hydrologic function: framework considerations and ... documents/nvca_hydrologic_functi… ·...
Post on 30-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Hydrologic Function: Framework
Considerations and Approach to
Subwatershed Baseline Characterization
Completed by Angela Mills and Ryan Post
June 2018
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization i
Executive Summary
The concept of hydrologic function has been a specific policy direction in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) since 2005. The PPS and provincial plans use the same definition for hydrological function. Hydrologic function is defined in the provincial
land use plans and by the PPS, 2014 as:
the functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation,
distribution, and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of
the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s
interaction with the environment including its relation to living things.
(OMMAH, 2014).
Further, the PPS, 2014 and other provincial land use plans state that the hydrologic
function, particularly of sensitive hydrologic features must be protected, improved, and restored within or near sensitive hydrologic features. Further, “key hydrologic features” are generally defined or described in the plans to include permanent
streams, intermittent streams, kettle and inland lakes and their littoral zones, seepage areas and springs, and wetlands.
Implementing provincial land use planning policy direction in the PPS and provincial
plans requires that hydrologic function be determined or measured as part of the
requirement to improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Planners and
practitioners need to know the current hydrologic conditions, what needs to be
protected, how the function can be improved, and what the target is for restoration.
The contents and findings of this report support the implementation of provincial
policy by proposing the establishment of an evidence-based approach to the
evaluation of hydrologic function. This report 1) proposes a scale-based framework
approach to evaluate hydrologic function including baseline indicators and 2) applies
a regional baseline characterization approach to four southern Ontario
subwatersheds: Skootamatta River, Innisfil Creek, Whitemans Creek, and Parkhill
Creek to evaluate applicability, and lessons learned.
The proposed hydrologic function assessment is recommended to be completed at
two scales: local/site alteration scale and the broader regional/subwatershed scale.
This spatial-scale approach is based on the premise that if the local hydrologic
function is maintained where development (e.g., a subdivision, commercial
development, etc.) occurs, then the baseline regional/subwatershed relationship
between groundwater and surface water conditions should also be maintained;
excluding climatic alterations.
The local or site alteration scale assessment identifies local hydrologic features and
functions (e.g., surface water features, significant groundwater recharge areas
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization ii
(SGRA), etc.) and their associated connectivity with an associated buffer to the
parcel. This local scale evaluation is complimented by either a Thornthwaite-Mather
water balance where no key hydrologic features are mapped or a feature-based water
balance within the mapped buffers of key hydrologic features and functions are
mapped or observed. The water balance exercise calculates the independently the
pre- and post-development recharge rates, surface water discharge, etc. In order to
maintain pre-alteration hydrologic function following development, the hydrologic
components, notably infiltration/recharge rates need to be maintained.
Thematic and temporal characterization at the subwatershed scale compliments the
local scale evaluation by providing baseline information on land use (thematic)
delineation and groundwater and surface water trends and relationships (time series
and statistical relationships) to which the local scale information can be periodically
assessed against. The thematic land use information consists of significant
groundwater recharge area, surface water features, percent impervious surface, and
forest cover. The subwatershed baseline characterization is fundamentally based on
the evaluation of key time series hydrologic datasets: climate, surface water flow,
and groundwater. For future analysis, at a minimum, one climate, stream gauge, and
groundwater monitoring well is recommended to undertake this analysis, generalized
for subwatersheds less than 500 km2.
A comprehensive evaluation of the subwatershed baseline characterization approach
was completed for four subwatersheds in southern Ontario: Skootamatta River,
Innisfil Creek, Whitemans Creek, and Parkhill Creek. The thematic mapping is
comprised of SGRAs, surface water features, forest cover, and percent impervious
area, using provincially available datasets. To complement the thematic mapping but
not presently readily available, ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas
(ESGRAs) are encouraged to be delineated. The ESGRAs maps the spatial recharge
area extent to groundwater-dependent hydrologic features, allowing for the
protection of the hydrologic function. Further it is envisioned that ESGRA mapping
would complement the SGRA mapping; collectively highlighting where hydrologically-
important recharge areas, whether they discharge to sensitive hydrologic features
(i.e., ESGRAs), or whether they contribute greater volumes of groundwater recharge
to local aquifers (i.e., SGRAs). Further, to streamline the thematic mapping process,
percent forest cover could be obtained through the Watershed Report Card processes,
where available.
The subwatershed baseline characterization analysis, completed on a 10 year
interval, requires a minimum of >10 years of data with >90% completeness at the
monthly interval. As related to the four targeted subwatersheds, major challenges
were identified related to the availability and record length for groundwater e.g., the
use of partial groundwater datasets to unable being groundwater completed (e.g.,
Whitemans Creek). It is noted that other ambient/baseline monitoring wells (e.g.,
conservation authority or municipality) could be used, preferably screened in an
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization iii
unconfined system to assess the impacts of local changes and provided that there is
a minimum 10-year record length with complete dataset. In addition, many climate
stations with long-term data sets are no longer active although gaps in climate data
were filled based on nearby climate station data. Regarding surface water data
availability, the Water Survey of Canada stream gauges were principally used;
however, it is recognized that there are ungauged subwatersheds. To remedy this,
additional stream gauge monitoring stations could be used (e.g., conservation
authority, municipality), based on the quality of available data.
Using the hydrologic data (climate, surface water discharge, and groundwater levels),
a statistical analysis was completed to: 1) assess potential observable temporal
trends through the study period (1981-2016), 2) evaluate the relationship between
hydrologic components, and 3) highlight the relationship and changes in relationship
of a) streamflow as a function of precipitation and b) baseflow as a function of
streamflow in each of the pilot subwatersheds. Determination of time series trends
was statistically evaluated using annual and seasonal data for: 1) time series trends
using the Mann-Kendall trend test (McLeod, 2011), 2) correlation through the
Kendall’s rank (tau, 𝜏; Revelle, 2017), Spearman’s rank (rho, 𝜌; Revelle, 2017), and
3) linear regression, using least squares (𝑅2). All correlations identified through the
Spearman’s Rank were also identified by Kendall’s Rank, but the latter indicated
additional correlations that Spearman’s did not; supporting the use of Spearman’s
Rank and linear regression for future analysis. Linear regression analysis, conducted
in ‘R’, was tested when the Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank tests both indicated
a strong correlation. It cannot therefore be determined whether there would have
been numerous occasions where linear regression corresponded with only one but
not both of the other correlation analyses. Lastly, double-mass balance analysis was
conducted to highlight a change in the relationship between two variables.
Lessons learned from the application of the subwatershed baseline characterization
to four subwatersheds in southern Ontario are as follows:
Using baseflow as derived from streamflow may not be the most usefulindicator especially when compared to streamflow as indicator
Finding reliable climate stations with full datasets is easier than manuallyfilling whole datasets
Meeting minimum data requirements (e.g., groundwater 10-year datasetfor GW) is important to facilitate comparisons
Geologic setting of groundwater station is important – e.g., the lag in
rebounding after Parkhill sampling impacts seasonal and annual analysis –
GW sites that have such known ‘challenges’ should restrict sampling to
October to avoid needing to omit data from JAS and OND analysis.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization iv
Further, for future application, the subwatershed baseline characterization is most
applicable in southern Ontario, due primarily to data availability both thematically
and temporally. Due to the requirement for a minimum of 10 years of data for
statistical comparisons, it is recommended to conduct such analyses in 10-year
intervals to further facilitate time series comparison. The 10-year interval aligns with
the Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards which are issued on a five year
cycle. The site-specific local scale evaluation is on-going and driven based on
proposed development (e.g., proposed subdivision application) would be based on
the locally identified hydrologic features e.g., lakes, rivers, streams, (etc.) and other
types of surface water features (i.e., wetlands, groundwater discharge areas, etc.).
It is recommended that the local planning authority map the development locations
on an annual basis.
Overall conclusions from the regional/subwatershed-scale thematic mapping and
time series analyses are as follows:
The spatial distribution of SGRAs and hydrologic features strongly influencesthe hydrologic response and therefore function of the subwatershed
The climate input variables that detected temporal trends were primarilytemperature-related for most subwatersheds, though precipitation/hydrologic
release trends were observed in one of them
Each subwatershed had parameters with temporal trends and correlations,however, there was no single parameter that was found to be trending nor pair
of parameters that have strong correlations at all four pilot subwatersheds
Temporal trends and statistical correlations detected at one temporal scale
(e.g., annual) do not necessarily correspond to trends and correlations at theother (e.g., seasonal) within the same subwatershed
Each subwatershed will respond differently annually and seasonally, based on
the hydrologic features and land use, therefore it is important to conduct this
analysis of hydrologic function for all subwatersheds
The knowledge gained through application of this framework will enable protection,
improvement, and restoration of hydrologic function in Ontario as per the PPS and
land use plans. The framework would ideally be used before and after development
to assess whether hydrologic functions have been protected, improved, or restored
as per the requirements of the PPS and provincial land use plans.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization v
Acknowledgements
The project team would link to extend thanks to the members of the Project
Advisory Committee who contributed both time and expertise to the project’s success:
Andy Beaton (MNRF; Surface Water Monitoring Centre)
Victor Doyle (MMA; Provincial Planning Policy Branch)
Scott MacRitchie (MOECC; Groundwater and Stream Water Monitoring Unit)
Matthew Millar (Conservation Ontario)
Stephanie Papadimitriou (MMA; Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt Selection)
Andrew Piggott
Asia Pineau (MMA; Ontario Growth Secretariat)
Eleanor Stainsby (MOECC; Climate Change and Environmental Policy Division)
Magdi Widaatalla (MOECC; Groundwater and Stream Water Monitoring Unit)
Funding for this project was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC).
Alternative Formats: If you require this document in an alternative format, please
contact the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) at admin@nvca.on.ca
or 705-424-1479.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization vi
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ v
1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
2. Policy Framework and Planning Context ...................................................... 2
2.1. The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ................................................... 3
2.2. The Provincial Land Use Plans ............................................................... 4
2.2.1. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 and Greenbelt Plan, 2017 ............................................................... 4
2.2.2. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017 .............................. 5
2.2.3. The Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017 ................................................ 5
2.2.4. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan ........................................................... 6
2.3. Municipal Official Plans ........................................................................ 6
3. Hydrologic Function Overview .................................................................... 7
3.1. Practical Definition .............................................................................. 7
3.2. Water Balance .................................................................................... 8
3.3. Hydrologic Landscape Units and Connectivity ......................................... 8
3.4. Hydrologic Function: Urban vs. Rural Subwatersheds ............................ 10
3.5. Hydrologic Function and Climate Change ............................................. 12
3.5.1. Collection ................................................................................... 12
3.5.2. Storage ...................................................................................... 13
3.5.3 Discharge ................................................................................... 13
4. Jurisdictional Use of Hydrologic Function ................................................... 14
5. Proposed Hydrologic Function Framework .................................................. 16
5.1. Site Alteration/Major Development (Local) Hydrologic Function Evaluation 17
5.2. Subwatershed (Regional) Scale Hydrologic Function Evaluation .............. 17
6. Proposed Subwatershed Baseline Characterization Indicators ....................... 18
6.1. Thematic Land Uses .......................................................................... 19
6.1.1. Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ........................................ 19
6.1.2. Surface Water Features ................................................................ 20
6.1.3. Percent Impervious Area .............................................................. 21
6.1.4. Forest Cover ............................................................................... 22
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization vii
6.2. Time Series Hydrologic Variables and Indicators ................................... 23
6.2.1. Climate Variables ........................................................................ 24
6.2.2. Hydrologic Indicators ................................................................... 26
6.3. Subwatershed Hydrologic Function Characterization
—Pilot Subwatersheds ....................................................................... 31
6.3.1. Skootamatta River ....................................................................... 33
6.3.2. Innisfil Creek .............................................................................. 33
6.3.3. Whitemans Creek ........................................................................ 34
6.3.4. Parkhill Creek ............................................................................. 35
7. Subwatershed Hydrologic Function Characterization Methodology ................. 37
7.1. Thematic Mapping Methodology .......................................................... 37
7.2. Statistical Analysis Methodology ......................................................... 38
7.3. Data Processing and Infilling Methodology ............................................ 42
7.4. Data Availability by Subwatershed ...................................................... 47
7.4.1. Skootamatta River ....................................................................... 47
7.4.2. Innisfil Creek .............................................................................. 50
7.4.3. Whitemans Creek ........................................................................ 54
7.4.4. Parkhill Creek ............................................................................. 57
8. Results ............................................................................................ 61
8.1. Skootamatta River ............................................................................ 61
8.1.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis ........................................................... 61
8.1.2. Time Series Analysis .................................................................... 66
8.2. Innisfil Creek .................................................................................... 73
8.2.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis ........................................................... 73
8.2.2. Time Series Analysis .................................................................... 79
8.3. Whitemans Creek .............................................................................. 86
8.3.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis ........................................................... 86
8.3.2. Time Series Analysis .................................................................... 91
8.4. Parkhill Creek ................................................................................... 96
8.4.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis ........................................................... 96
8.4.2. Time Series Analysis .................................................................. 101
9. Discussion and Comparison between Subwatersheds ................................ 107
10. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 114
References ............................................................................................. 119
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization viii
Appendix A. Key Parameter Codes and Associated Definitions ...................... 131
Appendix B. Climate Filling Data Adjustment Values ................................... 132
Appendix C. Climate Filling Sample Calculation .......................................... 136
Appendix D. Skootamatta River Complete Analysis Results .......................... 138
Appendix E. Innisfil Creek Complete Analysis Results .................................. 153
Appendix F. Whitemans Creek Complete Analysis Results ........................... 169
Appendix G. Parkhill Creek Complete Analysis Results ................................. 183
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 1
1. Introduction
Water is an important part of the natural environment as it sustains human life, economies, and natural systems. Ontario’s land use planning system recognizes the fundamental value of water and protects water for present and future use. Provincial
land use interests are set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) issued under the Planning Act. The concept of hydrologic function has been a specific policy
direction in the PPS since 2005. Additionally, there are four provincial land use plans that apply in certain areas of southern Ontario - the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan), 2017; Greenbelt Plan, 2017; Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), 2017; and Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP), 2017. These plans work together with the PPS to manage growth, build complete
communities, curb sprawl, and protect the natural environment in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
The four provincial plans were updated in 2017 through the Coordinated Land Use Planning Review. As a result of the review, the plans now include aligned terminology
and policies, where appropriate, harmonizing the four plans with each other and the PPS. The Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, ORMCP, and NEP all contain terminology and
policies to identify and protect key hydrologic features and functions.
The PPS and provincial plans use the same definition for hydrological function. Hydrologic function is defined in the provincial land use plans and by the PPS, 2014
as:
The functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation,
distribution, and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of
the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s
interaction with the environment including its relation to living things.
Implementing provincial land use planning policy direction in the PPS and provincial
plans requires that hydrologic function be determined or measured as part of the
requirement to improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Planners and
practitioners need to know the current hydrologic conditions, what needs to be
protected, how the function can be improved, and what the target is for restoration.
A body of knowledge has built up over time as municipalities and approval authorities
have implemented provincial policy. This means that while there is a range of best
practices for implementation currently in use across the region, there is no single,
widely recognized existing framework for benchmarking and evaluating hydrologic
function.
Some research suggests certain gaps in knowledge, such as an understanding of the
aggregated impact of landscape changes on hydrologic function (Brooks, et al.,
2006), as well as of groundwater-surface water exchanges (including quantification,
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 2
flow paths, and spatial heterogeneity) and the impact of urbanization on these water
resources (Chu, et al., 2016).
Drawing on current approaches to implementation and lessons learned from the
literature, this report aims to support the implementation of provincial policy by
establishing an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of hydrologic function.
This report:
sets out the legislative provincial planning and policy context for hydrologic
function
examines how hydrologic function is defined within the scientific community
documents the inter-jurisdictional community of practice
proposes a framework and methodology to evaluate hydrologic function at a
defined spatial context including indicators to be used to benchmark.
A subwatershed-scale, baseline evaluation of both thematic and temporal data will
be completed using four test sites across southern Ontario in support of the
hydrologic framework approach.
This knowledge will enable protection, improvement, and restoration of hydrologic
function in Ontario as per the PPS and land use plans. The framework would ideally
be used before and after development to assess whether hydrologic functions have
been protected, improved, or restored as per the requirements of the PPS and
provincial land use plans.
This project focuses exclusively on the physical component of hydrologic function.
Other functions that are dependent on hydrologic functions, such as biogeochemical
cycling and ecological or habitat functions (Maltby, 2009; McLaughlin & Cohen, 2013;
Winter, 2001), are outside the scope of this report.
Funding for this project was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC).
2. Policy Framework and Planning Context
Ontario utilizes a “policy-led” land-use planning system, which means that the
province sets the policy framework and municipalities are the primary implementers
(decision-makers). The province’s interests in land use policies are set out in the PPS,
issued under the Planning Act, as well as in provincial plans such as the Growth Plan,
Greenbelt Plan, ORMCP, and NEP. The PPS and four provincial land use plans provide
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 3
policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning,
including policy direction relating to protecting water resources.
Municipalities are responsible for implementing provincial land use policies and plans
through their official plans and zoning by-laws. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs
(MMA) is generally responsible for approving upper- and single- tier municipal official
plans or official plan amendments, with input from partner ministries.
Technical background work including master plans, environmental assessments,
various studies or other research, and preparation of associated documentation (e.g.,
watershed plans, environmental assessments, and water taking permits) are used to
inform land use planning decisions on development, infrastructure, and resource
management. Knowledge of hydrology, hydrologic features, areas, and systems, and
their functions feed into the planning process and guides the development of relevant
policies that conform to the provincial plans and are consistent with the PPS.
2.1. The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014
The PPS is issued under section 3 of the Planning Act and sets out provincial land use
planning policies (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2014). It applies
province-wide and provides policy direction on a range of provincial interests
including growth management, water, infrastructure, housing, natural hazards,
aggregate resources, natural heritage and agricultural land protection.
The PPS includes policies requiring planning authorities to protect, improve, or restore
the quality and quantity of water (Policy 2.2) by undertaking a range of actions. This
includes using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and
long-term planning, and identifying water resource systems consisting of ground and
surface water features, hydrologic functions, and natural heritage features and areas
(Policy 2.2.1 c). The PPS also restricts development and site alterations in or near
sensitive water features (both above and below ground), such that the features and
their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved, or restored.
Municipalities and other land use decision-makers need to be consistent with PPS
policies as they make land use decisions. The PPS policies are to be read in their
entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation.
The PPS policies represent minimum standards. The policies do not prevent planning
authorities and decision-makers from going beyond the minimum standards
established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the
PPS.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 4
2.2. The Provincial Land Use Plans
The Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP),
and Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) build upon the PPS to provide more detailed
policy direction, and in some cases, to specify greater protections in their respective
geographic areas. Each of the four plans reiterates the need to protect, improve, and
restore hydrologic functions and key hydrologic features. Each provincial land use
plan listed above provides the same definition of hydrologic function as the PPS.
Although the four plans differ slightly, “key hydrologic features” are generally defined
or described in the plans to include:
permanent streams, intermittent streams, kettle and inland lakes and their
littoral zones, seepage areas and springs, and wetlands.
The term “key hydrologic area” is defined only by the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan
as:
significant groundwater recharge areas, highly vulnerable aquifers, and
significant surface water contribution areas that are necessary for the
ecological and hydrologic integrity of a watershed.
Note: The above is only an overview of definitions and the appropriate plan should
always be consulted for complete policy requirements and definitions.
Other provincial plans, including the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) under the
Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 and some source protection plans under the
Clean Water Act, 2006, also apply within the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
Each of these plans applies to certain defined parts of the GGH and provides
specific policy on certain matters.
2.2.1. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 and
Greenbelt Plan, 2017
The Growth Plan, 2017 (OMMA, 2017b) and the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 (OMMA, 2017a)
have been harmonized to provide a consistent level of protection for water and
natural heritage across the GGH. For example, the Growth Plan now requires
municipalities to identify and protect key natural heritage features and key hydrologic
features and functions outside settlement areas, whereas previously this was only a
requirement in the Greenbelt Plan. The Province has also recently mapped a Natural
Heritage System (NHS) for the Growth Plan area, which builds on the NHS for the
Greenbelt Plan, and aims to establish a natural heritage system covering for all of
the GGH through the Greenbelt Plan, ORMCP, NEP, and Growth Plan policies. The
NHS for the Growth Plan must be incorporated and protected in local official plans.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 5
The Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan policies require watershed planning to be
undertaken to inform the protection of water resource systems, decisions related to
planning for growth, and subwatershed planning to inform site-specific land use
planning decisions. The impact of an individual site-specific change may not be
detectible at the watershed scale, however, the cumulative impact of many changes
throughout the watershed can significantly alter the overall hydrologic function.
Water resource systems are also recognized for their importance where protection of
hydrologic functions and natural heritage features is needed for protecting the
ecological and hydrologic integrity of the watershed. Watershed planning
components, as defined in the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan, are typical, or
recommended to provide municipalities with flexibility. Watershed plans must always
be properly scoped to reflect local circumstances, capacity and reflect existing
equivalent studies.
In both the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan area, most development or site alteration
is prohibited in key natural heritage features that are part of the NHS or in all key
hydrologic features. Additionally, development or site alteration in proximity to
features must complete an environmental study to determine an appropriate
minimum buffer.
2.2.2. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2017
The ORMCP is an ecologically-based plan that provides land use and resource
management direction for the land and water within the Moraine (OMMA, 2017c).
The Plan’s objectives include protecting the hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Area, including the quality and quantity of its water.
ORMCP policies require municipalities to undertake watershed planning. The Plan also
states that outside of Settlement Areas, development and site alteration is prohibited
if it would cause the level of impervious surface cover in a subwatershed to exceed
10%. The Plan also encourages the maintenance of 30% self-sustaining vegetation
cover at the subwatershed scale outside of Settlement Areas. The ORMCP watershed
plan contents, as provided in section 24(3), are required as a minimum. Municipalities
may consider integrating requirements under ORMCP with components outlined in
the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan definitions, to ensure adequate consideration of
cross-jurisdictional and cross-watershed impacts of growth, development, and
infrastructure across plan areas.
2.2.3. The Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2017
The NEP is also an example of a geographically-specific provincial plan; however, it
is implemented slightly differently than the other three plans of the review. The NEP
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 6
is implemented through a development control system outside of urban areas and is
administered by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC), an agency of the
Government of Ontario (OMNRF, 2017). This system requires that the Commission
regularly make decisions on site specific applications for development permits in the
NEP area based on whether a proposed development is in accordance with Plan
policies. While this is done in consultation with municipalities, the Niagara
Escarpment development permit takes precedence and must be issued prior to any
other municipal approval being granted. The subsequent municipal decisions are
required to “not conflict with” the NEP.
The NEP does not require watershed planning specifically, although approved
watershed planning/subwatershed plans can inform land use, infrastructure, and
development decision-making.
2.2.4. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) applies to the Lake Simcoe watershed, which
is defined in the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2008). The Plan speaks in detail about
actions to be taken to protect and restore the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe
watershed and subwatersheds (OMOE, 2009).
Although the LSPP does not specifically mention hydrologic function, the plan does
speak to ecologic features and functions which are defined to encompass hydrologic
functions.
2.3. Municipal Official Plans
Municipalities are the primary implementers of provincial policy and are responsible
for implementing provincial land use policies and plans through their official plans
and zoning by-laws.
Planning tools and processes (e.g., watershed plans, environmental assessments,
and water taking permits) are used to inform decisions on development,
infrastructure, and resource management. Knowledge of hydrology, hydrologic
features, areas, and systems, and their functions feed into the planning tools to
develop policies relevant to these landscapes and functions which can lead to
restriction on development activities and provide guidelines for mitigating
disturbances through design modifications.
The impact of an individual change may not be detectible at the watershed scale,
however, the cumulative impact of many changes throughout the watershed can
significantly alter the overall hydrologic function. It is for this reason that
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 7
development must be responsible for maintaining hydrologic function at the local
scale to ensure the protection of the broader watershed’s hydrologic functions.
Hydrologic function is also captured indirectly at the local level via the planning
process. An example is the Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater
Drainage Features Guidelines which classifies the function of headwater areas by
hydrology, riparian community structure, and fish and terrestrial habitat (Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority [TRCA] & Credit Valley Conservation [CVC],
2014). Rather than determining the potential functions performed by the headwater
areas, this method quantifies the significance of the functions being performed.
3. Hydrologic Function Overview
3.1. Practical Definition
The definition of hydrologic function provided in the PPS and provincial plans is broad.
Further, the literature refers to related concepts to hydrologic function such as
watershed or catchment function (the actions of the landscape on water within the
catchment; Wagener, et al., 2007), ecologic function (processes, products, and
services that biotic and abiotic features create or carry out including hydrological
functions; CVC, 2009; OMMA, 2017a), and wetland function (processes or
phenomena that occur within wetlands including flood-flow alteration, groundwater
recharge and discharge, biogeochemical cycling, and habitat maintenance; Brinson,
1993; Novitzki, et al., 1996; Smith, et al., 1995, Wray & Bayley, 2006). Also, some
studies mention hydrological function and simply provide examples, such as
groundwater recharge, flow conveyance, or storage, without providing a definition
(e.g., Barbier, et al., 1997; Del Giudice, n.d.; McLaughlin & Cohen, 2013; Taylor &
Pierson, 1985).
Hydrology is the science that encompasses the occurrence, distribution, movement,
and properties of water and their relationship with the environment within each phase
of the hydrologic cycle. Function is defined as the interaction between the
components of a system or cycle (Barbier, et al., 1997). A practical definition of
hydrologic function is the components (i.e., hydrologic features and areas such as
lakes, streams, or groundwater) and processes (i.e., the way in which water moves
through the environment including precipitation, evapotranspiration, recharge, and
discharge) associated with hydrologic connectivity and water balance within a defined
spatial extent. From this practical definition, the processes of water movement can
be addressed through the application of a water balance.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 8
3.2. Water Balance
Water balance is a term used to describe the accounting of inflow and outflow of
water in a system (e.g., wetland) according to the processes of the hydrologic cycle
(Hendriks, 2010; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). The mathematical expression of the
water balance is termed the water budget. In general, precipitation (P) is the primary
input that is collected and then transmitted through surface or subsurface storage
(S) before being discharged. Water leaves the system through evapotranspiration
(ET), groundwater (GW) outflow, and surface water discharge (Q). The relative
importance of each of these processes within the water balance of a given system is
dependent on a number of factors including landscape position. Mathematically, it is
defined as:
P + GWin – (GWout + ET +Q) = ∆S
This can be further layered with hydrologic response of each parameter via watershed
routing, storage, and loss processes (i.e., Figure 1; Fetter, 2001). Climate and land-
use changes strongly impact the water balance components (Mimikou & Baltas,
2013).
Utilizing principles of a water balance, Black (1997) outlines five watershed functions:
collection, storage, discharge, habitat, and chemical functions. Of these, only the
collection, storage, and discharge functions are directly hydrological in nature. The
collection function outlines how water is gathered within the spatial unit and is
dependent on precipitation event properties including its type (e.g., rain vs. snow),
relative size, and position within the spatial unit (Black, 1997). The storage function
is the intermediate stage between the collection and discharge functions. It
encompasses the type, amount, and distribution of storage available within a spatial
unit; including surface storage (depression, channel, detention, and retention
storage, for either short or long-term temporary storage), subsurface and
groundwater storage, and vegetation storage (Black, 1997; Smith, et al., 1995). The
total storage capacity and type of storage available depend on local geology,
topography, geomorphology, and ecological communities for vegetation storage. The
discharge function, depicted through a hydrograph, illustrates how (i.e., duration and
magnitude) water is exported from a system (Black, 1997).
3.3. Hydrologic Landscape Units and Connectivity
The landscape is composed of what Winter (2001) terms fundamental hydrologic
landscape units. These are comprised of an upland area separated from a lowland
area by a sloping area, where each component is variable in width and intervening
slope gradient. Generically, each part of the hydrologic landscape unit will have
dominant hydrologic functions that differ from those of the other components. For
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 9
example, upland areas are dominantly a source for groundwater recharge or surface
water runoff, and the base of a slope is often where groundwater discharge occurs.
At the subwatershed scale, the landscape is composed of nested multiples of these
units at multiple scales (Winter, 2001; Wolock, et al., 2004) and by extension
multiple hydrologic functions over a range of scales that are integrated to produce
the overall hydrologic function of the landscape feature.
Landscape-scale hydrology is driven by the dynamics of storage and flow between
surface water and groundwater systems and the connectivity between these systems
controls how hydrologic changes in one area impact behavior in others (McLaughlin,
et al., 2013; Winter, 1988). Hydrologic connections can link hillslopes to channel
networks, streams to lakes, surface to subsurface, land to atmosphere, terrestrial to
aquatic, and upstream to downstream. These connections can develop across
vertical, lateral, and longitudinal dimensions and span spatial and temporal scales.
Each of these dimensions and scales are interconnected, creating a mosaic of nested
hydrologic connections and associated processes (Covino, 2017). However, the
structural complexity of most temperate watersheds (i.e., connections among shallow
soils, deep aquifers, the atmosphere, and streams) and the dynamic seasonal
changes that occur within them (e.g., plant senescence which impacts
evapotranspiration) create significant challenges to characterizing or quantifying
hydrologic connectivity (Figure 2, Gooseff, et al., 2017).
The hydrologic functions of a system are dynamic, change through the year, and
respond to long-term seasonality and short-term event response. For example,
evapotranspiration rates affect the antecedent moisture conditions through the warm
growing season most and less in the non-growing but above zero degrees Celsius
time as reflective in a typical groundwater hydrograph or hydroperiod. In some
systems, the direction of groundwater-surface water exchange is reversed in
response to hydrologic input events (McLaughlin & Cohen, 2013; Taylor, 2016).
Dominant lateral hillslope to riparian zone to stream hydraulic gradients may be
reversed when water levels in the stream are higher than the hydraulic head of the
adjacent riparian zone (Russo, et al., 2012).
Potential hydrologic functions depend on the physical characteristics of the hydrologic
feature or area including: soil structure and permeability, water flow paths and
volume, feature volume, basin size, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and other
climatic factors (Wray & Bayley, 2006). Based on landscape position and disturbance
status, not all potential functions may be activated nor used to their full capacity.
Whether a system will perform a given function, and to what degree largely depends
on climate (i.e., precipitation magnitude, frequency, intensity, seasonality, and air
temperature), topography (i.e., surficial slope and shape), geology (i.e., permeability
of surface and underlying sediments/bedrock), and the presence and type of
vegetation growth (Bullock & Acreman, 2003; Maltby, 2009; Smith, et al., 1995;
Winter, 2001), with human activity able to rapidly modify the latter three
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 10
characteristics. Sites that have either been directly disturbed or are down gradient
from disturbed sites will have modified hydrologic functions.
Figure 1: Example of hydrologic response and connectivity on a forested swamp,
British Columbia displaying potential evapotranspiration (top), precipitation
accumulation (middle), and discharge (bottom) and comparing event response over
a range of antecedent moisture conditions. Progression from dry conditions to wet
conditions on October 21 is indicated by the dashed line (Martin, 2011).
3.4. Hydrologic Function: Urban vs. Rural Subwatersheds
Land use change alters hydrological characteristics and functionality by affecting
water flow paths, runoff processes, and the rates of infiltration, erosion, and
evapotranspiration. For example, changes in land use (e.g., rural to urban) can
significantly alter stream and wetland dynamics, potentially involving conversions
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 11
between ephemeral or seasonal and perennial or permanent surface features (Hamel,
et al., 2013). Impervious areas, in the form of parking lots, roadways, lawns (due to
soil compaction during construction), and rooftops reduce infiltration and surface
storage of precipitation and increase surface water runoff (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996).
In a watershed undergoing significant urban development, groundwater levels and
quality may also be significantly impacted by the transition to channelized flow
(Gremillion, et al., 2000). Urbanization changes a watershed’s response to
precipitation. The primary effects include less infiltration and reduced travel time,
which increases peak discharge and runoff (Ward, 2013).
Anthropogenic impacts such as landscape conversion, degradation, and alteration of
spatial connectivity will individually have direct effects on the local ecosystem as well
as indirect effects in other systems that can be cumulative over spatial and temporal
scales (Leibowitz, et al., 2000). Table 1 outlines hydrological impacts of urbanization.
Distinguishing the direct effects of anthropogenic actions within the landscape given
the high degree of landscape fragmentation associated with urbanization and
agricultural development on hydrologic function from the climatic variability and the
effects of climate change is becoming ever more complex. Further, landscape
disturbance changes the magnitude and location of hydrologic function processes,
and may alter the dominant functions (Wassen, et al., 2006). The sensitivity of a
landform to change depends on landscape position and size, for example downstream
areas are generally less vulnerable than headwater areas to a comparable land use
change (Brinson, 1993); however downstream areas are impacted by cumulative
upstream changes.
Changes in the distribution and circulation of water may reflect cumulative impacts
of disturbance and are often more pronounced at the local rather than regional scale
(Environment Canada [EC] & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2014).
Anthropogenic landscape alteration generally does not have a linear impact on
hydrologic regime and function as site characteristics such as topography and soil
type may maintain a primary control on function (McLaughlin & Cohen, 2013). For
example, development typically results in increased impervious surfaces which
affects infiltration and storage capacity and may directly affect local and regional
groundwater-surface water exchange processes, impacting runoff generating
processes and storm hydrographs (Black, 1997; Saskatchewan PCAP Greencover
Committee, 2008).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 12
Table 1: Common alterations to watershed physical hydrology and in-stream
processes in response to urbanization.
Hydrology/Process Common Alterations in Response to Urbanization
Precipitation and Evapotranspiration
Increased summer rainfall due to urban heat island in large cities (Oke, 1987)
Evapotranspiration may decrease locally due to decrease in vegetation and increase in impermeable surfaces (Oke, 1987)
Stream Hydrology and Peak flows
Increased peak flows and discharge/stage variability (Leopold, 1968; Smith K. , 2006)
Baseflow and Groundwater
Recharge
Decreased baseflow as a per cent of total annual streamflow (Leopold, 1968)
Changes in groundwater recharge mechanisms and spatial distribution (Leopold, 1968)
Channel Geomorphology
Increased channel dimensions and channel homogeneity (Leopold, 1968)
Decreased headwater stream length/ drainage density (Roy, et al., 2009)
Decreased extent of active floodplain and geomorphic
complexity of the channel downstream of dams (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007; Smith K. , 2006)
3.5. Hydrologic Function and Climate Change
There remains uncertainty surrounding the impacts climate change will have on local
and regional scale hydrologic functions (Boyer, et al., 2010). Projections of impacts
of climate change on landscape hydrology including groundwater properties are
dependent on the quality of the hydrologic and climatic input models and may not
account for direct human influences such as development and groundwater
withdrawals (Chen, et al., 2002).
3.5.1. Collection
The increases in temperature associated with projected changes in Ontario’s climate
is projected to lead to more winter rainfall, less snowfall, delayed lake ice cover,
thinner lake ice, and earlier snow and ice melt (Boyer, et al., 2010; Nickus, et al.,
2010; Zhang, et al., 2001). In the Great Lakes region, this could result in the
increased occurrence of lake-effect precipitation with longer ice-free periods
(Ashmore & Church, 2001; Mortsch, et al., 2000), affecting the timing and magnitude
of spring freshet. Of particular concern is also the impact a changing spring freshet
may have on the annual streamflow cycle (Cohen & Waddell, 2009). Precipitation
intensity is also expected to increase (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), 2008), bringing more heavy precipitation and summer flood events (Zedler,
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 13
2010). There is likely to be an increase in 24-hour extreme precipitation event
frequency (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016), an increase in winter
precipitation frequency, and a decrease in summer precipitation frequency, leading
to more extreme droughts in southern Ontario (IPCC, 2012; Zedler, 2010). Increased
frequency of high volume rain events could lead to an increase in extreme flood
discharges, particularly during the summer and early autumn (Ashmore & Church,
2001).
3.5.2. Storage
The net impact of changes in climate will result in changes to the distribution of water
within the landscape, primarily impacting shallow groundwater and surface water
resources. Shallow aquifers that are only hydrologically connected to local recharge
and discharge sources will have stronger responses to changes in climate than those
that are connected to regional-scale recharge sources (Chen, et al., 2002; Kløve, et
al., 2014). Groundwater resources are dependent on recharge which is impacted by
the temporal and spatial distribution of precipitation and evapotranspiration,
including from the surface, vadose zone, and saturated zone (Goderniaux, et al.,
2009), but due to the scale of storage capacity, many aquifers are less sensitive to
changes than precipitation-dependent surface water systems (Brinson, 1993).
Projected increases in precipitation and temperature are expected to increase
groundwater recharge, with the impact of changes in temperature primarily occurring
during winter months (Jyrkama & Sykes, 2007). Groundwater discharge rates may
range from a 19% decrease to 3% increase, depending on climate model and
watershed microclimates (Piggott, et al., 2005a). The high diversity of current
groundwater conditions across southern Ontario suggest variable response to climate
change (Piggott, et al., 2005a).
3.5.3 Discharge
Models consistently project decreases in runoff over mid-latitude North America by
the 2020s, expanding through the 2080s, however projections of change in runoff
remain more variable than those of precipitation or evapotranspiration (Cohen &
Waddell, 2009). Changes in precipitation accumulation may cause a correlated, but
greater change in stream discharge and changes in temperature may result in a
negative response in stream discharge (Ashmore & Church, 2001). Changes in
precipitation and temperature also exert greater influence on ephemeral streamflow
generation than topographic and land use characteristics (Brooks, 2009). Streamflow
sensitivity to changes in precipitation and temperature are spatially variable,
dependent on landscape position and dominant hydrologic processes (Ashmore &
Church, 2001). Headwater streams are generally hydrologically connected to local
aquifers which are more sensitive to changes in precipitation patterns (Kløve, et al.,
2014). Baseflow generation in these headwater areas is therefore more sensitive to
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 14
changes in groundwater availability (Kløve, et al., 2014). Sites in areas with larger
contributing areas, however, have stronger hydrologic connectivity and restrict the
variability of water table position during dry conditions (Vidon & Hill, 2004).
Stemming from the reduced snow accumulation and earlier spring freshet, maximum
river flows during the late winter and early spring are likely to decrease (Boyer, et
al., 2010). This may result in a loss of riparian wetland area that no longer becomes
inundated during regular peak flows (Ashmore & Church, 2001). Such a change in
riparian wetland extent could have implications on the storage functions within a
watershed. The feedbacks between hydrologic function and climate change will be
spatially diverse, reflecting initial conditions, local geology, hydrology, and the local
changes in the climate system (Cohen & Waddell, 2009). In some parts of Canada,
particularly in areas of increasing urbanization, the effects of development and land
use change on hydrologic systems are expected to remain greater than the effects of
a changing climate regime (Ashmore & Church, 2001; Trenhaile, 2007). For the
remainder of the country, climate change will likely have a greater impact on
hydrologic systems than land use change (Trenhaile, 2007).
Collectively, changes in climate will modify the timing and spatial distribution for
collection functions (precipitation frequency, magnitude, and form – snow vs. rain)
and storage functions (through antecedent moisture conditions).
4. Jurisdictional Use of Hydrologic Function
The broadly used term ‘hydrologic function’ has a wide range of applications and
associated meanings (e.g., wetland function, drainage function, ecological function,
etc.). A search for the application and use of this term throughout other jurisdictions
within Canada, United States, England, and Australia was conducted to determine if
a framework existed which could be considered in the Ontario context. A generalized
email was sent to professionals in the academic, private, and government sectors in
May 2017 to determine if a comparable legislative definition or use of ‘hydrologic
function’ in their respective jurisdiction existed and if so, was supported by a
framework to determine the ‘protect, maintain, and restore’ component as outlined
in the PPS. The responses are summarized in Table 2 below. Additional agencies were
contacted, including the USGS, Lancaster University, and relevant governing bodies
in Alberta, Manitoba, Maryland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Rhode Island, and
Virginia, but no replies were received.
In summary, the use of hydrologic function is not widely recognized in legislation and
is sometime interchangeably used with other comparable water based functions,
wetland functions, etc. No framework or indicators were documented in the replies
received.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 15
Table 2: Summary of interjurisdictional use of hydrological function.
Agency Name Response
Alberta
Geological
Survey,
Alberta Energy
Regulator, AB
Tony Lemay
Senior
Hydrogeologist
Alberta issues Water Act approvals for
water body disturbance provided it does not
create an adverse effect. 'Wetland function'
and 'hydrological functions' of wetlands
(specifically groundwater recharge,
discharge, and storage functions) are used
in Wray and Bayley (2006), prepared for
Alberta Environment.
Battle River
Watershed
Alliance, AB
Susanna Bruneau,
Research and
Stewardship
Coordinator
‘Hydrologic function' used in Alberta
Wetland Policy (as groundwater recharge,
discharge, storage) but no definition
provided, nor any legislative definition.
Township of
Langley, BC
Asher Rizvi,
Hydrogeologist
‘Hydrologic function' is not used in the BC
Water Sustainability Act. It is a general
term that could refer to any activity that is
related or dependent on water. Terms like
drainage function, ecological functions, etc.
are often used interchangeably for
hydrologic function.
Okanagan
Basin Water
Board, BC
Nelson Jatel,
Water Stewardship
Director
Not familiar with 'hydrologic function' in
provincial or local legislative, regulatory, or
policy statement.
Department of
Indigenous
and Municipal
Relations, MB
David Neufeld,
Director
Community and
Regional Planning
Branch
‘Hydrologic function' is not used, but the
province is committed to encouraging
hydrologically sustainable land use and
development
Manitoba
Sustainable
Development
Laurie Frost,
Hydrogeologist,
Groundwater
Management
Section
Not aware of comparable 'hydrologic
function' definition within Manitoba's policy
framework nor legislation
Department of
Natural
Resources, NS
John Drage, Senior
Geologist/
Hydrogeologist
Not aware of 'hydrologic function' within NS
legislation
Lake Simcoe
Region
Conservation
Authority, ON
Bill Thompson,
Manager,
Integrated
Watershed
Management
‘Hydrologic function' not explicitly referred
to in Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, however
there are clear implications for hydrologic
function, encompassed in ecological
functions within this policy
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 16
Agency Name Response
Environmental
Sustainability
Research
Centre, Brock
University, ON
Julia Baird,
Research
Associate and
Adjunct Professor
Not familiar with 'hydrologic function'
Hydrology and
Groundwater
Services,
Water Security
Agency, SK
Nolan Shaheen,
Senior
Hydrogeology
Consultant
Not used in formal capacity; not referenced
in Water Security Agency Regulations
University of
Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE
Sarah Michaels,
Professor, Political
Science
Not familiar with 'hydrologic function' within
legislation
SRK
Consulting,
Western
Australia
Brian Luinstra,
Principal
Consultant
(Hydrogeology)
Individual states are quite different in how
they assess function, but generally, the rule
is that existing water uses are to be
protected, including requirements for any
natural systems, i.e. no impact is
acceptable
5. Proposed Hydrologic Function Framework
The objective of this proposed hydrologic function framework is to evaluate the
physical component of hydrologic function (i.e., the occurrence, distribution, and
circulation or movement of water within the landscape, both above and below ground
surface) in the context of the Provincial Policy Statement and associated provincial
plans to ensure that development and site alterations are to be restricted in and
around areas that contain sensitive hydrologic features (both above and below
ground) and, secondly, such that their hydrologic functions will be protected,
improved, or restored (Policy 2.2.2; OMMAH, 2014). (Consult the PPS and four
provincial plan for detailed information regarding development requirements within
each plan’s geography.)
The magnitude of a given disturbance’s impact on hydrologic function is primarily
dependent on the scale at which function is evaluated and its location within the
landscape, in addition to site properties such as geology and topography (Brinson,
1993; Wetland Science Advisory Group, 2005). It is proposed that the framework is
to be completed at two scales: local or site alteration/development level and
regional/subwatershed scale. It is envisioned that the regional hydrologic function
evaluation/ baseline characterization will provide an understanding of hydrologic
conditions at the subwatershed level. The proposed changes at the development and
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 17
site alteration/local scale will be evaluated against the regional baseline
characterization values through the application of a water balance approach.
