.0 1.2 31.7 39.0 7.5 11.4 4.4 7.4 7.366 9.582 8.307 0.406 0.097 9.207 0.312
feb 11.1 0.2 109.2 33.2 49.6 9.1 49.0 45.7 21.959 7.348 5.859 0.065 0.038 7.291 0.194
jun 0.7 0.2 70.2 33.2 13.3 9.1 10.2 24.0 12.377 7.348 8.265 0.061 0.010 7.392 0.102
Some potentially confounding factors influencing 
comparison:
WaterFALL simulations used the 1970s land use layer. 
(Some catchments still with low‐density development? 
Some sites proximal to reservoirs that may dampen the 
impact of changing land use?)
Assumed to have similar drainage areas due to data 
request based on  latitude – longitude coordinates; 
however have not verified with elevation model.
Next Steps: Additional analysis required? Proceed with 
Time Series analysis with PHABSIM data?