Appomattox River Withdrawal Analysis

[hdaniel7]

We will analyze the withdrawal data for the river segments containing and upstream of Lake Chesdin on the Appomattox River, and compare these withdrawals between phase 6 model scenarios CFBASE30Y20180615 (base) and CBASE1808L55CY55R45P50R45P50Y (climate change) to determine whether withdrawals are modeled differently between these base and climate change scenarios.

This analysis has the intended goal of confirming that withdrawals are identical between the scenarios, so that withdrawals can be removed from consideration when determining causes for flow differences between these scenarios.

River segments to include in this analysis:

• JA5_7480_0001 (George F. Brasfield Dam)
• JA2_7570_7480 (West Creek (Deep Creek, Appomattox))
• JA1_7600_7570 (West Creek (Deep Creek, Appomattox))

From this document: it appears as if the appropriate DSNs are:

• 3007 (DIVR - withdrawal)
• 3008 (DIVA - agricultural withdrawal)

This document describes the location of withdrawal files and confirms that 3007 and 3008 are the correct DSNs.

Workplan:

• Generate .csv files from .wdms for DIVR and DIVA
• Read in base and climate change DIVR and DIVA .csv files to R
• Ensure that base DIVR == climate change DIVR and base DIVA == climate change DIVA

Update: CFBASE30Y20180615 .csv files generated for the three river segments.
ISSUE: CBASE1808L55CY55R45P50R45P50Y .wdm files do not exist within the eos folder -- there is no eos folder!

[hdaniel7]

I created a function to do a quick p532cal_062211 vs. CFBASE30Y20180615 analysis -- it is stored on the cbp6 github under cbp6/code/fn.withdrawal.comparison.R. If a river segment is inputted, i.e. withdrawal.comparison('JA2_7570_7480'), the function will compare the hourly values of DSNs 3000 (discharge), 3007 (withdrawal) and 3008 (ag. withdrawal) and will return a printed line of text in the form "DISCHARGE SAME = FALSE ; WITHDRAWAL SAME = TRUE ; AG WITHDRAWAL SAME = TRUE". I ran this function for 9 selected river segments -- the three mentioned earlier in this issue (JA5_7480_0001, JA2_7570_7480, JA1_7600_7570) as well as for the six additional segments listed in the 'Identify Key Climate Change Scenarios' Issue (PU3_4450_4440, JL7_6800_7070, YP4_6720_6750, RU5_6030_0001, PM7_4820_0001, JU3_7490_7400). Results of the analysis are as follows:

As you can see, the discharge is never the same -- which makes sense, given the updated hydrology and all with the new phase. Some segments have identical withdrawals and ag withdrawals -- I noticed when generating these files that a lot of segments had withdrawals or ag withdrawals of 0 throughout the entire study period, so I will check to see if this is true of the segments that have identical withdrawals or ag withdrawals from phase 5 to phase 6. However, since some withdrawals/ag withdrawals are different, I can confirm that withdrawals/ag withdrawals have been altered between phase 5 and phase 6.

@rburghol -- is there any more analysis you want done about withdrawals at the moment? Or should this just be shelved until the climate change withdrawal files are obtained / confirmation of the idea that the climate change scenario simply draws withdrawal files from the base scenario is confirmed?

[hdaniel7]

I went through the phase 5 and phase 6 data for each of the river segment DSNs that said the data was identical between the two phases, and the vast majority are identical simply because they are filled with 0's -- implying no withdrawals/ag withdrawals or simply that the data about these withdrawals hasn't been implemented yet. As follows is an example of my testing method:

The only segments which showed periods of non-zero withdrawals but were identical between the two phases were:

• PM7_4820_0001 (3008) -- both p5 and p6 were non-zero -- appears withdrawals have not been updated for this one segment (or that the withdrawal data was as accurate as possible already!)
• JU3_7490_7400 (3007) -- some p6 data was non-zero, but these withdrawals were after the end of the p5 study period in 2005 so withdrawals were identical between 1984 and 2005
• YP4_6720_6750 (3008) -- same as above, some p6 data was non-zero, but these ag withdrawals were after the end of the p5 study period in 2005 so ag withdrawals were identical between 1984 and 2005