Proposed mitigation/management recommendations will determine the associated
impacts of the proposed changes on the hydrologic functions.
5.1. Site Alteration/Major Development (Local) Hydrologic Function
Evaluation
The local or site evaluation consists of two components: 1) thematic land use
evaluation and 2) water budget calculations. Using the best available data, the study
area should be examined evaluated to determine the degree of hydrologic
connectivity at the local level. Key data layers for the evaluation include: significant
groundwater recharge area (and delineated ecologically significant groundwater
recharge areas where available), percent impervious area, hydrologic features, and
land use (including both natural – watercourses, wetlands, headwater features, seeps
and springs – and developed – agriculture, residential, commercial – land cover).
Maintaining water balance is critical to preventing adverse impacts on the natural
features and their ecological function (Sampson & Del Guidice, 2012). The type of
water budget analysis depends on the presence of sensitive hydrologic features and
key hydrologic areas. If the desktop evaluation indicates that there are sensitive
hydrologic features or key hydrologic areas within the proposed development area
and associated buffer, then a comprehensive feature-based water balance with direct
hydrologic measurements should be undertaken. (For the purpose of this report, a
120 m buffer was used to be consistent with the Growth Plan). Detailed
methodologies for feature-based water balances are provided by the TRCA (2012;
2016). If sensitive or key hydrologic features or areas are not present, then a
Thornthwaite-Mather water balance assessment is encouraged to be completed.
Guidelines for completing a general water balance exercise are provided by Cuddy,
et al. (2013). The objective of protecting, improving and restoring a feature’s specific
water balance is to ensure that the anticipated post-disturbance changes do not
exceed the feature’s capacity to respond and adapt, allowing for its long-term
sustainability, while minimizing the resources and interventions needed to manage
and maintain it (TRCA, 2012). To ensure the water balance conditions are
maintained, Low Impact Development (LID) and management options (e.g., maintain
hydroperiod and baseflow and/or, incorporate shallow groundwater and baseflow
protection techniques such as infiltration treatment, etc.) presented by CVC and TRCA
(2010) should be considered.
5.2. Subwatershed (Regional) Scale Hydrologic Function Evaluation
In order to bench mark and or evaluate hydrologic functionality in a defined spatial
unit, a regional/subwatershed scale baseline evaluation/characterization of physical
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 18
hydrologic functionality is recommended. This scale is recommended because
subwatershed-based analyses reflect the culminations of impacts for all activities
within landscape that affect watershed health (Morimoto, et al., 2003) and prevents
planning considerations from ending at municipal boundaries (OMMAH, 2014). This
large-scale evaluation supports various planning processes (e.g., subwatershed
plans, master servicing plans, water and wastewater plans, source protection plans,
etc.).
Similar to the local hydrologic function analysis, land use thematic analysis is to be
undertaken to determine areas of hydrologic importance. This will be combined with
a multivariate statistical evaluation and trend analysis of the temporal indicators
(climate, surface water, and groundwater datasets) to determine relationships,
interactions, and benchmark for hydrologic function at the large scale.
6. Proposed Subwatershed Baseline Characterization Indicators
The European Environment Agency (EEA) defines an indicator as a measure,
generally quantitative, that can be used to illustrate and communicate complex
environmental phenomena simply, including trends and progress over time and thus
helps provide insight into the state of the environment (EEA, 2005). Tracked over
time, an indicator can provide information on the condition of a phenomenon, allow
for comparison between systems, and have significance extending beyond that
associated with the properties of particular statistics (Dunn & Bakker 2009; Dunn &
Bakker, 2011; Koshida, et al., 2015).
The proposed indicators, more comprehensively outlined below, are subdivided into:
1) thematic indicators- corresponding to significant groundwater recharge areas
(SGRA), surface water features, forest cover, and percent impervious surface and 2)
time series indicators- climate, surface water, and groundwater. The thematic
indicators are aimed to provide an overall condition status of the defined spatial area
and are considered either presence/absence (e.g., SGRAs and the surface water
features) or can be ranked (e.g., percent impervious area and forest cover). It is
noted that the presence/absence indicators capture hydrologic input-output
relationships whereas the ranked indicators provide understanding of land use
dynamics. Linking back to the sensitive hydrologic features, the surface water
captures the following sensitive hydrologic features: shoreline areas, water courses
(permanent, intermittent, and ephemeral), inland lakes, kettle lakes, wetlands,
seepage areas, and springs (Greenbelt Plan; Growth Plan; ORMCP) whereas SGRAs
simply capture sensitive hydrologic features related to SGRAs and ecologically
significant groundwater recharge areas (ESGRAs).
Time series indicators are used to determine subwatershed hydrologic behaviour via
the use of the climate variables and surface water and groundwater indicators and
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 19
provide a benchmark to determine regionally whether hydrologic characterization is
changing or being maintained. The premise is that if the locally-scaled water balance
shows that post-disturbance recharge values are equal to pre-development
conditions, then the physical aspect of hydrologic function will be largely maintained.
If maintained locally, then the time series indicators for the normalized storage and
discharge outputs should remain unchanged for the regional characterization.
6.1. Thematic Land Uses
Thematic indicators are aimed at demonstrating connectivity of the system and could
include the delineation of significant groundwater recharge areas and ecologically
significant groundwater recharge areas, highly vulnerable aquifers, cold-water
fisheries habitats, wetlands, etc. This report focuses on 4 spatial indicators:
significant groundwater recharge areas, surface water features, percent impervious
surfaces, and forest cover which are to be evaluated for both the local site
alteration/disturbance scale and the regional/subwatershed scale. The SGRA
delineation and the surface water feature thematic layers provide regional
understanding of the groundwater recharge-discharge relationships whereas the
percent impervious area and forest cover provides data on existing land use
conditions which may adversely impact the hydrologic functionality of the defined
spatial unit.
6.1.1. Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
Recharge areas are the areas of land over which precipitation infiltrates into the
ground and flows to an aquifer. Recharge areas tend to be characterized by
permeable soils, such as sand or gravel, which allow water to percolate downward
and replenish the groundwater system (Figure 2; Marchildon, et al., 2016). A
recharge area can be subdivided into Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
(SGRAs) and Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRAs). Under
the Clean Water Act, 2006, Technical Rule 45 (South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe
Source Protection Committee, 2015) an area is a SGRA if:
(1) the area annually recharges water to the underlying aquifer at a rate that is
greater than the rate of recharge across the whole of the related groundwater
recharge area by a factor of 1.15 or more; or,
(2) the area annually recharges a volume of water to the underlying aquifer that is
55% or more of the volume determined by subtracting the annual evapotranspiration
for the whole of the related groundwater recharge area from the annual precipitation
for the whole of the related groundwater recharge area.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 20
ESGRAs are defined as areas of land that are responsible for supporting hydraulic
pathways that sustain sensitive groundwater-dependent ecosystems such as cold
water streams and wetlands (through Policy 6.37-SA; Ontario Ministry of
Environment, 2009). SGRAs have been delineated in areas covered by the Source
Protection Planning processes whereas the delineation of ESGRAs within legislation
are limited to the Lake Simcoe watershed. Other jurisdictions including TRCA, CVC,
and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority also refer to ESGRAs.
Figure 2: The relationship between ecologically significant groundwater recharge
areas (ESGRA) and hydrologic features within the landscape (LSRCA, 2014).
6.1.2. Surface Water Features
Sensitive surface water features include watercourses (permanent, intermittent, and
ephemeral), inland lakes, kettle lakes, wetlands, seepage areas, and springs. The
objective in mapping these features is hydrologically examining recharge-discharge
relationships and the associated hydrologic connectivity. Further, the surface water
features will be the hydrologically impacted surficial features in which the various
planning documents focus on protecting, restoring, and maintaining. The data
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 21
sources for the identified surface water features consist of: source water protection
plans, the State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC; e.g., EC & USEPA,
2009), Conservation Authority mapping and Land Information Ontario. There is no
ranking system associated with this indicator; however, the aim is to provide a spatial
understanding on where these features are present on the landscape using the best
available science and mapping layers.
6.1.3. Percent Impervious Area
Impervious area is an indicator of the impacts of urbanization, resulting in multiple
stressors to a watershed such as increased pollutant loads from stormwater runoff,
increased water temperatures, altered streamflow, increased runoff to receiving
streams, higher peak discharges, greater water export, and higher sediment loads,
especially during the construction phase (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996; Dunne & Leopold,
1978; McMahon & Cuffney, 2000; Nelson & Booth, 2002; Rose & Peters, 2001; Walsh,
et al., 2005; Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013; USEPA, 2016).
Through the Technical Rules associated with the Clean Water Act, impervious surfaces
include all highways, and other impervious land surfaces used for vehicular traffic,
parking and all pedestrian paths (Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2015).
Environment Canada and the U.S. EPA (2009) include buildings and other areas that
artificially inhibit the infiltration of water.
Schueler (1994) was among the first to identify imperviousness as a simple, easily
measured quantity to be used as an index of environmental disturbance and identifies
threshold ranges of total imperviousness within a watershed associated with different
degrees of stream quality outlined in Table 3 (Moglen, 2009). Arnold and Gibbons
(1996) found similar thresholds of impervious cover to differentiate between
protected, impacted, and degraded stream health. The 2009 State of the Great Lakes
report, however, uses narrower category boundaries (Table 3). The Clean Water Act,
2006, uses a 1 km x 1 km grid centered over each vulnerability area to calculate the
percentage of impermeable surfaces; however, this is limited to the wellhead
protection area and intake protection areas associated to municipal drinking water
system. The ranges for percentage of impervious surfaces per square kilometre
provided in the Table of Drinking Water Threats (Clean Water Act, 2006) are > 80%,
8-80%, 1-8%, and < 1% (R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, 2010).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 22
Table 3: Examples of percent impervious land use thresholds on hydrologic function
(Arnold & Gibbons, 1996; Schueler, 1994; EC & USEPA, 2009).
Arnold and Gibbons
(1996)
Schueler (1994) State of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Conference
Category Percent impervious
Category Percent impervious
Category Percent impervious
Protected < 10% Sensitive < 10% Good < 5%
Impacted 10-30% Impacted 11-25% Fair 5-10%
Degraded > 30% Non-
supporting
> 26% Poor > 10%
For this project, it is recommended that the hydrologic function indicator for
impervious surfaces use the State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference ranking.
This ranking system was chosen for the lower threshold values, as the goal of this
framework is to protect, improve, and restore hydrologic function. Additionally, the
10% benchmark that is proposed to be the threshold for poor coincides with the
threshold listed for where systems become impacted according to both Arnold and
Gibbons (1996) and Schueler (1994).
6.1.4. Forest Cover
Although not a specific hydrologic function indicator, forests can be used as an
estimate the amount of unaltered land use, excluding rural/agricultural and urban
development land uses within a spatial unit (e.g., subwatershed). Forests are
valuable within the hydrologic cycle, as up to 25% (deciduous) or 40% (coniferous)
of annual precipitation can be intercepted in the canopy, preventing this water from
reaching the ground for infiltration or runoff generation (Oke, 1987). However, forest
soils promote groundwater recharge for the through fall and stem flow that reaches
the ground. Forest cover is the area percentage that is forested. Environment Canada
(2013) suggests that 30% forest cover is the minimum needed to support healthy
wildlife habitat; more coverage is beneficial. Conservation Ontario developed a
percent forest cover indicator as part of the Conservation Authority Watershed Report
Card initiative. The grading structure of two evaluations is outlined in Table 4.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 23
Table 4: Comparison between forest cover indicator grading in Ontario watersheds
(Conservation Ontario, 2011; EC and USEPA, 2014).
State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Conference
Conservation Ontario
Category Percent cover Category Percent cover
Good > 60% A > 35.0%
Fair 30-60% B 25.1-35.0%
Poor < 30% C 15.1-25.0% D 5.0-15.0% F < 5.0%
For this project, it is recommended that the hydrologic function indicator for forest
cover condition use the Conservation Ontario ranking. This ranking was chosen
because the areas facing the largest development pressures (i.e., southern Ontario)
have already been largely disturbed. In addition, the 2011 State of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Conference report (EC & USEPA, 2014), show that much of southern
Ontario has < 40% forest cover. As such, incorporating the EC and USEPA (2014)
standards in this evaluation framework would not readily highlight changes in forest
cover over time, particularly if there are further decreases in forest cover.
6.2. Time Series Hydrologic Variables and Indicators
The time series variables and indicators are temporal data sets, evaluated exclusively
at the regional/subwatershed scale; defined as follows:
1) Variables specifically climate-derived data which provide the background
conditions for hydrologic function.
2) Indicators correspond to surface water and groundwater-derived data that
respond to the climate variables and associated land use change.
For this analysis, all variables and indicators are evaluated using annual data. In
addition, a subset is evaluated using seasonal data. The specific variables and
indicators, collectively referred to as parameters, that are used for statistical analysis
are described below and are summarized in Table 6. Parameter codes are detailed in
0.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 24
6.2.1. Climate Variables
The climatic and hydrological systems are interactively related and any changes
initiate bidirectional feedbacks (Mimikou & Baltas, 2013). The two principal climatic
variables of the hydrologic cycle are precipitation (P) and temperature (T). Principal
characteristics consist of event magnitude, frequency, and intensity which will be
seasonally variable (Christopherson & Bryne, 2006). Temperature data (i.e.,
maximum, minimum, and mean) influence the type of precipitation (i.e., rain vs.
snow) and evapotranspiration (ET) rates (World Meteorological Organization & Global
Water Partnership, 2016). The following variables were assessed using only annual
data: total precipitation (P), total potential evapotranspiration (PET), Climate
Moisture Index (P-PET), and average temperature (T). Annual and seasonal
extremes of temperature and hydrologic release were further analysed for multi-day
maxima and minima.
6.2.1.1. Temperature
Temperature impacts all processes of the hydrologic cycle. It determines whether
precipitation is liquid or frozen as well as whether evaporation, transpiration, and
infiltration can occur.
Multi-day rolling averaged conditions are used to assess temperature while reducing
the potential impact of outliers in 1-day extreme maximum and minimum conditions.
It is calculated by averaging daily mean temperature of seven consecutive days,
recorded on the seventh day for day of year timing. The annual and seasonal
maximum and minimum values of this 7-day averaged data and the day of year
timing were determined for analysis. When a multi-day annual or seasonal maximum
or minimum value occurs more than once, the day of year timing of the earliest
occurrence of the extreme value is reported.
6.2.1.2. Potential evapotranspiration
The hydrologic cycle has three main pathways for water to leave a system: surface
water flow, groundwater infiltration and flow, and evapotranspiration. Potential
evapotranspiration (PET) is the amount of evapotranspiration that would occur if it
were not limited by water availability. Monthly potential evapotranspiration was
estimated using empirical Thornthwaite (1948) methods (formula provided below).
While these methods may underestimate evapotranspiration rates, this method may
provide the most accurate estimate with the least required instrumentation (Mitsch
& Gosselink, 2007).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 25
𝐸𝑇𝑖 = 16(10𝑇𝑖/𝐼)𝑎
Where 𝐸𝑇𝑖 = potential evapotranspiration for month 𝑖 (mm/month)
𝑇𝑖 = mean monthly temperature (°C)
𝐼 = local heat index ∑ (𝑇𝑖/5)1.51412𝑖=1
𝑎 = (0.675 ∗ 𝐼3 − 77.1 ∗ 𝐼2 + 17920 ∗ 𝐼 + 492390)10−6
The monthly potential evapotranspiration values were summed to obtain annual
potential evapotranspiration. The local heat index values were calculated using day
length from 2017 (Time and Date, 2018). Subwatershed day lengths were estimated
from communities that were situated centrally along the north-south alignment of
the subwatershed in order to calculate the local heat index used to calculate PET.
6.2.1.3. Climate moisture index
A climate moisture index, as outlined by Hogg (1997) was calculated as total
precipitation minus total potential evapotranspiration, where a positive value is
indicative of a water surplus and a negative value is indicative of a water deficit and
to provide an overview of “climate inputs” and whether climate is adding or removing
water from the system. This provides a summary of background climate data to
determine the origin of potential changes to hydrologic function (e.g., if the GW/SW
response is changing, but P-PET is constant, then it can be determined the change in
hydrology is man-made.) This was calculated using only annual data for this study.
6.2.1.4. Precipitation and hydrologic release
Precipitation records are important to highlight the timing, magnitude, and intensity
of hydrologic input events, however, when the precipitation occurs as snow, the water
is stored on the landscape delaying mobilization until snowmelt. The volume of water
released during the spring snowmelt freshet can be important in local hydrology, and
often results in the highest water levels of the year (Fetter, 2001). Hydrologic release
is the amount of water that is released to the system and is equal to the combined
volume of daily rainfall and snowmelt. Comparing surface water and groundwater
response to hydrologic release provides a better understanding of hydrologic function
than using total precipitation.
Total precipitation was used for annual statistical analysis but is replaced by
hydrologic release for seasonal analyses and multi-day extreme conditions. Multi-day
hydrologic release is calculated as the sum of the previous 3 days’ (maximum) and
30 days’ (minimum) total hydrologic release. This was recorded on the 3rd and 30th
day for day of year timing of 3-day maximum and 30-day minimum hydrologic
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 26
release. The length of these multi-day totals were chosen to reflect the shorter
duration input events and the longer duration of drought events.
Rainfall and snowfall separation, snowpack storage, and melt output are calculated
for the subwatershed based on the methods of Brown and Braaten (1998) using
subwatershed-averaged daily temperature and precipitation data. Daily rainfall (mm)
is equal to total daily precipitation when mean temperature is greater than 0 °C and
daily snowfall (mm snow water equivalent) is equal to total daily precipitation when
mean temperature is less than or equal to 0 °C. Daily snowpack accumulation (mm
snow water equivalent) is equal to the previous day’s snowpack, plus snow
accumulation minus daily snowmelt water. Daily snowmelt is calculated as:
𝑀 = 𝑘[(1.88 + 0.007𝑅)(9 5𝑇⁄ ) + 1.27]
Where 𝑀 = snowmelt water (mm/day)
𝑘 = locally-calibrated snowmelt factor (previously determined by Dr. Andrew
Piggott to be equal to 1 for southern Ontario)
𝑇 = mean daily air temperature (°C)
𝑅 = total daily snowfall (mm snow water equivalent)
Finally, daily total release (mm) is equal to the sum of daily rainfall and daily
snowmelt water.
6.2.2. Hydrologic Indicators
6.2.2.1 Surface Water Indicators
Surface water flow response is primarily a function of the amount of precipitation,
infiltration characteristics of the soil, antecedent moisture conditions, land cover type,
and surface retention (USEPA, 2016). To date, over 170 hydrologic metrics have been
published to summarize various aspects of the flow regime (Gao, et al., 2009; Olden
& Poff, 2003). These metrics characterize the intra- and inter-annual variations of
timing, duration, magnitude, frequency, and rate of change of flow (Matthews &
Richter, 2007). Generalized surface water indicators consist of maximum, minimum,
and mean discharge and water levels at varying scales (i.e., daily, monthly, and
annual) to determine low flow and high flow conditions in addition to system
flashiness and frequency and duration of low flow events, and seasonal timing
(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016; Pyrce, 2004).
Climatic inputs and the physical properties (e.g., geology, topography, land use, etc.)
of a watershed determine surface water discharge patterns that can be characterized
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 27
through, multi-day streamflow extremes and timing, baseflow, flashiness, and
extreme flows as outlined in Figure 3.
Each indicator represents a specific aspect/component of the hydrologic function of
the measured surface water system and therefore are considered to be equally
important and not defined hierarchically. Changes in the performance of one indicator
will likely result in a cascading effect with respect to the other indictors.
Figure 3: Skootamatta River 2015 hydrograph with the surface water indicators
consisting of streamflow, hydrologic release (rainfall + snowmelt), baseflow, and
extreme flows.
a. Streamflow
Annual and seasonal streamflow indicators consist of 1) maximum of 3-day average
daily discharge, 2) minimum of 7-day average daily discharge, and 3) the
corresponding day of year (DOY) timing of the multi-day maxima and minima. Multi-
day average values were used to reduce the potential outlier impact that 1-day
extreme maximum and minimum flow data could have. The rationale/purpose of
these indicators using three and seven-day moving averages is to reflect the shorter
duration of response to precipitation events (maximum of 3-day average daily
discharge) and the longer duration of drought events (minimum of 7-day average
daily discharge). The day of year timing of the multi-day annual and seasonal
maximum and minimum streamflow is used to show if there is a shift in trend (e.g.,
annual maximum flows shifting from snowmelt freshet to rain storm event). It is
noted that analyzing both annual and seasonal periods enables differentiation
between precipitation-driven and snowmelt-driven conditions. Seasonal analysis
consists of interannual comparison of each season.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hyd
rolo
gic
rele
ase
(mm
)
Dai
ly d
isch
arge
(m
3/s
)
DOY
hydrologic release Streamflow Baseflow
Extreme low flow threshold Extreme high flow threshold
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 28
It is noted that streamflow and baseflow were converted to depth of water over the
entire subwatershed/study area that would be required to produce the streamflow
and baseflow volumes via a discharge conversion, also referred to as water yield
(OMNRF, 2014). These values are differentiated as water yield and baseflow yield in
this report. This was done to enable the double-mass balance analysis relating flow
(yield) in mm to precipitation, also in mm, by plotting the interannual cumulative
values for each variable (Searcy & Hardison, 1960). This conversion is determined
by dividing streamflow by the catchment area and multiplying a unit conversion
factor. For this study, daily streamflow and baseflow was converted using following
calculation and summed and assessed seasonally and annually:
𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 =𝑄 ∗ 86.4
𝐴
Where 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 = streamflow or baseflow in mm/day,
𝑄 = daily average streamflow/baseflow discharge in m3/s,
𝐴 = (sub)watershed contributing area in m2
86.4 = conversion factor between m/s to mm/day.
The spatial extent of the subwatershed contributing area used for these calculations
was obtained from the metadata of the hydrometric stations.
b. Richards-Baker Flashiness Index
Flashiness is the day-to-day variability in streamflow; particularly the magnitude,
frequency, and rapidity of response to hydrologic input (precipitation or release)
event (Baker, et al., 2004). Watersheds that have greater flashiness respond faster
and often with greater magnitude than less flashy watersheds for an equal input
event. Factors influencing flashiness includes catchment surface area, soil depth and
type, topography, and percent impervious surfaces.
The Richards-Baker Flashiness Index has been used to characterize subwatershed
flashiness. It is a dimensionless value that relates the sum of absolute values of daily
change in daily discharge, generally for an annual period, divided by the sum of the
daily discharge over the same period:
𝑅 − 𝐵 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =∑ |𝑞𝑖 − 𝑞𝑖−1|𝑛
𝑖=1
∑ 𝑞𝑖𝑛𝑖=1
Where: 𝑞 = daily discharge
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 29
The values of 𝑞 may be presented as daily discharge volume (m3) or average daily
flow rate (m3/s). The unit of input will not change the output index value (Baker, et
al., 2004). The State of the Great Lakes 2011 report includes tributary flashiness as
an indicator, using the Richards-Baker Flashiness Index, indicating good conditions if
flashiness is decreasing, fair conditions when there is no trend, and poor conditions
if there is an increasing trend (EC & U.S. EPA, 2014), as lower values signify storage
and buffering capacity within the watershed. It should be noted however that this
index does not consider potential change in hydrologic release event magnitude,
frequency, nor intensity, which impact event response flashiness.
c. Extreme flows
Extreme high flow (e.g., flood events) and extreme low flow (e.g., sustained drought
events) indicators correspond to the 10th and 90th exceedance percentile of the flow
duration curve, where annual streamflow exceeds the high and low flow thresholds
10% and 90% of the time, respectively, as indicated by the OMNRF (2014). Where
this ratio of high flow to low flow is smallest, there is less variability between annual
maximum and minimum streamflow, indicating there is long-term storage capacity
to buffer storm events and baseflow generation supplements streamflow during dry
periods.
6.2.2.2. Groundwater indicators
Groundwater indicators for hydrologic function are limited to baseflow and
groundwater table position. The term baseflow is often referred to as the groundwater
contribution to streamflow (e.g., Freeze, 1972; Brutsaert and Nieber, 1977;
Eckhardt, 2005), although it is also referred to as the release from both groundwater
and other natural storages of water that sustain streamflow between rainfall events
(Partington, et al., 2012; Hall, 1968; Smakhtin, 2001; Piggott, et al., 2005b).
Background groundwater level data can be informative on conditions within specific
aquifers. Groundwater discharge continuously contributes to baseflow of streams and
rivers, sustaining flow through dry periods.
a. Baseflow separation
Baseflow is the portion of streamflow that is sustained by groundwater discharge. It
can indicate changes to the hydrologic cycle when the relative proportions of baseflow
to streamflow change (e.g., decrease in groundwater recharge and increase in
surface runoff from increased impermeable surface area). Daily baseflow is derived
from daily streamflow data using the modified UKIH method of Piggott, et al. (2005b)
to remove event response from streamflow, illustrated in Figure 3. For the UKIH
method, streamflow data is recorded as (𝑥, 𝑦) pairs where 𝑥𝑖 is the date of minimum
flow 𝑦𝑖 within five-day segments (Piggott, et al., 2005b). These values are then
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 30
compared to those of previous and subsequent segments, and turning points, days
where streamflow is assumed to be entirely baseflow, are defined as:
0.9𝑦𝑖 < 𝑚𝑖𝑛(𝑦𝑖−1, 𝑦𝑖+1)
Baseflow is then estimated to be the linear interpolation between successive turning
points. The UKIH method depends on the timing origin of the five-day segments. To
reduce the uncertainty of the five-day segment timing, Piggott, et al. (2005b)
average the calculated baseflow values of zero to four-day segment displacement.
Piggott, et al. (2005b) also disallow baseflow to exceed recorded streamflow values;
when calculated baseflow exceeds actual streamflow, the actual streamflow value is
used for baseflow. For more details on this method, see Piggott, et al. (2005b).
This method of baseflow separation requires streamflow data beyond the study period
end date. Provisional streamflow data for January 2017 was included for baseflow
separations of late December 2016. Specific dates where this provisional data was
needed for each subwatershed are outlined in Table 5.
Multi-day extremes of seasonal and annual baseflow were analyzed using maximum
of 3-day and minimum of 7-day average flow values, mirroring the methods of
streamflow analysis. Since baseflow is groundwater-derived, there should be
relatively little inter-annual variation. The TRCA (2009) suggests that a threshold of
> 10% change should trigger further investigation into the cause.
Table 5: Dates where calculated baseflow is based on provisional January 2017
streamflow data
Subwatershed Dates with provisional baseflow data
Skootamatta River December 21 – 31, 2016
Innisfil Creek December 17 – 31, 2016
Whitemans Creek December 19 – 31, 2016
Parkhill Creek December 19 – 31, 2016
b. Groundwater levels
The Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) was established in 2001,
monitoring baseline groundwater level information. Hourly reported groundwater
level data from PGMN wells was obtained from the MOECC as approved for use with
barometric pressure compensation applied and outliers removed. This data was then
averaged to determine daily mean water levels for further statistical analysis.
Similar to surface water discharge, multi-day annual and seasonal maximum
groundwater level and day of year timing was calculated using 3-day averaged
groundwater level, and annual and seasonal minimum groundwater level and timing
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 31
were determined using 7-day averaged groundwater level. Where data gaps exist
(i.e., more than several days of data are missing), relevant annual and seasonal data
were removed from analyses.
Table 6: Summary of parameters and indicators for statistical analysis. Day of year
(DOY) timing is also analyzed for all multi-day metrics.
Type Variable /Indicator Metric Time period
Climate Precipitation Total Annual
Potential
Evapotranspiration Total Annual
Climate Moisture
Index P-PET Annual
Temperature Average Annual
7-day max Annual, seasonal
7-day min Annual, seasonal
Hydrologic release 3-day max Annual, seasonal
30-day min Annual, seasonal
Total Seasonal
Surface
water
Surface water
discharge 3-day max Annual, seasonal
7-day min Annual, seasonal
Water yield Total Annual, seasonal
Baseflow yield Total Annual, seasonal
Flashiness
Richards-Baker
Flashiness Index Annual
Extreme flows
<10th: >90th
exceedance percentile Annual
Groundwater Groundwater level 3-day max Annual, seasonal
7-day min Annual, seasonal
6.3. Subwatershed Hydrologic Function Characterization
—Pilot Subwatersheds
Four southern Ontario subwatersheds have been targeted for subwatershed
hydrologic function characterization: Skootamatta River, Innisfil Creek, Whiteman’s
Creek, and Parkhill Creek. See Figure 4 for an overview of the pilot subwatersheds
and the location of their climate, surface water, and groundwater stations.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 32
Figure 4: Map of study subwatersheds, target climate stations, surface water gauges and groundwater wells
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 33
6.3.1. Skootamatta River
The subwatershed of the Skootamatta River, a tributary of the Moira River, is
approximately 692 km2, located north of Belleville within Lennox & Addington, and
Hastings counties. There is little development within the subwatershed which is
dominated by secondary growth forest (Skootamatta District Ratepayers Association,
2014), with only small communities of Actinolite and Flinton. There is also little
agricultural activity within this subwatershed dominated by Precambrian bedrock. The
Water Survey of Canada hydrometric station at the Skootamatta River (02HL004) is
included in the Reference Hydrometric Basin Network (RHBN), indicating that there
are stable or pristine hydrological conditions with more than 20 years of data record
(Zhang, et al., 2001) for this subwatershed. In addition, the MOECC has installed the
Skootamatta River Integrated Water and Climate Monitoring Station.
6.3.2. Innisfil Creek
The Innisfil Creek subwatershed is approximately 490 km2 in size and consists of five
main tributaries: Bailey, Beeton, Cookstown, Innisfil, and Penville. Situated partially
within the municipalities of Innisfil, Essa, Bradford West Gwillimbury, New
Tecumseth, Adjala-Tosorontio, and Mono; this area has experienced historical water
abstraction shortages due to meteorological and agricultural related droughts with
related negative socio-economic impacts. Main communities include: Beeton,
Churchill, Cookstown, and Tottenham. It is characterized as largely rural and
dominated by agricultural land use. Collectively, the proportion of land use in the
subwatershed is approximately distributed as 75% Agriculture, 14% Forests, 7%
Wetlands, 3% Built-up Urban, and 1% Extraction. The top four irrigated crops grown
in the Innisfil Creek subwatershed are potato, turf, onion, and cabbage. Wheat-corn-
soybean rotations also predominate in this subwatershed however are not irrigated.
The Innisfil Creek is largely a runoff-dominated system. Water entering the system,
does so via predominantly by precipitation, and monitoring records from stations
around the subwatershed shows annual precipitation ranges from 789 to
912 mm/year. Evapotranspiration was found to be 550 to 600 mm/year and would
consume approximately two thirds of the annual precipitation. The remainder of the
water balance is attributable to surface runoff or groundwater storage.
The surficial overburden is quite deep throughout the area (exceeding 200 m in some
locations), with the central portions of Innisfil Creek being characterized largely by
surficial sands underlain by glaciolacustrine deposits. Although there are limited
groundwater resources associated with these surficial sands, the underlying deposits
result in a regionally extensive and complex aquifer system.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 34
Lastly, the recently completed Innisfil Creek Drought Management Plan aims to
proactively determine the best way to manage limited water supplies during periods
of drought. Pertinent to this project, components of this drought management plan
consist of:
development of an integrated groundwater-surface water MikeSHE numerical 3D water budget model on a subwatershed scale with a drought scenario built
within the model;
assessment of climate change impacts and options to the drought scenarios; and
assessment of environmental flow requirements of Innisfil Creek and its
associated tributaries.
6.3.3. Whitemans Creek
The Whitemans Creek subwatershed is approximately 404 km2. Located in the Grand
River watershed, it is primarily rural, dominated by agricultural land use and also
perennial low water issues. Groundwater is abstracted for the Bright and Paris
(Bethel) municipal systems. The two main tributaries of Whitemans Creek consists of
Horner and Kenny Creeks. The physiography of the subwatershed is dominated by a
till and sand plain interspersed with till moraine, and smaller segments of kame
moraine and wetland areas (Maas, 2011). Till plain dominates the headwaters of both
tributaries; the soils, comprising generally fine, silty clay loam soils, are described as
well to imperfectly drained (Province of Ontario - Conservation Authorities Branch,
1962; Province of Ontario - Conservation Authorities Branch, 1966; GRCA, 2005, as
cited in Maas, 2011). The south-central portion of the subwatershed is largely part
of the formation known as the Norfolk Sand Plain. This area is comprised of well-
drained, highly permeable soils with a shallow sand aquifer (GRCA, 2014).
Flows in lower Whitemans Creek depend highly on groundwater discharged from the
high water table of the Norfolk Sand Plain. Low water conditions are an annual issue
within this subwatershed, with 90% of years (1961-2012) reaching low water
thresholds (GRCA, 2014). There is a high concentration of permits to take water
(PTTW) within the well-drained sandy soils of the Whitemans Creek subwatershed;
most are for agricultural use (GRCA, 2014). Since the aquifer has a high degree of
connectivity with surface water, demand for groundwater extraction negatively
impacts the creek flow (GRCA, 2014).
The GRCA is presently undertaking the Whitemans Creek Tier 3 Water Budget Study.
This detailed scientific technical study is aimed at assessing the water quantity risk
to current and future municipal drinking water sources under a variety of scenarios,
such as future increased municipal water needs due to growth and a sustained
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 35
drought. The Whitemans Tier 3 study will utilize an integrated groundwater-surface
water numerical model to simulate groundwater and surface water flow to evaluate
how water levels will change within the municipal wells under the various scenarios
including climate change.
6.3.4. Parkhill Creek
Situated within the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA), the 127 km2
Upper Parkhill Creek (referred to as the Parkhill Creek throughout this report)
subwatershed is partially located in the municipalities of Bluewater, North Middlesex,
and South Huron. Abstracted groundwater services the communities of Brucefield,
Clinton, Seaforth, Zurich, and Varna, all situated north of the subwatershed. Similar
to the Innisfil Creek subwatershed, the Upper Parkhill Creek is characterized as rural
agriculture as supported by the land use breakdown: 82% agriculture; 13% woodlot;
2% urban; 3% other (ABCA, 2007). Key natural areas in the include: the Dashwood
Area Earth Science (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest); Parkhill Creek Complex
(Provincially Significant Wetland); McGillivray Environmentally Significant Areas 5, 7,
8 and 11; Stanley Environmentally Significant Areas 4 and 5 (ABCA, 2014).
The surficial geology of this typically flat to slightly undulating area is dominated by
till moraine features with corresponding silty clay loan and clay loam soil profiles.
Bedrock is overlain by 10 m to > 70 m of overburden (Singer, et al., 2003). Bedrock
aquifers are the only significant source of groundwater in this subwatershed. A thick
sequence of mostly fine-grained glacial sediment separates Parkhill Creek from the
bedrock aquifer in this area (ABCA, 2007).
The MOECC established Parkhill Creek Integrated Water and Climate Monitoring
Station. Figure 5 outlines the cross section profile of monitoring station
instrumentation for the Parkhill Creek station.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 36
Figure 5: Cross section profile of the Parkhill Creek Integrated Water and Climate Monitoring Station outlining the
various monitoring components.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 37
7. Subwatershed Hydrologic Function Characterization Methodology
7.1. Thematic Mapping Methodology
Thematic mapping of the targeted subwatersheds includes hydrologic and land use
characteristics consist of SGRAs and surface water features (including streams, lakes,
ponds, wetlands, discharge areas, etc.) in addition percent impervious area and
forest cover representing the disturbance and land use change that has occurred
within each of the subwatersheds.
Table 7: Summary of hydrologic function variables and indicators.
Variable/Indicator Data source
Land use
indicators
(regional and
local scale)
Significant groundwater recharge
areas (SGRA) Source water protection plans
Impervious areas LIO
Forest cover condition LIO, CA mapping
Surface water features LIO, CA mapping
Many of the mapping layers that were used were sourced from Land Information
Ontario (LIO; 2018), as displayed in Table 7, in order for consistent application of the
same data source to each study area. These include for Ontario Hydro Network (OHN)
Waterbody, Wetland, Wooded Area, Built-up Area, and Ontario Road Network Road
Net Element. Additional layers, including subwatershed boundaries, SGRAs, and
greater details of surface water features were obtained from each relevant
conservation authority. Much of the Skootamatta River subwatershed is located
within ecoregion 5E and was therefore excluded from the built up areas mapping
layer which was restricted to southern Ontario coverage. Neither the Quinte
Conservation Authority nor the local municipalities were able to provide a substitute
layer. In contrast, there were additional layers available from the Grand River
Conservation Authority for Whiteman’s Creek, such as discharge areas (GRCA, 2018).
Any available and relevant layers were included in the analysis.
To perform mapping analysis, all available data sets for surface water features were
joined to create one layer, using union and dissolve functions in ArcMap (version
10.3.1). For the purposes of this analysis, there is no differentiation between the
types of surface water features (e.g., streams, lakes, wetlands, discharge areas). A
120 m buffer was then applied to this layer and clipped to the subwatershed
boundary. Much of the stream network within each of these subwatersheds were
linear features rather than spatial polygons, meaning that their spatial extent cannot
be accurately estimated. As a result, only the spatial extent of the 120 m buffer was
used in the analysis, with the acknowledgement that it will underestimate the area
of the subwatershed that is within the buffer area, but would provide a better
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 38
estimate than omitting the linear features of the stream network. These methods
were replicated and applied to SGRAs and their 120 m buffers. To determine the
extent of land that is within 120 m of any key hydrologic feature, the surface water
features buffer and SGRA buffer were joined using the union and dissolve functions.
There were no ESGRA mapping layers available for these subwatersheds at this time.
Forest cover and road network analysis involved simply clipping the available
datasets to the subwatershed boundaries. For spatial interpretation of road
segments, Toronto recommends that lanes be no more than 4.3 m wide, with most
being 3.5 m (City of Toronto, 2017). With the understanding that much of the area
being evaluated is rural, and mostly limited to 2 lanes wide, but with some wider
areas, this report estimates that a roadway would be approximately 10 m wide. This
also simplifies the road segment length to spatial area conversion as a 1 km length
with 10 m width would cover 1 ha. Divided highways that cross through the
subwatersheds (e.g., Highway 400 – Innisfil Creek and Highways 401 and 403 –
Whitemans Creek) are represented as separate road segments and are therefore
represented herein as 1 ha/km for each direction.
7.2. Statistical Analysis Methodology
In order to maintain hydrologic function, it is envisioned that post-development
recharge rates are to equal pre-development recharge rates, completed through a
water budget exercise via Thornthwaite-Mather methods that may incorporate a
feature based water budget at the local level. The subwatershed baseline hydrologic
function characterization is to evaluate the long term performance of the local scale
water balance exercises. This determines regionally if the hydrologic function is being
‘maintained and/or restored’. Since, if local scale land use changes maintain natural
hydrology at all sites, then the hydrology of the watershed/subwatershed as a whole
should also be maintained. Therefore, baseline conditions of hydrology and climate
must be assessed to determine whether background conditions have been changing,
and whether these changes might be of atmospheric or land use change origin.
Indirect impacts of human activity on hydrologic function are beyond the scope of
this report. Hydrologic function indicators are used to determine temporally the
overall performance, e.g., if being maintained or restored. Hydrologic function
indicators are limited to the regional scale, e.g., subwatershed basis and restricted
to surface water and groundwater. Specific sources of each data type are outlined in
Table 8. A full listing of parameters evaluated and their coding are presented in 0.
Table 8: Data resources
Parameter Source Period Web link
Temperature and
precipitation
Ontario Infilled Climate Database;
MNR
1950-2005 http://waterbudget.ca/climateinfill
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 39
Parameter Source Period Web link
Temperature and precipitation
Historical climate data (online); ECCC
station start to end or present
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html
Surface water discharge
Historical hydrometric data
(online); Water Survey of Canada
station start to end or
present
https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html
Groundwater level
Provincial Groundwater
Monitoring Network; MOECC
station start to end or
present
Data received from MOECC staff
The objectives of the statistical analysis are to:
1) Assess whether there are observable temporal trends in hydrologic data
through the study period (1981-2016), and
2) Evaluate the relationship between hydrologic components of climate, surface
water discharge, and groundwater levels using readily available datasets.
Data analysis was conducted on both annual mean or total data as well as interannual
comparison of seasonal data, where at least 10 observations (i.e., 10
annual/seasonal total/mean data values) of each parameter were available. For
correlation analyses, there must be at least 10 years of observations where both
parameters overlap in data availability. Seasonal divisions are based on astronomical
seasons and data was broken into: January-March (JFM) – snow and melt; April-June
(AMJ) – spring and generally wet antecedent conditions; July-September (JAS) – dry
summer period; and October-December (OND) – autumn wet up and limited winter-
like conditions. These divisions were chosen due to the great inter-seasonal variability
in Ontario and to facilitate annual data comparisons between parameters. Other
studies have used water years (October-September); however, this presents
complications in data comparisons when some types of annual data are more
commonly based on the calendar year. Data series (temperature, precipitation,
streamflow, baseflow, and associated annual multi-day maximum and minimum
data, etc.) were analyzed using R software (R Core Team, 2007).
A flow chart outlining statistical analyses is presented in Figure 6. Analysis methods
have been inspired by Gao et al. (2010), but have had some modifications as the
present study aims to evaluate whether there have been temporal trends in any of
the parameters evaluated, and which parameters may be correlated to one another.
This differs from Gao et al. (2010) which compared hydrologic time series data
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 40
(groundwater levels, spring and stream discharge, and precipitation data) to historic
groundwater withdrawal records.
Annual and seasonal data were evaluated for time-series trends using the Mann-
Kendall trend test (McLeod, 2011) and correlation through the Kendall’s rank (tau, 𝜏;
Revelle, 2017), Spearman’s rank (rho, 𝜌; Revelle, 2017) and linear regression, using
least squares (𝑅2). Following Gao, et al. (2010), the results of the Mann-Kendall trend
test show “probably trending” (PT) when the two-sided p-value is < 0.05, and
confidence increases to “very certain” (VC) when the two-sided p-value is < 0.025.
Correlation between tested variables can be positive (corresponding increases in both
parameters) or negative (increasing values for one parameter correspond to a
decrease in the other). In order for there to be a strong correlation between the
parameters tested, the correlation coefficient for Kendall’s Rank, Spearman's Rank,
and linear regression must be > 0.5 and the corresponding p-values must be < 0.05
for all tests. Probable correlation is determined by at least one of the correlation
coefficients and associated p-value meeting these requirements. When all of these
correlation coefficients are < 0.5, no correlation is detected. Linear regression
analyses was only conducted when both Kendall’s Rank and Spearman’s rank both
met the threshold to indicate probable correlation. The adjusted 𝑅2 output was used
for this analysis. All parameters (climate variables and hydrologic indicators) were
tested for correlation within each time period (i.e., annual and seasonal). Inter-
seasonal and annual-seasonal correlations were not tested.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 41
Figure 6: Flow chart illustrating statistical analysis methods
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 42
Two double mass balance graphing analyses were also used to illustrate the
relationship of 1) streamflow as a function of precipitation and 2) baseflow as a
function of streamflow in each of the pilot subwatersheds. Ideally, there will be a
linear relationship for each of these pairings that remains constant through time, but
where the slope of the relationship changes, there have been changes within the
watershed (e.g., increased surface storage as a result of dam and reservoir
construction). In order to facilitate comparison between streamflow/baseflow and
precipitation/hydrologic release, daily streamflow and baseflow data were converted
to water yield and baseflow yield. These were then plotted as cumulative values along
both axes on both the annual and seasonal scales (replacing precipitation with
hydrologic release for seasonal analyses).
The slope of the linear trend line between cumulative water yield and cumulative
precipitation/hydrologic release can be interpreted as the percent of precipitation
(hydrologic release, seasonally) that becomes streamflow discharge. Based on
previous studies in southern Ontario, it is expected that the slope of this trend line
should be near 0.4 (indicating that streamflow yield is approximately 40% of annual
precipitation; A. Piggott, personal communication). Similarly, the slope of the linear
trend line between baseflow and streamflow data can estimate the baseflow index. A
lesser value could be indicative of net loss of groundwater from the surface water
watershed boundaries or higher groundwater withdrawal rates.
7.3. Data Processing and Infilling Methodology
Raw data was collected from provincial and federal climate, surface water, and
groundwater monitoring stations. A complete time series of daily climate data is
required to determine total annual precipitation, average annual temperature, and
from these, be able to estimate annual evapotranspiration. Many climate datasets
have data gaps in their record, or the length of record may not cover the full time
series. To enable climate data analysis, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
initiated a project where temporal climate data from Environment Canada’s
Atmospheric Environment Service was infilled to create continuous datasets at 339
stations for the 1950 – 2005 period (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2011;
Schroeter & Associates and AquaResource Inc., 2008). When possible, this infilled
dataset was used in this study. For climate data that were not included in the Infilled
Climate Database (i.e. all data at Egbert Care/Egbert CS stations and data for all
stations for 2006 to 2016) data gaps were filled following the methods of Schroeter
& Associates and AquaResource Inc. (2008), as described below, using historic data
from federal climate stations with published 1981-2010 climate normal data
(Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018a; 2018b). These climate stations
have averages calculated based on at least 15 years of recorded data and should
have fewer data gaps in their historic record than other stations.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 43
The "target" station is the climate station that is used to estimate climate parameters
in the study subwatershed. Ideally located centrally within the subwatershed, the
target stations were selected for this study based on professional judgment of several
criteria: the proximity of the climate station to the subwatershed, the availability of
infilled climate data (1981-2005), and the availability and completeness climate data
between 2006 and 2016. When more than one climate station is used to estimate
subwatershed climate, the subwatershed would ideally be situated between the
target stations. Due to the spatial distribution of climate stations with long-term
datasets, none of the target stations are located within the targeted subwatersheds.
Where data gaps were observed in the 2006 to 2016 climate data set (and for the
full time series of Egbert Care data), the target station’s record was infilled using
data from "filling" stations. The selected filling station is defined as the nearest
climate station to the target station with published 1981-2010 climate normal data
in combination with either both daily maximum and minimum temperature or total
precipitation for the date of the data gap. This is repeated each day for which data is
missing. Climate parameters are spatially variable; requiring that a filling station
have both precipitation and temperature data for a given day could increase the
distance to the target station, which would increase error in the infilled data. Target
and filling stations for each pilot subwatershed are outlined in Table 9. Special
circumstances surrounding climate filling in this study are outlined in Table 10.
Climate adjustment values are determined using the following calculations based on
1981-2010 climate normal data between each filling station and target station:
𝑇 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (°𝐶) = 𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑇 (°𝐶) − 𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑇 (°𝐶)
𝑃 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃 (𝑚𝑚)
𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃 (𝑚𝑚)
The temperature adjustment is recorded in degrees Celsius and is positive/negative
when the target station is warmer/colder, respectively, than the filling station. The
precipitation adjustment is recorded as a decimal proportion and is less than/greater
than 1.0 when the target station receives less/more precipitation, respectively, than
the filling station. These adjustment values are then added to (temperature) or
multiplied by (precipitation) the daily maximum and minimum temperature and total
precipitation data from the filling stations to estimate the target station daily weather.
Mean daily temperature was calculated as the average of the daily maximum and
minimum temperature, matching the methods of the Climate Infill Database as hourly
data was not available for most sites. Days reporting trace precipitation were treated
as 0 mm. The 1981-2010 climate normal data and adjustment values for all stations
are provided in 0. Detailed sample calculations for determining adjustment values
and infilled climate data are in 0.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 44
Where more than one climate station was used to approximate the climate of a
subwatershed, subwatershed-averaged temperature and precipitation values were
determined through spatial proximity to target climate stations. Congruent series of
concentric circles around the target climate stations for each subwatershed were
drawn, e.g., Theisson Polygon method (see Figure 7). A line through the points at
which each pair of circles with equal radius intersect is the dividing line between the
target climate stations, as seen in Figure 7. The proportional area of the
subwatershed that is closest to each of the climate stations was rounded to the
nearest 5% to determine the proportional weighting to determine the average climate
of the subwatershed. The relative weightings of the two target stations for each
subwatershed is shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Climate stations used for climate data filling. Filling stations listed in order
of proximity to target station. See 0 for full station details.
Subwatershed Weight Target
station
Filling stations1
Skootamatta
River
100% Kaladar Centreville, Hartington IHD
Innisfil Creek 80% Egbert Care Egbert CS, Cookstown, Alliston Nelson,
Barrie WPCC, Shanty Bay, Orangeville
MOE
20% Orangeville
MOE
Fergus Shand Dam
Whitemans
Creek
65% Roseville Waterloo Wellington 2, Brantford MOE,
Woodstock, Millgrove, Stratford WWTP,
Glen Allan, Fergus Shand Dam
35% Foldens Woodstock, Culloden Easey, London A,
London Int'l Airport, St Thomas WPCP,
Stratford WWTP, Brantford MOE,
Roseville, Hamilton A
Parkhill Creek 80% Exeter Thedford, Stratford WWTP, Blyth,
London A, London Int'l Airport,
Strathroy-Mullifarry
20% Thedford Strathroy-Mullifarry, London Int'l
Airport, St Thomas WPCP, Stratford
WWTP
1Stations that are both target and filling stations were used as filling stations only if it had recorded climate data on the day requiring data filling
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 45
Figure 7: Climate data spatial weighting. Data shown for Whitemans Creek using the
Foldens and Roseville climate stations.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 46
Table 10: Special circumstances related to general climate filling methods.
Subwatershed Climate station
Description of modification
Skootamatta River
Kaladar There are few climate stations meeting target station criteria near this subwatershed. The second
station would have been Bancroft Auto, contributing only 5% of subwatershed climate. It was determined that Kaladar would be the only
target station. This station does not have published 1981-2010
normal data; normal climate was calculated using infilled climate data 1981 to 2005 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2011), and observed data
2006-2010 (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018b), with minor data gaps (minimum
97.5% of data reported annually) in order to facilitate climate filling.
Innisfil Creek Egbert Care/ Egbert CS
Egbert Care and Egbert CS were not included in the climate infill database. Data for this station was manually filled for 1981-2016.
Egbert Care has climate data until 2007. Egbert CS
(~0.0 km away) overlaps from 2000 onwards. It was assumed that climate normal data from Egbert
Care would be representative of Egbert CS.
Whitemans
Creek
Hamilton A Hamilton A moved in 2011. It is assumed that the
climate normal data would be representative of the new Hamilton A site.
Whitemans
Creek
London
Int'l Airport /
London A
London Int'l Airport records only P data while
London A records only T data. It was assumed that these two stations formed the climate normal data
listed for London Int'l Airport
Whitemans
Creek
Waterloo
Wellington 2
Waterloo Wellington A has climate normal data but
appears to have been replaced with Waterloo Wellington 2 which reports daily data after 2003.
Whitemans
Creek & Parkhill Creek
Stratford
WWTP
This station appears to be manually monitored
Monday-Friday. Uncertainties surround whether the values presented after a gap was actually
reflective of that day’s weather or the average/total from the entire missing period too. Data from this station was only used if P = 0 mm, or if P > 0 mm
and previous day's data available, and T if previous day's data available.
Parkhill Creek Strathroy-Mullifarry
Strathroy has climate normal data but data ended in 1996. Strathroy-Mullifarry is only ~3.4 km away
and it was assumed climate normals from Strathroy would be representative of Strathroy-Mullifarry.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 47
7.4. Data Availability by Subwatershed
Climate data through the MNR Climate Data Gap Filling Project has a period of record
of 1950 to 2005 for all included climate stations and there are no gaps in this dataset.
However many of these stations are no longer active and have no records after 2005.
Individually, climate data collected from both the targeted Parkhill Creek and
Skootamatta River Integrated Water and Climate Monitoring Station have numerous
data gaps, and therefore was not used for analysis. Surface discharge data
downloaded from Environment Canada/ the Water Survey of Canada have few data
gaps. Data for groundwater levels range from having no gaps to having numerous
and long gaps, sometimes spanning several years. Of the potential 12 groundwater
monitoring wells that could have been used for this study, data could not be obtained
from two, and five have less than a 10-year length of record, and many have
considerable data gaps. Data series that are available for each subwatershed of
interest are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 11and detailed in the Table 11 through
Table 18 below.
For data analysis, Dr. Andrew Piggott recommended that datasets should span a
minimum of 10 complete years with at least 90% of data for each month of the year.
Discharge data is available for all sites for 2000 to present, with many of the stations
having more than 40 years of continuous discharge data. The Climate Data Gap Filling
Project ended in 2005 (some stations remain active to 2017) and many of the
groundwater data series do not begin until 2002 at the earliest, and some such as
that of the Skootamatta River and Parkhill Creek Integrated Water and Climate
Monitoring Station do not have data records prior to 2011 and 2012, respectively.
All data analyzed in this study was collected for the period of January 1, 1981 to
December 31, 2016 to coincide with the period of climate normal data (1981-2010)
and extending to the present. Climate data, however, was collected from September
1980 onwards to calculate snowpack storage for January 1, 1981 (thus impacting the
hydrologic release for winter and spring 1981).
7.4.1. Skootamatta River
A climate station has been installed as part of an Integrated Water and Climate
Monitoring Station in proximity to the stream gauge of the Skootamatta River near
Actinolite (02HL004), however, the dataset is unreliable long-term analysis (see
Figure 8). The climate station in Kaladar was used due to length of time series data.
Day length for Flinton was used to estimate the PET for the Skootamatta River
subwatershed. There is only one WSC stream gauge and two PGMN wells (W131-1
and W490-9) within the subwatershed. The period of potential overlap between
climate data (without infilling), surface discharge, and groundwater levels at this
study location is restricted to 2012 through 2015 when including both groundwater
monitoring wells.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 48
Figure 8: Skootamatta River subwatershed and surrounding data sources.
Detailed data availability and percent completeness are listed in Table 11. Climate
data had been previously filled to 2005 (OMNR, 2011) and was further infilled for
2006 to 2016 using nearby climate stations to create a complete dataset. There is a
data gap in the time series groundwater data for W131-1 between 2009 and 2010.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 49
Data for W490-9 could not be obtained from the MOECC for this report.
Table 12 summarizes the number of years that each type of raw data (climate,
surface water, and groundwater) was available for both annual and seasonal
analyses, including the number of years of overlap data for correlation analyses.
Table 11: Time series data availability for the Skootamatta River subwatershed. Light
shading indicates < 100% of data availability, dark shading indicates < 90% of
annual data available.
Year Kaladar Climate Skootamatta River Groundwater Level W131-1 T P Discharge Data
1981 100% 100% 100% -
1982 100% 100% 100% -
1983 100% 100% 100% -
1984 100% 100% 100% -
1985 100% 100% 100% -
1986 100% 100% 100% -
1987 100% 100% 100% -
1988 100% 100% 100% -
1989 100% 100% 100% -
1990 100% 100% 100% -
1991 100% 100% 100% -
1992 100% 100% 100% -
1993 100% 100% 100% -
1994 100% 100% 100% -
1995 100% 100% 100% -
1996 100% 100% 100% -
1997 100% 100% 100% -
1998 100% 100% 100% -
1999 100% 100% 100% -
2000 100% 100% 100% -
2001 100% 100% 100% -
2002 100% 100% 100% 65%
2003 100% 100% 100% 100%
2004 100% 100% 100% 100%
2005 100% 100% 100% 100%
2006 97.5% 99.5% 100% 100%
2007 97.5% 97.5% 100% 100%
2008 98.9% 98.9% 100% 100%
2009 97.5% 97.5% 100% 77%
2010 99.7% 99.7% 100% 12%
2011 99.7% 99.7% 100% 100%
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 50
Year Kaladar Climate Skootamatta River Groundwater Level W131-1 T P Discharge Data
2012 99.5% 99.5% 100% 100%
2013 99.7% 99.7% 100% 100%
2014 99.2% 99.2% 100% 100%
2015 92.9% 92.9% 100% 100%
2016 - - 100% 100%
Table 12: Summary of number of years of data availability by source and number of
years of with corresponding data for correlation analyses for the Skootamatta River
subwatershed.
Number of corresponding years’ data points
Time period Raw data type # observations Climate SW W131-1 GW
Annual Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W131-1 GW 12 12 12 12
Winter (JFM) Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W131-1 GW 13 13 13 13
Spring (AMJ) Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W131-1 GW 13 13 13 13
Summer (JAS) Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W131-1 GW 14 14 14 14
Autumn (OND)
Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W131-1 GW 13 13 13 13
7.4.2. Innisfil Creek
There are a number of observation stations in and around the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed (Figure 9). Unfortunately, of the many climate stations in the
surrounding area, most have already been discontinued, including Alliston Nelson
(discontinued in 2008) which had a high quality 35 year history. Day length data for
Beeton was used to estimate PET for the Innisfil Creek subwatershed. There are two
WSC stream gauges, one on the Beeton Creek tributary and the other near the
confluence of the Innisfil Creek with the Nottawasaga River. Only the Innisfil Creek
station (02ED029, installed in 2000) was used in this analysis. There are four PGMN
wells located within the Innisfil Creek subwatershed, with three of them clustered in
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 51
one location at varying depths. All of these wells are installed within confined
aquifers, with W224-1 confined by shallow clay and the wells at W323 are confined
by glacial till. Annual percent completeness of raw datasets is shown in Table 13.
Figure 9: Innisfil Creek subwatershed and surrounding data sources.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 52
Table 13: Innisfil Creek data sources and data gaps. Light shading indicates < 100%
of data availability, dark shading indicates < 90% of annual data available.
Egbert Care Egbert CS T/P Orangeville Innisfil Creek Groundwater level
Year T P T P T P Discharge Data W224-1 W323-2 W323-3 W323-4
1981 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1982 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1983 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1984 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1985 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1986 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1987 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1988 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1989 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1990 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1991 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1992 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1993 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1994 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1995 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1996 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1997 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1998 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
1999 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - - -
2000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92.6% - - - -
2001 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - - -
2002 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5.5% - - -
2003 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 72.3% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4%
2004 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.0% 80.1% 100% 100%
2005 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 13.2% 16.4% 100% 42.2%
2006 100% 100% 100% 97.3% 100% 99.7% 100% 0.0% 100% 61.6% 0.0%
2007 26% 26% 95.1% 25.8% 99.7% 100% 100% 0.0% 79.5% 100% 24.9%
2008 - - 99.7% 98.1% 91.5% 92.6% 100% 12.0% 100% 100% 100%
2009 - - 99.7% 93.4% 86.8% 86.8% 100% 90.7% 100% 100% 100%
2010 - - 99.5% 99.2% 97.8% 97.8% 80.3% 43.3% 100% 100% 69.6%
2011 - - 96.7% 99.5% 97.3% 97.8% 100% 82.2% 100% 100% 100%
2012 - - 82.8% 91.5% 93.2% 97.0% 100% 65.0% 100% 58.5% 88.8%
2013 - - 78.6% 93.7% 96.2% 97.5% 100% 100% 100% 8.8% 84.7%
2014 - - 99.2% 96.2% 94.5% 96.7% 100% 100% 100% 88.5% 100%
2015 - - 95.6% 93.7% 94.8% 97.3% 100% 100% 100% 83.0% 73.2%
2016 - - 95.6% 95.4% - - 64.5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 53
The number of years with both annual and seasonal data and the overlap periods
which enable correlation analysis where there are at least 10 years of annual or
seasonal data are outlined in Table 14. Though each of the groundwater wells has
real-time data records from 2002/2003, but that only W323-2 (shallowest well) has
sufficient data to conduct statistical analysis on both annual and seasonal scales,
though not all data types could be included in all analyses.
Table 14: Summary of number of years of data availability by data source and
corresponding observations for statistical analyses for the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Number of corresponding years’ data points
Time
period
Raw data
type
#
observations Climate SW
W224-1
GW
W323-2
GW
W323-3
GW
W323-4
GW
An
nu
al
Climate 36 36
SW 14 14 14
W224-1 GW 4 - - -
W323-2 GW 10 10 8 - 10
W323-3 GW 9 - - - - -
W323-4 GW 7 - - - - - -
Win
ter (
JFM
) Climate 36 36
SW 14 14 14
W224-1 GW 7 - - -
W323-2 GW 12 12 10 - 12
W323-3 GW 10 10 8 - 9 10
W323-4 GW 10 10 8 - 9 9 10
Sp
rin
g (
AM
J) Climate 36 36
SW 15 15 15
W224-1 GW 7 - - -
W323-2 GW 12 12 10 - 12
W323-3 GW 11 11 9 - 10 11
W323-4 GW 9 - - - - - -
Su
mm
er (
JA
S) Climate 36 36
SW 17 17 17
W224-1 GW 7 - - -
W323-2 GW 12 12 12 - 12
W323-3 GW 12 12 12 - 10 12
W323-4 GW 10 10 10 - 10 8 10
Au
tum
n
(O
ND
)
Climate 36 36
SW 17 17 17
W224-1 GW 6 - - -
W323-2 GW 11 11 11 - 11
W323-3 GW 12 12 12 - 9 12
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 54
Number of corresponding years’ data points
Time period
Raw data type
# observations
Climate SW W224-1
GW W323-2
GW W323-3
GW W323-4
GW
W323-4 GW 11 11 11 - 9 10 11
7.4.3. Whitemans Creek
Similar to the Innisfil Creek subwatershed, there are numerous observation stations
surrounding the Whitemans Creek subwatershed (Figure 10). There are no
Environment and Climate Change Canada climate stations within the subwatershed,
however there are numerous stations near the subwatershed that can be used to
approximate climate. Day length for Blandford Station was used to estimate PET for
Whitemans Creek subwatershed. There are also two WSC stream gauges within the
subwatershed, one on the Horner Creek tributary and one upstream of the confluence
of Whitemans Creek and the Grand River. For comparability with the other
subwatershed in this analysis, only data from the stream gauge on the main
Whitemans Creek (02GB008) was used. There are three PGMN wells within the
subwatershed, all of which are confined by overlaying layers of till and clay, however,
data from W065-4 was unavailable from the MOECC. Annual percent completeness
of raw datasets is shown in Table 15.
The number of years with both annual and seasonal data and the overlap periods
which enable correlation analysis where there are at least 10 years of annual or
seasonal data are outlined in Table 16. The groundwater data for both W477-1 and
W478-1 have clean data records, however the record length is insufficient to conduct
statistical analyses on groundwater data.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 55
Figure 10: Whitemans Creek subwatershed and surrounding data sources.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 56
Table 15: Whitemans Creek data sources and data gaps. Light shading indicates
< 100% of data availability, dark shading indicates < 90% of annual data available.
Foldens Roseville Whitemans Creek Discharge Data
Groundwater level
Year T P T P W477-1 W478-1
1981 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1982 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1983 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1984 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1985 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1986 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1987 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1988 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1989 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1990 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1991 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1992 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1993 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1994 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1995 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1996 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1997 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1998 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
1999 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2001 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2002 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2003 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2004 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2005 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2006 100% 100% 88.8% 96.4% 100% - -
2007 80.3% 80.3% 91.0% 91.0% 100% - -
2008 85.2% 85.2% 86.3% 86.3% 100% 19.1% 19.1%
2009 100% 100% 90.7% 90.7% 100% 100% 100%
2010 97.0% 97.0% 87.7% 87.7% 100% 100% 100%
2011 99.2% 99.2% 91.5% 91.5% 100% 100% 100%
2012 97.0% 97.0% 91.8% 91.5% 100% 100% 100%
2013 97.8% 97.8% 91.2% 91.2% 100% 100% 100%
2014 99.5% 99.5% 94.0% 94.0% 100% 100% 100%
2015 92.3% 92.3% 95.9% 95.9% 100% 100% 100%
2016 44.8% 44.8% 91.5% 91.3% 100% 100% 62.6%
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 57
Table 16: Summary of number of years of data availability by data source and
corresponding observations for statistical analyses for the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Number of corresponding years of data points
Time period
Raw data type
# observations Climate SW W477-1 GW W478-1 GW
An
nu
al Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W477-1 GW 8 - - -
W478-1 GW 7 - - - -
Win
ter
(JFM
)
Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W477-1 GW 8 - - -
W478-1 GW 8 - - - -
Spri
ng
(AM
J)
Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W477-1 GW 8 - - -
W478-1 GW 8 - - - -
Sum
mer
(J
AS)
Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W477-1 GW 8 - - -
W478-1 GW 7 - - - -
Au
tum
n
(ON
D)
Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W477-1 GW 8 - - -
W478-1 GW 7 - - - -
7.4.4. Parkhill Creek
There are few observation stations within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed (Figure
11) and several nearby climate stations, however, of these, Strathroy-Mullifarry is
the only one that remains active. Day length from West McGillivray was used to
estimate PET for the Parkhill Creek subwatershed. There is only one WSC stream
gauge in the subwatershed (02FF008), located upstream of the Parkhill reservoir.
There are also three PGMN wells at two locations, with the paired wells (W491-9 and
W492-9) adjacent to the streamflow gauge as part of an Integrated Water and
Climate Monitoring Station. Percent completeness of the available raw datasets is
outlined in Table 17.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 58
Figure 11: Parkhill Creek subwatershed and surrounding data sources.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 59
Table 17: Parkhill Creek data sources and data gaps. Light shading indicates < 100%
of data availability, dark shading indicates < 90% of annual data available.
Exeter Thedford Surface discharge Groundwater level
Year T P T P Parkhill Creek W285-1 W491-9 W492-9
1981 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1982 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1983 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1984 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1985 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1986 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1987 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1988 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1989 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1990 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1991 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1992 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1993 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1994 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1995 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1996 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1997 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1998 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
1999 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
2000 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
2001 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
2002 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - - -
2003 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 69.0% - -
2004 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94.8% - -
2005 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - -
2006 97.8% 99.5% 100% 100% 100% 93.4% - -
2007 99.5% 99.5% 98.4% 98.4% 100% 97.0% - -
2008 29.0% 29.0% 100% 100% 100% 96.2% - -
2009 - - 100% 100% 100% 96.2% - -
2010 - - 99.2% 99.2% 100% 96.2% - -
2011 - - 99.5% 99.5% 73% 95.9% - -
2012 - - 99.5% 98.9% 78% 98.4% 56.3% 54.1%
2013 - - 96.2% 96.2% 100% 86.6% 99% 100%
2014 - - 5.5% 5.5% 100% 69.0% 99% 98.9%
2015 - - - - 100% 96.2% 91% 92.6%
2016 - - - - 100% 97.8% 83% 80.9%
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 60
The number of years with both annual and seasonal data and the overlap periods
which enable correlation analysis where there are at least 10 years of annual or
seasonal data are outlined in Table 18. Groundwater wells W491-9 and W492-9 do
not have sufficient record length for statistical analyses. Data from W285-1 has been
recording data for 14 years, however, there are large gaps that occur annually in the
autumn. This is a result of very slow recharge rates after annual pump tests/sampling
(D. Heinbuck, personal communication, July 26, 2017). Similar anomalies in
groundwater position are visible in the data for other two wells.
Table 18: Summary of number of years of data availability by source and number of
years of with corresponding data for correlation analyses for the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Number of corresponding data points
Time period
Raw data type
# observations
Climate SW W285-1
GW W491-9
GW W492-9
GW
An
nu
al
Climate 36 36
SW 34 34 34
W285-1 GW 10 10 8 10
W491-9 GW 2 - - - -
W492-9 GW 2 - - - - -
Win
ter
(JFM
) Climate 36 36
SW 36 36 36
W285-1 GW 11 11 11 11
W491-9 GW 4 - - - -
W492-9 GW 4 - - - - -
Spri
ng
(AM
J) Climate 36 36
SW 35 35 35
W285-1 GW 14 14 13 14
W491-9 GW 5 - - - -
W492-9 GW 3 - - - - -
Sum
mer
(JA
S) Climate 36 36
SW 34 34 34
W285-1 GW 9 - - -
W491-9 GW 3 - - - -
W492-9 GW 3 - - - - -
Au
tum
n
(ON
D)
Climate 36 36
SW 34 34 34
W285-1 GW 4 - - -
W491-9 GW 2 - - - -
W492-9 GW 2 - - - - -
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 61
The soils of Parkhill Creek subwatershed have high clay component which means that
there is a long period of artificial drawdown and subsequent rebounding that has been
removed from the groundwater datasets prior to analysis. This occurs in
September/October annually, and results in data gaps to seasonal data sets for both
summer (JAS) and autumn (OND). Since it is likely that other
watersheds/subwatersheds could have similar challenges, it was determined that this
data could be used in annual comparisons only when the only data gaps are directly
related to this known sampling time, though it would be omitted from seasonal
analyses. When other unrelated data gaps were observed, the dataset was treated
as any other, and removed from annual and season-specific analyses.
8. Results
The results from the thematic evaluation and the time series evaluation for each pilot subwatershed are summarized below. The thematic summary is based on surface water features, SGRAs, forest cover, and the percent area impervious where
information via shapefiles are available. The time series data is presented based on temporal analysis followed by correlation analysis where strong correlation was
determined to exist based on the Spearman’s Rank, Kendall’s Rank, and linear regression. Lastly a double-mass balance analysis was conducted in order to highlight
changes in the relationship between the components.
8.1. Skootamatta River
8.1.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis
The landscape of the Skootamatta River subwatershed is very rural, dominated by
forests and surface water features. Here, these surface water features, are primarily
an extensive network of lakes, streams, and rivers. The spatial extent of the 120 m
buffer around and including surface water features is 54,745 ha, accounting for 79%
of the subwatershed area (Figure 12). It should also be noted that this is likely
underestimated for this subwatershed, due to the extensive network of streams that
are represented as linear features in geospatial data with their width not accurately
represented.
The extent of SGRAs within this subwatershed is relatively small. These areas
generally correspond to the areas of established agricultural land use. There are
1,103 ha of SGRAs covering 1.6% of the subwatershed and 1,691 ha including the
120 m buffer covering 2.4% (Figure 13).
When the spatial extent of the 120 m buffer around the surface water features and
the SGRAs are combined, the total area of the Skootamatta River subwatershed that
is within 120 m of a key hydrologic feature or area is 55,816 ha (80.1%). Any
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 62
potential land use change within this area would then require the comprehensive
feature-based water budget analysis at the site-scale, as per the outlined framework
herein.
Forest cover in the Skootamatta River subwatershed is also very extensive, covering
53,438 ha (77%) of the subwatershed (Figure 14). This well exceeds the target
> 35% forest cover of the Conservation Ontario (2011) guidelines for a grading of
“A”.
There is no established impermeable or built-up GIS layer for this area, however, the
total spatial extent of the combined forest and surface water features is > 91% of
the subwatershed and roads cover < 0.5% of the subwatershed. This is summarized
in Table 43 in Section 0. Of the remaining < 9% of the subwatershed, it is unlikely
that more than half would be impermeable, therefore this subwatershed is classified
as “Good” (< 5% impermeable) following the State of the Great Lakes Conference
Guidelines (Environment Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009).
Impermeable areas for this report focus on anthropogenic features that have
modified natural hydrologic function and therefore exclude bedrock outcroppings
which are likely present throughout this subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 63
Figure 12: Surface water features and their 120 m buffer of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 64
Figure 13: Significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) and their 120 m buffer
within the Skootamatta River subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 65
Figure 14: Forest cover within the Skootamatta River subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 66
8.1.2. Time Series Analysis
8.1.2.1. Temporal Analysis
Groundwater generally is lowest in the late autumn and highest early spring,
however, there is considerable variability between years. The water table position
has had a maximum range of 1.5 m since data records began in 2002, with both
maximum and minimum extremes occurring in the last several years. Based on the
available annual average groundwater level from 2003-2016 (though 2009 and 2010
are missing), 2003 and 2012 were the overall driest years and 2006 and 2004 were
the wettest years.
Maximum hydrologic release in the Skootamatta River subwatershed has been
associated with both the spring freshet and summer storm events, while periods of
lowest hydrologic release coincide with the winter period, often with multiple
consecutive days of no hydrologic release. Streamflow is generally highest in the late
winter/early spring, coinciding with snowmelt, and lowest through the summer and
early autumn. Annual maximum daily average discharge is generally between 40 and
80 m3/s, however, extreme events have had daily average discharge > 100 m3/s.
Annual low flow is generally < 1 m3/s.
The results of time series Mann-Kendall trend analyses of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed are provided in Table 19. Only results indicating a potential trend with
> 90% confidence (p-value < 0.05) are shown (see 0 for complete results). This is
the threshold Gao et al. (2010) used to determine whether further analyses would
be conducted. The results indicate that annual climatic parameters have very certain
increasing trends for Total P, Mean T, PET, 30d MIN R, and the DOY timing of both
7d MAX T and 30d MIN R (indicating delayed occurrence; see 0 for coding definitions).
While the annual-scale climate drivers are changing, there were no detected trends
with annual streamflow, baseflow, nor groundwater indicators.
With the annual trends of 30d MIN R and associated DOY timing decreasing, and the
timing of the lowest hydrologic release generally being through the winter, it is not
surprising that the analysis of 30d MIN R JFM also indicates very certain increasing
trends for both volume and associated DOY timing. The only seasonal very certain
temperature trend occurs in the summer, with the 7d MIN T JAS increasing to support
the increasing trend of the annual mean temperature.
Of all the parameters tested both annually and seasonally, the timing of 3d MAX Q
JFM was the only non-climate parameter returning a very certain temporal change,
indicating a decreasing trend. This means that the timing of the greatest winter
streamflow is getting earlier.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 67
Table 19: Results of Mann-Kendall trend tests for the Skootamatta
River subwatershed, where probably trending (PT) indicates p-value < 0.05
(light shading) and very confident (VC) indicates p-value < 0.025 (dark shading).
Type ParameterMann-Kendall
Result τ p-value
Climate
Total P 0.27 0.021 Increasing, VC
Total R OND 0.251 0.032 Increasing, PT
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.243 0.04 Increasing, PT
30d MIN R 0.363 0.008 Increasing, VC
30d MIN R DOY 0.417 0.0005 Increasing, VC
30d MIN R JFM 0.388 0.005 Increasing, VC
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.416 0.0005 Increasing, VC
30d MIN R AMJ DOY -0.234 0.047 Decreasing, PT
30d MIN R OND 0.257 0.03 Increasing, PT
Mean T 0.283 0.016 Increasing, VC
7d MAX T DOY 0.383 0.001 Increasing, VC
7d MAX T OND DOY -0.25 0.039 Decreasing, PT
7d MIN T JAS 0.305 0.009 Increasing, VC
PET 0.302 0.01 Increasing, VC
Surface water 3d MAX Q JFM -0.244 0.037 Decreasing, PT
3d MAX Q JFM DOY -0.33 0.005 Decreasing, VC
Groundwater BF yield AMJ -0.244 0.037 Decreasing, PT
7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.465 0.038 Increasing, PT
8.1.2.2. Correlation Analysis
Parameters that were found to have strong correlation, that is where the results from
all three correlation tests (Spearman’s Rank, Kendall’s Rank, and linear regression)
have correlation coefficients greater than an absolute value of 0.5 (> |0.5|), and p-
value < 0.05, are displayed in Table 20 through Table 24. Additional results of these
analyses are found in 0.
Temperature and precipitation variables are correlated at the annual time scale,
however, at the seasonal scale there are few climate variables that have significant
correlation with another parameter (i.e., climatic variable or hydrologic indicator).
The only such instances where the winter 3d MAX R (rain plus snowmelt; negatively
correlated to the 7d MIN GW DOY), the summer 30d MIN R (positively correlated with
the 7d MIN GW) and the autumn total R (negatively correlated with the 7d MIN GW
DOY i.e., the more total hydrologic release, the earlier the groundwater levels begin
to increase after the summer dry period). Also of note is that there are considerably
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 68
more parameters that have strong correlations during the summer (July-September;
JAS) and autumn (October-December; OND) months than there are of the annual
and winter (January-March; JFM) and spring (April-June; AMJ).
The parameters that had the most correlations at the seasonal scale were water yield
and baseflow yield. Many of these seasonal correlations are between streamflow,
baseflow, and groundwater. 7d MIN Q is strongly correlated with 7d MIN BF both
annually and seasonally, including the timing except in the autumn. Winter 7d MIN
GW DOY is strongly correlated with 3d MAX R and total and minimum
streamflow/baseflow parameters.
Water yield and baseflow yield are related to minimum multi-day hydrologic
indicators (i.e., Q, BF, and GW) in the winter, maximum multi-day indicators in the
spring, both maximum and minimum multi-day indicators in the summer, and
maximum multi-day parameters in the autumn. Streamflow and baseflow discharge
are often related, and groundwater generally has more correlation with streamflow
discharge than baseflow discharge indicators.
Table 20: Correlation between annual parameters of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed.
Annual Correlation
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
Mean T PET 0.88 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
Total P P-PET 0.95 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
10:90 exceed 7d MIN Q -0.87 0.00 -0.7 0.00 0.53 0.00 -
10:90 exceed 7d MIN BF -0.86 0.00 -0.7 0.00 0.51 0.00 -
Water yield BF yield 0.86 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW 0.83 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.62 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.98 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.75 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
Mean GW 7d MIN GW 0.78 0.00 0.64 0.03 0.61 0.00 +
Table 21: Correlation between winter seasonal parameters of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed.
Winter (JFM)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
3d MAX R 7d MIN GW DOY -0.74 0.00 -0.6 0.03 0.58 0.00 -
Water yield 7d MIN GW DOY -0.81 0.00 -0.65 0.02 0.51 0.00 -
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.73 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.60 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 69
Winter (JFM)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.78 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.66 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN GW DOY -0.75 0.00 -0.57 0.04 0.65 0.00 -
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.96 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.94 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN GW DOY -0.79 0.00 -0.62 0.02 0.67 0.00 -
7d MIN BF 7d MIN GW DOY -0.79 0.00 -0.65 0.02 0.69 0.00 -
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW 0.88 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.75 0.00 +
Table 22: Correlation between spring seasonal parameters of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed
Spring (AMJ)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
Water yield BF yield 0.82 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.57 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX GW 0.74 0.00 0.59 0.03 0.53 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.89 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.82 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW 0.77 0.00 0.59 0.03 0.61 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.98 0.00 0.9 0.00 0.96 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.86 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.89 0.00 +
Table 23: Correlation between summer seasonal parameters of the Skootamatta
River subwatershed.
Summer (JAS)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
30d MIN R 7d MIN GW 0.79 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.58 0.01 +
Water yield BF yield 0.96 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.94 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.95 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.78 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.60 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.86 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.70 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN BF 0.76 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN GW 0.84 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.60 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.87 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.57 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.79 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.92 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.76 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
3d MAX Q DOY 3d MAX GW -0.82 0.00 -0.67 0.01 0.60 0.00 -
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 70
Summer (JAS)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.64 0.01 0.91 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.8 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
Table 24: Correlation between autumn seasonal parameters of the Skootamatta River
subwatershed.
Autumn (OND)
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value slope
Total R 7d MIN GW DOY -0.65 0.02 -0.57 0.04 0.50 0.00 -
Water yield BF yield 0.94 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.94 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.89 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.70 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX GW 0.86 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.72 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.8 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.56 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.85 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.79 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX GW 0.82 0.00 0.64 0.02 0.70 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW 0.74 0.00 0.56 0.04 0.56 0.00 +
3d MAX Q DOY 3d MAX BF DOY 0.72 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.62 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN GW 0.79 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.98 0.00 +
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW 0.77 0.00 0.64 0.02 0.61 0.00 +
3d MAX GW DOY 7d MIN GW DOY -0.81 0.00 -0.62 0.02 0.55 0.00 -
8.1.2.3. Double-Mass Balance Analysis
The relationships between the cumulative baseflow yield to cumulative water yield
(annual analysis is presented in Figure 15) and cumulative water yield to cumulative
precipitation (annual analysis is presented in Figure 17; replaced by hydrologic
release in seasonal analysis) maintain overall similar strong linear relationships
through seasonal analyses. Notable differences to this pattern, however, occur during
the spring baseflow yield to water yield comparison (Figure 16) and summer water
yield to hydrologic release (Figure 18) which becomes slightly less linear, though R2
values remain > 0.98. Additionally, baseflow yield to water yield through the summer
months has less uniform values between years, though the resulting relationship
remains very strong (greater gaps between plotted cumulative values).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 71
Figure 15: Skootamatta River cumulative annual baseflow yield to water yield (1981-
2016). The equation of the line estimates the proportion of water yield that is derived
from baseflow.
Figure 16: Skootamatta River spring cumulative baseflow yield to water yield. The
equation of the line estimates the proportion of water yield that is derived from
baseflow.
y = 0.6081xR² = 0.9996
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Cu
mu
lati
ve B
asef
low
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
y = 0.588xR² = 0.9935
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
AM
J C
um
ula
tive
Bas
eflo
w Y
ield
(m
m)
AMJ Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 72
Baseflow generation is high in this subwatershed, with approximately 60%
(estimated from the slope of the linear regression presented within the graphs below)
of annual streamflow being comprised of baseflow. While this is higher than what
might have been anticipated for southern Ontario, the geology of this subwatershed
is vastly different. The finding of this higher value is also reflective of higher baseflow
index reported for this part of the province (Neff et al., 2005). Seasonally, this
proportion varies between 59% in the spring to 66% in the autumn.
At the annual time scale, the proportion of precipitation that becomes water yield is
similarly 66%. This however varies greatly in the seasonal comparison (where
precipitation is replaced by hydrologic release to incorporate snowpack accumulation
and snowmelt) with the greatest proportion of 73% occurring during the winter
months, moderate proportions, 57% and 46% in the spring and autumn,
respectively, and the lowest at 8% during the summer (Figure 18). The variability of
the amount of hydrologic release that becomes streamflow is directly related to the
landscape storage capacity, indicating much greater storage capacity during the
summer months where precipitation is not translated into streamflow.
Figure 17: Skootamatta River cumulative annual water yield to precipitation (1981-
2016). The equation of the line estimates the proportion of precipitation that
contributes to streamflow/water yield.
y = 0.6609xR² = 0.9974
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Cu
mu
lati
ve W
ater
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Precipitation (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 73
Figure 18: Skootamatta River summer cumulative water yield to hydrologic release.
The equation of the line estimates the proportion of hydrologic release that
contributes to streamflow/water yield
8.2. Innisfil Creek
8.2.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis
The Innisfil Creek subwatershed is largely rural, dominated by agricultural land use.
Surface water features in this subwatershed are predominantly wetlands, connected
with by a stream network, with very few open water lakes/ponds. The spatial extent
of the 120 m buffer around and including surface water features is displayed in Figure
19, covering 16,435 ha, or 33% of the subwatershed. The SGRAs within this
subwatershed are widespread, covering 18,072 ha (37%) of the subwatershed, and
when combined with their 120 m buffer, this area spans 24,249 ha covering nearly
50% of the subwatershed (Figure 20). When combining the spatial extent of the
surface water features and SGRAs covers 36,366 ha (or 74%) of the subwatershed.
Any land use change would be required to follow the feature-based water balance
methods, as per this framework.
There are 9,346 ha of forest cover (see Figure 21), covering 19% of the
subwatershed. This would receive a grading of “C” by Conservation Ontario
standards. Further, the forest extent in this subwatershed is decreasing (NVCA,
2013).
y = 0.0772xR² = 0.9843
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
JAS
Cu
mu
lati
ve W
ater
Yie
ld (
mm
)
JAS Cumulative Hydrologic Release (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 74
Most of the impermeable area is closely associated with the communities of
Tottenham, Beeton, and Cookstown, with additional properties and roads (Figure 22).
There are 660 km of road (northbound and southbound Highway 400 are counted
separately; estimated at 660 ha) plus 1,941 ha of built-up land, combining to cover
2,601 ha (5.3%) of the landscape within the Innisfil Creek subwatershed. This is
graded as “Fair” following the SOLEC standards (EC & U.S. EPA, 2009).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 75
Figure 19: Surface water features and their 120 m buffer of the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 76
Figure 20: Significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) and their 120 m buffer
within the Innisfil Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 77
Figure 21: Forest cover within the Innisfil Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 78
Figure 22: Impermeable land within the Innisfil Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 79
8.2.2. Time Series Analysis
8.2.2.1. Temporal Analysis
Of the four potential PGMN wells within this subwatershed, only one has sufficient
data for analysis both annual and seasonal. W323-2 generally has the highest
groundwater levels in May-June, and lowest in December-February, though this is
variable between years. Since observations began in 2003, the groundwater levels
have fluctuated within a range of just over 4 m. Based on the annual average data
(2006 and 2008-2016), 2009 and 2011 were the wettest years, and 2006 and 2015
were the driest years.
Maximum annual hydrologic release has occurred in all four seasons, but is most
commonly associated with spring freshet, while lowest hydrologic release generally
coincides with the winter period with multiple consecutive days of no hydrologic
release. Similarly, maximum streamflow is generally associated with the spring
freshet, with lowest flow occurring in the summer. Annual maximum daily average
streamflow is generally between 35 and 55 m3/s, and annual low flow is generally <1
m3/s.
There are only six parameters in the Innisfil Creek subwatershed that indicate greater
than 90% confidence of temporal trending (See Table 25). Of these, only the 10:90
extreme flow exceedance ratio is indicating a decreasing trend. This indicates that
there is decreasing variability in annual extremes. It should be noted, however, that
unlike the data from the hydrometric stations in the other subwatersheds of this
report, this dataset begins in 2000, and had very high outlier values for the first
couple of years, which may skew the results. Additionally, the summer of 2001 was
quite dry (10:90 exceedance ratio value of 41) relative to the range of conditions
since observations began (other values range between 8 and 29). Overall, this is
indicative of increasing capacity to accommodate input events. This could be resulting
from high agricultural withdrawals, which are beyond the scope of this report.
Table 25: Results of Mann-Kendall trend tests for the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed, where probably trending (PT) indicates p-value < 0.05 (light shading) and very confident (VC) indicates p-value < 0.025 (dark shading).
Type ParameterMann-Kendall
Result τ p-value
Climate 7d MAX T DOY 0.305 0.01 Increasing, VC
Surface water
10:90 exceedance -0.626 0.002 Decreasing, VC
7d MIN Q 0.516 0.012 Increasing, VC
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.425 0.042 Increasing, PT
Groundwater 7d MIN BF 0.56 0.006 Increasing, VC
W323-2 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.648 0.01 Increasing, VC
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 80
The only climate parameter to indicate a temporal trend is the annual 7d MAX T DOY
timing, indicating that it is occurring later in the year. Note that there is no
corresponding trend in seasonal observations. Since this climate variable is the timing
of the occurrence, and not the input variable (i.e., temperature, precipitation, or
hydrologic release), there is reason to believe that the surface water and groundwater
indicators indicating temporal change may be indicative of additional factors
influencing the hydrology of this subwatershed such as land use change or water
takings.
The DOY timing of the annual minimum groundwater elevation of W323-2 was found
to artificially indicate a statistically significant trend of becoming later in the year,
however this was the result of the lowest groundwater position occurring generally
in December-January. When the December DOY values were modified to negatives
relative to January 1st, there was no temporal trend. There was, however, a temporal
trend in the 7d MIN GW OND DOY for W323-2, indicating overall occurrence later in
the year.
8.2.2.2. Correlation Analysis
Annual and seasonal correlation results where strong correlation was detected are
presented in Table 26 through Table 30. Additional results are provided in 0. Climate
variables were found to have correlations with both climate variables and hydrologic
indicators at the annual scale, however at the seasonal scale, there are few
correlations between climate variables and another parameter (only correlations are
total R [spring: positive correlation with water yield], 3d MAX R [autumn: positive
correlation with 3d MAX Q], and 7d MIN R [autumn: positive correlation with W323-
3 MAX GW DOY]). Most seasonal correlations are between surface and groundwater
indicators.
Surface water indicators (e.g., water yield and streamflow) have strong correlations
with baseflow (yield and extremes). This should not be surprising as baseflow was
calculated from streamflow data. Groundwater levels were often correlated with those
of other groundwater wells, and had few correlations with baseflow and streamflow
indicators. There are also few correlations with the timing of extreme surface water
and groundwater conditions, but numerous correlations with the extreme values
themselves.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 81
Table 26: Correlation between annual parameters of the Innisfil Creek subwatershed.
Annual Correlation Spearman's Rank
Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Mean T PET 0.89 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.73 0.00 +
Total P P-PET 0.95 0.01 0.83 0.00 0.93 0.00 +
Total P Water yield 0.84 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
Total P 3d MAX Q 0.82 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.54 0.00 +
P-PET Water yield 0.82 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.66 0.00 +
P-PET 3d MAX Q 0.82 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.52 0.00 +
P-PET W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY -0.83 0.00 -0.69 0.03 0.50 0.01 -
7d MIN T DOY W323-2 7d MIN GW -0.84 0.00 -0.67 0.03 0.66 0.00 -
10:90 exceed 7d MIN Q -0.88 0.00 -0.71 0.00 0.63 0.00 -
10:90 exceed 7d MIN BF -0.88 0.00 -0.71 0.00 0.55 0.00 -
Water yield BF yield 0.96 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.90 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.78 0.00 0.63 0.02 0.57 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.97 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.97 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.87 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
W323-2 Mean GW W323-2 3d MAX GW 0.84 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.82 0.00 +
W323-2 Mean GW W323-2 7d MIN GW 0.84 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.57 0.01 +
Table 27: Correlation between winter seasonal parameters of the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Winter (JFM) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Water yield BF yield 0.91 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.03 0.60 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.72 0.00 0.56 0.04 0.58 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.53 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.74 0.00 0.6 0.02 0.68 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.85 0.00 0.67 0.01 0.64 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.98 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
3d MAX BF DOY W323-2 3d MAX GW -0.77 0.01 -0.69 0.03 0.83 0.00 -
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-2 7d MIN GW 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.55 0.00 +
W323-3 3d MAX GW W323-3 7d MIN GW 0.88 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.81 0.00 +
W323-4 3d MAX GW W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.99 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.96 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 82
Table 28: Correlation between spring seasonal parameters of the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Spring (AMJ) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R Water yield 0.85 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.62 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.93 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.9 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.72 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.80 0.00 +
Table 29: Correlation between summer seasonal parameters of the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Summer (JAS) Spearman's Rank
Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Water yield BF yield 0.95 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.95 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.89 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.94 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.89 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.88 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.69 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN BF 0.92 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.90 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.9 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.95 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.89 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.92 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.73 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.95 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
BF yield W323-4 7d MIN 0.78 0.01 0.64 0.04 0.65 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN Q 0.8 0.00 0.59 0.01 0.60 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF 0.95 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.86 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN BF 0.82 0.00 0.6 0.01 0.62 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 3d MAX BF 0.8 0.00 0.6 0.01 0.51 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.98 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q W323-2 7d MIN GW 0.8 0.00 0.64 0.03 0.57 0.00 +
7d MIN Q W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.78 0.01 0.64 0.04 0.77 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.91 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
3d MAX BF 7d MIN BF 0.83 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.53 0.00 +
7d MIN BF W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.82 0.00 0.69 0.03 0.75 0.00 +
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-2 7d MIN GW 0.85 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.86 0.00 +
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-3 3d MAX GW 0.77 0.01 0.64 0.04 0.59 0.01 +
W323-2 7d MIN GW W323-3 3d MAX GW 0.93 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.70 0.00 +
W323-2 7d MIN GW W323-3 7d MIN GW 0.92 0.00 0.78 0.01 0.58 0.01 +
W323-3 3d MAX GW W323-3 7d MIN GW 0.95 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 83
Summer (JAS) Spearman's Rank
Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
W323-4 3d MAX GW W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.84 0.00 0.69 0.03 0.67 0.00 +
Table 30: Correlation between autumn seasonal parameters of the Innisfil Creek
subwatershed.
Autumn (OND) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
3d MAX R 3d MAX Q 0.72 0.00 0.6 0.01 0.58 0.00 +
7d MIN R W323-3 3d MAX GW DOY 0.76 0.00 0.63 0.03 0.74 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.94 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.87 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.91 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.77 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.92 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.83 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.8 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.52 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.88 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN bf 0.79 0.00 0.59 0.01 0.60 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX bf 0.85 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.85 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.95 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
7d MIN BF W323-4 3d MAX GW 0.87 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.70 0.00 +
7d MIN BF W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.89 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.68 0.00 +
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-2 7d MIN GW 0.98 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.97 0.00 +
W323-3 3d MAX GW W323-3 7d MIN GW 0.99 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.97 0.00 +
W323-3 3d MAX GW W323-4 3d MAX GW 0.85 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.59 0.01 +
W323-3 3d MAX GW W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.88 0.00 0.73 0.02 0.65 0.00 +
W323-3 7d MIN GW W323-4 3d MAX GW 0.81 0.00 0.64 0.04 0.66 0.00 +
W323-3 7d MIN GW W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.85 0.00 0.64 0.04 0.69 0.00 +
W323-4 3d MAX GW W323-4 7d MIN GW 0.95 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
8.2.2.3. Double-Mass Balance Analysis
Annually, the relationship between cumulative baseflow yield to cumulative water
yield has a strong linear relationship (Figure 23), which remains very strong through
the seasonal analysis. There is a visual discrepancy with the spring pattern for the
first seven years of data, where baseflow yield contribution to water yield was
consistently less than anticipated for the overall relationship (Figure 24). Derived
from the slope of the linear regression of this relationship, approximately 45% of the
annual cumulative water yield in Innisfil Creek is resulting from baseflow yield. This
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 84
remains fairly consistent through the year, ranging between 38% in the spring to
57% in the autumn, with moderate proportions of 43% and 46% in the winter and
summer, respectively.
Figure 23: Innisfil Creek cumulative annual baseflow yield to water yield (2000-2016)
Figure 24: Innisfil Creek cumulative spring (AMJ) baseflow yield to water yield (2000-
2016).
y = 0.4502xR² = 0.9998
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Cu
mu
lati
ve B
asef
low
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
y = 0.3855xR² = 0.9977
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0
AM
J C
um
ula
tive
Bas
eflo
w Y
ield
(m
m)
AMJ Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 85
Figure 25: Innisfil Creek cumulative annual water yield to cumulative precipitation
Figure 26: Innisfil Creek autumn (OND) cumulative water yield to cumulative
hydrologic release
Annual cumulative water yield to cumulative precipitation also has a strong linear
relationship (Figure 25). Relationships between autumnal cumulative water yield and
y = 0.1946xR² = 0.9969
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Cu
mu
lati
ve W
ater
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Precipitation (mm)
y = 0.1513xR² = 0.983
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
ON
D C
um
ula
tive
Wat
er Y
ield
(m
m)
OND Cumulative Hydrologic Release (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 86
cumulative hydrologic release show the greatest difference when compared to the
annual trend (Figure 26), amplifying the overall patterns from annual relationships.
The annual proportion of precipitation that contributes to water yield is 19%, ranging
between 5% of hydrologic release in the summer and 39% in the winter. This is
reflective of greater storage capacity in the summer and frozen/wet conditions
through the winter.
8.3. Whitemans Creek
8.3.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis
The Whitemans Creek subwatershed is largely rural, dominated by agricultural land
use. Surface water features in this subwatershed include groundwater discharge
areas, clustered near the headwaters both to the north and south, with wetlands
dominant in the central portion of this subwatershed with interconnecting streams.
There are few lakes or ponds in this subwatershed. The extent of the 120 m buffer
surrounding the surface water features is 54,745 ha, covering 79% of the
subwatershed (Figure 27). The SGRAs of this subwatershed are also quite expansive,
covering 20,422 ha (51%) of the subwatershed and their 120 m buffer encompasses
23,031 ha (57%) of the subwatershed (Figure 28). When combined, 30,321 ha or
75% of the subwatershed is within 120 m of key hydrologic features, and would
require comprehensive feature-based water budget analysis prior to any land use
change, as per the framework herein.
There is limited forest cover within the Whitemans Creek subwatershed, with only
6,913 ha (17%) forested (Figure 29). Much of this area is treed swamp, with only
small patches of upland forest. This would earn a grading of “C” following the
Conservation Ontario (2011) guidelines.
Most of the impermeable area is closely associated with the communities of Burford
and Mount Vernon, with additional small hamlets and the Brantford Municipal Airport
on the eastern edge plus roadways (Figure 30). There are 574 km of road (eastbound
and westbound Highways 401 and 403 are accounted for separately; estimated at
574 ha) plus 632 ha of built-up land, combining to cover 1,206 ha (3%) of the
landscape within the Whitemans Creek subwatershed. This is graded as “Good”
following the SOLEC standards (EC & U.S. EPA, 2009).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 87
Figure 27: Surface water features and their 120 m buffer of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 88
Figure 28: Significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) and their 120 m buffer
within the Whitemans Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 89
Figure 29: Forest cover within the Whitemans Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 90
Figure 30: Impervious land area within the Whitemans Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 91
8.3.2. Time Series Analysis
8.3.2.1. Temporal Analysis
Groundwater levels at both wells (W477-1 and W478-1) are generally highest
through the winter/early spring, and lowest in the autumn. Since real-time
groundwater records began in late 2008, the water table has fluctuated within a range
of 2.5 m and 2 m at these sites, respectively. The observations at W477-1 are noisier
than those of W478-1. Based on average annual water table position, 2015 and 2016
were notably dry while 2009 was notably wet at both sites (though 2016 data is
incomplete at W478-1). Since there are only up to 8 years of groundwater data,
though it is continuous, it is of insufficient length to conduct further statistical analysis
at this time.
Maximum hydrologic release is closely related to both winter freshet and summer
storm events, with 47% of peak events occurring during the winter and 33% of
maximum observations occurring during the summer. Minimum hydrologic release
also often occurs during the winter period, with multiple consecutive days of no
release. Streamflow is also generally highest during the winter freshet, coinciding
with snowmelt, and lowest during the summer and autumn. Annual maximum daily
average discharge is generally 40 to 60 m3/s, with extreme events being recorded
with discharge rates in excess of 80 m3/s. Annual low flow is generally < 1 m3/s.
Table 31: Results of Mann-Kendall trend tests for the Whitemans
Creek subwatershed, where probably trending (PT) indicates p-value < 0.05
(light shading) and very confident (VC) indicates p-value < 0.025 (dark shading).
Type Parameter Mann-Kendall
Result τ p-value
Climate
Mean T 0.283 0.016 Increasing, VC
7d MAX T DOY 0.39 0.001 Increasing, VC
7d MIN T JAS 0.337 0.004 Increasing, VC
PET 0.337 0.004 Increasing, VC
3d MAX R AMJ DOY -0.239 0.042 Decreasing, PT
Surface Water R-B Index 0.267 0.023 Increasing, VC
3d MIN Q OND DOY -0.241 0.044 Decreasing, PT
The highlights of temporal analysis using the Mann-Kendall trend test in provided in
Table 31. For complete results see 0. Annual and seasonal temperature variables and
the Richards-Baker Flashiness Index were found to have very certain increasing
trends. The only parameters that indicated potential trends were 3d MAX R AMJ DOY,
and 7d MIN Q OND DOY, both of which indicated decreasing trends, therefore
becoming earlier in their respective seasons. There were no results indicating
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 92
temporal trends of precipitation (hydrologic release), streamflow discharge, nor
baseflow parameters.
8.3.2.2. Correlation Analysis
All observed instances of strong correlation at both the annual and seasonal scales
indicate positive relationships (Table 32 through Table 36, see 0 for full statistical
results). Annual, winter, and spring analyses indicate correlations between climate
variables and hydrologic indicators. Such correlations were not found during the
summer nor autumn analyses.
Total P (Total R in seasonal analysis) is strongly correlated to water yield in annual,
winter, and spring analyses, and is also strongly correlated to 7d MIN Q and 7d MIN
BF, indicating a relationship between hydrologic inputs and streamflow output. Water
yield is also strongly correlated with baseflow yield and 3d MAX Q at the annual and
each of the seasonal analyses. Similarly, 7d MIN Q and 7d MIN BF as well as their
DOY timings were also strongly correlated at each analysis time scale.
Table 32: Correlation between annual parameters of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Annual Correlation Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Mean T PET 0.9 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.76 0.00 +
Total P P-PET 0.97 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.95 0.00 +
Total P Water yield 0.82 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.66 0.00 +
P-PET Water yield 0.85 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.71 0.00 +
P-PET BF yield 0.74 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.53 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.93 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.87 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.72 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.51 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.99 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.97 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.99 0.00 +
Table 33: Correlation between winter seasonal parameters of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Winter (JFM) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R Water yield 0.79 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.60 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.62 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.79 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.63 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 93
Winter (JFM) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.54 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.97 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.93 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.78 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.61 0.00 +
Table 34: Correlation between spring seasonal parameters of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Spring (AMJ) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R Water yield 0.72 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.5381 0.00 +
Total R 7d MIN Q 0.74 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.5183 0.00 +
Total R 7d MIN BF 0.73 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.5065 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.8 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.7105 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.77 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.5342 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.8 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.6333 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.95 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.9293 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.6 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.5348 0.00 +
Table 35: Correlation between summer seasonal parameters of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Summer (JAS) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Water yield BF yield 0.92 0.00 0.8 0.00 0.90 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.91 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.82 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.81 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.9 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.61 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.91 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.85 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.89 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.59 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.99 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.98 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.97 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.93 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 94
Table 36: Correlation between autumn seasonal parameters of the Whitemans Creek
subwatershed.
Autumn (OND) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Water yield BF yield 0.96 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.94 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.94 0.00 0.8 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.74 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.95 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.92 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN BF 0.71 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.87 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.60 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.79 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.92 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.88 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF 0.91 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.62 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.97 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.96 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.57 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.66 0.00 +
8.3.2.3. Double Mass-Balance
Analysis of annual data (Figure 31) and seasonal data show similar tight linear
relationships between cumulative baseflow and cumulative streamflow. Annually,
baseflow accounts for approximately 54% of streamflow, ranging between 46% in
the winter to 60% in the spring, followed by 57% and 59% through the summer and
autumn, respectively. There is a similar tight relationship for cumulative streamflow
and cumulative precipitation (Figure 32) which is maintained through seasonal
analysis of hydrologic release through the winter and spring, however, there are
greater discrepancies as the year progresses, most notable in the autumn (OND)
period (Figure 33), however there remains a strong linear relationship. Annually, 23%
of precipitation contributes directly to water yield. This varies between 8% and 42%
of hydrologic release in the summer and winter, respectively. Spring and autumn
contribution of hydrologic release to water yield are moderate at 24% and 23%,
respectively.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 95
Figure 31: Whitemans Creek cumulative baseflow yield to cumulative water yield
(1981-2016). The equation of the line estimates the proportion of water yield that is
derived from baseflow.
Figure 32: Whitemans Creek cumulative water yield to cumulative precipitation
(1981-2016). The equation of the line estimates the proportion of precipitation that
contributes to streamflow/water yield
y = 0.5365xR² = 0.9997
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Cu
mu
lati
ve B
asef
low
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
y = 0.2311xR² = 0.999
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Cu
mu
lati
ve W
ater
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Precipitation (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 96
Figure 33: Whitemans Creek autumn cumulative water yield to cumulative hydrologic
release (1981-2016). The equation of the line estimates the proportion of
precipitation that contributes to streamflow/water yield
8.4. Parkhill Creek
8.4.1. Thematic Mapping Analysis
The Parkhill Creek subwatershed is dominated by rural and agricultural land use.
Surface water features in this subwatershed are predominantly the tributaries of the
Upper Parkhill Creek and wetlands, with very few open water lakes/ponds aside from
the reservoir at the southern extent of the subwatershed. The spatial extent of the
120 m buffer around surface water features (lakes, streams, wetlands, etc.) is
3,926 ha, encompassing 31% of the subwatershed (Figure 34). There is relatively
little spatial extent of SGRAs within this subwatershed. They cover 8% of the
subwatershed, however, since these areas are small but numerous, the 120 m buffer
surrounding these features cover 4,473 ha (35%) of the subwatershed. Together,
6,168 ha, or 49% of the subwatershed is within 120 m of these key hydrologic
features and would require comprehensive feature-based water budget analysis for
any land use change.
There are 1,690 ha of forest within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed, covering just
13% of the landscape. This would be assigned a grading of “D”, following the
Conservation Ontario (2011) guidelines.
y = 0.232xR² = 0.9892
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
ON
D C
um
ula
tive
Wat
er Y
ield
(m
m)
OND Cumulative Hydrologic Release (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 97
Figure 34: Surface water features and their 120 m buffer of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 98
Figure 35: Significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) and their 120 m buffer
within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 99
Figure 36: Forest cover within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 100
Figure 37: Impermeable land within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed.
There is very little impermeable area associated with residential communities within
this subwatershed, encompassing just 42 ha (0.3% of the subwatershed). There are
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 101
125.9 km of roads within this subwatershed. When combined, the total impermeable
area of the Parkhill Creek subwatershed is 168 ha (1.3%). This would be graded as
“Good” following the SOLEC (EC & U.S. EPA, 2009) guidelines.
8.4.2. Time Series Analysis
8.4.2.1. Temporal Analysis
Groundwater levels are generally lowest in the late summer/ autumn, and highest in
the winter, however this is variable between years. Water table has had a maximum
range of 2.5 m since records began in 2003, though most years are within a 1 m
range. Minimum and maximum water levels were recorded in early and late 2007,
respectively. Based on annual average water levels, 2004 and 2009 were the wettest
years and 2005, 2008 and 2010 were the driest years (however, data was missing
for 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2014).
Maximum hydrologic release has been associated with both spring freshet and
summer storm events, and lowest hydrologic release often occurs in the winter, with
multiple consecutive days of no hydrologic release. Maximum streamflow is often
associated with the spring freshet, and lowest in the summer. Annual maximum
streamflow is often between 20 and 30 m3/s, however, extreme events have had
daily discharge rates > 40 m3/s. Annual low flow is < 0.1 m3/s.
Results of the Mann-Kendall trend test (Table 37) indicate that there were only 4
parameters that have very certain temporal trends, all of which were increasing: 7d
MIN T JAS, PET, 3d MAX Q OND and 3d MAX BF OND DOY. Due to the methods used
to determine PET, an increase in summer minimum temperature would likely be
associated with increasing PET, as indicated here. While baseflow is used in this report
as a groundwater indicator, it should be noted that no temporal trend in groundwater
observations was reported (data was sufficient for testing). Therefore, there may be
other driving factors within this subwatershed.
Table 37: Results of Mann-Kendall trend tests for the Parkhill Creek subwatershed,
where probably trending (PT) indicates p-value < 0.05 (light shading) and very
confident (VC) indicates p-value < 0.025 (dark shading).
Type Parameter Mann-Kendall
Result τ p-value
Climate
Mean T 0.26 0.026 Increasing, PT
7d MIN T JAS 0.321 0.006 Increasing, VC
PET 0.340 0.004 Increasing, VC
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.257 0.029 Increasing, PT
Surface water 3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.346 0.004 Increasing, VC
7d MIN Q -0.292 0.028 Decreasing, PT
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 102
Type Parameter Mann-Kendall
Result τ p-value
Groundwater
BF yield -0.244 0.044 Decreasing, PT
BF yield OND -0.255 0.035 Decreasing, PT
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.306 0.013 Increasing, VC
7d MIN BF -0.287 0.030 Decreasing, PT
7d MIN BF OND DOY -0.286 0.032 Decreasing, PT
8.4.2.2. Correlation Analysis
Only the parameters that were determined to have strong correlation are displayed
in Table 38 through Table 42 below. (All three correlations coefficients are >|0.5|
and have a p-value <0.05.) Additional results are available in 0.
There is insufficient data to conduct correlation analysis for this subwatershed at the
annual timescale between streamflow and groundwater level data (8 years of
corresponding observations), and insufficient seasonal data for statistical analyses
for summer (JAS) and autumn (OND) periods with 9 and 4 observations respectively.
These seasonal observations are impacted most by slow recharge rates after pumping
and sampling that occurs annually in September/October. Annual data was retained
only when data gaps were 1-2 weeks that corresponded to sampling drawdown and
rebound. Any correlations involving groundwater data (levels or timing) were found
to only be correlated with other groundwater indicators, and not to surface water
indicators or climate variables. This could be the result of the clay/silt substrate in
which this well is installed.
Total hydrological release (R, i.e., total precipitation during the growing season) was
found to be correlated with water yield, streamflow, and baseflow through the year,
further supporting the above finding that baseflow in this subwatershed may be less
correlated with groundwater levels and more with climate and surface water
hydrology. Numerous correlations were found between water yield and streamflow
indicators and the corresponding baseflow indicators, with the most correlations
occurring during the summer period and least during the winter/spring period.
Table 38: Correlation between annual parameters of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Annual Correlation Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Mean T PET 0.89 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
Total P P-PET 0.96 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.95 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 103
Annual Correlation Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total P Water yield 0.83 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
P-PET Water yield 0.85 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.72 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.69 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.53 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN BF 0.69 0.00 0.55 0.02 0.58 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 1 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 1 0.00 0.98 0.00 1.00 0.00 +
Table 39: Correlation between winter seasonal parameters of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Winter (JFM) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.7 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.74 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.99 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.94 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.88 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.82 0.00 +
W285 3d MAX GW W285 3d MAX GW DOY -0.91 0.00 -0.81 0.00 0.78 0.00 -
W285 3d MAX GW W285 7d MIN GW 0.97 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.88 0.00 +
W285 3d MAX GW DOY W285 7d MIN GW -0.9 0.00 -0.77 0.01 0.62 0.00 -
Table 40: Correlation between winter seasonal parameters of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Spring (AMJ) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R 3d MAX R 0.84 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.70 0.00 +
Total R Water yield 0.73 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.56 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.73 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.50 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.94 0.00 0.8 0.00 0.86 0.00 +
W285 3d MAX GW W285 3d MAX GW DOY -0.83 0.00 -0.66 0.01 0.87 0.00 -
W285 3d MAX GW W285 7d MIN GW 0.74 0.00 0.56 0.04 0.64 0.00 +
W285 3d MAX GW W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.83 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.80 0.00 +
W285 3d MAX GW DOY W285 7d MIN GW -0.86 0.00 -0.66 0.01 0.58 0.00 -
W285 3d MAX GW DOY W285 7d MIN GW DOY -0.84 0.00 -0.69 0.01 0.77 0.00 -
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 104
Table 41: Correlation between summer seasonal parameters of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Summer (JAS) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R Water yield 0.73 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.63 0.00 +
Total R 3d MAX Q 0.69 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.67 0.00 +
Total R 7d MIN BF 0.72 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.50 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.89 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.86 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.96 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.86 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.72 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.64 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.7 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.72 0.00 +
Water yield 7d MIN BF 0.72 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.70 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.85 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.63 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.72 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.65 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.88 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.71 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.72 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN Q 0.67 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.58 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN BF 0.65 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.68 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.91 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 1.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 1.00 0.00 +
Table 42: Correlation between autumn seasonal parameters of the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed.
Autumn (OND) Spearman's
Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-
value τ p-
value R² p-
value slope sign
Total R Water yield 0.7 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.60 0.00 +
Water yield BF yield 0.88 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.78 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX Q 0.78 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.71 0.00 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.82 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.69 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.9 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.76 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF 0.99 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.82 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.64 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 105
8.4.2.3. Double Mass-Balance
The relationship between annual cumulative baseflow yield to annual cumulative
water yield and annual cumulative water yield to annual cumulative precipitation
(Figure 38 and Figure 40) have strong relationships, and this is generally mirrored in
the seasonal analyses (where precipitation is replaced with hydrologic release).
Annually, baseflow yield is representative of 22% of water yield for the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed. This ranges from 12% in the summer to 28% in the spring, with
moderate proportions (23% and 20%) in the autumn and winter, respectively. There
is a low proportion of precipitation that contributes to streamflow in the Parkhill Creek
subwatershed, with just 6% annually. This is greatest during the winter (hydrologic
release) where 12% contributes to streamflow, and lowest through the summer,
where only 2% of hydrologic release contributes to streamflow. Spring and autumn
hydrologic release contribute 5 and 8%, respectively, to streamflow.
Generally, the seasonal relationships mirror that of the annual relationships. The only
exception to this is through the summer for both relationships (see Figure 39 for
cumulative baseflow yield to cumulative water yield and Figure 41 for cumulative
water yield to cumulative hydrologic release) which has some notably wet years
(1986, 1990, 1992, and 1996), after which the relationship stabilizes again.
Figure 38: Parkhill Creek cumulative annual baseflow yield to water yield (1981-
2016). Data for 2011-2012 are missing. The equation of the line estimates the
proportion of water yield that is derived from baseflow.
y = 0.216xR² = 0.9924
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Cu
mu
lati
ve B
asef
low
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 106
Figure 39: Parkhill Creek summer (JAS) cumulative baseflow yield to water yield
(1981-2016). Data for 2011-2012 are missing. The equation of the line indicates the
proportion of streamflow that is derived from baseflow.
Figure 40: Parkhill Creek cumulative water yield to precipitation (1981-2016). Data
for 2011-2012 are missing. The equation of the line estimates the proportion of
precipitation that contributes to streamflow/water yield.
y = 0.1179xR² = 0.9935
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
JAS
Cu
mu
lati
ve B
asef
low
Yie
ld (
mm
)
JAS Cumulative Water Yield (mm)
y = 0.0638xR² = 0.9985
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Cu
mu
lati
ve W
ater
Yie
ld (
mm
)
Cumulative Precipitation (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 107
Figure 41: Parkhill Creek summer (JAS) cumulative water yield to precipitation
(1981-2016). Data for 2011-2012 are missing. The equation of the line indicates the
proportion of streamflow that is derived from baseflow.
9. Discussion and Comparison between Subwatersheds
The four pilot subwatersheds that have been used to test this framework vary in their
geography, geology, size, and disturbance. The same methods were applied to each
of these subwatersheds, though not all had the same data sets available. A summary
of the spatial distribution of the thematic mapping analysis is provided in Table 43.
Skootamatta River has the largest (629 km2) and least disturbed (77% forest cover)
subwatershed of this analysis. Due to its geologic situation, this subwatershed has
the least extent of SGRAs (< 2%). The combination of these factors could have a
strong influence on the precipitation (hydrologic release) and streamflow relationship,
which was found to be quite high overall (66% annually), but also being as low as
8% during the summer, when evapotranspiration is greatest, increasing storage
capacity within the landscape.
In contrast, the Parkhill Creek subwatershed is the smallest of those studied
(127 km2), but with similarly low proportion of SGRAs (8%), and much lower surface
water buffer area of 49% (surrounding mostly the stream network), the precipitation
to water yield relationship is remarkably low (6% of annual precipitation). This
indicates that there are other things occurring in this subwatershed, perhaps
significant water taking for agricultural or domestic use. All communities that source
their municipal water from within the Parkhill Creek subwatershed listed above in the
y = 0.0022xR² = 0.9406
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
JAS
Cu
mu
lati
ve s
trea
mfl
ow
(m
m)
JAS Cumulative Hydrologic Release (mm)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 108
subwatershed characterization are located outside the subwatershed, and therefore
this abstracted water is not returned to the subwatershed.
Table 43: Summary of thematic mapping analysis by subwatershed.
Parameter Skootamatta Innisfil Whitemans Parkhill
ha % ha % ha % ha %
Subwatershed area 69201.3 100.0% 49002.8 100.0% 40394.6 100.0% 12665.5 100.0%
SGRA 1103.5 1.6% 18071.7 36.9% 20422.1 50.6% 1003.2 7.9%
SGRA buffer 1691.3 2.4% 24249.4 49.5% 23030.7 57.0% 4473.5 35.3%
Surface water buffer 54745.3 79.1% 25546.6 52.1% 21300.9 52.7% 3926.1 31.0%
Water + SGRA buffer 55816.7 80.7% 36365.8 74.2% 30320.9 75.1% 6168.0 48.7%
Forest cover 53437.9 77.2% 9345.6 19.1% 6913.5 17.1% 1690.4 13.3%
Urban area N/A N/A 1941.1 4.0% 632.2 1.6% 41.8 0.3%
Road length km 253.5 0.4% 660.2 1.3% 574.2 1.4% 125.9 1.0%
Impermeable area N/A N/A 2601.3 5.3% 1206.4 3.0% 167.7 1.3%
The Innisfil Creek and Whitemans Creek subwatersheds are comparable in size
490 km2 and 404 km2, respectively, are both dominated by agricultural activities,
have similar SGRA extent (52 % and 53 %, respectively), and have comparable
proportion of precipitation that directly translates into water yield (19% and 23%,
respectively).
In a comparison of the temporal trends observed at each of the subwatersheds (Table
44), it was found that none of the parameters/indicators were found to be
consistently trending in all four of the subwatersheds. Climate variables (notably
temperature and PET) were found to be trending in three of the four subwatersheds,
with trends in Whitemans Creek matching confidence (very certain) and direction
(increasing) with Skootamatta River when both indicated a trend for the same
parameter. Parkhill Creek similarly agreed in trend direction, but with less confidence
for mean annual temperature. When a climatic trend was detected for the Innisfil
Creek it also was in agreement with the other subwatersheds. It is also notable that
of the trending climate variables, half of those reported in Table 44 are changes in
DOY timing, and half are changes in the reported value of the variable, however,
there was only one occurrence of both the variable and its associated timing both
changing (Skootamatta River 30d MIN R JFM).
Precipitation and hydrologic release variables were each trending in only in one
subwatershed. Similarly, most surface water and groundwater indicators were found
to be trending in only one of the subwatersheds. Similarly to climate, there was only
one occurrence of both hydrologic indicator and associated timing changing
(Skootamatta River for 3d MAX Q JFM). This highlights the necessity to evaluate each
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 109
subwatershed individually, rather than assuming that they all experience similar
conditions and will all respond similarly to changes.
Table 44: Summary of Mann-Kendall test results for each subwatershed. Arrows
indicate trend direction accompanied by trending confidence (probably trending, PT
and very certain, VC). Shaded cells indicate insufficient data to perform analysis.
Type Parameter Skootamatta
River Innisfil Creek
Whitemans Creek
Parkhill Creek
Clim
ate
Mean T ↑, VC ↑, VC ↑, PT
7d MAX T DOY ↑, VC ↑, VC ↑, VC
7d MAX T OND DOY ↓, PT
7d MIN T JAS ↑, VC ↑, VC ↑, VC
PET ↑, VC ↑, VC ↑, VC
Total P ↑, VC
Total R OND ↑, PT
3d MAX R AMJ DOY ↓, PT
3d MAX R OND DOY ↑, PT
30d MIN R ↑, VC
30d MIN R DOY ↑, VC
30d MIN R JFM ↑, VC
30d MIN R JFM DOY ↑, VC
30d MIN R AMJ DOY ↓, PT
30d MIN R JAS DOY ↑, PT
30d MIN R OND ↑, PT
Surf
ace
Wat
er
R-B Index ↑, VC
10:90 exceedance ↓, VC
3d MAX Q JFM ↓, PT
3d MAX Q JFM DOY ↓, VC
3d MAX Q OND DOY ↑, VC
7d MIN Q ↑, VC ↓, PT
7d MIN Q JFM DOY ↑, PT
7d MIN Q OND DOY ↓, PT
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
BF yield ↓, PT
BF yield AMJ ↓, PT
BF yield OND ↓, PT
3d MAX BF OND DOY ↑, VC
7d MIN BF ↑, VC ↓, PT
7d MIN GW JAS DOY ↑, PT
7d MIN GW OND DOY ↑, VC ↓, PT
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 110
In an inter-subwatershed comparison of the parameters with strong correlations
(Table 45 through
Table 49), detailed in the individual subwatershed analyses above, it was found that
Mean T to PET and Total P to P-PET are the only climate variables with correlations
at all of the subwatersheds. Since temperature was used to calculate PET and
precipitation for moisture deficit (P-PET), it should be expected that there is
correlation here. Total P and Total R (seasonal analyses) was found to be correlated
with water yield at three of the subwatersheds for both the annual and spring
analyses.
Table 45: Comparison of correlated annual parameters. Shading indicates insufficient
data to conduct analysis.
Annual
Parameter 1
Annual
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
Mean T PET + + + +
Min T DOY 7d MIN GW -
Total P P-PET + + + +
Total P Water yield + + +
Total P 3d MAX Q +
P-PET Water yield + + +
P-PET 3d MAX Q +
P-PET BF Yield +
P-PET 7d MIN GW DOY -
10:90 exceed 7d MIN Q - -
10:90 exceed 7d MIN BF - -
Water yield BF yield + + +
Water yield 3d MAX Q + +
Water yield 7d MIN Q +
Water yield 7d MIN BF +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF + + + +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY + + + +
BF yield 3d MAX BF +
Mean GW 3d MAX GW +
Mean GW 7d MIN GW + +
There were 12 occurrences of three subwatersheds having the same correlation in
either annual or seasonal analyses. In each of these instances, Innisfil Creek was
always one of the subwatersheds with correlations. Four of these are between
Skootamatta River, Innisfil Creek, and Whitemans Creek: winter BF yield to 7d MIN
Q, spring 7d MIN Q DOY to 7d MIN BF DOY, summer 7d MIN Q to 7d MIN BF, and
autumn BF yield to 3d MAX Q. Another four of these are between Skootamatta River,
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 111
Innisfil Creek, and Parkhill Creek: annual water yield to baseflow yield, summer water
yield to 7d MIN Q, summer water yield to 7d MIN BF, and summer baseflow yield to
7d MIN Q. The final four are between Innisfil Creek, Whitemans Creek, and Parkhill
Creek: annual Total P to water yield, annual P-PET to water yield, spring Total R to
water yield, and spring water yield to 3d MAX Q.
Table 46: Comparison of correlated winter parameters. Shading indicates insufficient
data to conduct analysis.
Winter (JFM)
Parameter 1
Winter (JFM)
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
Total R water yield +
3d MAX R 7d MIN GW DOY -
water yield BF yield + +
water yield 3d MAX Q + +
water yield 7d MIN Q +
Water yield 7d MIN GW DOY -
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF + + + +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY + +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN GW DOY -
BF yield 7d MIN Q + + +
BF yield 3d MAX BF + +
BF yield 7d MIN BF + +
BF yield 7d MIN GW DOY -
3d MAX BF DOY 3d MAX GW -
7d MIN BF 7d MIN GW DOY -
3d MAX GW 3d MAX GW DOY -
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW + + +
3d MAX GW DOY 7d MIN GW -
Table 47: Comparison of correlated spring parameters. Shading indicates insufficient
data to conduct analysis.
Spring (AMJ)
Parameter 1
Spring (AMJ)
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
Total R 3d MAX R +
Total R water yield + + +
Total R 7d MIN Q +
Total R 7d MIN BF +
water yield 3d MAX Q + + +
Water yield BF yield + +
Water yield 3d MAX GW +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF + + + +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 112
Spring (AMJ)
Parameter 1
Spring (AMJ)
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY + + +
BF yield 3d MAX BF + +
3d MAX GW 3d MAX GW DOY -
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW +
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW DOY +
3d MAX GW DOY 7d MIN GW -
3d MAX GW DOY 7d MIN GW DOY -
Table 48: Comparison of correlated summer parameters. Shading indicates
insufficient data to conduct analysis.
Summer (JAS)
Parameter 1
Summer (JAS)
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
Total R Water yield +
Total R 3d MAX Q +
Total R 7d MIN BF +
30d MIN release 7d MIN GW +
Water yield BF yield + + + +
Water yield 3d MAX Q + + + +
Water yield 7d MIN Q + + +
Water yield 3d MAX BF + + + +
Water yield 7d MIN BF + + +
Water yield 7d MIN GW +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN Q + +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN BF + +
3d MAX Q DOY 3d MAX GW -
7d MIN Q 3d MAX BF + +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF + + +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN GW +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY + + + +
BF yield 3d MAX Q + + + +
BF yield 7d MIN Q + + +
BF yield 3d MAX BF + + + +
BF yield 7d MIN BF + + + +
BF yield 7d MIN GW +
3d MAX BF 7d MIN BF +
7d MIN BF 7d MIN GW +
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 113
Table 49: Comparison of correlated autumn parameters. Shading indicates
insufficient data to conduct analysis.
Autumn (OND)
Parameter 1
Autumn (OND)
Parameter 2
Skootamatta
River
Innisfil
Creek
Whitemans
Creek
Parkhill
Creek
Total R water yield +
Total R 7d MIN GW DOY -
3d MAX R 3d MAX Q +
7d MIN R 3d MAX GW DOY +
Water yield BF yield + + + +
Water yield 3d MAX Q + + + +
Water yield 7d MIN Q +
Water yield 3d MAX BF + + + +
Water yield 7d MIN BF +
Water yield 3d MAX GW +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF + +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX GW +
3d MAX Q DOY 3d MAX BF DOY +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN BF + + + +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN GW +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY + +
BF yield 3d MAX Q + + +
BF yield 7d MIN Q +
BF yield 3d MAX BF + + + +
BF yield 7d MIN BF + +
BF yield 3d MAX GW +
7d MIN BF 3d MAX GW +
7d MIN BF 7d MIN GW +
3d MAX GW 7d MIN GW + +
3d MAX GW DOY 7d MIN GW DOY -
Overall, these results highlight that while there are similarities between the
parameters tested in each of these subwatersheds, there are also numerous
differences in both temporal trends and correlation between the tested variables and
indicators. It should therefore not be assumed that the relationships between climate
and hydrological processes, hydrologic function, will be the same in all
watersheds/subwatersheds. These relationships will need to be characterized for
each subwatershed in order to assess hydrologic functions and whether they are
being maintained, improved, and restored.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 114
10. Conclusions and Recommendations
As a specific policy direction in the PPS since 2005, hydrologic function is defined in
the provincial land use plans and by the PPS, 2014 as:
the functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation, distribution, and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of
the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s interaction with the environment including its relation to living things.
Further, the PPS, 2014 and other provincial land use plans state that the hydrologic function, particularly of sensitive hydrologic features must be protected, improved,
and restored within or near sensitive hydrologic features. Further, “key hydrologic features” are generally defined or described in the plans to include permanent
streams, intermittent streams, kettle and inland lakes and their littoral zones, seepage areas and springs, and wetlands.
Implementing provincial land use planning policy direction in the PPS and provincial
plans requires that hydrologic function be determined or measured as part of the
requirement to improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Planners and
practitioners need to know the current hydrologic conditions, what needs to be
protected, how the function can be improved, and what the target is for restoration.
The contents and findings of this report support the implementation of provincial
policy by proposing the establishment of an evidence-based approach to the
evaluation of hydrologic function. This report 1) proposes a scale-based framework
approach to evaluate hydrologic function including baseline indicators and 2) applies
a regional baseline characterization approach to 4 southern Ontario subwatersheds:
Skootamatta River, Innisfil Creek, Whitemans Creek, and Parkhill Creek to evaluate
applicability, and lessons learned.
The proposed hydrologic function assessment is recommended to be completed at
two scales: local/site alteration scale and the broader regional/subwatershed scale.
This spatial-scale approach is based on the premise that if the local hydrologic
function is maintained where development (e.g., a subdivision, commercial
development, etc.) occurs, then the baseline regional/subwatershed relationship
between groundwater and surface water conditions should also be maintained;
excluding climatic alterations.
The local or site alteration scale assessment identifies local hydrologic features and
functions (e.g., surface water features, SGRAs, etc.) and their associated connectivity
with an associated buffer to the parcel. This local scale evaluation is complimented
by either a Thornthwaite-Mather water balance where no key hydrologic features are
mapped or a feature-based water balance within the mapped buffers of key
hydrologic features and functions are mapped or observed. The water balance
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 115
exercise calculates the independently the pre- and post-development recharge rates,
surface water discharge, etc. In order to maintain pre-alteration hydrologic function
following development, the hydrologic components, notably infiltration/recharge
rates need to be maintained.
Thematic and temporal characterization at the subwatershed scale compliments the
local scale evaluation by providing baseline information on land use (thematic)
delineation and groundwater and surface water trends and relationships (time series
and statistical relationships) to which the local scale information can be periodically
assessed against. The thematic land use information consists of significant
groundwater recharge area, surface water features, percent impervious surface, and
forest cover. See Table 50 for the recommended climate variables and surface water
and groundwater indicators. The subwatershed baseline characterization is
fundamentally based on the evaluation of key, time series hydrologic datasets:
climate, surface water flow, and groundwater. For future analysis, at a minimum, one
climate, stream gauge, and groundwater monitoring well is recommended to
undertake this analysis, generalized for subwatersheds less than 500 km2.
A comprehensive evaluation of the subwatershed baseline characterization approach
was completed for four subwatersheds in southern Ontario: Skootamatta River,
Innisfil Creek, Whitemans Creek, and Parkhill Creek. The thematic mapping is
comprised of SGRAs, surface water features, forest cover, and percent impervious
area, using provincially available datasets. To complement the thematic mapping but
not presently readily available, ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas
(ESGRAs) are encouraged to be delineated. The ESGRAs maps the spatial recharge
area extent to groundwater-dependent hydrologic features, allowing for the
protection of the hydrologic function. Further it is envisioned that ESGRA mapping
would complement the SGRA mapping; collectively highlighting where hydrologically-
important recharge areas, whether they discharge to sensitive hydrologic features
(i.e., ESGRAs), or whether they contribute greater volumes of groundwater recharge
to local aquifers (i.e., SGRAs). Further, to streamline the thematic mapping process,
percent forest cover could be obtained through the Watershed Report Card processes,
where available.
The subwatershed baseline characterization analysis, completed on a 10 year
interval, requires a minimum of >10 years of data with >90% completeness at the
monthly interval. As related to the four targeted subwatersheds, major challenges
were identified related to the availability and record length for groundwater e.g. the
use of partial groundwater datasets to unable being groundwater completed (e.g.
Whitemans Creek). It is noted that other ambient/baseline monitoring wells (e.g.,
conservation authority or municipality) could be used, preferably screen in an
unconfined system to assess the impacts of local changes and provided that there is
a minimum 10-year record length with complete dataset. In addition, many climate
stations with long-term data sets are no longer active although gaps in climate data
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 116
were filled based on nearby climate station data. Regarding surface water data
availability, the Water Survey of Canada stream gauges were principally used;
however, it is recognized that there are ungauged subwatersheds. To remedy this,
additional stream gauge monitoring stations could be used (e.g., conservation
authority, municipality), based on the quality of available data.
Using the hydrologic data (climate, surface water discharge, and groundwater levels),
a statistical analysis was completed to: 1) assess potential observable temporal
trends through the study period (1981-2016), 2) evaluate the relationship between
hydrologic components, and 3) highlight the relationship and changes in relationship
of a) streamflow as a function of precipitation and b) baseflow as a function of
streamflow in each of the pilot subwatersheds. Determination of time series trends
was statistically evaluated using annual and seasonal data for: 1) time series trends
using the Mann-Kendall trend test (McLeod, 2011), 2) correlation through the
Kendall’s rank (tau, 𝜏; Revelle, 2017), Spearman’s rank (rho, 𝜌; Revelle, 2017), and
3) linear regression, using least squares (𝑅2). All correlations identified through the
Spearman’s Rank were also identified by Kendall’s Rank, but the latter indicated
additional correlations that Spearman’s did not; supporting the use of Spearman’s
Rank and linear regression for future analysis. Linear regression analysis, conducted
in ‘R’, was tested when the Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank tests both indicated
a strong correlation. It cannot therefore be determined whether there would have
been numerous occasions where linear regression corresponded with only one but
not both of the other correlation analyses. Lastly, double-mass balance analysis was
conducted to highlight a change in the relationship between two variables.
A total of 121 combined hydrologic parameters were analyzed per subwatershed: 29
annual time scale parameters and 23 seasonal time scale parameters completed four
times. The parameters include both climate variables and hydrologic indicators. In
order to make the analysis more manageable at 79 distinct parameters (Table 51),
the following salient points were observed through the analysis of the four
subwatersheds:
Streamline the temperature analysis to 21 variables (annual mean, 7d MAX
and 7d MIN and associated DOY both annually and seasonally [4x]) to 5
(annual and seasonal [4x] mean) since multi-day averaged extreme (i.e.,
maximum and minimum) temperature data was not found to have strong
correlations with the other hydrologic parameters.
Baseflow indicators (yield, multi-day extremes, and timing) were often
correlated exclusively with streamflow indicators (water yield, multi-day
extremes, and timing). For future applications, seasonal and annual baseflow
yield should be used only in the double mass balance portion of analysis.
Seasonal analyses must be retained to ensure that the seasonal extremes of
hydrologic function (e.g., winter/spring freshet and summer drying) are being
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 117
protected, and not simply maintaining an annual average, while changing the
range of conditions through the year.
Table 50: Summary of variables and indicators recommended for statistical analysis.
Type Variable /Indicator Metric Time period
Climate
Variable
Temperature Average Annual, seasonal
Potential
Evapotranspiration
Total Annual
Precipitation Total Annual
Hydrologic release Total Seasonal
3-day max Annual, seasonal
3-day max DOY Annual, seasonal
30-day min Annual, seasonal
30-day min DOY Annual, seasonal
Climate Moisture
Index
P-PET Annual
Surface
water
Indicator
Water yield Total Annual, seasonal
Flashiness Richards-Baker
Flashiness Index
Annual
Extreme flows <10th: >90th
exceedance percentile
Annual
Surface water
discharge
3-day max Annual, seasonal
3-day max DOY Annual, seasonal
7-day min Annual, seasonal
7-day min DOY Annual, seasonal
Groundwater
Indicator
Baseflow yield2 Total Annual, seasonal
Groundwater level 3-day max Annual, seasonal
3-day max DOY Annual, seasonal
7-day min Annual, seasonal
7-day min DOY Annual, seasonal
Lessons learned from the application of the subwatershed baseline characterization
to four subwatersheds in southern Ontario are as follows:
Using baseflow as derived from streamflow may not be the most useful indicator especially when compared to streamflow as indicator
2To be used for double mass balance analysis only; omitted from Spearman’s Rank and Linear Regression analysis
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 118
Finding reliable climate stations with full datasets is easier than manually filling whole datasets
Meeting minimum data requirements (e.g., groundwater 10-year dataset
for GW) is important to facilitate comparisons
Geologic setting of groundwater station is important – e.g., the lag in
rebounding after Parkhill sampling impacts seasonal and annual analysis –
GW sites that have such known ‘challenges’ should restrict sampling to
October to avoid needing to omit data from JAS and OND analysis.
Further, for future application, the subwatershed baseline characterization is most
applicable in southern Ontario, due primarily to data availability both thematically
and temporally. Due to the requirement for a minimum of 10 years of data for
statistical comparisons, it is recommended to conduct such analyses in 10-year
intervals to further facilitate time series comparison. The 10-year interval aligns with
the Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards which are issued on a five year
cycle. The site-specific local scale evaluation is on-going and driven based on
proposed development (e.g., proposed subdivision application) would be based on
the locally identified hydrologic features e.g. lakes, rivers, streams, (etc.) and other
types of surface water features (i.e., wetlands, groundwater discharge areas, etc.).
It is recommended that the local planning authority map the development locations
on an annual basis.
Overall conclusions from the regional/subwatershed-scale thematic mapping and
time series analyses are as follows:
The spatial distribution of SGRAs and hydrologic features strongly influences
the hydrologic response and therefore function of the subwatershed
The climate input variables that detected temporal trends were primarily temperature-related for most subwatersheds, though precipitation/hydrologic
release trends were observed in one of them
Each subwatershed had parameters with temporal trends and correlations,
however, there was no single parameter that was found to be trending nor pair of parameters that have strong correlations at all four pilot subwatersheds
Temporal trends and statistical correlations detected at one temporal scale
(e.g., annual) do not necessarily correspond to trends and correlations at the other (e.g., seasonal) within the same subwatershed
Each subwatershed will respond differently annually and seasonally, based on
the hydrologic features and land use, therefore it is important to conduct this
analysis of hydrologic function for all subwatersheds
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 119
References
Arnold, C. L., & Gibbons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243-258.
doi:10.1080/01944369608975688
Ashmore, P., & Church, M. (2001). The impact of climate change on rivers and river processes in Canada.
Ottawa, On: Geologic Survey of Canada.
Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. (2007). Upper Parkhill Watershed Report Card. Retrieved from
http://www.abca.on.ca/downloads/reportcard/Upper_Parkhill.pdf
Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority. (2014). Ausable Bayfield: Updated Assessment Report. Ausable
Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region. Retrieved from
http://www.sourcewaterinfo.on.ca/uploads/UAR-AB-SPA-Approved-Dec-10.pdf
Baker, D. B., Richarge, R. P., Loftus, T. T., & Kramer, J. W. (2004). A new flashiness index: Characteristics
and applications ot mid-western rivers and streams. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 4(2), 503-522. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01046.x
Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy
makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
Black, P. E. (1997). Watershed Functions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(1), 1-
11.
Boyer, C., Chaumont, D., Chartier, I., & Roy, A. G. (2010). Impact of climate change on the hydrology of
St. Lawrence tributaries. Journal of Hydrology, 384(1-2), 65-83.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.011
Brinson, M. M. (1993). Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands,
13(2), 64-74. doi:10.1007/BF03160866
Brooks, K. N., Current, D., & Wyse, D. (2006). Restoring hydrologic function of altered landscapes: An
integrated watershed management approach. In L. Tennyson, & P. C. Zingari (Ed.), Water
Resources for the Future (pp. 101-114). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. Retrieved from http://lib.icimod.org/record/12554/files/3361.PDF
Brooks, R. T. (2009). Potential impacts of global climate change on the hydrology and ecology of
ephemeral freshwater systems of the forests of the northeastern United States. Climatic
Change, 95(3), 469-483. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9531-9
Brown, R. D., & Braaten, R. O. (1998). Spatial and temporal variability of Canadian monthly snow depths,
1946-1995. Atmosphere-Ocean, 36(1), 37-54. doi:10.1080/07055900.1998.9649605
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 120
Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees?
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104(1), 185-228. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.015
Brutsaert, W., & Nieber, J. L. (1977). Regionalized drought flow hydrographs from a mature glaciated
plateau. Water Resources Research, 13(3), 637-643. doi:10.1029/WR013i003p00637
Bullock, A., & Acreman, M. (2003). The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences, 7(3), 358-389. doi:10.5194/hess-7-358-2003
Chen, Z., Grasby, S. E., & Osadetz, K. G. (2002). Predicting average annual groundwater levels from
climatic variables: An empirical models. Journal of Hydrology, 260(1-4), 102-117.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00606-0
Christopherson, R. W., & Bryne, M.-L. (2006). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography
(Canadian ed.). Toronto, On: Pearson Education Canada Inc.
Chu, C., Conant, B., Coulibaly, P., Danielescu, S., Diebel, M., Ford, D., . . . Warner, K. (2016). Groundwater
Science Relevant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: A Status Report Execuitve
Summary. Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved from https://binational.net//wp-content/uploads/2016/05/GW-Report-final-exec-
sum-EN.pdf
City of Toronto. (2017). Road Engineering Design Guidelines. In 2.0 Land Widths Guideline. Toronto:
Transportation Services. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/921b-ecs-specs-roaddg-
Lane_Widths_Guideline_Version_2.0_Jun2017.pdf
Cohen, S. J., & Waddell, M. W. (2009). Climate change in the 21st century. Montreal: McGill-Queen's
University Press.
Conservation Ontario. (2011). Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards.
Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, ON.
Covino, T. (2017). Hydrologic connectivity as a framework for understanding biogeochemical flux
through watersheds and along fluvial networks. Geomorphology, 277, 133-144.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.09.030
Credit Valley Conservation. (2009). Rising to the Challenge: A Handbook for Understanding and
Protecting the Credit River Watershed. Mississauga, ON. Retrieved from
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RisingtotheChallenge.pdf
Credit Valley Conservation, & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2010). Low Impact
Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Credit Valley Conservation
and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Retrieved from
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 121
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/LID-SWM-Guide-v1.0_2010_1_no-
appendices.pdf
Cuddy, S., Chan, G. S., & Post, R. (2013). Hydrogeological Assessment Submissions: Conservation
Authority Guidelines for Development Applications. Retrieved from
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/permits/hydrogeological%20_guidelines.pdf?pdf
=Hydrogeological-Guidelines
Del Giudice, L. (n.d.). Headwater Drainage Features: Interim Headwater Guidelines. Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/79288.pdf
Dunn, G., & Bakker, K. (2009). Canadian Approaches to Assessing Water Security: An Inventory of
Indicators. Vancouver: Program on Water Governance, University of British Columbia.
Dunn, G., & Bakker, K. (2011). Fresh water-related indicators in Canada: An inventory and analysis.
Canadian Water Resources Journal, 36(2), 135-148. doi:10.4296/cwrj3602815
Dunne, T., & Leopold, L. B. (1978). Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman
and Co.
Eckhardt, K. (2005). How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrological
Processes, 19(2), 507-515. doi:10.1002/hyp.5675
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2013). Reducing flood damage. Retrieved from Environment
and Climate Change Canada: https://ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=72FDC156-1
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2016). Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators:
Water Quantity in Canadian Rivers. Gatineau. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-
indicators/D55F8316-1BB2-4811-949A-BBBF8DB22665/WaterQuantity_EN.pdf
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2018a). 1981-2010 Climate Normals & Averages. Retrieved
from Canadian Climate Normals: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2018b). Historical Data. Retrieved from Historical Climate
Data: http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html
Environment Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). State of the Great Lakes 2009.
Retrieved from https://binational.net//wp-content/uploads/2014/11/En161-3-1-2009E.pdf
Environment Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). State of the Great Lakes 2011.
Retrieved from https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sogl-2011-technical-report-
en.pdf
Environment Canada. (2013). How Much Habitat is Enough? (3rd ed.). (G. Bryan, & B. Henshaw, Eds.)
Toronto: Environment Canada.
Environment Canada. (2013). How Much Habitat is Enough? (3rd ed.). Toronto: Environment Canada.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 122
Environment Canada. (2016). Climate Data and Scenarios for Canada: Synthesis of Recent Observation
and Modelling Results. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved
from Climate Data and Scenarios for Canada: Synthesis of Recent Observation and Modelling
Results: https://ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/80E99404-64D8-40F2-9A3E-
FF6AAE4F356E/Climate%20data%20and%20scenarios%20for%20Canada_EN_2016.pdf
European Environment Agency. (2005). EEA Core Set of Indicators. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_1/at_download/file
Fetter, C. W. (2001). Applied Hydrogeology (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Freeze, R. A. (1972). Role of subsurface flow in generting surface runoff: 1. Base flow contributions to
channel flow. Water Resources Research, 8(3), 609-623. doi:10.1029/WR008i003p00609
Gao, B., McKee, K., Gargiulo, O., & Graham, W. (2010). Statistical Evaluation of Hydrologic Data in
Northeastern Florida and Southern Georgia. Submitted to the St. Johns River Water
Management District, Contract #25325.
Gao, Y., Vogel, R. M., Kroll, C. N., Poff, N. L., & Olden, J. D. (2009). Development of representative
indicators of hydrologic alteration. Journal of Hydrology, 374(1-2), 136-147.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.009
Goderniaux, P., Brouyère, S., Fowler, H. J., Blenkinsop, S., Therrien, R., Orban, P., & Dassargues, A.
(2009). Large scale surface-subsurface hydrological model to assess climate change impacts on
groundwater reserves. Journal of Hydrology, 373, 122-138. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.017
Gooseff, M. N., Wlostowski, A., McKnight, D. M., & Jaros, C. (2017). Hydrologic connectivity and
implications for ecosystem processes - Lessons from naked watersheds. Geomorphology, 63-71.
Grand River Conservation Authority. (2005). Establishing Environmental Flow Requirements for Selected
Streams in the Grand River Watershed. Cambridge: Grand River Conservation Authority.
Grand River Conservation Authority. (2014). Environmental Flow Requirements in the Grand River
Watershed. Grand River Watershed Management Plan. Cambridge, ON: Grand River
Conservation Authority. Retrieved from https://www.grandriver.ca/en/our-
watershed/resources/Documents/WMP/Water_WMP_Report_EFlows.pdf
Grand River Conservation Authority. (2018). Downloads Geospatial Data. Retrieved from
https://data.grandriver.ca/downloads-geospatial.html
Gremillion, P., Gonyeau, A., & Wanielista, M. (2000). Application of alternative hydrograph separation
models to detect changes in flow paths in a watershed undergoing urban development.
Hydrological Processes, 14(8), 1485-1501. doi:10.1002/1099-1085(20000615)14:8<1485::AID-
HYP988>3.0.CO;2-1
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 123
Hall, F. R. (1968). Base-flow recessions- A review. Water Resources Research, 4(5), 973-983.
doi:10.1029/WR004i005p00973
Hamel, P., Daly, E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2013). Source-control stormwater management for mitigating the
impacts of urbanization on baseflow: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 485, 201-211.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.001
Hendriks, M. R. (2010). Introduction to Physical Hydrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
Hogg, E. H. (1997). Temporal scaling of moisture and the forest-grassland boundary in western Canada.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 84(1-2), 115-122. doi:10.1016/S0168-1923(96)02380-5
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2008). Climate change and water. Technical paper of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (B. C. Bates, Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, & J. P.
Palutikof, Eds.) Geneva: IPCC Secretariat.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters
to advance climate change adaptation: A special report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J.
Dokken, K. L. Ebi, . . . P. M. Midgley, Eds.) Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Jyrkama, M. I., & Sykes, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on spatially varying groundwater
recharge in the Grand River watershed (Ontario). Journal of Hydrology, 338(3-4), 237-250.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.02.036
Kløve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., Gurdak, J. J., Kupfersberger, H., Kvæner, J., . . . Pulido-Velazquez, M.
(2014). Climate change impacts on groundwater and dependent ecosystems. Journal of
Hydrology, 518(Part B), 250-266. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.06.037
Koshida, G., Cohen, S., & Mortsch, L. (2015). Climate and water availability indicators in Canada:
Challenges and a way forward. Part I - Indicators. Canadian Water Resource Journal, 40(2), 133-
145. doi:10.1080/07011784.2015.1006023
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. (2014). Guidance for the Protection and Restoration of
Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRAs) in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Newmarket,
ON: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Retrieved from
http://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/sgra_guidance_2014.pdf
Land Information Ontario. (2018). Metadata Tool. Retrieved from Land Information Ontario:
https://www.javacoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/geonetwork/srv/en/main.home
Leibowitz, S. G., Loehle, C., Li, B.-L., & Preston, E. M. (2000). Modeling landscape functions and effects: A
network approach. Ecological Modelling, 132(1-2), 77-94. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00306-9
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 124
Leopold, L. B. (1968). Hydrology for Urban Land Planning - A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of
Urban Land Use. U.S. Geologic Survey, Geological Survey Circular 554, Washington. Retrieved
from https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1968/0554/report.pdf
Maas, A. (2011). Water, Governance and Sustainability: A Case Study of Water Allocation in Whiteman's
Creek Watershed, Ontario (Master's Thesis). Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Retrieved from
https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6246/Maas_Anthony.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y
Maltby, E. (Ed.). (2009). Functional assessment of wetlands: Towards evaluation of ecosystem services.
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Marchildon, M., Thompson, P. J., Cuddy, S., Wexler, E. J., Howson, K., & Kassenaar, J. D. (2016). A
methodology for identifying ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas. Canadian
Water Resources Journal, 41(4), 515-527. doi:10.1080/07011784.2015.1080125
Martin, J. E. (2011). Hydrologic response of a small forested swamp complex, Seymour Valley, British
Columbia. The Canadian Geographer, 55(4), 457-469. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2011.00385.x
Matthews, R., & Richter, B. D. (2007). Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration software in
environmental flow setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(6), 1400-
1413. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00099.x
McLaughlin, D. L., & Cohen, M. J. (2013). Realizing ecosystem services: wetland hydrologic function
along a gradient of ecosystem condition. Ecological Applications, 23(7), 1619-1631.
doi:10.1890/12-1489.1
McLeod, A. I. (2011). Kendall: Kendall rank correlation and Mann-Kendall trend test. R package version
2.2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Kendall
McMahon, G., & Cuffney, T. F. (2000). Quantifying urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing
stream ecological conditions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(6), 1247-
1261. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb05724.x
Mimikou, M. A., & Baltas, E. A. (2013). Assessment of climate change impacts in Greece: A general
overview. American Journal of Climate Change, 3, 46-56. doi:10.4236/ajcc.2013.21005
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2007). Wetlands (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Moglen, G. E. (2009). Hydrology and Impervious Areas. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(4), 303-
304.
Morimoto, J., Voinov, H., Wilson, M. A., & Costanza, R. (2003). Estimating watershed biodiversity: An
empirical study of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, USA. Journal of Geographic Information and
Decision Analysis, 7(2), 150-162.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 125
Mortsch, L., Hengeveld, H., Lister, M., Lofgren, B., Quinn, F., Silvitzky, M., & Wegner, L. (2000). Climate
change impacts on the hydrology of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. Canadian Water
Resources Journal, 25(2), 153-179. doi:10.4296/cwrj2502153
Nelson, E. J., & Booth, D. B. (2002). Sediment sources in an urbanizing, mixed land-use watershed.
Journal of Hydrology, 264(1-4), 51-68. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00059-8
Nickus, U., Bishop, K., Erlandsson, M., Evans, C. D., Forsius, M., Laudon, H., . . . Thies, H. (2010). Direct
impacts of climate change on freshwater ecosystems. In M. Kernan, R. Battarbee, & B. Moss
(Eds.), Climate change impacts on freshwater ecosystems (pp. 38-64). West Sussex, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. (2013). Innisfil Creek: 2013 Subwatershed Health Check.
Retrieved from
https://www.nvca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/2013%20Innisfil%20Creek%20SWHC.pdf
Novitzki, R. P., Smith, R. D., & Fretwell, J. D. (1996). Wetland functions, values, and assessment. National
Summary on Wetland Resources. USGS Water Supply Paper 2425. Retrieved from
https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/functions.html
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary Layer Climates (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Olden, J. D., & Poff, N. L. (2003). Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing
streamflow regimes. River Research and Applications, 19(2), 101-121. doi:10.1002/rra.700
Ontario Ministry of Environment. (2009). Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for
Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-simcoe-protection-plan
Ontario Ministry of Environment. (2015). Technical rules: Assessment report. Ministry of Environment,
Source Protection Programs Branch, Toronto. Retrieved from
https://www.ontario.ca/page/technical-rules-assessment-report
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2017a). Greenbelt Plan (2017). Queen's Printer for Ontario.
Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page13783.aspx
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2017b). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Queen's
Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=104&la
ng=eng
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. (2017c). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017). Queen's
Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page13788.aspx
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). 2014 Provincial Policy Statement under the
Planning Act.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 126
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2011). Climate Infill Databases. Retrieved from WaterBudget.ca:
http://waterbudget.ca/climateinfill
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2014). Baseline Hydrology: For the Southwestern
Hudson Bay and Nelson River Watershed Systems. Provincial Mapping Unit, Mapping and
Information Resources Branch, Corporate Management and Information Division, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (2017). Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017). Queen's
Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from https://www.escarpment.org/LandPlanning/PlanReview
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Af, Ontario Ministy of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
Ministry of Research and Innovation, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, & Conservation
Ontario. (2010). Ontario Low Water Response. Toronto.
Partington, D., Brunner, P., Simmons, C. T., Werner, A. D., Therrien, R., Maier, H. R., & Dandy, G. C.
(2012). Evaluation of outputs from automated baseflow separation methods against simulated
baseflow from a physically based, surface water-groundwater flow model. Journal of Hydrology,
458-459, 28-39. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.029
Piggott, A. R., Mills, B., & Moin, S. (2005a). Groundwater and climate change: Impacts and adaptation in
southern Ontario. Canadian Civil Engineer, 22, 14-17.
Piggott, A. R., Moin, S., & Southam, C. (2005b). A revised approach to the UKIH method for the
calculation of baseflow. Hydrological Sciences, 50(5), 911-920. doi:10.1623/hysj.2005.50.5.911
Province of Ontario - Conservation Authorities Branch . (1966). Whiteman Creek Preliminary Report on
the Proposed Princeton Dam and Reservoir, Township of Burford. Toronto.
Province of Ontario - Conservation Authroities Branch. (1962). Whiteman (Horner) Creek Conservation
Report. Toronto.
Pyrce, R. (2004). Hydrological Low Flow Indices and their Uses. Watershed Science Centre.
Peterborough: WSC Report No.04-2004.
R Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for ststistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. (2010). Vulnerability Analysis, Issues, Evaluation and Threats
Assessment Township of Mulmur Final. Guelph. Retrieved from
http://www.ourwatershed.ca/assets/files/assessmentreport/nottawasagavalley_ch18_mulmur_
appendix.pdf
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 127
Revelle, W. (2017). psych: Proceedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. R
Package version 1.7.8. Retrieved from https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html
Rose, S., & Peters, N. E. (2001). Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA):
A comparative hydrological approach. Hydrological Processes, 15(8), 1441-1457.
doi:10.1002/hyp.218
Roy, A. H., Dybas, A. L., Fritz, K. M., & Lubbers, H. R. (2009). Urbanization affects the extent and
hydrologic permanence of headwater streams in a midwestern US metropolitan area. Journal of
the North American Benthological Society, 28(4), 911-928. doi:10.1899/08-178.1
Russo, T. A., Fisher, A. T., & Roche, J. W. (2012). Improving riparian wetland conditions based on
infiltration and drainage behaviour during and after controlled flooding. Journal of Hydrology,
432-433, 98-111. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.022
Sampson, S., & Del Guidice, L. (2012). CVC & TRCA Water Balance Guidelines for the Protection of
Natural Features. Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/7-Water-Balance-Natural-Features-Protection.pdf
Saskatchewan PCAP Greencover Committee. (2008). Riparian health assessment: Lakes, sloughs and
wetlands. Regina: Impact Printers. Retrieved from http://www.pcap-
sk.org/rsu_docs/documents/Lakes_Sloughs_and_Wetlands-Blue.pdf
Schroeter & Associates and AquaResource Inc. (2008). Climate Data Gap Filling Project. Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.waterbudget.ca/system/files/publications/2008_SchroeterAquaResource_ClimateD
ata_GapFilling.pdf
Schueler, T. R. (1994). The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques, 1(3), 100-
111.
Schwartz, S. S., & Smith, B. (2016). Restoring hydrologic function in urban landscapes with suburban
subsoiling. Journal of Hydrology, 543(Part B), 770-781. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.051
Searcy, J. K., & Hardison, C. H. (1960). Double-Mass Curves. Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General
surface-water techniques. Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Singer, S. N., Cheng, C. K., & Scafe, M. G. (2003). The Hydrogeology of Southern Ontario (2nd ed.).
Toronto: Ministry of the Environmement - Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.
Retrieved from http://friendsofstocolake.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Hydrogeology-of-SE-
Ont-2003.pdf
Skootamatta District Ratepayers Association. (2014). Skootamatta District Lakes Management Plan -
Draft. Retrieved from
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 128
http://www.skootamatta.ca/files/4914/0328/5863/Lake_Management_Plan_for_AGM_-
_DRAFT.pdf
Smakhtin, V. U. (2001). Low flow hydrology: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 240(3-4), 147-186.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00340-1
Smith, K. (2006). Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster (4th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Smith, R. D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., & Brinson, M. M. (1995). An Approach for Assessing Wetland
Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington: Technical Report WRP-DE-9.
South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee. (2015). Chapter 4: Assessing regional
groundwater vulnerability. In Approved Assessment Report: Nottawasaga Valley Source
Protection Area. Retrieved from
http://www.ourwatershed.ca/assets/files/assessmentreport/nottawasagavalley_ch4_regionalgr
oundwatervulnerability.pdf
Taylor, C. H., & Pierson, D. C. (1985). The effect of a small wetland on runoff response during spring
snowmelt. Atmosphere-Ocean, 23(2), 137-154. doi:10.1080/07055900.1985.9649219
Taylor, N. (2016). A balancing act: Preserving wetland ecohydrological functions through water balance.
Alliston: Latornell Conservation Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.latornell.ca/wp-
content/uploads/files/presentations/2016/Latornell_2016_T3A_Neil_Taylor.pdf
Thornthwaite, C. W. (1948). An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical
Review, 38(1), 55-94. doi:10.2307/210739
Time and Date. (2018). Sunrise and sunset times. Retrieved from Timeanddate.com:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2009). Don River Watershed Plan: Baseflow and Water Use
Assessment - Report on Current Conditions. Retrieved from
http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/55387.pdf
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2012). Stormwater Management Criteria. Downsview, ON.
Retrieved from http://sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/SWM-
Criteria-2012.pdf
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2016). Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Downsview, ON. Retrieved from
https://trca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/TRCA-Wetland-Water-Balance-Monitoring-
Protocol-1.pdf
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 129
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, & Credit Valley Conservation. (2014). Evaluation,
Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guideline. Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation. Retrieved from
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HDFA-final.pdf
Trenhaile, A. D. (2007). Geomorphology: A Canadian Perspective (3rd ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford
University Press.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Recovery potential metrics summary form: Watershed
percent impervious cover. Retrieved from Recovery Potential Screening: Stressor Indicators:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/rp2wshedimperv1109.pdf
Vidon, P. G., & Hill, A. R. (2004). Landscape controls on the hydrology of stream riparian zones. Journal
of Hydrology, 292, 210-238.
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P., & Woods, R. (2007). Catchment Classification and Hydrologic
Similarity. Geography Compass, 1(4), 901-931. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x
Walsh, C. J., Fletcher, T. D., & Ladson, A. R. (2005). Stream restoration in urban catchments through
redesigning stormwater systems: Looking to the catchment to save the stream. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society, 690-705.
Ward, G. H. (2013). Hydrological Indices and Triggers, and their Application to Hydrometeorological
Monitoring and Water Management in Texas. Austin: Texas Water Development Board.
Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830964_hydrolo
gical.pdf
Wassen, M. J., Okruszko, T., Kardel, I., Chormanski, J., Swiatek, D., Mioduszewski, W., . . . Meire, P.
(2006). Eco-hydrological functioning of the Biebrza wetlands: Lessons for the conservation and
restoration of deteriorated wetlands. In R. Bobbink, B. Beltman, J. T. Verhoeven, & D. F.
Whigham (Eds.), Wetlands:Functioning, biodiversity conservation, and restoration (Vol. 191, pp.
285-310). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-33189-6_13
Water Survey of Canada. (2017). Historical Hydrometric Data . Retrieved from
https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/mainmenu/historical_data_index_e.html
Wetland Science Advisory Group. (2005). Recommendations of the wetland science advisory group on
the definition of significant hydrologic function. Indiana Department of Environmental
Management. Retrieved from
http://www.in.gov/idem/wetlands/files/notice_20050926_hydrologic_function_recommendati
on.doc
Winter, T. C. (1988). A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on the hydrology of
nontidal wetlands. Environmental Management, 12(5), 605-620. doi:10.1007/BF01867539
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 130
Winter, T. C. (2001). The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 37(2), 335-349. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb00973.x
Winter, T. C., Harvey, J. W., Franke, O. L., & Alley, W. M. (1998). Ground Water and Surface Water: A
Single Resource. U.S. Geological Survey. Denver, CO: Circular 1139. Retrieved from
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1139/pdf/circ1139.pdf
Wolock, D. M., Winter, T. C., & McMahon, G. (2004). Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape
regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate
statistical analyses. Environmental Management, 34(1), S71-S88. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-5077-
9
World Meteorological Organization & Global Water Partnership. (2016). Handbook of Indicators and
Indices (Vol. Integrated Drought Management Tools and Guidelines Series 2). (M. Svoboda, & B.
A. Fuchs, Eds.) Geneva: Integrated Drought Management Program. Retrieved from
http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/GWP_Handbook_of_Drought_Indicators_and_
Indices_2016.pdf
Wray, H. E., & Bayley, S. E. (2006). A Review of Indicators of Wetland Health and Function in Alberta's
Prairie, Aspen Parkland and Boreal Dry Mixedwood Regions. Alberta Environment, Edmonton.
Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/surface-water-quality-
program/documents/IndicatorsWetlandHealthFunction-Mar2006.pdf
Zedler, J. B. (2010). How frequent storms affect wetland vegetation: A preview of climate-change
impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(10), 540-547. doi:10.1890/090109
Zhang, X., Harvey, K. D., Hogg, W. D., & Yuzyk, T. R. (2001). Trends in Canadian streamflow. Water
Resources Research, 37(4), 987-998. doi:10.1029/2000WR900357
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 131
Appendix A. Key Parameter Codes and Associated Definitions
Parameter
Code
Definition
Mean T Mean annual temperature(°C)
7d MAX T Maximum of 7-day averaged temperature (°C)
7d MIN T Minimum of 7-day averaged temperature(°C)
Total P Total annual precipitation (mm)
Total R Seasonal total hydrologic release (mm)
3d MAX R Maximum of 3-day total hydrologic release (mm)
30d MIN R Minimum of 30-day total hydrologic release (mm)
PET Annual potential evapotranspiration (mm)
P-PET (CMI) Climate moisture index (precipitation minus potential
evapotranspiration; mm)
RBI Richards-Baker Flashiness Index
10:90 exceed 10:90 exceedance percentile ratio
Water yield Water yield of streamflow (mm)
3d MAX Q Maximum of 3-day averaged streamflow discharge (m3/s)
7d MIN Q Minimum of 7-day averaged streamflow discharge (m3/s)
BF yield Water yield of baseflow (mm)
3d MAX BF Maximum of 3-day averaged baseflow discharge (m3/s)
7d MIN BF Minimum of 7-day averaged baseflow discharge (m3/s)
Mean GW Mean annual groundwater elevation (masl)
3d MAX GW Maximum of 3-day averaged groundwater elevation (masl)
7d MIN GW Minimum of 7-day averaged groundwater elevation (masl)
-DOY Suffix: day of year timing
-JFM Suffix: winter seasonal analysis (January, February, March)
-AMJ Suffix: spring seasonal analysis (April, May, June)
-JAS Suffix: summer seasonal analysis (July, August, September)
-OND Suffix: autumn seasonal analysis (October, November,
December)
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 132
Appendix B. Climate Filling Data Adjustment Values
Subwatershed Station Name and ID3 Station
Type Distance
(km) Location
Elevation (m)
Data end4
Normal annual T (°C)
Normal annual P (mm)
T adjustment
(°C)
P adjustment
Skootamatta River
Kaladar5 6153935
Target 0.00 km 44°38'52.000" N 77°07'02.040" W
215 m Dec-15 6.7 926.1 0.00 1.00
Centreville 6151309
Filling 31.72 km 44°24'12.090" N 76°54'28.092" W
150 m
7.0 695.6 -0.31 1.33
Hartington
IHD6103367
Filling 41.36 km 44°25'41.028" N 76°41'25.086" W
160 m
7.0 977.7 -0.31 0.95
Innisfil Creek Egbert Care 611KBE0
Target 0.00 km 44°14'00.000" N 79°47'00.000" W
252 m Apr-07 7.0 789.1 0.00 1.00
Egbert CS6 611E001
Filling 0.00 km 44°14'00.000" N 79°47'00.000" W
251 m
0.00 1.00
Cookstown 6111859
Filling 7.50 km 44°12'24.042" N 79°41'41.088" W
244 m Apr-07 6.5 826.3 0.50 0.95
Alliston Nelson 6110218
Filling 11.43 km 44°09'05.028" N 79°52'20.088" W
221 m Jan-08 7.7 834.4 -0.70 0.95
Barrie WPCC 6110557
Filling 17.43 km 44°22'33.012" N 79°41'23.010" W
221 m Jun-09 6.9 932.9 0.10 0.85
Shanty Bay 6117684
Filling 21.87 km 44°23'58.050" N 79°37'58.074" W
250 m
6.8 967.9 0.20 0.82
Orangeville MOE7 6155790
Filling 42.16 km 43°55'06.066" N 80°05'11.064" W
412 m Dec-15 6.3 901.5 0.70 0.88
3Stations grouped by target stations and contributing filling stations, arranged by distance to target station. 4No listed end date indicates station remains active. 51981-2010 climate normal data not published for this station. Values presented here were calculated using annual data. Station meets the United Nation's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standards (missing no more than 3 consecutive and no more than 5 total observations for either temperature or precipitation). 6 Climate normal data assumed to be the same as Egbert Care. 7Used for climate filling only when this station reported daily values.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 133
Subwatershed Station Name and ID3 Station
Type Distance
(km) Location
Elevation (m)
Data end4
Normal annual T (°C)
Normal annual P (mm)
T adjustment
(°C)
P adjustment
Orangeville MOE 6155790
Target 0.00 km 43°55'06.066" N 80°05'11.064" W
412 m Dec-15 6.3 901.5 0.00 1.00
Fergus Shand Dam 6142400
Filling 27.76 km 43°44'05.088" N 80°19'49.098" W
418 m
6.7 945.7 -0.40 0.95
Parkhill Creek Exeter 6122370
Target 0.00 km 43°21'00.000" N 81°30'00.000" W
262 m Apr-08 7.9 998.2 0.00 1.00
Thedford7 612HKLR
Filling 33.39 km 43°10'32.016" N 81°51'21.012" W
200 m Jan-14 8.5 963.3 -0.60 1.04
Stratford WWTP 6148105
Filling 37.97 km 43°22'08.016" N 81°00'17.058" W
345 m Oct-16 7.4 1069.6 0.50 0.93
Blyth 6120819
Filling 41.89 km 43°43'06.024" N 81°23'01.080" W
351 m Jan-10 7.2 1246.9 0.70 0.80
London Int'l Airport8 6144475
Filling 44.14 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m Apr-17 7.9 1011.5 0.00 0.99
London A9 6144473
Filling 44.14 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m
0.00 0.99
Strathroy-Mullifarry10 6148122
Filling 42.46 km 42°58'50.022" N 81°38'34.086" W
243 m
-0.50 1.03
Strathroy 6148120
Filling 45.89 km 42°57'00.000"N 81°39'00.000" W
229 m Jun-96 8.4 966.9 -0.50 1.03
Thedford 612HKLR
Target 0.00 km 43°10'32.016" N 81°51'21.012" W
200 m Jan-14 8.5 963.3 0.00 1.00
Strathroy-Mullifarry11 6148122
Filling 27.06 km 42°58'50.022" N 81°38'34.086" W
243 m
0.10 1.00
Strathroy 6148120
Filling 28.48 km 42°57'00.000" N 81°39'00.000" W
229 m Jun-96 8.4 966.9 0.10 1.00
London Int'l Airport8 6144475
Filling 55.98 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m Apr-17 7.9 1011.5 0.60 0.95
8Precipitation data only. 9 Temperature data only; assumed this station contributed temperature data for London Int’l Airport’s published climate normal data. 10 Assumed Strathroy published climate normal data would be representative (3.4 km away).
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 134
Subwatershed Station Name and ID3 Station
Type Distance
(km) Location
Elevation (m)
Data end4
Normal annual T (°C)
Normal annual P (mm)
T adjustment
(°C)
P adjustment
London A9 6144473
Filling 55.98 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m
0.60 0.95
St Thomas WPCP 6137362
Filling 67.03 km 42°46'06.006" N 81°12'18.042" W
209 m
8.7 993.0 -0.20 0.97
Stratford WWTP 6148105
Filling 68.50 km 43°22'08.016" N 81°00'17.058" W
345 m Oct-16 7.4 1069.6 1.10 0.90
Whitemans Creek
Roseville 6147188
Target 0.00 km 43°21'13.026" N 80°28'25.056" W
328 m Sep-17 7.3 918.7 0.00 1.00
Waterloo Wellington A 6149387
Filling 12.75 km 43°27'00.000" N 80°23'00.000" W
317 m Oct-02 7.0 916.5 0.30 1.00
Waterloo Wellington 211 6149389
Filling 12.75 km 43°27'00.000" N 80°23'00.000" W
314 m
0.30 1.00
Brantford MOE 6140954
Filling 30.59 km 43°08'00.000" N 80°14'00.000" W
196 m Jan-13 8.1 867.3 -0.80 1.06
Woodstock 6149625
Filling 33.14 km 43°08'10.044" N 80°46'14.040" W
282 m
7.8 969.0 -0.50 0.95
Millgrove 6155183
Filling 39.01 km 43°19'00.000" N 79°58'00.000" W
255 m Apr-06 7.9 1004.5 -0.60 0.91
Stratford WWTP 6148105
Filling 40.69 km 43°22'08.016" N 81°00'17.058" W
345 m Oct-16 7.4 1069.6 -0.10 0.86
Glen Allan 6142803
Filling 40.95 km 43°41'02.058" N 80°42'37.086" W
400 m Dec-13 6.7 1014.5 0.60 0.91
Fergus Shand Dam 6142400
Filling 43.75 km 43°44'05.088" N 80°19'49.098" W
418 m
6.7 945.7 0.60 0.97
Foldens 6142420
Target 0.00 km 43°01'06.078" N 80°46'51.036" W
328 m Jun-16 8.0 953.8 0.00 1.00
Woodstock 6149625
Filling 13.11 km 43°08'10.044" N 80°46'14.040" W
282 m
7.8 969.0 0.20 0.98
11Waterloo Wellington A station appears to have been replaced by Waterloo Wellington 2. Assumed published climate normal data from Waterloo Wellington A would be representative.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 135
Subwatershed Station Name and ID3 Station
Type Distance
(km) Location
Elevation (m)
Data end4
Normal annual T (°C)
Normal annual P (mm)
T adjustment
(°C)
P adjustment
Culloden Easey 6141933
Filling 15.17 km 42°53'22.040" N 80°50'48.060" W
280 m Dec-07 8.0 1045.7 0.00 0.91
London Int'l Airport8 6144475
Filling 28.22 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m Apr-17 7.9 1011.5 0.10 0.94
London A9 6144473
Filling 28.22 km 43°01'59.000" N 81°09'04.000" W
278 m
0.10 0.94
St Thomas WPCP 6137362
Filling 42.52 km 42°46'06.006" N 81°12'18.042" W
209 m
8.7 993.0 -0.70 0.96
Stratford WWTP 6148105
Filling 42.53 km 43°22'08.016" N 81°00'17.058" W
345 m Oct-16 7.4 1069.6 0.60 0.89
Brantford MOE 6140954
Filling 43.60 km 43°08'00.000" N 80°14'00.000" W
196 m Jan-13 8.1 867.3 -0.10 1.10
Roseville7 6147188
Filling 44.01 km 43°21'13.026" N 80°28'25.056" W
328 m Sep-17 7.3 918.7 0.70 1.04
Hamilton A12 6153193
Filling 66.70 km 43°10'25.000" N 79°56'06.000" W
238 m
0.10 1.03
Hamilton A 6153194
Filling 66.71 km 43°10'18.072" N 79°56'03.036" W
238 m Dec-11 7.9 929.8 0.10 1.03
12Hamilton A* was replaced in 2011 with a second station “Hamilton A”. Both stations have the same WMO ID 71263. It was assumed the published climate normal data would be representative.
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 136
Appendix C. Climate Filling Sample Calculation
There is a gap in the data record for the Exeter climate station for December 2 and
3, 2007. Using the information of in 0, Thedford is the closest station to be used for
filling, followed by Stratford WWTP. Neither of these stations have temperature nor
precipitation data available for December 2, 2007, so data from the Blyth station was
used for filling. Thedford reported data for December 3, 2007 and was used for the
second day of missing data.
Climate normal data for the stations is compared in 0 using the following
calculations to determine temperature and precipitation adjustments:
𝑇 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑇 − 𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑇
𝑃 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 =𝑇𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃
𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃
These adjustment values are then added to or multiplied by the daily temperature
and precipitation data, respectively, from the filling stations to estimate the target
station daily weather. The 1981-2010 climate normal data and adjustment values for
all stations are provided in 0.
Calculations for filling December 2, 2007 are as follows, using filling data from the
Blyth station:
𝑇 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝐵𝑙𝑦𝑡ℎ = 7.9 °𝐶 − 7.2 °𝐶 = 0.7 °𝐶
𝑇max (𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) = 3.0 °𝐶 + 0.7 °𝐶 = 3.7 °𝐶
𝑇min (𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) = −5.0 °𝐶 + 0.7 °𝐶 = −4.3 °𝐶
𝑇𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛(𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) =𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛
2=
3.7 °𝐶 + (−4.3 °𝐶)
2= −0.3 °𝐶
𝑃 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝐵𝑙𝑦𝑡ℎ =998.2 𝑚𝑚
1246.9 𝑚𝑚= 0.80
𝑃𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 30.5 𝑚𝑚 ∗ 0.80 = 24.4 𝑚𝑚
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 137
Calculations for filling December 3, 2007 are as follows, using filling data from the
Thedford station:
𝑇 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑑 = 7.9 °𝐶 − 8.5 °𝐶 = −0.6 °𝐶
𝑇max (𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) = 0.0 °𝐶 + (−0.6 °𝐶) = −0.6 °𝐶
𝑇min (𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) = −3.5 °𝐶 + (−0.6 °𝐶) = −4.1 °𝐶
𝑇𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛(𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟) =𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛
2=
(−0.6 °𝐶) + (−4.1 °𝐶)
2= −2.35 °𝐶
𝑃 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑑 =998.2 𝑚𝑚
963.3 𝑚𝑚= 1.04
𝑃𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0 𝑚𝑚 ∗ 1.04 = 0 𝑚𝑚
Table B-1 illustrates how these data gaps are filled with an excerpt of data from the
Exeter station.
Table B-1: Sample calculation for filling Exeter climate data gap of December 2-3, 2007
Observation Date T Filling Station P Filling Station Max T Min T Mean T Total P
01-Dec-07 -5.0 -6.5 -5.75 5.0
02-Dec-07 Blyth Blyth 3.7 -4.3 -0.30 24.4
03-Dec-07 Thedford Thedford -0.6 -4.1 -2.35 0.0
04-Dec-07 -4.0 -5.0 -4.50 15.0
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 138
Appendix D. Skootamatta River Complete Analysis Results
Table D-1: Results from Mann-Kendall trend analysis for Skootamatta River. Shading
corresponds to confidence levels of very certain (VC), probably trending (PT) and
warning (W).
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual Mean T 0.283 0.016 VC
7-day MAX T -0.102 0.391
7-day MAX T DOY 0.383 0.001 VC
7-day MAX T JFM -0.040 0.744
7-day MAX T JFM DOY -0.183 0.132
7-day MAX T AMJ -0.038 0.754
7-day MAX T AMJ DOY 0.000 1.000
7-day MAX T JAS -0.084 0.479
7-day MAX T JAS DOY 0.003 0.989
7-day MAX T OND 0.221 0.060 W
7-day MAX T OND DOY -0.250 0.039 PT
7-day MIN T 0.027 0.827
7-day MIN T DOY 0.110 0.354
7-day MIN T JFM 0.014 0.913
7-day MIN T JFM DOY 0.083 0.487
7-day MIN T AMJ -0.032 0.796
7-day MIN T AMJ DOY -0.163 0.178
7-day MIN T JAS 0.305 0.009 VC
7-day MIN T JAS DOY -0.044 0.730
7-day MIN T OND -0.068 0.567
7-day MIN T OND DOY -0.016 0.902
Annual Total P 0.381 0.001 VC
JFM Total R 0.111 0.347
AMJ Total R 0.159 0.178
JAS Total R 0.038 0.754
OND Total R 0.251 0.032 PT
3-day MAX R -0.121 0.307
3-day MAX R DOY 0.110 0.354
3-day MAX R JFM -0.102 0.391
3-day MAX R JFM DOY -0.175 0.141
3-day MAX R AMJ 0.013 0.924
3-day MAX R AMJ DOY 0.048 0.692
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 139
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
3-day MAX R JAS -0.025 0.838
3-day MAX R JAS DOY 0.107 0.368
3-day MAX R OND 0.206 0.079 W
3-day MAX R OND DOY 0.243 0.040 PT
30-day MIN R 0.363 0.008 VC
30-day MIN R DOY 0.417 0.000 VC
30-day MIN R JFM 0.388 0.005 VC
30-day MIN R JFM DOY 0.416 0.000 VC
30-day MIN R AMJ 0.127 0.282
30-day MIN R AMJ DOY -0.234 0.047 PT
30-day MIN R JAS 0.094 0.429
30-day MIN R JAS DOY 0.110 0.354
30-day MIN R OND 0.238 0.045 PT
30-day MIN R OND DOY 0.095 0.429
Annual PET 0.270 0.021 VC
Annual P-PET 0.267 0.023 VC
Annual Richards-Baker Flashiness Index 0.121 0.307
Annual 10:90 exceedance 0.000 1.000
Annual water yield -0.133 0.268
water yield JFM -0.038 0.754
water yield AMJ -0.127 0.282
water yield JAS -0.057 0.634
water yield OND -0.025 0.842
3-day MAX Q -0.173 0.147
3-day MAX Q DOY 0.189 0.115
3-day MAX Q JFM -0.244 0.037 PT
3-day MAX Q JFM DOY -0.330 0.005 VC
3-day MAX Q AMJ -0.084 0.479
3-day MAX Q AMJ DOY -0.056 0.643
3-day MAX Q JAS -0.037 0.764
3-day MAX Q JAS DOY 0.057 0.648
3-day MAX Q OND -0.042 0.733
3-day MAX Q OND DOY -0.022 0.865
7-day MIN Q -0.022 0.865
7-day MIN Q DOY 0.074 0.541
7-day MIN Q JFM 0.229 0.051 W
7-day MIN Q JFM DOY 0.117 0.326
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 140
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
7-day MIN Q AMJ -0.110 0.354
7-day MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.007 0.967
7-day MIN Q JAS -0.067 0.577
7-day MIN Q JAS DOY -0.058 0.633
7-day MIN Q OND -0.062 0.609
7-day MIN Q OND DOY -0.010 0.943
Annual BF yield -0.143 0.233
BF yield JFM 0.073 0.540
BF yield AMJ -0.244 0.037 PT
BF yield JAS -0.117 0.320
BF yield OND 0.015 0.910
3-day MAX BF -0.124 0.294
3-day MAX BF DOY 0.013 0.924
3-day MAX BF JFM -0.168 0.153
3-day MAX BF JFM DOY 0.190 0.124
3-day MAX BF AMJ -0.165 0.161
3-day MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.002 1.000
3-day MAX BF JAS -0.070 0.558
3-day MAX BF JAS DOY -0.138 0.279
3-day MAX BF OND 0.029 0.817
3-day MAX BF OND DOY 0.141 0.240
7-day MIN BF -0.102 0.391
7-day MIN BF DOY -0.184 0.120
7-day MIN BF JFM 0.210 0.074 W
7-day MIN BF JFM DOY -0.169 0.156
7-day MIN BF AMJ -0.064 0.595
7-day MIN BF AMJ DOY -0.101 0.430
7-day MIN BF JAS -0.102 0.391
7-day MIN BF JAS DOY -0.211 0.074 W
7-day MIN BF OND -0.048 0.693
7-day MIN BF OND DOY 0.024 0.861
Annual Mean GW level -0.303 0.193
3-day MAX GW 0.152 0.537
3-day MAX GW DOY -0.273 0.244
3-day MAX GW JFM -0.128 0.583
3-day MAX GW JFM DOY 0.195 0.411
3-day MAX GW AMJ 0.179 0.428
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 141
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
3-day MAX GW AMJ DOY -0.271 0.222
3-day MAX GW JAS -0.253 0.228
3-day MAX GW JAS DOY 0.255 0.295
3-day MAX GW OND -0.333 0.127
3-day MAX GW OND DOY 0.150 0.532
7-day MIN GW -0.121 0.631
7-day MIN GW DOY 0.015 1.000
7-day MIN GW JFM -0.179 0.428
7-day MIN GW JFM DOY -0.027 0.950
7-day MIN GW AMJ -0.205 0.360
7-day MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.301 0.228
7-day MIN GW JAS -0.077 0.743
7-day MIN GW JAS DOY 0.465 0.038 PT
7-day MIN GW OND -0.128 0.583
7-day MIN GW OND DOY 0.000 1.000
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 142
Table D-2: Annual analysis of Spearman’s Rank for Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above and p-values
are below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
M
ean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
R-B
Index
10:9
0
exceedance
Wate
r yie
ld
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
Mean G
W
3d M
AX G
W
3d M
AX G
W D
OY
7d M
IN G
W
7d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.1 0.88 -0.31 0.47 0.25 0.48 -0.01 -0.17 -0.01 0.36 0.19 0.2 0.14 -0.54 -0.47 0.08 0.09 -0.34 -0.08 -0.33 -0.01 -0.39 -0.22 -0.12 -0.1 -0.32 -0.15 0.26
Total P 0 -0.2 0.95 0.57 0.29 0.22 0.11 -0.33 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.12 -0.74 -0.65 0 0.03 -0.32 -0.12 -0.4 0.03 -0.35 -0.27 -0.19 -0.24 -0.27 -0.05 0.23
PET 0.18 0.08 -0.45 -0.6 0.24 -0.12 0.11 0.1 -0.05 0.01 0.05 0.39 -0.39 0.54 0.33 0.01 0.24 0.43 0.3 -0.02 0.13 0.42 -0.05 0.39 0.1 0.45 0.56 -0.55
P-PET 0.01 0 0 -0.67 0.1 -0.15 0.11 0.18 -0.08 -0.04 -0.02 0.24 -0.33 0.66 0.47 -0.01 0.19 0.41 0.26 0.11 0.06 0.42 0.01 0.36 0.12 0.48 0.5 -0.46
7d MAX T 0 0 0 0 -0.04 0.16 0.06 -0.22 -0.12 0.1 -0.02 -0.11 0.24 -0.46 -0.37 0.1 -0.04 -0.43 -0.15 -0.23 -0.05 -0.41 -0.04 -0.18 -0.24 0.15 0.01 -0.15
7d MAX T DOY 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.55 0.82 -0.06 0.05 -0.26 0.09 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.09 -0.21 -0.2 -0.3 0.04 -0.23 -0.03 -0.3 0.03 -0.24 -0.26 -0.02 -0.27 -0.08 -0.01 0.71
7d MIN T 0 0.2 0.5 0.39 0.35 0.73 0.13 0.21 -0.13 0.37 0.1 -0.04 0.28 -0.06 -0.04 0.12 -0.01 -0.34 -0.1 -0.06 -0.26 -0.38 -0.19 -0.12 0.14 -0.43 -0.25 -0.14
7d MIN T DOY 0.94 0.5 0.54 0.53 0.72 0.75 0.44 0.02 -0.21 0.2 0.34 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.08 -0.08 0.07 0.02 -0.14 -0.09 -0.07 0.06 -0.05 0.36 -0.1 -0.18
3d MAX R 0.32 0.05 0.57 0.29 0.19 0.13 0.23 0.9 -0.01 0.01 -0.18 0.16 0.01 0.35 0.2 0.29 -0.06 0.16 -0.1 0.01 -0.05 0.14 -0.03 0.66 0.66 -0.09 0.36 0.13
3d MAX R DOY 0.97 0.35 0.75 0.63 0.5 0.61 0.46 0.21 0.98 -0.19 -0.05 -0.03 -0.11 -0.24 -0.1 -0.47 0.33 0.12 -0.08 0.06 0.17 0.08 -0.21 0.09 -0.34 -0.25 0.19 0.57
30d MIN R 0.03 0.22 0.94 0.82 0.55 0.72 0.03 0.24 0.96 0.27 0.58 -0.11 -0.01 -0.03 0.04 -0.09 0.06 -0.04 -0.03 0.07 -0.3 -0.13 -0.07 -0.33 0.11 -0.21 -0.37 -0.32
30d MIN R DOY 0.26 0.21 0.77 0.89 0.92 0.14 0.55 0.04 0.3 0.78 0 0.07 0.08 -0.22 -0.22 -0.02 -0.04 -0.11 -0.02 -0.15 -0.11 -0.17 -0.07 -0.14 0.25 -0.53 -0.22 -0.02
R-B Index 0.24 0.3 0.02 0.16 0.54 0.14 0.81 0.37 0.35 0.86 0.54 0.69 -0.36 0.03 -0.21 0.25 0.02 0.3 0.17 -0.35 -0.01 0.23 -0.14 0.43 0.08 0.19 0.53 0.2
10:90 exceedance 0.4 0.47 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.6 0.09 0.36 0.95 0.53 0.97 0.64 0.03 -0.16 -0.13 0.06 -0.21 -0.87 -0.02 0.09 -0.01 -0.86 0.09 -0.04 0.36 -0.09 -0.39 0.33
Water yield 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.21 0.73 0.87 0.03 0.15 0.86 0.21 0.85 0.34 0.86 0.2 0.16 0.37 0.14 0.48 0.04 0.37 0.14 0.57 0.5 0.47 0.53 -0.57
BF yield 0 0 0.05 0 0.02 0.23 0.79 0.98 0.25 0.58 0.79 0.19 0.22 0.45 0 -0.11 0.35 0.34 0.14 0.76 0.01 0.36 0.22 0.42 0.24 0.61 0.36 -0.42
3d MAX Q 0.66 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.58 0.08 0.49 0.95 0.09 0 0.62 0.9 0.15 0.74 0.24 0.51 -0.31 0.04 -0.09 -0.13 -0.03 0.02 -0.08 0.2 0.83 -0.29 -0.07 -0.28
3d MAX Q DOY 0.59 0.86 0.17 0.27 0.83 0.82 0.97 0.65 0.72 0.05 0.74 0.81 0.91 0.22 0.35 0.04 0.06 0.22 0.25 0.2 0.35 0.18 0.19 0.73 0.11 0.12 0.61 -0.02
7d MIN Q 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.04 0.64 0.35 0.49 0.82 0.53 0.07 0 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.2 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.98 0.11 0.22 0.03 0.04 0.31 -0.35
7d MIN Q DOY 0.64 0.47 0.08 0.12 0.38 0.86 0.58 0.69 0.58 0.63 0.88 0.9 0.32 0.91 0.41 0.4 0.6 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.2 0.17 0.75 0.27 -0.03 0.48 0.36 -0.33
3d MAX BF 0.05 0.02 0.91 0.53 0.18 0.08 0.74 0.89 0.95 0.73 0.67 0.38 0.04 0.6 0 0 0.46 0.24 0.29 0.42 -0.12 0.19 0.31 -0.06 0.36 0.34 -0.29 -0.26
3d MAX BF DOY 0.93 0.85 0.46 0.74 0.77 0.86 0.12 0.41 0.78 0.32 0.07 0.53 0.94 0.93 0.83 0.97 0.85 0.04 0.38 0.23 0.5 0.16 0.14 0.32 0.03 0.28 0.27 -0.17
7d MIN BF 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.61 0.4 0.63 0.44 0.31 0.18 0 0.02 0.03 0.9 0.29 0 0.33 0.27 0.36 0.11 0.2 -0.15 0.2 0.36 -0.35
7d MIN BF DOY 0.21 0.11 0.76 0.95 0.81 0.12 0.26 0.68 0.85 0.23 0.7 0.67 0.43 0.61 0.42 0.2 0.64 0.27 0.51 0 0.07 0.43 0.53 0.43 0.06 0.49 0.34 -0.23
Mean GW 0.71 0.56 0.21 0.26 0.57 0.95 0.71 0.85 0.02 0.77 0.3 0.66 0.16 0.9 0.05 0.17 0.54 0.01 0.48 0.4 0.86 0.31 0.54 0.17 0.54 -0.01 0.78 0.12
3d MAX GW 0.76 0.46 0.75 0.71 0.46 0.39 0.66 0.88 0.02 0.28 0.74 0.44 0.8 0.25 0.1 0.44 0 0.73 0.93 0.93 0.26 0.91 0.63 0.85 0.07 -0.43 0.1 0.05
3d MAX GW DOY 0.31 0.4 0.14 0.12 0.63 0.8 0.16 0.25 0.78 0.43 0.52 0.07 0.56 0.78 0.12 0.04 0.35 0.71 0.9 0.11 0.28 0.38 0.54 0.11 0.97 0.17 0.36 -0.47
7d MIN GW 0.63 0.88 0.06 0.1 0.98 0.98 0.44 0.75 0.25 0.56 0.24 0.48 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.25 0.83 0.04 0.32 0.25 0.35 0.39 0.25 0.27 0 0.76 0.25 -0.14
7d MIN GW DOY 0.42 0.46 0.07 0.13 0.65 0.01 0.66 0.57 0.69 0.05 0.32 0.96 0.54 0.3 0.05 0.18 0.37 0.96 0.26 0.3 0.41 0.6 0.27 0.47 0.7 0.89 0.13 0.66
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 143
Table D-3: Winter seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
tota
l R
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
7d MAX T JFM 0.28 0.24 0.11 0.5 0.54 -0.01 0.05 0.06 0.22 -0.04 0.45 0 0.15 0.11 -0.12 -0.24 0.07 0.18 0.37 0.22 0.26 -0.13
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.1 -0.19 0.12 0.1 0.22 0.24 -0.29 -0.18 0.09 0.08 0.24 0.06 -0.08 -0.03 0.13 -0.04 -0.07 0.08 0.33 -0.03 0.46 -0.2
7d MIN T JFM 0.15 0.26 0.15 0.2 0.41 0.15 0.37 0.03 0.15 0.28 0.19 0.22 0.58 0.16 0.06 -0.03 0.53 -0.03 0.1 0.38 -0.13 -0.53
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.51 0.49 0.38 0 0.2 0.26 0.1 0.31 -0.08 0.02 0.11 -0.05 0.02 0.37 -0.03 -0.07 0.05 0.16 0.15 -0.27 -0.02 0.19
JFM total R 0 0.57 0.24 0.99 0.54 0.01 0.25 0 0.46 0.33 0.35 -0.06 0.43 -0.09 0.03 0.07 0.42 -0.46 0.04 0.63 -0.09 -0.69
3d MAX R JFM 0 0.2 0.01 0.24 0 0.17 0.1 -0.01 0.25 0.04 0.44 0.1 0.2 0.23 -0.07 -0.01 0.23 -0.06 -0.15 0.43 -0.29 -0.74
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.96 0.16 0.38 0.12 0.97 0.33 -0.11 -0.06 -0.12 0 0.13 0.36 -0.14 0.17 0.22 0.03 -0.09 0.22 0.33 -0.01 0.17 0.2
30d MIN R JFM 0.78 0.09 0.03 0.56 0.15 0.57 0.53 0.47 0.12 0.3 -0.13 -0.21 0.48 0.21 0.06 -0.05 0.39 -0.26 -0.21 0.6 -0.4 -0.57
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.74 0.28 0.85 0.07 1 0.96 0.73 0 0.06 0.17 -0.11 -0.46 0.25 0.3 -0.15 -0.28 0.23 0.1 0.1 0 0.14 0.02
JFM yield 0.19 0.61 0.37 0.64 0 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.74 0.62 0.63 -0.16 0.5 -0.23 0.41 -0.05 0.49 -0.31 0.37 0.62 0.13 -0.81
JFM BF yield 0.84 0.66 0.09 0.89 0.05 0.82 0.99 0.08 0.32 0 0.11 -0.26 0.73 -0.06 0.69 0.04 0.78 -0.37 0.45 0.24 0.29 -0.75
3d MAX Q JFM 0.01 0.16 0.26 0.52 0.04 0.01 0.46 0.44 0.51 0 0.53 0.18 0.11 -0.09 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.6 -0.24 -0.25
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.98 0.74 0.2 0.78 0.71 0.58 0.03 0.21 0 0.34 0.13 0.29 -0.09 -0.22 0 0.25 -0.14 0.08 -0.35 0.56 -0.57 0.05
7d MIN Q JFM 0.37 0.63 0 0.9 0.01 0.25 0.42 0 0.14 0 0 0.53 0.6 0.08 0.31 0.02 0.96 -0.32 0.19 0.48 -0.01 -0.79
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.52 0.86 0.35 0.03 0.61 0.18 0.33 0.22 0.08 0.19 0.75 0.61 0.19 0.65 -0.05 -0.1 0.06 0.5 0.36 -0.17 0.19 -0.09
3d MAX BF JFM 0.48 0.46 0.74 0.88 0.85 0.7 0.19 0.75 0.39 0.01 0 0.5 0.99 0.07 0.79 0.32 0.36 -0.06 0.74 0.26 0.51 -0.53
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.16 0.81 0.86 0.68 0.68 0.97 0.87 0.75 0.1 0.79 0.83 0.49 0.14 0.92 0.55 0.06 0.09 -0.16 -0.48 0.41 -0.5 -0.18
7d MIN BF JFM 0.7 0.66 0 0.78 0.01 0.17 0.59 0.02 0.17 0 0 0.72 0.41 0 0.73 0.03 0.61 -0.38 0.26 0.32 0.12 -0.79
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.3 0.64 0.88 0.34 0 0.75 0.2 0.12 0.55 0.07 0.03 0.45 0.64 0.06 0 0.73 0.35 0.02 0.35 -0.37 0.47 0.68
3d MAX GW JFM 0.22 0.27 0.74 0.61 0.9 0.62 0.27 0.5 0.75 0.21 0.13 0.91 0.24 0.54 0.22 0 0.1 0.39 0.24 -0.14 0.88 0.03
3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.46 0.93 0.2 0.37 0.02 0.14 0.97 0.03 0.99 0.02 0.43 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.59 0.4 0.16 0.28 0.22 0.66 -0.37 -0.57
7d MIN GW JFM 0.38 0.12 0.66 0.96 0.76 0.34 0.58 0.18 0.65 0.67 0.34 0.44 0.04 0.97 0.54 0.07 0.08 0.71 0.1 0 0.22 0.16
7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.68 0.51 0.06 0.54 0.01 0 0.51 0.04 0.96 0 0 0.41 0.86 0 0.76 0.06 0.56 0 0.01 0.91 0.04 0.6
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 144
Table D-4: Spring seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
AM
J to
tal R
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
7d MAX T AMJ 0.04 0.15 -0.21 -0.32 -0.14 -0.02 -0.29 0.21 -0.04 -0.19 0.21 -0.34 -0.23 0.16 -0.22 0 -0.27 0.13 -0.03 -0.12 -0.48 -0.11
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.84 -0.13 -0.03 0.17 0.22 0.08 -0.21 -0.1 0.3 0.18 0.31 0.1 0 -0.07 0.01 0.11 -0.03 -0.08 0.24 0.04 -0.01 -0.6
7d MIN T AMJ 0.37 0.46 0.22 -0.18 -0.11 0.4 0.02 -0.19 -0.14 -0.23 0.01 -0.32 -0.12 -0.19 -0.13 -0.28 -0.1 -0.18 0.05 -0.18 0.32 0.07
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.22 0.84 0.21 -0.31 -0.23 0.16 -0.04 0.03 -0.17 -0.14 0 0.05 0.02 0.19 -0.1 -0.13 0.02 0.12 0.04 -0.13 0.67 -0.11
AMJ total R 0.05 0.33 0.31 0.06 0.64 0.04 0.46 -0.17 0.65 0.55 0.16 0.39 0.43 -0.37 0.42 0.41 0.41 -0.18 0.25 0.25 -0.3 -0.02
3d MAX R AMJ 0.42 0.2 0.52 0.17 0 -0.17 -0.11 0.08 0.59 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.01 -0.15 0.45 0.24 -0.05 0.01 0.58 -0.33 -0.12 0.33
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.91 0.65 0.02 0.36 0.8 0.31 0.33 -0.52 -0.21 -0.24 -0.31 0.06 0.34 -0.35 -0.26 -0.06 0.32 -0.34 -0.24 0.04 -0.04 -0.33
30d MIN R AMJ 0.09 0.21 0.91 0.81 0 0.51 0.05 -0.26 0.25 0.25 -0.18 0.34 0.55 -0.21 0.18 0.15 0.59 -0.15 0.43 -0.01 0.16 -0.33
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.23 0.56 0.28 0.86 0.32 0.63 0 0.13 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.01 -0.3 0.24 0.32 0.24 -0.32 0.23 0.62 -0.33 0.18 -0.16
AMJ yield 0.8 0.07 0.41 0.33 0 0 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.82 0.58 0.35 0.37 -0.22 0.67 0.48 0.35 -0.07 0.74 -0.01 0.02 -0.37
AMJ BF yield 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.42 0 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.06 0 0.24 0.4 0.31 -0.06 0.89 0.51 0.28 0.04 0.62 0.12 0.08 -0.34
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.22 0.06 0.98 1 0.35 0.01 0.06 0.29 0.11 0 0.15 -0.18 -0.17 -0.12 0.25 0.08 -0.2 0.01 0.77 -0.27 -0.21 -0.17
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.04 0.54 0.06 0.79 0.02 0.36 0.73 0.04 0.95 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.5 -0.08 0.13 0.59 0.48 -0.04 0.27 0.39 0.24 -0.21
7d MIN Q AMJ 0.17 0.99 0.48 0.91 0.01 0.94 0.04 0 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.31 0 -0.56 0.13 0.25 0.98 -0.45 -0.01 0.44 -0.33 -0.37
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.34 0.68 0.27 0.26 0.03 0.37 0.03 0.23 0.15 0.2 0.74 0.48 0.65 0 -0.03 -0.1 -0.55 0.86 -0.13 -0.42 0.52 0.3
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.2 0.93 0.44 0.57 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.31 0.06 0 0 0.14 0.47 0.44 0.85 0.26 0.09 0.04 0.61 -0.23 0.42 -0.15
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.99 0.52 0.1 0.44 0.01 0.15 0.72 0.38 0.16 0 0 0.65 0 0.15 0.57 0.12 0.25 -0.09 0.27 0.27 -0.45 0.03
7d MIN BF AMJ 0.11 0.86 0.55 0.92 0.01 0.76 0.06 0 0.05 0.04 0.1 0.24 0 0 0 0.61 0.14 -0.48 0.03 0.41 -0.35 -0.37
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.44 0.63 0.29 0.48 0.29 0.95 0.04 0.39 0.18 0.69 0.82 0.95 0.83 0.01 0 0.82 0.59 0 -0.11 -0.41 0.57 0.31
3d MAX GW AMJ 0.91 0.44 0.86 0.89 0.4 0.04 0.43 0.14 0.02 0 0.03 0 0.37 0.96 0.68 0.03 0.38 0.93 0.73 -0.54 0.31 -0.12
3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.7 0.9 0.57 0.66 0.41 0.27 0.91 0.99 0.27 0.98 0.69 0.38 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.46 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.06 -0.31 -0.31
7d MIN GW AMJ 0.1 0.99 0.28 0.01 0.32 0.69 0.89 0.59 0.57 0.94 0.79 0.48 0.44 0.27 0.07 0.16 0.12 0.25 0.04 0.31 0.3 -0.24
7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.73 0.03 0.82 0.71 0.94 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.21 0.26 0.58 0.49 0.22 0.32 0.61 0.93 0.22 0.31 0.7 0.3 0.42
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 145
Table D-5: Summer seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
JAS t
ota
l R
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
7d MAX T JAS -0.36 0.06 0.17 -0.36 -0.09 0.08 -0.33 -0.18 -0.46 -0.4 -0.49 -0.24 -0.48 0.07 -0.32 -0.35 -0.48 -0.01 -0.2 0.09 -0.26 -0.06
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.17 0 -0.17 0.04 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.22 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 0.14 0 0.04 -0.48 -0.1 -0.05 -0.34
7d MIN T JAS 0.72 0.58 -0.06 0 0.08 0.25 0.11 0.27 -0.06 -0.13 0.01 0.26 0.05 -0.19 -0.25 0.04 0.02 -0.21 -0.13 -0.1 -0.05 -0.38
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.32 0.35 0.73 -0.24 -0.25 0.2 -0.33 -0.13 -0.2 -0.11 -0.25 0.02 -0.29 -0.03 -0.14 0.26 -0.31 0.11 -0.32 -0.07 -0.58 0.17
JAS total R 0.03 0.38 1 0.17 0.75 -0.11 0.43 -0.13 0.47 0.33 0.49 0.52 0.37 -0.3 0.2 0.42 0.4 -0.51 0.02 0.12 0.56 -0.13
3d MAX R JAS 0.62 0.33 0.62 0.13 0 0.01 0.11 -0.27 0.23 0.06 0.31 0.27 0.15 -0.34 -0.02 0.3 0.19 -0.47 0.02 0.02 0.35 -0.24
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.65 0.98 0.15 0.24 0.52 0.97 -0.14 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.14 -0.01 -0.27 0.12 0.12 -0.05 -0.16 -0.03 0.04 -0.16 -0.23
30d MIN R JAS 0.05 0.33 0.53 0.05 0.01 0.53 0.41 0.12 0.53 0.49 0.48 0.19 0.64 0.22 0.37 0.16 0.63 0.03 0.45 0.09 0.79 -0.19
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.29 0.81 0.11 0.47 0.44 0.12 0.63 0.48 0.12 0.09 0.24 0.13 0.11 -0.05 0.06 -0.14 0.11 0.09 -0.09 -0.04 -0.13 -0.51
JAS yield 0 0.96 0.75 0.25 0 0.19 0.75 0 0.49 0.96 0.95 0.21 0.78 -0.05 0.86 0.43 0.76 -0.05 0.45 0.26 0.84 -0.27
JAS BF yield 0.02 0.96 0.46 0.53 0.05 0.71 0.69 0 0.61 0 0.87 0.14 0.79 0.07 0.92 0.37 0.76 0.08 0.48 0.14 0.71 -0.09
3d MAX Q JAS 0 0.92 0.96 0.14 0 0.07 0.42 0 0.15 0 0 0.25 0.68 -0.16 0.79 0.42 0.67 -0.11 0.45 0.17 0.76 -0.3
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.16 0.2 0.12 0.9 0 0.1 0.42 0.26 0.46 0.22 0.41 0.13 0.21 -0.42 -0.04 0.47 0.27 -0.51 -0.82 0.32 -0.3 -0.07
7d MIN Q JAS 0 0.79 0.76 0.09 0.03 0.37 0.96 0 0.53 0 0 0 0.21 0.04 0.59 0.39 0.97 -0.01 0.39 0.07 0.64 -0.09
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.68 0.97 0.26 0.88 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.2 0.75 0.77 0.67 0.35 0.01 0.8 0.22 -0.56 -0.01 0.8 0.41 -0.46 0.19 0.1
3d MAX BF JAS 0.06 0.76 0.14 0.43 0.25 0.91 0.5 0.03 0.74 0 0 0 0.83 0 0.2 0.14 0.55 0.2 0.53 -0.08 0.59 -0.02
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.04 0.42 0.81 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.5 0.36 0.42 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.42 0.43 -0.38 -0.1 0.44 0.1 0.16
7d MIN BF JAS 0 0.98 0.9 0.06 0.02 0.26 0.77 0 0.53 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.96 0 0.01 -0.02 0.21 0.11 0.62 -0.16
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.94 0.81 0.22 0.54 0 0 0.35 0.85 0.61 0.77 0.63 0.5 0 0.97 0 0.24 0.02 0.9 0.47 -0.36 0.22 -0.05
3d MAX GW JAS 0.5 0.08 0.65 0.27 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.11 0.75 0.11 0.08 0.11 0 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.73 0.46 0.09 -0.24 0.67 -0.17
3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.81 0.68 0.95 0.88 0.77 0.89 0.37 0.63 0.57 0.27 0.83 0.1 0.78 0.11 0.7 0.2 0.41 0.16 0.39
7d MIN GW JAS 0.37 0.88 0.88 0.03 0.04 0.21 0.59 0 0.66 0 0 0 0.3 0.01 0.52 0.03 0.74 0.02 0.44 0.01 0.58 -0.33
7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.83 0.24 0.18 0.56 0.67 0.41 0.42 0.51 0.06 0.35 0.76 0.29 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.94 0.59 0.58 0.87 0.55 0.17 0.26
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 146
Table D-6: Autumn seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
ON
D t
ota
l R
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
7d MAX T OND -0.09 -0.05 -0.16 0.09 0.12 0.1 -0.12 0.08 -0.41 -0.37 -0.33 0.18 -0.49 0 -0.18 0.29 -0.47 0.06 -0.36 -0.3 -0.08 0.48
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.62 0 -0.15 -0.11 -0.07 0.13 -0.14 0.02 -0.12 -0.18 -0.05 0.09 -0.21 -0.15 -0.13 0.02 -0.28 0.1 -0.23 -0.08 -0.6 -0.19
7d MIN T OND 0.79 0.99 -0.13 0.06 -0.11 0.03 0.28 -0.06 0.07 0.23 0.03 -0.13 -0.02 0.03 0.18 -0.2 0.08 0.09 -0.07 0.44 -0.03 -0.24
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.35 0.39 0.46 0.07 0.06 0.19 0.14 -0.41 -0.17 -0.18 -0.07 0.16 -0.13 -0.07 -0.1 0.2 -0.11 -0.07 -0.44 0.24 -0.28 -0.11
OND total R 0.62 0.54 0.74 0.7 0.69 0.24 0.53 0.13 0.4 0.36 0.45 -0.09 -0.25 -0.28 0.46 -0.13 -0.22 -0.33 0.3 0.36 -0.12 -0.65
3d MAX R OND 0.49 0.67 0.54 0.73 0 0.24 0.17 0.27 0.36 0.28 0.55 -0.15 -0.14 -0.15 0.41 -0.22 -0.13 -0.01 -0.21 0.12 -0.35 -0.23
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.58 0.45 0.88 0.27 0.15 0.16 0.15 -0.31 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.31 -0.01 -0.06 0.17 0.29 0.03 -0.12 0.29 0.01 0.24 -0.02
30d MIN R OND 0.48 0.43 0.09 0.41 0 0.32 0.37 -0.1 0.21 0.3 0.13 0.06 -0.17 -0.04 0.3 -0.13 -0.11 -0.45 0.15 0.24 -0.16 -0.47
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.63 0.91 0.75 0.01 0.44 0.11 0.06 0.55 0.2 0.12 0.17 -0.35 0.15 -0.15 -0.05 -0.3 0.05 -0.03 -0.15 -0.23 -0.12 0.08
OND yield 0.01 0.48 0.67 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.88 0.22 0.24 0.94 0.89 -0.6 0.59 0.13 0.75 -0.64 0.58 0.01 0.86 0.38 0.53 -0.62
OND BF yield 0.03 0.29 0.17 0.28 0.03 0.1 0.91 0.08 0.49 0 0.8 -0.61 0.52 0.15 0.85 -0.63 0.59 0.08 0.82 0.42 0.51 -0.67
3d MAX Q OND 0.05 0.76 0.88 0.7 0.01 0 0.19 0.44 0.32 0 0 -0.37 0.46 0.11 0.75 -0.5 0.44 0 0.74 0.22 0.32 -0.52
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.29 0.61 0.43 0.36 0.62 0.38 0.07 0.72 0.04 0 0 0.03 -0.37 -0.13 -0.31 0.72 -0.37 -0.21 -0.5 -0.47 -0.45 0.54
7d MIN Q OND 0 0.23 0.91 0.45 0.15 0.42 0.95 0.31 0.38 0 0 0 0.03 0.49 0.22 -0.3 0.93 0.17 0.67 0.07 0.79 -0.06
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.98 0.4 0.87 0.68 0.1 0.37 0.74 0.81 0.39 0.45 0.38 0.53 0.46 0 0.13 -0.16 0.44 0.27 0.15 -0.27 0.06 0.2
3d MAX BF OND 0.3 0.44 0.29 0.57 0 0.01 0.31 0.07 0.78 0 0 0 0.07 0.19 0.43 -0.4 0.35 0.08 0.65 0.19 0.15 -0.55
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.09 0.91 0.23 0.25 0.45 0.19 0.09 0.46 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.36 0.01 -0.31 -0.05 -0.4 -0.32 -0.16 0.41
7d MIN BF OND 0 0.1 0.66 0.53 0.19 0.46 0.85 0.51 0.78 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.31 0.54 0.12 0.73 -0.12
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.71 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.05 0.95 0.5 0.01 0.88 0.94 0.63 0.98 0.23 0.33 0.11 0.63 0.79 0.07 -0.24 -0.25 0 0.17
3d MAX GW OND 0.23 0.44 0.83 0.13 0.32 0.49 0.33 0.62 0.62 0 0 0 0.08 0.01 0.62 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.42 0.02 0.77 -0.3
3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.32 0.8 0.14 0.42 0.22 0.7 0.96 0.44 0.44 0.21 0.16 0.48 0.11 0.83 0.37 0.53 0.28 0.7 0.41 0.95 -0.19 -0.81
7d MIN GW OND 0.79 0.03 0.93 0.35 0.69 0.24 0.43 0.6 0.71 0.06 0.07 0.28 0.12 0 0.84 0.62 0.61 0.01 0.99 0 0.54 0.08
7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.1 0.53 0.44 0.73 0.02 0.46 0.94 0.11 0.79 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.84 0.51 0.05 0.17 0.71 0.58 0.32 0 0.8
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 147
Table D-7: Annual analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above and p-value
is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
R-B
Index
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Wate
r yie
ld
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
Mean G
W
3d M
AX G
W
3d M
AX G
W D
OY
7d M
IN G
W
7d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.08 0.68 -0.23 0.32 0.2 0.33 -0.01 -0.11 0 0.29 0.15 0.14 0.11 -0.39 -0.33 0.03 0.05 -0.21 -0.06 -0.26 0.01 -0.26 -0.15 -0.09 -0.06 -0.18 -0.09 0.17
Total P 0.63 -0.17 0.82 0.38 0.19 0.16 0.08 -0.2 0.09 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 -0.55 -0.45 -0.03 0.04 -0.21 -0.08 -0.26 0.02 -0.23 -0.18 -0.15 -0.12 -0.18 -0.03 0.23
PET 0 0.34 -0.35 -0.44 0.19 -0.08 0.08 0.06 -0.03 0.02 0.02 0.27 -0.25 0.39 0.2 0 0.13 0.3 0.22 -0.02 0.1 0.29 -0.04 0.27 0.06 0.3 0.39 -0.41
P-PET 0.18 0 0.04 -0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.06 0.12 -0.07 -0.03 -0.03 0.19 -0.23 0.49 0.31 -0.01 0.11 0.3 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.3 0.01 0.27 0.06 0.3 0.33 -0.35
7d MAX T 0.06 0.02 0.02 0 -0.02 0.12 0.04 -0.16 -0.07 0.09 0.01 -0.07 0.18 -0.32 -0.26 0.08 -0.03 -0.32 -0.11 -0.14 -0.04 -0.32 -0.03 -0.09 -0.12 0.06 -0.03 -0.08
7d MAX T DOY 0.25 0.13 0.26 0.37 0.9 -0.06 0.04 -0.19 0.07 0.05 0.17 0.18 0.05 -0.14 -0.15 -0.22 0.01 -0.16 -0.04 -0.21 0.02 -0.17 -0.19 0 -0.15 -0.03 0 0.56
7d MIN T 0.05 0.88 0.36 0.82 0.47 0.75 0.12 0.15 -0.08 0.29 0.06 -0.02 0.19 -0.03 -0.02 0.08 -0.02 -0.23 -0.08 -0.04 -0.19 -0.26 -0.14 -0.11 0.14 -0.26 -0.17 -0.06
7d MIN T DOY 0.96 0.49 0.64 0.57 0.79 0.82 0.48 0.02 -0.15 0.15 0.24 0.09 0.12 0 0 0 -0.06 -0.07 0.04 0.02 -0.12 -0.07 -0.06 0.02 -0.02 0.26 -0.05 -0.12
3d MAX R 0.53 0.59 0.25 0.33 0.36 0.26 0.38 0.9 -0.02 0 -0.13 0.09 0.02 0.24 0.13 0.18 -0.03 0.11 -0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.09 -0.01 0.55 0.52 -0.03 0.3 0.11
3d MAX R DOY 0.99 0.55 0.58 0.33 0.68 0.7 0.66 0.39 0.89 -0.15 -0.04 -0.04 -0.07 -0.17 -0.07 -0.34 0.26 0.08 -0.05 0.03 0.11 0.04 -0.12 0.06 -0.25 -0.15 0.12 0.45
30d MIN R 0.09 0.32 0.34 0.38 0.6 0.76 0.08 0.37 0.99 0.39 0.49 -0.08 0 -0.02 0.03 -0.07 0.05 -0.03 -0.02 0.06 -0.24 -0.1 -0.06 -0.24 0.08 -0.16 -0.28 -0.26
30d MIN R DOY 0.39 0.53 0.41 0.67 0.94 0.31 0.72 0.16 0.46 0.81 0 0.05 0.06 -0.15 -0.16 0 -0.03 -0.07 -0.04 -0.09 -0.07 -0.13 -0.07 -0.08 0.2 -0.41 -0.2 0.03
R-B Index 0.42 0.07 0.48 0.19 0.68 0.29 0.89 0.58 0.59 0.82 0.63 0.76 -0.24 0.02 -0.14 0.17 -0.01 0.21 0.09 -0.23 -0.02 0.15 -0.11 0.3 0.03 0.15 0.36 0.11
10:90 exceedance 0.53 0.39 0.56 0.5 0.29 0.75 0.28 0.5 0.93 0.69 0.99 0.71 0.15 -0.12 -0.1 0.03 -0.16 -0.7 -0.01 0.05 -0.01 -0.7 0.08 -0.09 0.3 -0.06 -0.27 0.23
Water yield 0.02 0.04 0 0 0.06 0.41 0.88 0.98 0.15 0.32 0.9 0.37 0.9 0.5 0.67 0.13 0.09 0.26 0.09 0.33 -0.01 0.28 0.09 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.36 -0.38
BF yield 0.05 0.27 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.38 0.9 0.99 0.46 0.7 0.84 0.35 0.42 0.56 0 -0.07 0.24 0.24 0.1 0.59 -0.02 0.25 0.14 0.3 0.15 0.45 0.24 -0.26
3d MAX Q 0.84 0.74 0.87 0.66 0.63 0.2 0.62 0.98 0.28 0.04 0.68 0.98 0.34 0.88 0.44 0.7 -0.2 0.01 -0.08 -0.06 -0.03 0.01 -0.07 0.15 0.67 -0.18 -0.03 -0.17
3d MAX Q DOY 0.75 0.54 0.82 0.62 0.85 0.97 0.92 0.73 0.85 0.12 0.77 0.87 0.97 0.36 0.62 0.16 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.23 0.14 0.13 0.55 0.09 0.09 0.42 -0.05
7d MIN Q 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.06 0.35 0.18 0.7 0.53 0.65 0.87 0.7 0.22 0 0.13 0.16 0.96 0.33 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.91 0.08 0.15 -0.06 0 0.27 -0.23
7d MIN Q DOY 0.73 0.49 0.63 0.7 0.53 0.82 0.66 0.83 0.77 0.79 0.89 0.8 0.6 0.96 0.62 0.58 0.66 0.32 0.35 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.71 0.21 0 0.3 0.27 -0.23
3d MAX BF 0.13 0.8 0.13 0.46 0.41 0.22 0.83 0.9 0.94 0.85 0.73 0.59 0.17 0.77 0.05 0 0.73 0.47 0.45 0.62 -0.07 0.13 0.18 -0.06 0.27 0.27 -0.24 -0.14
3d MAX BF DOY 0.97 0.84 0.91 0.87 0.82 0.93 0.27 0.49 0.9 0.52 0.16 0.68 0.9 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.17 0.5 0.42 0.67 0.12 0.09 0.3 0.03 0.15 0.18 -0.14
7d MIN BF 0.13 0.24 0.17 0.24 0.06 0.32 0.12 0.69 0.59 0.8 0.55 0.44 0.39 0 0.1 0.14 0.94 0.43 0 0.45 0.46 0.5 0.08 0.15 -0.18 0.12 0.27 -0.23
7d MIN BF DOY 0.39 0.49 0.29 0.7 0.88 0.27 0.41 0.72 0.96 0.48 0.73 0.69 0.51 0.62 0.61 0.41 0.69 0.46 0.64 0 0.28 0.6 0.65 0.32 0.08 0.35 0.26 -0.15
Mean GW 0.78 0.51 0.64 0.45 0.78 1 0.74 0.96 0.07 0.85 0.45 0.81 0.34 0.78 0.17 0.34 0.64 0.07 0.64 0.51 0.85 0.34 0.64 0.31 0.36 0 0.64 0.14
3d MAX GW 0.85 0.25 0.71 0.21 0.71 0.64 0.67 0.96 0.09 0.44 0.81 0.54 0.93 0.34 0.29 0.64 0.02 0.78 0.85 1 0.39 0.93 0.57 0.81 0.25 -0.33 0.06 0.05
3d MAX GW DOY 0.57 0.85 0.57 0.78 0.85 0.93 0.42 0.42 0.93 0.63 0.62 0.18 0.64 0.85 0.29 0.14 0.57 0.78 1 0.34 0.39 0.64 0.71 0.26 1 0.29 0.3 -0.35
7d MIN GW 0.78 0.64 0.93 0.71 0.93 1 0.6 0.89 0.34 0.7 0.38 0.54 0.25 0.39 0.25 0.45 0.93 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.57 0.39 0.42 0.03 0.85 0.34 -0.08
7d MIN GW DOY 0.6 0.6 0.47 0.67 0.81 0.06 0.85 0.7 0.74 0.14 0.41 0.92 0.74 0.47 0.22 0.42 0.6 0.89 0.47 0.47 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.63 0.67 0.89 0.26 0.81
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 148
Table D-8: Winter seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
tota
l R
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
7d MAX T JFM 0.21 0.18 0.09 0.36 0.39 0 0.04 0.05 0.16 -0.03 0.33 0 0.1 0.05 -0.08 -0.17 0.03 0.1 0.23 0.17 0.13 -0.08
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.22 -0.12 0.09 0.06 0.19 0.19 -0.23 -0.12 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.08 -0.07 -0.03 0.09 -0.03 -0.06 0.05 0.28 -0.06 0.34 -0.14
7d MIN T JFM 0.29 0.48 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.12 0.29 0.02 0.13 0.2 0.13 0.15 0.41 0.12 0.05 -0.04 0.38 -0.01 0.01 0.27 -0.14 -0.37
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.6 0.61 0.43 0.01 0.15 0.18 0.09 0.22 -0.03 0.03 0.08 -0.04 0.03 0.29 -0.02 -0.06 0.06 0.14 0.07 -0.3 0.01 0.12
JFM total R 0.03 0.74 0.47 0.96 0.38 -0.01 0.2 0.04 0.33 0.23 0.24 -0.05 0.32 -0.07 0 0.06 0.31 -0.31 0.03 0.56 -0.08 -0.49
3d MAX R JFM 0.02 0.27 0.07 0.38 0.02 0.12 0.08 0 0.16 0.03 0.3 0.06 0.14 0.17 -0.08 0 0.17 -0.04 -0.1 0.36 -0.21 -0.6
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.98 0.27 0.47 0.3 0.96 0.49 -0.08 -0.03 -0.09 -0.01 0.09 0.29 -0.1 0.16 0.15 0.04 -0.06 0.17 0.27 -0.01 0.12 0.16
30d MIN R JFM 0.82 0.17 0.08 0.61 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.4 0.1 0.23 -0.11 -0.17 0.39 0.17 0.04 -0.05 0.31 -0.21 -0.17 0.51 -0.28 -0.48
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.76 0.47 0.9 0.19 0.84 0.99 0.86 0.02 0.03 0.09 -0.08 -0.32 0.16 0.24 -0.1 -0.21 0.15 0.08 0.09 -0.01 0.14 0.01
JFM yield 0.35 0.69 0.47 0.85 0.05 0.35 0.6 0.55 0.85 0.48 0.46 -0.12 0.4 -0.17 0.31 -0.05 0.38 -0.2 0.26 0.47 0.05 -0.65
JFM BF yield 0.88 0.8 0.25 0.87 0.19 0.88 0.96 0.17 0.58 0 0.09 -0.17 0.55 -0.05 0.52 0.03 0.6 -0.27 0.38 0.2 0.18 -0.57
3d MAX Q JFM 0.05 0.37 0.45 0.64 0.16 0.07 0.59 0.53 0.62 0.01 0.59 0.12 0.08 -0.07 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.5 -0.23 -0.19
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.99 0.65 0.39 0.84 0.76 0.75 0.09 0.31 0.06 0.5 0.31 0.47 -0.07 -0.17 -0.01 0.2 -0.11 0.07 -0.21 0.42 -0.36 0.1
7d MIN Q JFM 0.57 0.67 0.01 0.88 0.06 0.43 0.58 0.02 0.34 0.02 0 0.63 0.68 0.07 0.2 0 0.91 -0.22 0.13 0.33 -0.03 -0.62
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.79 0.87 0.5 0.09 0.7 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.16 0.32 0.76 0.7 0.33 0.69 -0.03 -0.06 0.05 0.48 0.25 -0.15 0.14 -0.1
3d MAX BF JFM 0.65 0.6 0.78 0.93 0.99 0.63 0.39 0.82 0.56 0.06 0 0.62 0.94 0.23 0.85 0.22 0.24 -0.04 0.51 0.2 0.26 -0.41
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.32 0.86 0.83 0.73 0.73 0.99 0.83 0.77 0.23 0.77 0.88 0.64 0.24 0.99 0.73 0.2 0.05 -0.1 -0.34 0.36 -0.42 -0.1
7d MIN BF JFM 0.85 0.71 0.02 0.74 0.06 0.31 0.71 0.06 0.4 0.02 0 0.74 0.51 0 0.77 0.16 0.79 -0.27 0.18 0.22 0.08 -0.65
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.55 0.77 0.97 0.42 0.06 0.82 0.33 0.21 0.65 0.23 0.12 0.69 0.68 0.2 0 0.82 0.55 0.11 0.21 -0.31 0.34 0.49
3d MAX GW JFM 0.45 0.35 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.74 0.37 0.57 0.77 0.4 0.19 0.93 0.5 0.68 0.42 0.07 0.25 0.56 0.49 -0.11 0.74 0
3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.58 0.85 0.38 0.32 0.05 0.22 0.96 0.07 0.96 0.1 0.52 0.08 0.15 0.26 0.61 0.52 0.23 0.46 0.29 0.72 -0.31 -0.43
7d MIN GW JFM 0.68 0.26 0.64 0.97 0.8 0.5 0.71 0.35 0.64 0.87 0.56 0.45 0.22 0.93 0.64 0.4 0.15 0.8 0.25 0 0.31 0.11
7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.79 0.64 0.22 0.69 0.09 0.03 0.59 0.1 0.96 0.02 0.04 0.54 0.76 0.02 0.76 0.17 0.74 0.02 0.09 1 0.15 0.72
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 149
Table D-9: Spring seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
AM
J to
tal R
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
7d MAX T AMJ 0.01 0.09 -0.15 -0.23 -0.1 -0.01 -0.17 0.12 -0.03 -0.14 0.15 -0.24 -0.18 0.12 -0.16 -0.02 -0.19 0.11 0.03 -0.12 -0.36 -0.1
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.95 -0.11 -0.03 0.11 0.14 0.06 -0.17 -0.04 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.1 -0.01 -0.07 -0.01 0.07 -0.03 -0.09 0.13 0.01 -0.03 -0.48
7d MIN T AMJ 0.61 0.53 0.15 -0.12 -0.09 0.25 0.02 -0.13 -0.08 -0.17 0 -0.22 -0.06 -0.12 -0.09 -0.18 -0.06 -0.12 0.05 -0.12 0.23 0.07
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.39 0.87 0.39 -0.22 -0.17 0.14 -0.04 0.02 -0.13 -0.11 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.16 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 0.1 0.05 -0.09 0.51 -0.1
AMJ total R 0.17 0.51 0.48 0.19 0.47 0.03 0.34 -0.13 0.47 0.41 0.12 0.29 0.3 -0.26 0.3 0.29 0.29 -0.13 0.15 0.19 -0.23 0
3d MAX R AMJ 0.54 0.4 0.6 0.32 0 -0.14 -0.09 0.05 0.4 0.32 0.3 0.1 0.01 -0.09 0.33 0.17 -0.03 0 0.41 -0.22 -0.13 0.3
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.94 0.72 0.14 0.41 0.88 0.43 0.24 -0.35 -0.13 -0.18 -0.23 0.09 0.23 -0.25 -0.19 -0.04 0.21 -0.25 -0.18 0.04 0.03 -0.29
30d MIN R AMJ 0.31 0.33 0.9 0.81 0.04 0.62 0.17 -0.18 0.16 0.17 -0.16 0.23 0.4 -0.14 0.12 0.09 0.42 -0.1 0.33 -0.04 0.21 -0.27
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.49 0.83 0.46 0.92 0.46 0.79 0.03 0.29 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.01 -0.21 0.17 0.22 0.16 -0.22 0.16 0.4 -0.23 0.14 -0.1
AMJ yield 0.87 0.2 0.63 0.44 0 0.01 0.45 0.35 0.32 0.63 0.43 0.25 0.24 -0.17 0.49 0.33 0.22 -0.06 0.59 0.01 0 -0.3
AMJ BF yield 0.42 0.44 0.31 0.52 0.01 0.05 0.3 0.34 0.22 0 0.18 0.28 0.22 -0.03 0.74 0.36 0.19 0.04 0.41 0.09 0.03 -0.27
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.39 0.17 0.98 0.93 0.47 0.07 0.19 0.36 0.29 0.01 0.28 -0.13 -0.13 -0.09 0.19 0.03 -0.14 0 0.59 -0.22 -0.15 -0.17
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.15 0.57 0.21 0.9 0.08 0.57 0.62 0.18 0.95 0.14 0.1 0.44 0.35 -0.06 0.08 0.39 0.34 -0.01 0.21 0.32 0.23 -0.17
7d MIN Q AMJ 0.3 0.96 0.73 0.92 0.08 0.96 0.17 0.02 0.22 0.16 0.2 0.44 0.04 -0.42 0.1 0.18 0.9 -0.35 -0.06 0.31 -0.22 -0.3
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.48 0.7 0.49 0.35 0.12 0.61 0.15 0.42 0.31 0.32 0.86 0.61 0.71 0.01 -0.02 -0.07 -0.4 0.77 -0.09 -0.3 0.42 0.21
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.35 0.95 0.61 0.63 0.07 0.05 0.28 0.47 0.2 0 0 0.26 0.65 0.56 0.89 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.46 -0.17 0.28 -0.13
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.89 0.7 0.29 0.59 0.08 0.33 0.81 0.59 0.36 0.05 0.03 0.87 0.02 0.3 0.71 0.2 0.17 -0.06 0.17 0.11 -0.35 0.03
7d MIN BF AMJ 0.27 0.87 0.72 0.95 0.09 0.84 0.21 0.01 0.19 0.2 0.27 0.41 0.04 0 0.02 0.73 0.31 -0.36 -0.03 0.27 -0.21 -0.3
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.53 0.61 0.48 0.55 0.46 1 0.14 0.57 0.35 0.74 0.8 0.98 0.94 0.04 0 0.85 0.72 0.03 -0.1 -0.3 0.46 0.22
3d MAX GW AMJ 0.93 0.67 0.87 0.86 0.62 0.16 0.55 0.27 0.18 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.5 0.83 0.76 0.11 0.58 0.93 0.75 -0.37 0.21 -0.1
3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.71 0.97 0.71 0.76 0.53 0.47 0.9 0.9 0.44 0.97 0.77 0.47 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.58 0.73 0.37 0.32 0.21 -0.22 -0.24
7d MIN GW AMJ 0.23 0.93 0.45 0.08 0.45 0.68 0.93 0.5 0.64 1 0.93 0.62 0.45 0.47 0.16 0.35 0.24 0.5 0.11 0.5 0.47 -0.2
7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.74 0.1 0.83 0.73 1 0.32 0.33 0.38 0.74 0.32 0.38 0.59 0.59 0.32 0.49 0.66 0.91 0.32 0.47 0.74 0.44 0.51
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 150
Table D-10: Summer seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
JAS t
ota
l R
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
7d MAX T JAS -0.24 0.04 0.13 -0.26 -0.07 0.06 -0.24 -0.12 -0.34 -0.29 -0.37 -0.18 -0.37 0.04 -0.23 -0.27 -0.37 -0.01 -0.14 0.07 -0.19 -0.05
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.1 0.1 0 -0.12 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.16 -0.07 -0.02 -0.04 0.11 -0.03 0.03 -0.33 -0.09 -0.02 -0.25
7d MIN T JAS 0.82 0.7 -0.05 0 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.17 -0.03 -0.07 0 0.18 0.04 -0.13 -0.17 0.03 0.01 -0.14 -0.1 -0.07 -0.1 -0.28
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.44 0.53 0.79 -0.16 -0.21 0.12 -0.22 -0.08 -0.16 -0.08 -0.2 0.02 -0.19 -0.02 -0.1 0.21 -0.22 0.08 -0.2 -0.05 -0.43 0.12
JAS total R 0.12 0.57 1 0.34 0.57 -0.09 0.3 -0.1 0.33 0.24 0.37 0.39 0.25 -0.21 0.14 0.33 0.28 -0.38 0.03 0.1 0.38 -0.1
3d MAX R JAS 0.71 0.55 0.69 0.22 0 0.01 0.08 -0.18 0.17 0.04 0.24 0.21 0.11 -0.25 0 0.23 0.13 -0.35 0.01 0.01 0.27 -0.21
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.73 0.99 0.34 0.49 0.61 0.96 -0.1 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.12 0 -0.18 0.09 0.1 -0.03 -0.1 0 0.06 -0.09 -0.17
30d MIN R JAS 0.17 0.5 0.64 0.2 0.07 0.64 0.56 0.08 0.38 0.34 0.32 0.15 0.46 0.14 0.26 0.1 0.44 0.02 0.29 0.06 0.64 -0.09
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.48 0.83 0.33 0.63 0.55 0.28 0.6 0.64 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.1 0.06 -0.02 0.04 -0.09 0.06 0.08 -0.09 -0.03 -0.07 -0.38
JAS yield 0.04 0.96 0.85 0.35 0.05 0.33 0.83 0.02 0.61 0.85 0.81 0.16 0.6 -0.01 0.7 0.34 0.59 -0.03 0.32 0.19 0.67 -0.21
JAS BF yield 0.09 0.9 0.67 0.63 0.16 0.8 0.7 0.04 0.7 0 0.7 0.1 0.61 0.06 0.76 0.29 0.59 0.06 0.34 0.1 0.52 -0.08
3d MAX Q JAS 0.03 0.96 0.99 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.59 0.06 0.32 0 0 0.21 0.51 -0.12 0.64 0.35 0.5 -0.09 0.33 0.12 0.62 -0.23
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.93 0.02 0.22 0.48 0.39 0.56 0.34 0.56 0.23 0.15 -0.31 -0.03 0.4 0.19 -0.35 -0.67 0.26 -0.22 -0.01
7d MIN Q JAS 0.03 0.7 0.81 0.27 0.14 0.53 0.99 0.01 0.73 0 0 0 0.39 0.04 0.43 0.3 0.91 0 0.25 0.07 0.47 -0.05
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.83 0.9 0.43 0.9 0.22 0.14 0.31 0.4 0.92 0.94 0.72 0.49 0.07 0.81 0.15 -0.42 0.01 0.74 0.3 -0.34 0.16 0.08
3d MAX BF JAS 0.18 0.82 0.32 0.56 0.43 0.99 0.61 0.13 0.83 0 0 0 0.85 0.01 0.37 0.11 0.41 0.14 0.36 -0.07 0.45 0
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.11 0.54 0.86 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.56 0.55 0.6 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.51 0.34 -0.29 -0.11 0.4 0.11 0.14
7d MIN BF JAS 0.02 0.88 0.94 0.19 0.09 0.45 0.86 0.01 0.72 0 0 0 0.28 0 0.96 0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.16 0.1 0.47 -0.1
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.96 0.85 0.42 0.63 0.02 0.04 0.55 0.93 0.64 0.87 0.74 0.58 0.03 0.99 0 0.42 0.09 0.94 0.38 -0.29 0.13 -0.04
3d MAX GW JAS 0.63 0.25 0.74 0.5 0.91 0.97 1 0.32 0.76 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.01 0.38 0.3 0.2 0.72 0.57 0.19 -0.19 0.47 -0.15
3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.8 0.76 0.8 0.87 0.72 0.96 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.5 0.72 0.68 0.36 0.8 0.23 0.8 0.16 0.72 0.32 0.5 0.1 0.33
7d MIN GW JAS 0.52 0.94 0.74 0.13 0.17 0.34 0.76 0.01 0.82 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.46 0.09 0.57 0.11 0.72 0.09 0.65 0.09 0.72 -0.26
7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.86 0.4 0.33 0.68 0.73 0.48 0.56 0.76 0.18 0.48 0.79 0.42 0.96 0.86 0.79 1 0.63 0.73 0.89 0.6 0.24 0.37
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 151
Table D-11: Autumn seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Skootamatta River. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
ON
D t
ota
l R
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
7d MAX T OND -0.09 -0.03 -0.13 0.06 0.07 0.06 -0.09 0.05 -0.29 -0.24 -0.23 0.12 -0.32 0 -0.12 0.2 -0.31 0.05 -0.26 -0.12 -0.1 0.36
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.62 0 -0.11 -0.07 -0.04 0.08 -0.11 0.01 -0.07 -0.11 -0.03 0.06 -0.15 -0.07 -0.08 0.03 -0.19 0.09 -0.15 -0.06 -0.44 -0.15
7d MIN T OND 0.88 0.99 -0.13 0.03 -0.06 0.01 0.19 -0.03 0.04 0.15 0.01 -0.09 0.01 0.02 0.12 -0.15 0.07 0.04 -0.05 0.29 0 -0.18
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.46 0.5 0.43 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.11 -0.26 -0.18 -0.16 -0.05 0.11 -0.09 -0.05 -0.07 0.14 -0.06 -0.05 -0.33 0.11 -0.2 -0.12
OND total R 0.75 0.69 0.85 0.74 0.49 0.16 0.36 0.09 0.29 0.27 0.32 -0.08 -0.15 -0.18 0.36 -0.12 -0.15 -0.25 0.21 0.31 -0.1 -0.57
3d MAX R OND 0.69 0.8 0.72 0.78 0 0.16 0.08 0.2 0.23 0.19 0.38 -0.11 -0.1 -0.1 0.26 -0.16 -0.09 -0.01 -0.21 0.1 -0.26 -0.18
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.72 0.65 0.93 0.47 0.34 0.35 0.1 -0.21 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.29 -0.01 -0.05 0.14 0.22 0.02 -0.09 0.19 0.03 0.14 -0.01
30d MIN R OND 0.61 0.53 0.26 0.51 0.03 0.64 0.55 -0.08 0.14 0.2 0.06 0.02 -0.14 -0.03 0.2 -0.12 -0.08 -0.35 0.1 0.18 -0.1 -0.34
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.75 0.95 0.87 0.12 0.58 0.23 0.23 0.66 0.14 0.08 0.12 -0.23 0.09 -0.11 -0.03 -0.22 0.02 -0.01 -0.15 -0.18 -0.1 0.05
OND yield 0.09 0.69 0.8 0.28 0.08 0.18 0.82 0.4 0.43 0.84 0.72 -0.41 0.45 0.09 0.58 -0.45 0.43 0 0.69 0.29 0.44 -0.47
OND BF yield 0.16 0.52 0.39 0.36 0.11 0.27 0.81 0.25 0.62 0 0.62 -0.41 0.37 0.09 0.68 -0.44 0.44 0.07 0.64 0.31 0.38 -0.52
3d MAX Q OND 0.18 0.84 0.96 0.76 0.06 0.02 0.32 0.72 0.5 0 0 -0.24 0.33 0.1 0.58 -0.33 0.31 0.02 0.56 0.15 0.26 -0.34
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.47 0.71 0.62 0.51 0.64 0.53 0.09 0.92 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.15 -0.26 -0.1 -0.21 0.55 -0.25 -0.14 -0.43 -0.33 -0.32 0.38
7d MIN Q OND 0.06 0.38 0.96 0.59 0.39 0.57 0.96 0.43 0.58 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.38 0.16 -0.23 0.82 0.13 0.51 -0.04 0.67 -0.03
7d MIN Q OND DOY 1 0.66 0.89 0.76 0.28 0.56 0.75 0.86 0.54 0.6 0.59 0.55 0.57 0.02 0.1 -0.1 0.3 0.24 0.13 -0.17 0.03 0.19
3d MAX BF OND 0.5 0.65 0.48 0.69 0.03 0.12 0.41 0.24 0.87 0 0 0 0.23 0.36 0.58 -0.27 0.24 0.08 0.44 0.15 0.08 -0.39
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.23 0.88 0.38 0.43 0.49 0.36 0.2 0.49 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.05 0 0.18 0.56 0.1 -0.22 -0.01 -0.31 -0.24 -0.09 0.26
7d MIN BF OND 0.07 0.26 0.68 0.72 0.39 0.59 0.9 0.64 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.15 0 0.07 0.15 0.2 0.24 0.38 0.04 0.54 -0.1
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.78 0.59 0.81 0.78 0.15 0.96 0.61 0.03 0.97 0.99 0.69 0.92 0.42 0.46 0.15 0.65 0.95 0.16 -0.18 -0.19 -0.01 0.11
3d MAX GW OND 0.4 0.63 0.87 0.28 0.5 0.5 0.53 0.74 0.62 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.66 0.14 0.3 0.19 0.56 -0.01 0.64 -0.21
3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.69 0.85 0.34 0.72 0.3 0.76 0.93 0.56 0.56 0.34 0.3 0.62 0.27 0.89 0.58 0.62 0.42 0.89 0.53 0.96 -0.2 -0.62
7d MIN GW OND 0.74 0.14 1 0.52 0.74 0.4 0.64 0.74 0.74 0.14 0.19 0.4 0.28 0.01 0.93 0.8 0.76 0.06 0.96 0.02 0.5 0.05
7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.22 0.63 0.55 0.7 0.04 0.55 0.97 0.26 0.87 0.11 0.07 0.26 0.2 0.93 0.54 0.19 0.39 0.74 0.72 0.5 0.02 0.87
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 152
Table D-12: Occurrences of probable correlation where Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank indicate parameter
correlation but linear regression does not for Skootamatta River.
Spearman's Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Time scale Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-value τ p-value R² p-value slope sign
Annual PET Water yield -0.74 0.00 -0.55 0.00 0.41 0.00 +
JFM Total R 3d MAX GW DOY 0.63 0.02 0.56 0.05 0.28 0.04 +
JAS Total R 3d MAX R 0.75 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.47 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN Q 0.68 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.40 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF 0.79 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.49 0.00 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN GW 0.76 0.00 0.62 0.02 0.33 0.02 +
OND 3d MAX Q 3d MAX BF 0.75 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.49 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 153
Appendix E. Innisfil Creek Complete Analysis Results
Table E-1: Results from Mann-Kendall trend analysis for Innisfil Creek. Shading
corresponds to confidence levels of very certain (VC), probably trending (PT) and
warning (W).
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual Mean T 0.111 0.347 7d MAX T 0.016 0.902 7d MAX T DOY 0.305 0.010 VC
7d MAX T JFM -0.092 0.438 7d MAX T JFM DOY -0.092 0.459 7d MAX T AMJ 0.067 0.577 7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.166 0.167 7d MAX T JAS 0.025 0.838 7d MAX T JAS DOY -0.051 0.672 7d MAX T OND 0.117 0.320 7d MAX T OND DOY 0.034 0.793 7d MIN T 0.089 0.454 7d MIN T DOY 0.029 0.817 7d MIN T JFM 0.048 0.693 7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.090 0.453 7d MIN T AMJ -0.124 0.294 7d MIN T AMJ DOY -0.179 0.141 7d MIN T JAS 0.187 0.111 7d MIN T JAS DOY -0.061 0.621 7d MIN T OND 0.103 0.383 7d MIN T OND DOY -0.065 0.594 Annual Total P 0.016 0.902 JFM Total R -0.056 0.643 AMJ Total R 0.146 0.215 JAS Total R 0.070 0.551 OND Total R -0.130 0.270 3d MAX R -0.022 0.859 3d MAX R DOY 0.065 0.586 3d MAX R JFM 0.044 0.713 3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.110 0.354 3d MAX R AMJ 0.003 0.989 3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.045 0.713 3d MAX R JAS -0.070 0.558 3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.078 0.513 3d MAX R OND -0.083 0.487
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 154
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.223 0.058 W
30d MIN R 0.159 0.216 30d MIN R DOY 0.163 0.169 30d MIN R JFM 0.141 0.273 30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.048 0.693 30d MIN R AMJ 0.025 0.838 30d MIN R AMJ DOY -0.107 0.368 30d MIN R JAS -0.016 0.902 30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.160 0.177 30d MIN R OND -0.011 0.935 30d MIN R OND DOY -0.123 0.310 Annual PET 0.124 0.294 Annual P-PET -0.060 0.614 Annual Richards-Baker Flashiness Index -0.077 0.743 Annual 10:90 exceedance -0.626 0.002 VC
Annual water yield 0.121 0.584 JFM yield 0.055 0.827 AMJ yield 0.010 1.000 JAS yield 0.118 0.537 OND yield -0.015 0.967 3d MAX Q 0.143 0.511 3d MAX Q DOY -0.077 0.743 3d MAX Q JFM -0.055 0.827 3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.121 0.584 3d MAX Q AMJ 0.096 0.656 3d MAX Q AMJ DOY -0.067 0.766 3d MAX Q JAS 0.147 0.434 3d MAX Q JAS DOY -0.037 0.869 3d MAX Q OND 0.029 0.902 3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.038 0.869 7d MIN Q 0.516 0.012 VC
7d MIN Q DOY -0.011 1.000 7d MIN Q JFM 0.187 0.381 7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.425 0.042 PT
7d MIN Q AMJ -0.029 0.921 7d MIN Q AMJ DOY -0.069 0.765 7d MIN Q JAS 0.176 0.343 7d MIN Q JAS DOY -0.118 0.537 7d MIN Q OND 0.044 0.837 7d MIN Q OND DOY -0.180 0.341
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 155
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual BF yield 0.231 0.274 JFM BF yield 0.099 0.661 AMJ BF yield 0.219 0.276 JAS BF yield 0.132 0.484 OND BF yield 0.088 0.650 3d MAX BF 0.187 0.381 3d MAX BF DOY -0.121 0.584 3d MAX BF JFM 0.099 0.661 3d MAX BF JFM DOY -0.034 0.912 3d MAX BF AMJ 0.067 0.767 3d MAX BF AMJ DOY -0.020 0.960 3d MAX BF JAS 0.044 0.837 3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.298 0.126 3d MAX BF OND 0.118 0.537 3d MAX BF OND DOY -0.030 0.901 7d MIN BF 0.560 0.006 VC
7d MIN BF DOY -0.011 1.000 7d MIN BF JFM 0.165 0.443 7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.408 0.056 W
7d MIN BF AMJ 0.086 0.692 7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.065 0.811 7d MIN BF JAS 0.194 0.303 7d MIN BF JAS DOY -0.088 0.650 7d MIN BF OND 0.147 0.434 7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.110 0.608 W323-2 Annual Mean GW level -0.156 0.592 W323-2 3d MAX GW -0.200 0.436 W323-2 3d MAX GW DOY 0.367 0.138 W323-2 3d MAX GW JFM 0.242 0.304 W323-2 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.099 0.721 W323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ -0.091 0.732 W323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.046 0.891 W323-2 3d MAX GW JAS -0.030 0.945 W323-2 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.051 0.885 W323-2 3d MAX GW OND 0.055 0.876 W323-2 3d MAX GW OND DOY -0.130 0.638 W323-2 7d MIN GW -0.156 0.592 W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY 0.600 0.020 VC
W323-2 7d MIN GW JFM 0.242 0.304 W323-2 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.339 0.148
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 156
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
W323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.121 0.631 W323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.152 0.585 W323-2 7d MIN GW JAS 0.061 0.837 W323-2 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.017 1.000 W323-2 7d MIN GW OND 0.055 0.876 W323-2 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.648 0.008 VC
W323-3 3d MAX GW JFM 0.244 0.371 W323-3 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.349 0.202 W323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.018 1.000 W323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.018 1.000 W323-3 3d MAX GW JAS 0.182 0.451 W323-3 3d MAX GW JAS DOY -0.174 0.506 W323-3 3d MAX GW OND 0.152 0.537 W323-3 3d MAX GW OND DOY -0.107 0.680 W323-3 7d MIN GW JFM 0.333 0.211 W323-3 7d MIN GW JFM DOY -0.180 0.530 W323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.236 0.350 W323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.019 1.000 W323-3 7d MIN GW JAS 0.212 0.373 W323-3 7d MIN GW JAS DOY -0.050 0.886 W323-3 7d MIN GW OND 0.212 0.373 W323-3 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.246 0.301 W323-4 3d MAX GW JFM 0.467 0.074 W
W323-4 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.046 0.928 W323-4 3d MAX GW JAS 0.244 0.371 W323-4 3d MAX GW JAS DOY -0.256 0.385 W323-4 3d MAX GW OND 0.273 0.276 W323-4 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.404 0.101 W323-4 7d MIN GW JFM 0.422 0.107 W323-4 7d MIN GW JFM DOY -0.218 0.476 W323-4 7d MIN GW JAS 0.111 0.721 W323-4 7d MIN GW JAS DOY -0.289 0.283 W323-4 7d MIN GW OND 0.236 0.350 W323-4 7d MIN GW OND DOY -0.122 0.680
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 157
Table E-2: Annual analysis of Spearman’s Rank for Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-values are
below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
RBI
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
323-2
GW
323-2
3d M
AX G
W
323-2
3d M
AX G
W D
OY
323-2
7d M
IN G
W
323-2
7d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.24 0.89 -0.47 0.43 -0.05 0.53 -0.12 -0.13 0.37 0.59 -0.04 -0.05 0.44 -0.36 -0.23 -0.46 0.05 -0.63 -0.37 -0.16 -0.3 -0.61 -0.35 -0.45 -0.46 0.11 -0.25 0.36
Total P 0.15 -0.45 0.95 -0.55 0.21 0.02 -0.21 0.43 0.04 -0.14 -0.11 0.28 -0.26 0.84 0.71 0.82 -0.35 0.48 0.08 0.42 0.06 0.47 0.26 -0.01 0.3 -0.74 -0.24 -0.83
PET 0 0.01 -0.68 0.52 -0.06 0.3 -0.07 -0.2 0.28 0.47 0.06 -0.43 0.32 -0.52 -0.38 -0.6 0.24 -0.56 -0.48 -0.29 -0.11 -0.6 -0.46 -0.37 -0.54 0.28 -0.1 0.75
P-PET 0 0 0 -0.57 0.19 -0.04 -0.11 0.38 -0.01 -0.24 -0.06 0.32 -0.29 0.82 0.67 0.82 -0.3 0.53 0.19 0.42 0.09 0.53 0.33 0.24 0.45 -0.52 -0.05 -0.83
7d MAX T 0.01 0 0 0 -0.12 0.13 0.21 -0.31 0.14 0.47 0.24 -0.16 0.38 -0.13 -0.02 -0.27 0.18 -0.48 -0.4 0.01 -0.23 -0.47 -0.26 -0.37 -0.45 -0.16 0.03 -0.04
7d MAX T DOY 0.75 0.23 0.72 0.26 0.49 -0.01 0.1 0.29 -0.02 -0.03 0.12 0.14 -0.05 -0.11 -0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.67 0.06 -0.25 0.11 0.5 -0.3 -0.27 0.22 -0.09 -0.15
7d MIN T 0 0.92 0.07 0.81 0.44 0.97 0.08 -0.09 0.35 0.43 0.15 0.41 0.37 0.18 0.21 0.07 -0.16 -0.32 -0.09 0.29 -0.34 -0.23 -0.12 -0.1 0.15 -0.38 -0.3 -0.14
7d MIN T DOY 0.49 0.21 0.69 0.52 0.23 0.58 0.64 -0.15 0.05 0.24 0.42 0.24 0.08 -0.25 -0.37 -0.05 0.45 -0.1 0.44 -0.22 0.56 0.02 0.34 -0.66 -0.43 0.04 -0.84 0.04
3d MAX R 0.45 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.58 0.4 -0.09 -0.22 -0.24 -0.03 0.12 0.53 0.38 0.51 -0.28 0.16 0.05 0.4 0.1 0.11 0.09 0.44 0.73 -0.34 0.12 -0.72
3d MAX R DOY 0.03 0.83 0.1 0.93 0.42 0.93 0.03 0.76 0.62 0.09 0.04 0.02 -0.04 -0.09 0.08 -0.3 0 -0.13 -0.31 0.03 -0.44 0 -0.14 -0.24 -0.36 0.12 -0.04 0.16
30d MIN R 0 0.4 0 0.15 0 0.86 0.01 0.15 0.2 0.62 0.28 0.09 0.14 0.03 0.04 0 0.12 -0.25 -0.22 -0.1 0.06 -0.29 -0.12 -0.68 -0.4 -0.12 -0.68 -0.02
30d MIN R DOY 0.83 0.54 0.72 0.72 0.16 0.5 0.39 0.01 0.17 0.81 0.1 0.08 -0.35 -0.03 -0.02 0.15 -0.25 0.11 -0.08 -0.43 0.07 0.09 -0.13 -0.41 -0.44 -0.02 -0.39 -0.1
RBI 0.85 0.33 0.13 0.27 0.58 0.64 0.14 0.4 0.92 0.96 0.76 0.78 -0.12 0.35 0.31 0.2 -0.53 0.28 0.49 -0.09 -0.24 0.32 0.53 0.33 0.3 0.02 0.29 -0.69
10:90 exceedance 0.11 0.37 0.27 0.31 0.19 0.86 0.19 0.78 0.69 0.89 0.64 0.22 0.68 -0.34 -0.4 -0.38 0.31 -0.88 -0.3 0.08 0.16 -0.88 -0.32 -0.02 0.15 -0.38 -0.19 -0.19
Annual yield 0.21 0 0.06 0 0.66 0.7 0.54 0.39 0.05 0.77 0.93 0.91 0.21 0.24 0.96 0.78 -0.47 0.64 -0.01 0.64 -0.22 0.61 0.19 0.52 0.75 -0.65 0.17 -0.71
Annual BF yield 0.44 0 0.19 0.01 0.95 0.87 0.46 0.19 0.17 0.79 0.88 0.96 0.29 0.16 0 0.71 -0.49 0.66 -0.1 0.7 -0.45 0.64 0.07 0.69 0.82 -0.55 0.48 -0.74
3d MAX Q 0.09 0 0.02 0 0.36 0.85 0.81 0.86 0.06 0.3 0.99 0.6 0.49 0.19 0 0 -0.43 0.56 0.16 0.54 -0.11 0.56 0.09 0.1 0.38 -0.82 -0.19 -0.86
3d MAX Q DOY 0.88 0.23 0.42 0.3 0.54 0.92 0.58 0.11 0.33 0.99 0.67 0.39 0.05 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.12 -0.36 0.02 0 0.56 -0.33 0.02 -0.57 -0.47 -0.13 -0.6 0.45
7d MIN Q 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.95 0.26 0.74 0.59 0.66 0.39 0.7 0.33 0 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.2 0.31 0.23 -0.13 0.97 0.37 0.45 0.4 -0.08 0.38 -0.19
7d MIN Q DOY 0.19 0.79 0.08 0.51 0.16 0.01 0.76 0.12 0.85 0.29 0.44 0.78 0.08 0.3 0.97 0.73 0.59 0.93 0.29 -0.22 0.19 0.38 0.87 -0.24 -0.23 0.18 -0.26 -0.17
3d MAX BF 0.58 0.14 0.32 0.13 0.98 0.85 0.32 0.45 0.16 0.91 0.74 0.12 0.76 0.79 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.99 0.44 0.45 -0.34 0.27 -0.21 0.57 0.7 -0.73 0.33 -0.43
3d MAX BF DOY 0.3 0.83 0.71 0.77 0.43 0.4 0.24 0.04 0.74 0.12 0.84 0.82 0.42 0.57 0.45 0.11 0.7 0.04 0.65 0.52 0.23 -0.2 0.25 -0.57 -0.42 -0.07 -0.76 0.26
7d MIN BF 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.7 0.43 0.95 0.71 0.99 0.31 0.77 0.27 0 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.25 0 0.19 0.34 0.48 0.42 0.45 0.35 -0.05 0.38 -0.19
7d MIN BF DOY 0.23 0.37 0.1 0.25 0.37 0.07 0.68 0.24 0.76 0.64 0.67 0.66 0.05 0.26 0.52 0.81 0.76 0.95 0.19 0 0.46 0.38 0.14 -0.24 -0.23 0.18 -0.26 -0.17
323-2 GW 0.19 0.99 0.29 0.51 0.29 0.4 0.78 0.04 0.2 0.51 0.03 0.24 0.42 0.96 0.18 0.06 0.82 0.14 0.26 0.57 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.57 0.87 0.01 0.84 -0.25
323-2 3d MAX GW 0.15 0.37 0.09 0.16 0.17 0.42 0.65 0.19 0.01 0.27 0.22 0.18 0.43 0.7 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.21 0.29 0.55 0.04 0.26 0.36 0.55 0 -0.23 0.56 -0.49
323-2 3d MAX GW DOY 0.74 0.01 0.4 0.1 0.63 0.51 0.25 0.91 0.31 0.72 0.72 0.95 0.97 0.31 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.73 0.83 0.64 0.02 0.86 0.9 0.64 0.97 0.5 0.11 0.66
323-2 7d MIN GW 0.49 0.51 0.78 0.88 0.93 0.8 0.4 0 0.75 0.91 0.03 0.26 0.49 0.65 0.69 0.23 0.65 0.12 0.35 0.53 0.42 0.03 0.35 0.53 0 0.09 0.76 -0.1
323-2 7d MIN GW DOY 0.31 0 0.01 0 0.91 0.68 0.7 0.91 0.02 0.65 0.96 0.78 0.06 0.65 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.26 0.65 0.69 0.29 0.53 0.65 0.69 0.49 0.15 0.04 0.78
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 158
Table E-3: Winter seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
Tota
l R J
FM
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
wate
r yie
ld J
FM
BF y
ield
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
Total R JFM 0.2 0.14 0.14 -0.09 0.47 0.02 0.05 -0.36 0.68 0.48 0.75 -0.63 0.42 -0.13 0.2 -0.16 0.39 -0.44 -0.42 0.57 -0.56 -0.48 -0.18 0.15 -0.49 -0.12 -0.66 0.75 -0.67 0.02
7d MAX T JFM 0.24 0.17 0.33 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.13 0.17 -0.01 0.31 -0.35 0.01 0.14 -0.28 -0.01 0 0.18 -0.17 0.21 -0.01 -0.08 -0.12 0.53 -0.12 -0.04 -0.16 -0.14 -0.2 0.16
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.42 0.33 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.14 -0.1 0.04 0.23 0.04 0.66 -0.16 -0.02 0.33 0.05 -0.03 0.07 0.12 -0.1 0.25 -0.04 -0.25 0.08 -0.17 0.02 0.09 -0.27 -0.14 -0.21 0.2
7d MIN T JFM 0.4 0.05 0.77 0.11 -0.2 0.22 0.45 0.14 0.49 0.52 0.16 -0.29 0.39 -0.35 0.27 -0.3 0.39 -0.27 -0.01 0.36 -0.01 -0.57 0.03 0.65 -0.09 -0.64 -0.1 -0.21 -0.12 0.38
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.59 0.53 0.91 0.53 0.19 0.24 0.2 0.26 -0.3 -0.43 -0.14 0.08 -0.42 0.01 -0.47 0.5 -0.44 0 -0.64 0.21 -0.69 0.05 -0.68 -0.27 -0.55 0.17 -0.37 0.57 -0.43 -0.18
3d MAX R JFM 0 0.78 0.91 0.25 0.27 0.2 -0.36 0.17 0.28 0.05 0.44 -0.43 -0.03 -0.38 0.01 -0.01 -0.13 -0.33 -0.24 0.05 -0.47 -0.3 -0.33 -0.13 -0.65 -0.14 -0.82 0.71 -0.78 -0.08
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.93 0.72 0.42 0.19 0.15 0.24 -0.13 0.19 -0.03 -0.08 0.03 0.29 -0.16 0.17 -0.09 0.06 -0.12 0.11 0.19 0.44 0.23 -0.04 0.33 0.45 0.25 -0.06 0.31 0.08 0.26 -0.27
30d MIN R JFM 0.75 0.35 0.56 0.01 0.24 0.03 0.46 0.12 0.28 0.38 0.04 -0.31 0.47 0.13 -0.09 -0.23 0.54 -0.15 -0.32 0.62 -0.27 -0.33 -0.03 0.28 0.04 -0.17 -0.11 -0.03 -0.18 0.57
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.03 0.44 0.8 0.41 0.13 0.32 0.27 0.47 -0.18 -0.13 -0.33 -0.45 -0.01 -0.07 -0.4 -0.32 -0.11 0.12 0.29 -0.25 0.33 0.04 -0.21 -0.33 0.1 0.11 -0.3 -0.46 -0.28 0.69
water yield JFM 0.01 0.56 0.42 0.08 0.31 0.33 0.92 0.33 0.54 0.91 0.75 -0.4 0.72 -0.15 0.69 -0.4 0.68 -0.35 0.14 0.55 -0.04 -0.55
BF yield JFM 0.08 0.97 0.88 0.06 0.13 0.88 0.78 0.18 0.65 0 0.53 -0.37 0.89 -0.11 0.74 -0.59 0.85 -0.39 0.38 0.64 0.22 -0.7
3d MAX Q JFM 0 0.29 0.01 0.58 0.64 0.12 0.92 0.88 0.25 0 0.05 -0.18 0.31 0.01 0.58 -0.11 0.31 -0.2 -0.16 0.54 -0.21 -0.61
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.02 0.23 0.58 0.32 0.78 0.12 0.31 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.2 0.54 -0.53 0.28 0.11 0.58 -0.49 0.22 0.01 -0.15 0.18 0.27
7d MIN Q JFM 0.14 0.98 0.96 0.16 0.14 0.92 0.59 0.09 0.97 0 0 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.46 -0.73 0.98 -0.23 0.59 0.5 0.45 -0.7
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.66 0.64 0.24 0.22 0.97 0.18 0.56 0.65 0.82 0.61 0.7 0.97 0.34 0.98 -0.14 0.28 0.09 0.63 -0.09 -0.1 0.23 0.31
3d MAX BF JFM 0.49 0.33 0.87 0.35 0.09 0.97 0.76 0.76 0.16 0.01 0 0.03 0.71 0.09 0.62 -0.26 0.42 -0.37 0.3 0.42 0.1 -0.67
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.58 0.97 0.91 0.29 0.07 0.97 0.85 0.42 0.26 0.15 0.03 0.72 0.03 0 0.33 0.36 -0.72 0.15 -0.77 -0.57 -0.62 0.66
7d MIN BF JFM 0.16 0.99 0.82 0.16 0.12 0.67 0.69 0.05 0.71 0.01 0 0.27 0.08 0 0.77 0.14 0 -0.17 0.53 0.55 0.44 -0.71
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.12 0.53 0.68 0.35 0.99 0.24 0.7 0.61 0.69 0.22 0.16 0.5 0.45 0.44 0.02 0.2 0.61 0.55 0.2 -0.18 0.42 0.49
323-2 3d MAX GW JFM 0.17 0.59 0.75 0.98 0.02 0.46 0.56 0.31 0.35 0.7 0.28 0.65 0.99 0.07 0.8 0.4 0.01 0.12 0.57 -0.11 0.93 -0.24
323-2 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.05 0.51 0.44 0.25 0.5 0.88 0.15 0.03 0.43 0.1 0.05 0.11 0.68 0.14 0.79 0.23 0.09 0.1 0.63 0.74 -0.2 -0.51
323-2 7d MIN GW JFM 0.06 0.98 0.91 0.98 0.01 0.12 0.47 0.4 0.3 0.91 0.53 0.56 0.63 0.19 0.53 0.78 0.06 0.2 0.22 0 0.53 -0.06
323-2 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.11 0.8 0.44 0.05 0.87 0.35 0.9 0.29 0.9 0.1 0.03 0.06 0.44 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.46 0.09 0.85
323-3 3d MAX GW JFM 0.63 0.75 0.83 0.93 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.93 0.56 0.22 0.88 -0.38
323-3 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.67 0.12 0.63 0.04 0.44 0.72 0.19 0.44 0.35 0.55 -0.02 -0.53
323-3 7d MIN GW JFM 0.15 0.75 0.96 0.8 0.1 0.04 0.49 0.91 0.78 0 0.96 -0.19
323-3 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.75 0.92 0.8 0.05 0.64 0.7 0.87 0.63 0.76 0.28 0.12 0.6
323-4 3d MAX GW JFM 0.04 0.65 0.44 0.78 0.3 0 0.38 0.76 0.4 -0.48 0.99 -0.34
323-4 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.01 0.7 0.71 0.55 0.09 0.02 0.83 0.92 0.18 0.16 -0.5 -0.45
323-4 7d MIN GW JFM 0.03 0.58 0.57 0.75 0.21 0.01 0.48 0.61 0.43 0 0.14 -0.34
323-4 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.96 0.65 0.59 0.28 0.63 0.84 0.45 0.08 0.03 0.33 0.19 0.33
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 159
Table E-4: Spring seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
AM
J to
tal R
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
323-2
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
323-2
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
323-3
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
323-3
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
AMJ total R -0.22 0.43 -0.18 -0.27 0.59 0.1 0.48 -0.15 0.85 0.45 0.75 0.02 0.73 -0.72 0.3 0.29 0.69 -0.28 0.48 -0.44 0.03 -0.41 0.19 0.32 -0.06 -0.30
7d MAX T AMJ 0.21 0.18 0.26 -0.15 -0.2 0.15 -0.22 -0.11 -0.2 -0.24 -0.13 -0.29 -0.28 0.24 -0.03 -0.28 -0.31 0.15 -0.2 0.19 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.66 0.1 -0.23
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.01 0.3 -0.15 0.01 0.38 0.11 0.36 -0.21 0.45 0.13 0.36 -0.31 0.3 -0.29 0.25 -0.13 0.29 0.12 0.63 0.02 -0.05 -0.29 0.49 0.17 -0.01 -0.51
7d MIN T AMJ 0.29 0.13 0.37 0.2 -0.12 0.28 -0.14 -0.12 0.18 0.17 0.19 -0.01 0.1 0.29 -0.18 0.17 0.13 0.26 0.17 -0.15 0.07 -0.06 0.25 -0.28 0.19 -0.26
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.11 0.38 0.95 0.24 0.01 0.29 -0.08 -0.09 0.03 -0.01 -0.1 -0.11 0.09 0.32 -0.31 0.31 0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0.32 -0.13 -0.1 0.04 -0.14 -0.14 -0.24
3d MAX R AMJ 0 0.24 0.02 0.5 0.94 -0.11 0.08 -0.14 0.65 0.28 0.71 0.04 0.4 -0.4 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.07 0.66 -0.08 -0.08 0.13 0.35 0.64 -0.32 -0.56
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.55 0.38 0.51 0.1 0.09 0.52 -0.14 -0.24 0.03 0.1 -0.12 0.67 0.6 -0.35 -0.43 0.21 0.64 -0.25 -0.15 0.18 0.32 0.21 0.17 0.07 0.68 0.3
30d MIN R AMJ 0 0.2 0.03 0.41 0.63 0.63 0.43 0 0.42 0.62 0.22 0.01 0.59 0.01 0.02 0.31 0.42 0.19 0.71 0.04 -0.08 -0.45 0.58 0.3 0.06 -0.48
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.39 0.52 0.22 0.48 0.62 0.41 0.16 0.99 0.07 0.24 0.21 -0.57 -0.24 0.27 0.33 0.07 -0.27 0.14 0.36 -0.13 0.33 -0.17 0.05 0.18 -0.24 -0.23
AMJ yield 0 0.47 0.09 0.52 0.92 0.01 0.91 0.11 0.8 0.69 0.93 -0.11 0.65 -0.46 0.18 0.48 0.64 -0.18 0.6 -0.28 -0.19 -0.35
AMJ BF yield 0.09 0.38 0.66 0.54 0.97 0.31 0.72 0.01 0.38 0 0.61 -0.04 0.55 -0.19 0.41 0.22 0.49 0.04 0.64 -0.05 -0.12 -0.66
3d MAX Q AMJ 0 0.64 0.19 0.5 0.72 0 0.68 0.43 0.45 0 0.02 -0.26 0.49 -0.31 0.22 0.33 0.5 0 0.56 -0.08 -0.09 -0.21
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.93 0.3 0.27 0.97 0.69 0.89 0.01 0.97 0.03 0.71 0.88 0.35 0.25 -0.44 -0.31 0.31 0.18 -0.36 -0.32 0.09 -0.16 0.42
7d MIN Q AMJ 0 0.31 0.28 0.71 0.75 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.36 -0.58 0 0.35 0.9 -0.25 0.52 -0.14 0.18 -0.16
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0 0.39 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.14 0.2 0.96 0.33 0.08 0.5 0.26 0.1 0.02 -0.29 -0.16 -0.51 0.72 0.08 0.62 0.09 0.24
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.28 0.92 0.38 0.52 0.26 0.35 0.11 0.95 0.23 0.52 0.12 0.43 0.26 0.99 0.3 -0.51 -0.1 0.01 0.04 -0.37 -0.3 -0.77
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.29 0.32 0.65 0.53 0.26 0.36 0.44 0.27 0.81 0.07 0.43 0.23 0.26 0.2 0.56 0.05 0.33 -0.35 0.38 -0.1 0.18 0.26
7d MIN BF AMJ 0 0.26 0.29 0.64 0.67 0.29 0.01 0.12 0.34 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.52 0 0.05 0.72 0.24 -0.24 0.27 -0.14 -0.05 -0.03
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.31 0.59 0.66 0.35 0.78 0.79 0.36 0.49 0.61 0.52 0.89 1 0.19 0.38 0 0.97 0.2 0.39 0.37 0.51 -0.18 0.41
323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.12 0.54 0.03 0.6 0.91 0.02 0.63 0.01 0.26 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.36 0.13 0.83 0.91 0.29 0.45 0.29 0.15 0.32 -0.11
323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.15 0.55 0.95 0.65 0.32 0.81 0.59 0.9 0.69 0.43 0.88 0.83 0.8 0.7 0.05 0.29 0.79 0.7 0.13 0.63 0.13 0.26
323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.91 0.98 0.89 0.83 0.69 0.81 0.31 0.81 0.3 0.6 0.75 0.8 0.66 0.63 0.8 0.4 0.61 0.88 0.62 0.31 0.7 -0.06
323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.19 0.94 0.35 0.87 0.76 0.68 0.51 0.14 0.59 0.32 0.04 0.57 0.23 0.65 0.51 0.01 0.47 0.93 0.24 0.73 0.42 0.85
323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.57 0.98 0.13 0.47 0.9 0.3 0.61 0.06 0.89 0.27 0.63 -0.56
323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.34 0.03 0.62 0.4 0.68 0.04 0.84 0.37 0.59 0.42 -0.17 -0.38
323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.85 0.77 0.98 0.57 0.68 0.34 0.02 0.85 0.48 0.04 0.61 0.05
323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.38 0.49 0.11 0.44 0.47 0.07 0.37 0.13 0.49 0.07 0.25 0.89
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 160
Table E-5: Summer seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
JAS t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
JAS total R -0.41 -0.14 -0.16 -0.07 0.68 -0.06 0.44 -0.05 0.66 0.5 0.39 0.24 0.65 -0.12 0.32 0.41 0.61 0.05 0.63 -0.42 0.45 -0.69 0.38 -0.42 0.36 -0.64 0.19 -0.01 0.37 -0.21
7d MAX T JAS 0.01 -0.19 0.08 0.15 -0.36 0.01 -0.31 0.08 -0.5 -0.49 -0.5 0 -0.49 -0.36 -0.45 -0.19 -0.5 -0.29 -0.34 0.3 -0.31 0.04 -0.09 -0.14 -0.28 0.07 0.55 -0.33 0.18 -0.18
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.41 0.26 0.17 0.25 0.18 -0.02 -0.21 -0.2 0.07 0.09 0.22 -0.28 -0.02 0.66 0.28 -0.12 0.04 0.54 -0.03 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.09 0.4 0.1 0.23 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.22
7d MIN T JAS 0.34 0.64 0.32 -0.19 0.07 -0.14 -0.06 0.2 -0.08 -0.12 0.08 -0.22 -0.17 0.43 -0.01 0.11 -0.19 0.36 -0.38 0.41 -0.25 0.42 -0.1 0.45 -0.06 0.44 -0.41 0.2 -0.39 0.21
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.69 0.38 0.14 0.27 -0.01 -0.08 -0.32 0.17 -0.09 -0.21 -0.07 0.11 -0.25 0 -0.08 -0.03 -0.29 0.16 -0.34 -0.08 -0.55 0.41 -0.03 0.38 -0.09 0.31 -0.47 -0.11 -0.45 0.51
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.03 0.29 0.7 0.95 -0.13 0.29 0.02 0.7 0.54 0.66 0.04 0.52 0.39 0.54 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.3 0.04 0.34 -0.17 0.41 0.1 0.49 -0.29 -0.01 0.27 0.1 -0.01
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.74 0.94 0.9 0.43 0.66 0.46 -0.23 -0.12 -0.21 -0.15 -0.31 0.22 -0.15 -0.35 -0.18 0.38 -0.03 -0.33 0.16 -0.52 -0.16 -0.34 -0.2 -0.01 -0.27 -0.29 -0.02 0.08 -0.12 -0.45
30d MIN R JAS 0.01 0.07 0.21 0.73 0.06 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.46 0.44 0.49 0.19 0.44 0.17 0.5 -0.34 0.41 0.28 -0.06 0.34 0.17 -0.05 0.21 0.11 0.32 -0.17 0.05 0.01 0.1 -0.55
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.78 0.64 0.24 0.23 0.33 0.9 0.47 0.67 0.25 0.19 0.17 -0.18 0.22 0.35 0.19 -0.3 0.15 0.42 -0.03 0.14 0.05 -0.31 0.14 -0.1 0.13 -0.32 -0.29 -0.21 0.05 0.32
JAS yield 0 0.04 0.79 0.75 0.74 0 0.42 0.06 0.33 0.95 0.89 -0.24 0.94 0.46 0.88 0.06 0.92 0.58 0.53 -0.04 0.73 -0.47 0.64 0.06 0.73 -0.5 0.33 -0.06 0.66 0.19
JAS BF yield 0.04 0.05 0.72 0.65 0.42 0.03 0.57 0.08 0.48 0 0.9 -0.38 0.95 0.49 0.92 -0.08 0.95 0.56 0.45 -0.01 0.75 -0.45 0.69 0.09 0.8 -0.42 0.48 -0.27 0.78 0.19
3d MAX Q JAS 0.12 0.04 0.39 0.77 0.8 0 0.23 0.04 0.52 0 0 -0.33 0.8 0.66 0.95 -0.19 0.82 0.77 0.08 0.37 0.38 -0.04 0.43 0.43 0.6 -0.18 0.15 -0.09 0.39 0.14
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.36 1 0.27 0.4 0.67 0.88 0.39 0.46 0.49 0.36 0.13 0.2 -0.32 -0.35 -0.29 0.26 -0.31 -0.31 -0.11 -0.17 -0.4 0.16 -0.49 0.23 -0.42 0.03 -0.58 0.29 -0.49 -0.32
7d MIN Q JAS 0 0.05 0.93 0.52 0.32 0.03 0.57 0.08 0.39 0 0 0 0.21 0.38 0.8 0.01 0.98 0.41 0.58 -0.1 0.8 -0.69 0.66 -0.27 0.74 -0.68 0.45 -0.24 0.79 -0.02
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.66 0.16 0 0.08 0.99 0.12 0.16 0.52 0.17 0.06 0.05 0 0.16 0.14 0.68 -0.38 0.43 0.91 -0.1 0.34 0.14 0.07 -0.02 0.5 0.16 0 -0.2 0.03 0.03 0.3
3d MAX BF JAS 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.96 0.75 0.02 0.49 0.04 0.46 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 -0.26 0.83 0.79 0.2 0.2 0.49 -0.18 0.48 0.45 0.64 -0.24 0.21 -0.02 0.48 0.18
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.1 0.47 0.64 0.69 0.9 0.34 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.83 0.77 0.46 0.31 0.96 0.13 0.31 0.01 -0.38 0.44 -0.6 0.04 -0.08 -0.05 -0.23 -0.24 -0.11 -0.02 0.59 -0.2 -0.27
7d MIN BF JAS 0.01 0.04 0.87 0.46 0.26 0.03 0.9 0.11 0.56 0 0 0 0.22 0 0.08 0 0.97 0.45 0.57 -0.09 0.76 -0.73 0.55 -0.2 0.64 -0.72 0.49 -0.32 0.82 -0.09
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.84 0.26 0.03 0.15 0.55 0.03 0.2 0.27 0.09 0.02 0.02 0 0.23 0.1 0 0 0.13 0.07 -0.1 0.34 0.14 0.07 0.23 0.62 0.39 -0.05 -0.2 0.03 0.03 0.3
323-2 3d MAX GW JAS 0.03 0.29 0.93 0.22 0.28 0.34 0.62 0.85 0.93 0.08 0.14 0.81 0.74 0.05 0.76 0.54 0.15 0.05 0.76 -0.78 0.85 -0.73 0.77 -0.63 0.68 -0.62 0.53 0.23 0.59 -0.19
323-2 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.18 0.34 0.96 0.19 0.81 0.91 0.09 0.29 0.67 0.91 0.98 0.24 0.6 0.75 0.29 0.54 0.04 0.79 0.29 0 -0.56 0.44 -0.6 0.53 -0.53 0.27 -0.34 -0.24 -0.3 0.13
323-2 7d MIN GW JAS 0.14 0.33 0.95 0.43 0.07 0.29 0.62 0.6 0.88 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.2 0 0.66 0.11 0.89 0 0.66 0 0.06 -0.66 0.93 -0.59 0.92 -0.47 0.64 0.01 0.78 -0.02
323-2 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.01 0.91 0.55 0.17 0.19 0.6 0.28 0.87 0.32 0.13 0.14 0.89 0.63 0.01 0.82 0.58 0.79 0.01 0.82 0.01 0.15 0.02 -0.5 0.76 -0.42 0.91 -0.52 0.18 -0.69 0.37
323-3 3d MAX GW JAS 0.23 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.94 0.18 0.53 0.51 0.67 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.11 0.02 0.95 0.11 0.87 0.07 0.47 0.01 0.07 0 0.14 -0.29 0.95 -0.28
323-3 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.17 0.67 0.19 0.14 0.22 0.75 0.99 0.74 0.77 0.86 0.78 0.17 0.48 0.39 0.09 0.15 0.46 0.53 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.36 -0.18 0.54
323-3 7d MIN GW JAS 0.25 0.38 0.75 0.85 0.79 0.11 0.4 0.31 0.68 0.01 0 0.04 0.17 0.01 0.62 0.03 0.46 0.02 0.21 0.03 0.12 0 0.23 0 0.58 -0.25
323-3 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.02 0.84 0.47 0.16 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.6 0.32 0.1 0.17 0.57 0.94 0.02 0.99 0.46 0.74 0.01 0.88 0.06 0.45 0.17 0 0.39 0.07 0.43
323-4 3d MAX GW JAS 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.24 0.17 0.99 0.96 0.88 0.41 0.35 0.16 0.68 0.08 0.19 0.58 0.56 0.95 0.15 0.58 0.12 0.34 0.05 0.12 -0.31 0.84 -0.16
323-4 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.99 0.35 0.68 0.58 0.76 0.46 0.83 0.97 0.56 0.87 0.46 0.8 0.41 0.5 0.93 0.96 0.07 0.37 0.93 0.52 0.51 0.99 0.63 0.38 -0.47 -0.18
323-4 7d MIN GW JAS 0.29 0.63 0.88 0.26 0.19 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.89 0.04 0.01 0.26 0.15 0.01 0.93 0.16 0.58 0 0.93 0.07 0.39 0.01 0.03 0 0.17 0.02
323-4 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.56 0.63 0.53 0.56 0.13 0.99 0.19 0.1 0.37 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.37 0.96 0.4 0.63 0.46 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.73 0.96 0.29 0.65 0.63 0.96
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 161
Table E-6: Autumn seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
ON
D t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-2
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-2
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-3
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-3
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-4
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-4
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-4
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-4
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
OND total R -0.01 0.15 0.13 -0.09 0.77 -0.1 0.5 0.03 0.42 0.25 0.54 0.09 -0.11 0.03 0.48 -0.1 -0.25 -0.02 -0.46 0.31 -0.48 -0.64 -0.34 0.71 -0.31 -0.57 -0.3 0.26 -0.4 -0.32
7d MAX T OND 0.95 0.18 0.15 -0.28 -0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.2 -0.44 -0.52 -0.36 0.51 -0.69 -0.4 -0.25 0.4 -0.64 -0.05 -0.05 -0.01 -0.06 0.17 -0.31 0.09 -0.24 0.04 -0.24 0.21 -0.39 -0.15
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.38 0.29 0.03 -0.03 0.27 0.03 -0.11 -0.08 -0.05 -0.29 0.15 -0.02 -0.44 0.03 -0.09 0.23 -0.52 0.04 -0.43 0.13 -0.41 -0.49 -0.47 0.41 -0.45 -0.47 -0.39 -0.01 -0.48 -0.38
7d MIN T OND 0.45 0.39 0.87 0.18 0.04 0.12 0.46 -0.21 0.06 -0.06 0.21 0.12 -0.24 -0.46 -0.03 -0.09 -0.24 -0.06 -0.05 0 -0.01 -0.06 -0.11 0.23 -0.03 -0.25 -0.13 -0.13 -0.02 -0.08
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.6 0.1 0.87 0.3 0.08 0.05 -0.05 -0.1 0.07 0.17 0.06 -0.33 0.23 0.24 -0.02 0.26 0.23 0.72 0.09 -0.51 0.13 0.49 0.4 0.09 0.4 0.51 0.15 0.49 0.12 0.12
3d MAX R OND 0 0.84 0.11 0.83 0.66 -0.06 0.25 -0.1 0.66 0.48 0.72 -0.24 0.27 0.21 0.6 -0.03 0.15 0.19 -0.1 0.02 -0.11 -0.62 -0.19 0.7 -0.17 -0.66 -0.06 0.12 -0.18 -0.29
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.57 0.74 0.86 0.5 0.78 0.72 -0.04 -0.41 -0.02 -0.11 0.08 0.2 -0.09 0.19 0.07 0.51 -0.08 0.33 -0.23 -0.43 -0.25 -0.42 0.02 -0.14 0.01 -0.01 -0.35 0.01 -0.44 0.57
30d MIN R OND 0 0.81 0.54 0 0.79 0.14 0.8 -0.01 0.21 0.09 0.26 0.49 -0.02 0.08 0.18 -0.29 -0.08 -0.36 -0.32 0.53 -0.4 -0.57 -0.19 0.76 -0.17 -0.51 -0.08 0.38 -0.02 -0.45
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.87 0.25 0.64 0.22 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.94 0.1 0.23 -0.01 -0.02 0.14 -0.14 0.12 -0.71 0.03 -0.66 0.2 0.15 0.23 0.2 -0.01 0.01 -0.09 -0.04 0.41 -0.19 0.49 -0.19
OND yield 0.09 0.08 0.84 0.81 0.8 0 0.93 0.41 0.7 0.94 0.91 -0.36 0.75 0.35 0.92 -0.51 0.68 -0.02 0.19 0.05 0.17 -0.62 0.31 0.63 0.28 -0.66 0.44 0.12 0.41 -0.57
OND BF yield 0.32 0.03 0.27 0.83 0.51 0.05 0.66 0.72 0.37 0 0.8 -0.42 0.85 0.3 0.88 -0.59 0.79 -0.02 0.47 -0.08 0.45 -0.2 0.48 0.5 0.42 -0.44 0.65 0.2 0.62 -0.51
3d MAX Q OND 0.03 0.16 0.57 0.42 0.81 0 0.75 0.31 0.97 0 0 -0.29 0.58 0.22 0.85 -0.39 0.48 -0.03 0.07 -0.23 0.05 -0.69 0.23 0.64 0.2 -0.74 0.32 -0.01 0.28 -0.43
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.72 0.04 0.93 0.63 0.2 0.36 0.43 0.05 0.93 0.15 0.09 0.26 -0.48 -0.1 -0.23 0.3 -0.41 -0.12 -0.19 0.21 -0.29 -0.05 -0.16 0.23 -0.07 0.2 -0.51 0.42 -0.49 0.2
7d MIN Q OND 0.67 0 0.08 0.35 0.37 0.29 0.74 0.93 0.59 0 0 0.01 0.05 0.41 0.66 -0.45 0.95 0 0.65 -0.03 0.63 -0.08 0.58 0.19 0.52 -0.24 0.83 0.1 0.84 -0.38
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.92 0.11 0.9 0.06 0.35 0.43 0.47 0.75 0.59 0.17 0.24 0.39 0.72 0.1 0.32 0.11 0.4 0.29 0.02 -0.15 0.05 -0.48 0.23 0.22 0.11 -0.14 0.02 0.1 -0.04 -0.13
3d MAX BF OND 0.05 0.33 0.73 0.92 0.93 0.01 0.79 0.49 0.65 0 0 0 0.37 0 0.21 -0.42 0.58 -0.08 0.33 -0.04 0.31 -0.51 0.28 0.67 0.23 -0.63 0.58 0.19 0.51 -0.59
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.69 0.11 0.38 0.72 0.31 0.9 0.04 0.27 0 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.24 0.07 0.68 0.09 -0.39 0.67 -0.09 -0.42 -0.1 0.08 -0.09 -0.23 -0.04 0.44 -0.49 0.1 -0.57 0.49
7d MIN BF OND 0.34 0.01 0.03 0.36 0.38 0.57 0.77 0.76 0.92 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.1 0.68 0.01 0.63 0.07 0.56 0.27 0.52 -0.25 0.87 0.24 0.89 -0.49
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.93 0.86 0.87 0.83 0 0.46 0.19 0.16 0 0.94 0.94 0.9 0.64 1 0.26 0.76 0 0.71 -0.09 -0.46 -0.06 0.23 0.3 0.12 0.34 0.38 -0.1 0.4 -0.18 0.19
323-2 3d MAX GW OND 0.15 0.87 0.19 0.89 0.79 0.77 0.49 0.34 0.56 0.57 0.14 0.83 0.57 0.03 0.95 0.33 0.79 0.02 0.8 -0.4 0.98 0.21
323-2 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.35 0.97 0.7 1 0.11 0.95 0.19 0.1 0.65 0.87 0.81 0.5 0.54 0.94 0.65 0.92 0.2 0.98 0.16 0.22 -0.47 -0.08
323-2 7d MIN GW OND 0.13 0.85 0.21 0.98 0.71 0.75 0.47 0.22 0.49 0.61 0.16 0.87 0.38 0.04 0.88 0.36 0.77 0.04 0.87 0 0.14 0.21
323-2 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.03 0.62 0.13 0.86 0.12 0.04 0.2 0.07 0.56 0.04 0.56 0.02 0.89 0.81 0.14 0.11 0.81 0.84 0.5 0.53 0.81 0.54
323-3 3d MAX GW OND 0.29 0.32 0.12 0.73 0.2 0.56 0.96 0.56 0.97 0.32 0.12 0.47 0.62 0.05 0.47 0.38 0.79 0.06 0.35 -0.08 0.99 0.4 0.85 0.15 0.88 -0.4
323-3 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.01 0.77 0.19 0.48 0.78 0.01 0.66 0 0.98 0.03 0.1 0.03 0.47 0.56 0.49 0.02 0.46 0.4 0.71 0.8 -0.03 -0.6 0.12 0.65 0.08 -0.67
323-3 7d MIN GW OND 0.33 0.46 0.15 0.93 0.2 0.6 0.97 0.59 0.77 0.38 0.17 0.53 0.83 0.08 0.73 0.47 0.9 0.08 0.27 0 0.92 0.41 0.81 0.22 0.85 -0.43
323-3 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.05 0.9 0.12 0.43 0.09 0.02 0.97 0.09 0.91 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.53 0.46 0.67 0.03 0.16 0.43 0.22 0.19 0.04 0.19 0.13 0.01 0.19 0.37
323-4 3d MAX GW OND 0.37 0.48 0.24 0.71 0.65 0.85 0.3 0.81 0.22 0.18 0.03 0.34 0.11 0 0.96 0.06 0.13 0 0.76 0 0.75 0 0.72 0.28 0.95 -0.53
323-4 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.45 0.54 0.97 0.7 0.12 0.73 0.97 0.25 0.57 0.73 0.55 0.97 0.19 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.76 0.47 0.22 0.69 0.04 0.54 0.97 0.4 0.1 -0.37
323-4 7d MIN GW OND 0.22 0.23 0.14 0.96 0.73 0.59 0.18 0.96 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.4 0.13 0 0.91 0.11 0.07 0 0.6 0 0.83 0 0.6 0 0.76 -0.51
323-4 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.34 0.65 0.25 0.81 0.72 0.39 0.07 0.17 0.57 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.56 0.25 0.7 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.57 0.26 0.04 0.21 0.3 0.1 0.26 0.11
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 162
Table E-7: Annual analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-value is
below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
RBI
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
323-2
GW
323-2
3d M
AX G
W
323-2
3d M
AX G
W D
OY
323-2
7d M
IN G
W
323-2
7d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.15 0.71 -0.3 0.3 -0.04 0.37 -0.08 -0.09 0.25 0.44 -0.02 -0.08 0.3 -0.19 -0.08 -0.34 0.01 -0.49 -0.27 -0.08 -0.25 -0.45 -0.23 -0.38 -0.35 0.07 -0.2 0.29
Total P 0.39 -0.3 0.83 -0.37 0.14 0.01 -0.14 0.3 0.02 -0.12 -0.06 0.16 -0.16 0.71 0.56 0.69 -0.23 0.32 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.27 0.27 -0.02 0.13 -0.59 -0.2 -0.69
PET 0 0.08 -0.46 0.37 -0.03 0.23 -0.04 -0.12 0.19 0.33 0.04 -0.34 0.21 -0.41 -0.3 -0.43 0.14 -0.36 -0.36 -0.16 -0.12 -0.41 -0.32 -0.24 -0.38 0.18 -0.07 0.51
P-PET 0.07 0 0 -0.38 0.13 -0.03 -0.08 0.28 -0.02 -0.19 -0.04 0.19 -0.19 0.69 0.54 0.67 -0.21 0.34 0.16 0.32 0.05 0.34 0.3 0.16 0.31 -0.4 -0.02 -0.69
7d MAX T 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.02 -0.07 0.09 0.14 -0.22 0.1 0.36 0.17 -0.14 0.23 -0.03 0.03 -0.19 0.12 -0.3 -0.3 -0.01 -0.14 -0.3 -0.16 -0.24 -0.35 -0.07 0.02 -0.11
7d MAX T DOY 0.82 0.43 0.85 0.46 0.69 -0.01 0.07 0.21 -0.01 -0.03 0.09 0.1 -0.01 -0.1 -0.03 0.08 0.01 -0.01 0.48 0.06 -0.19 0.08 0.37 -0.24 -0.18 0.13 0.02 -0.2
7d MIN T 0.02 0.97 0.18 0.85 0.61 0.95 0.08 -0.03 0.26 0.33 0.1 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.05 -0.12 -0.23 -0.05 0.19 -0.16 -0.19 -0.05 -0.07 0.09 -0.33 -0.24 -0.11
7d MIN T DOY 0.64 0.42 0.82 0.66 0.4 0.69 0.66 -0.09 0.03 0.18 0.3 0.17 0.08 -0.19 -0.26 0.06 0.39 -0.06 0.32 -0.17 0.41 0.03 0.28 -0.4 -0.35 0.04 -0.67 0.04
3d MAX R 0.62 0.08 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.22 0.88 0.62 -0.06 -0.15 -0.17 -0.01 0.14 0.41 0.3 0.34 -0.19 0.1 0.05 0.3 0.08 0.05 0.1 0.33 0.56 -0.29 0.16 -0.6
3d MAX R DOY 0.14 0.89 0.27 0.9 0.55 0.97 0.13 0.84 0.73 0.06 0.05 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.08 -0.19 0.08 -0.12 -0.21 -0.01 -0.32 -0.03 -0.08 -0.16 -0.31 0.11 -0.07 0.07
30d MIN R 0.01 0.5 0.05 0.28 0.03 0.87 0.05 0.29 0.39 0.73 0.21 0.08 0.1 0 0.03 0 0.08 -0.2 -0.15 -0.08 0.05 -0.23 -0.08 -0.58 -0.34 -0.11 -0.53 -0.03
30d MIN R DOY 0.9 0.71 0.8 0.8 0.33 0.6 0.58 0.08 0.32 0.76 0.21 0.03 -0.3 -0.03 -0.01 0.08 -0.14 0.1 -0.03 -0.27 0.08 0.1 -0.08 -0.29 -0.31 0 -0.29 -0.07
RBI 0.79 0.57 0.23 0.52 0.63 0.73 0.43 0.57 0.97 0.97 0.8 0.91 -0.08 0.23 0.21 0.12 -0.45 0.23 0.36 -0.05 -0.14 0.27 0.41 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.14 -0.43
10:90 exceedance 0.3 0.57 0.47 0.52 0.43 0.97 0.47 0.79 0.63 0.97 0.73 0.3 0.79 -0.23 -0.3 -0.3 0.23 -0.71 -0.19 0.05 0.1 -0.71 -0.19 -0.07 0.11 -0.33 -0.14 -0.14
Annual yield 0.52 0 0.15 0.01 0.91 0.73 0.68 0.52 0.15 0.91 1 0.91 0.43 0.43 0.85 0.63 -0.34 0.47 -0.01 0.45 -0.21 0.43 0.16 0.43 0.56 -0.56 0.21 -0.64
Annual BF yield 0.79 0.04 0.3 0.05 0.91 0.91 0.63 0.38 0.3 0.79 0.93 0.97 0.47 0.3 0 0.52 -0.36 0.49 -0.03 0.52 -0.36 0.45 0.1 0.57 0.72 -0.39 0.36 -0.64
3d MAX Q 0.23 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.52 0.79 0.85 0.85 0.23 0.52 1 0.79 0.68 0.3 0.02 0.06 -0.32 0.41 0.14 0.38 -0.1 0.41 0.1 0.07 0.22 -0.67 -0.14 -0.71
3d MAX Q DOY 0.97 0.43 0.63 0.47 0.68 0.97 0.68 0.17 0.52 0.79 0.8 0.63 0.11 0.43 0.23 0.2 0.27 -0.3 0.05 0.03 0.43 -0.3 0.05 -0.43 -0.39 -0.06 -0.5 0.36
7d MIN Q 0.07 0.27 0.2 0.23 0.3 0.97 0.43 0.85 0.74 0.68 0.49 0.74 0.43 0 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.3 0.16 0.14 -0.12 0.91 0.25 0.36 0.28 -0.06 0.29 -0.14
7d MIN Q DOY 0.34 0.74 0.2 0.57 0.3 0.08 0.85 0.26 0.85 0.47 0.61 0.91 0.2 0.52 0.97 0.91 0.63 0.85 0.57 -0.16 0.14 0.21 0.82 -0.14 -0.11 0.11 -0.21 -0.21
3d MAX BF 0.79 0.3 0.57 0.27 0.97 0.85 0.52 0.57 0.3 0.97 0.8 0.34 0.85 0.85 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.91 0.63 0.57 -0.27 0.19 -0.16 0.36 0.44 -0.56 0.14 -0.29
3d MAX BF DOY 0.38 0.91 0.68 0.85 0.63 0.52 0.57 0.14 0.79 0.27 0.86 0.79 0.63 0.74 0.47 0.2 0.74 0.13 0.68 0.63 0.34 -0.16 0.19 -0.43 -0.33 0 -0.64 0.21
7d MIN BF 0.11 0.34 0.15 0.23 0.3 0.79 0.52 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.44 0.74 0.34 0 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.3 0 0.47 0.52 0 0.25 0.36 0.22 0 0.29 -0.14
7d MIN BF DOY 0.43 0.34 0.27 0.3 0.57 0.2 0.85 0.34 0.74 0.79 0.8 0.79 0.15 0.52 0.57 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.38 0 0.57 0.57 0.38 -0.14 -0.11 0.11 -0.21 -0.21
323-2 GW 0.28 0.95 0.5 0.67 0.5 0.5 0.85 0.25 0.35 0.67 0.08 0.42 0.61 0.87 0.29 0.14 0.87 0.29 0.39 0.74 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.74 0.73 0.04 0.73 -0.2
323-2 3d MAX GW 0.3 0.71 0.25 0.36 0.3 0.59 0.79 0.29 0.07 0.36 0.3 0.36 0.47 0.78 0.12 0.03 0.57 0.3 0.47 0.78 0.23 0.29 0.57 0.78 0.02 -0.15 0.47 -0.38
323-2 3d MAX GW DOY 0.83 0.06 0.59 0.22 0.83 0.7 0.32 0.91 0.38 0.75 0.75 1 0.89 0.38 0.12 0.3 0.05 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.12 0.38 1 0.78 0.9 0.67 0.04 0.54
323-2 7d MIN GW 0.58 0.58 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.5 0.03 0.67 0.85 0.12 0.42 0.74 0.74 0.61 0.39 0.74 0.21 0.49 0.61 0.74 1 0.49 0.61 0.02 0.17 0.9 -0.11
323-2 7d MIN GW DOY 0.42 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.76 0.58 0.76 0.9 0.07 0.85 0.94 0.85 0.29 0.74 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.39 0.74 0.61 0.49 0.09 0.74 0.61 0.58 0.28 0.11 0.76
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 163
Table E-8: Winter seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
JFM
tota
l R
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
JFM total R 0.14 0.11 0.08 -0.09 0.32 0 0.04 -0.26 0.52 0.34 0.54 -0.47 0.3 -0.07 0.16 -0.15 0.27 -0.31 -0.27 0.43 -0.39 -0.37 -0.11 0.12 -0.38 -0.04 -0.51 0.64 -0.56 0
7d MAX T JFM 0.41 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.12 -0.01 0.19 -0.25 0.03 0.11 -0.14 0.01 0.01 0.15 -0.12 0.2 0 -0.03 -0.02 0.4 -0.11 0 -0.16 -0.09 -0.2 0.11
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.54 0.51 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.11 -0.08 0.04 0.16 0 0.45 -0.14 -0.02 0.3 0 -0.05 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.12 -0.03 -0.24 0.18 -0.14 0 0.07 -0.27 -0.12 -0.22 0.19
7d MIN T JFM 0.65 0.15 0.81 0.09 -0.13 0.16 0.34 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.12 -0.19 0.27 -0.29 0.14 -0.19 0.3 -0.2 -0.03 0.3 -0.03 -0.4 -0.02 0.54 -0.11 -0.45 -0.07 -0.14 -0.11 0.33
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.59 0.53 0.87 0.6 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.21 -0.23 -0.3 -0.08 0.1 -0.3 0.03 -0.34 0.36 -0.32 -0.01 -0.46 0.2 -0.55 0.06 -0.49 -0.19 -0.45 0.14 -0.3 0.47 -0.34 -0.14
3d MAX R JFM 0.05 0.85 0.94 0.46 0.38 0.16 -0.28 0.1 0.19 -0.03 0.25 -0.32 -0.03 -0.31 0.01 -0.01 -0.1 -0.24 -0.15 0 -0.33 -0.22 -0.29 -0.12 -0.56 -0.13 -0.64 0.55 -0.6 -0.05
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.98 0.82 0.52 0.35 0.31 0.35 -0.09 0.15 -0.02 -0.07 0 0.25 -0.16 0.15 -0.09 0.05 -0.13 0.07 0.11 0.35 0.14 -0.02 0.18 0.38 0.13 0 0.2 0.07 0.16 -0.22
30d MIN R JFM 0.83 0.48 0.64 0.04 0.43 0.1 0.59 0.1 0.25 0.35 0.03 -0.2 0.43 0.1 -0.05 -0.22 0.5 -0.13 -0.28 0.52 -0.24 -0.28 0 0.17 0 -0.14 -0.05 0 -0.11 0.5
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.12 0.63 0.82 0.53 0.23 0.56 0.37 0.56 -0.14 -0.05 -0.25 -0.34 -0.01 -0.07 -0.27 -0.28 -0.08 0.13 0.21 -0.2 0.27 0 -0.16 -0.26 0.02 0.04 -0.24 -0.37 -0.2 0.6
JFM yield 0.06 0.68 0.58 0.2 0.42 0.52 0.94 0.39 0.63 0.78 0.58 -0.25 0.56 -0.09 0.6 -0.26 0.49 -0.27 -0.02 0.43 -0.11 -0.43
JFM BF yield 0.23 0.97 1 0.2 0.3 0.91 0.82 0.22 0.85 0 0.41 -0.25 0.74 -0.11 0.6 -0.4 0.67 -0.31 0.16 0.48 0.07 -0.57
3d MAX Q JFM 0.05 0.52 0.11 0.68 0.79 0.38 1 0.93 0.38 0.03 0.15 -0.1 0.23 0.02 0.41 -0.1 0.25 -0.13 -0.16 0.38 -0.16 -0.48
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.09 0.38 0.63 0.52 0.73 0.27 0.4 0.49 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.74 -0.38 0.2 0.1 0.44 -0.32 0.17 -0.02 -0.08 0.16 0.2
7d MIN Q JFM 0.3 0.91 0.94 0.34 0.3 0.91 0.59 0.13 0.97 0.04 0 0.43 0.17 -0.02 0.34 -0.58 0.93 -0.17 0.38 0.33 0.29 -0.61
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.82 0.7 0.3 0.31 0.91 0.28 0.61 0.73 0.82 0.76 0.7 0.94 0.49 0.94 -0.13 0.21 0.04 0.57 -0.05 -0.05 0.14 0.24
3d MAX BF JFM 0.57 0.63 1 0.63 0.23 0.97 0.76 0.86 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.74 0.23 0.65 -0.17 0.27 -0.31 0.2 0.33 0.11 -0.52
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.61 0.97 0.87 0.51 0.21 0.97 0.88 0.45 0.32 0.37 0.16 0.73 0.11 0.03 0.48 0.56 -0.6 0.13 -0.69 -0.42 -0.51 0.56
7d MIN BF JFM 0.34 0.97 0.87 0.3 0.26 0.74 0.65 0.07 0.79 0.07 0.01 0.38 0.27 0 0.88 0.34 0.02 -0.13 0.38 0.38 0.29 -0.61
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.27 0.61 0.7 0.5 0.97 0.4 0.81 0.65 0.66 0.35 0.27 0.66 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.27 0.65 0.66 0.18 -0.13 0.32 0.33
323-2 3d MAX GW JFM 0.39 0.71 0.92 0.93 0.13 0.64 0.74 0.39 0.51 0.95 0.67 0.67 0.95 0.28 0.9 0.58 0.03 0.28 0.61 -0.1 0.82 -0.18
323-2 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.17 0.54 0.71 0.35 0.53 1 0.27 0.08 0.54 0.22 0.16 0.28 0.84 0.36 0.89 0.36 0.23 0.28 0.72 0.76 -0.16 -0.25
323-2 7d MIN GW JFM 0.21 1 0.92 0.93 0.06 0.29 0.67 0.46 0.39 0.76 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.42 0.7 0.76 0.14 0.42 0.36 0 0.61 -0.06
323-2 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.24 0.92 0.45 0.2 0.85 0.5 0.96 0.38 1 0.21 0.09 0.16 0.57 0.06 0.51 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.35 0.57 0.43 0.85
323-3 3d MAX GW JFM 0.76 0.95 0.61 0.95 0.15 0.42 0.62 1 0.67 0.07 0.73 -0.36
323-3 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.75 0.26 0.69 0.11 0.6 0.75 0.28 0.64 0.48 0.85 -0.02 -0.33
323-3 7d MIN GW JFM 0.28 0.76 1 0.76 0.19 0.1 0.71 1 0.95 0.02 0.95 -0.13
323-3 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.9 1 0.85 0.19 0.71 0.71 1 0.7 0.9 0.31 0.35 0.71
323-4 3d MAX GW JFM 0.13 0.67 0.45 0.85 0.41 0.04 0.57 0.88 0.5 -0.32 0.96 -0.27
323-4 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.04 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.17 0.1 0.85 1 0.3 0.36 -0.37 -0.37
323-4 7d MIN GW JFM 0.1 0.58 0.53 0.76 0.33 0.07 0.66 0.76 0.58 0 0.3 -0.27
323-4 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 1 0.76 0.59 0.36 0.7 0.88 0.54 0.14 0.07 0.45 0.3 0.45
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 164
Table E-9: Spring seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
AM
J to
tal R
7d M
AX T
AM
J
37 M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
323-2
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
323-2
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
323-3
3d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
323-3
7d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
AMJ total R -0.14 0.31 -0.13 -0.18 0.4 0.06 0.34 -0.09 0.71 0.35 0.56 0.03 0.6 -0.54 0.2 0.22 0.52 -0.22 0.3 -0.32 -0.03 -0.3 0.16 0.24 0.02 -0.21
7d MAX T AMJ 0.42 0.12 0.18 -0.11 -0.14 0.08 -0.15 -0.08 -0.12 -0.18 -0.1 -0.13 -0.2 0.19 -0.03 -0.22 -0.2 0.14 -0.15 0.17 0 -0.04 -0.02 -0.45 0.05 -0.17
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.06 0.5 -0.12 0 0.28 0.1 0.24 -0.14 0.33 0.13 0.26 -0.23 0.23 -0.22 0.15 -0.08 0.21 0.11 0.51 -0.02 0 -0.24 0.45 0.15 0.07 -0.36
7d MIN T AMJ 0.46 0.29 0.47 0.15 -0.07 0.22 -0.13 -0.08 0.12 0.14 0.13 -0.03 0.09 0.19 -0.16 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.09 -0.08 0 -0.04 0.13 -0.24 0.05 -0.17
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.29 0.53 0.99 0.39 0.01 0.21 -0.05 -0.06 0.02 -0.02 -0.05 -0.08 0.08 0.26 -0.24 0.23 0.08 -0.07 -0.06 0.18 -0.13 -0.1 0 -0.12 -0.08 -0.21
3d MAX R AMJ 0.02 0.43 0.1 0.67 0.95 -0.07 0.06 -0.1 0.45 0.2 0.56 0.07 0.26 -0.28 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.45 -0.05 0 0.08 0.24 0.38 -0.2 -0.48
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.71 0.64 0.56 0.19 0.22 0.7 -0.08 -0.16 0.06 0.04 -0.05 0.56 0.44 -0.23 -0.29 0.19 0.52 -0.17 -0.11 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.46 0.26
30d MIN R AMJ 0.04 0.37 0.16 0.46 0.77 0.74 0.64 0.01 0.28 0.45 0.13 0.03 0.43 -0.01 -0.01 0.22 0.31 0.14 0.58 0.02 -0.06 -0.34 0.42 0.27 0.05 -0.33
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.58 0.65 0.41 0.65 0.71 0.57 0.35 0.96 0.02 0.19 0.12 -0.43 -0.11 0.24 0.25 0.11 -0.17 0.12 0.33 -0.05 0.24 -0.15 0.05 0.05 -0.24 -0.21
AMJ yield 0 0.66 0.22 0.66 0.94 0.09 0.84 0.32 0.95 0.49 0.78 -0.11 0.5 -0.32 0.1 0.34 0.47 -0.14 0.38 -0.24 -0.2 -0.3
AMJ BF yield 0.2 0.52 0.64 0.61 0.94 0.47 0.89 0.09 0.49 0.07 0.42 -0.09 0.37 -0.17 0.28 0.16 0.33 0.01 0.47 -0.07 -0.11 -0.58
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.03 0.73 0.34 0.63 0.86 0.03 0.86 0.63 0.66 0 0.12 -0.17 0.33 -0.18 0.17 0.21 0.33 0 0.38 -0.16 -0.11 -0.19
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.92 0.66 0.4 0.92 0.78 0.81 0.03 0.92 0.11 0.71 0.76 0.54 0.2 -0.31 -0.22 0.26 0.24 -0.27 -0.22 0.09 -0.18 0.31
7d MIN Q AMJ 0.02 0.47 0.4 0.76 0.78 0.35 0.1 0.11 0.68 0.05 0.17 0.24 0.47 -0.42 -0.01 0.26 0.77 -0.19 0.38 -0.07 0.16 -0.14
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.04 0.51 0.43 0.51 0.34 0.3 0.42 0.97 0.4 0.24 0.55 0.53 0.27 0.12 -0.25 -0.16 -0.4 0.64 0.07 0.52 0.02 0.2
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.47 0.92 0.59 0.56 0.4 0.56 0.3 0.97 0.37 0.71 0.32 0.54 0.43 0.97 0.38 -0.35 -0.12 0.01 -0.02 -0.29 -0.24 -0.69
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.44 0.44 0.77 0.67 0.4 0.53 0.5 0.44 0.7 0.22 0.57 0.46 0.35 0.36 0.56 0.19 0.28 -0.28 0.3 -0.07 0.12 0.23
7d MIN BF AMJ 0.05 0.47 0.45 0.56 0.78 0.52 0.05 0.25 0.54 0.08 0.22 0.24 0.39 0 0.14 0.66 0.32 -0.19 0.2 -0.07 -0.02 -0.03
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.43 0.61 0.7 0.49 0.81 0.82 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.61 0.96 1 0.32 0.49 0.01 0.96 0.31 0.49 0.32 0.43 -0.14 0.39
323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.34 0.64 0.09 0.78 0.84 0.14 0.74 0.05 0.29 0.28 0.17 0.28 0.53 0.28 0.85 0.95 0.4 0.58 0.37 0.14 0.24 -0.08 0.6 0.02 0.29 -0.44
323-2 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.31 0.6 0.96 0.81 0.58 0.89 0.7 0.96 0.89 0.5 0.85 0.67 0.8 0.85 0.12 0.42 0.85 0.85 0.21 0.67 0.08 0.21 0.18 -0.18 0.13 0.05
323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.93 1 1 1 0.69 1 0.74 0.85 0.45 0.58 0.76 0.76 0.62 0.67 0.95 0.5 0.75 0.95 0.69 0.45 0.81 -0.04 0.16 -0.33 0.64 0.26
323-2 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.34 0.91 0.45 0.91 0.75 0.81 0.59 0.28 0.64 0.39 0.08 0.59 0.39 0.7 0.58 0.03 0.52 0.94 0.26 0.81 0.51 0.91 -0.21 0.16 -0.05 0.17
323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.63 0.96 0.17 0.71 1 0.48 0.79 0.2 0.87 0.07 0.62 0.67 0.56 0.2 0.49 -0.44
323-3 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.48 0.16 0.66 0.48 0.73 0.25 0.79 0.42 0.87 0.95 0.62 0.35 0.66 0.56 -0.09 -0.21
323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.96 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.82 0.56 0.15 0.87 0.48 0.42 0.71 0.04 0.89 0.13 0.79 0.06
323-3 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.53 0.61 0.28 0.61 0.54 0.13 0.45 0.33 0.53 0.2 0.9 0.48 0.65 0.17 0.53 0.87
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 165
Table E-10: Summer seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
JAS t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-2
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-2
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-3
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-3
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
AS
323-4
3d M
AX G
W J
AS D
OY
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
AS
323-4
7d M
IN G
W J
AS D
OY
JAS total R -0.29 -0.11 -0.11 -0.05 0.49 -0.03 0.31 -0.03 0.49 0.35 0.31 0.17 0.43 -0.04 0.26 0.33 0.38 0.07 0.52 -0.32 0.36 -0.58 0.3 -0.35 0.27 -0.48 0.11 -0.05 0.24 -0.16
7d MAX T JAS 0.09 -0.13 0.06 0.11 -0.27 0.01 -0.2 0.04 -0.34 -0.35 -0.37 -0.05 -0.34 -0.25 -0.32 -0.1 -0.35 -0.19 -0.18 0.25 -0.15 -0.02 0.03 -0.1 -0.12 0.08 0.42 -0.2 0.11 -0.2
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.53 0.47 0.13 0.19 0.13 -0.02 -0.16 -0.16 0.01 0.03 0.15 -0.2 -0.04 0.49 0.18 -0.11 0.03 0.4 -0.02 0 0.02 0.12 0.05 0.33 0.02 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.09
7d MIN T JAS 0.51 0.74 0.47 -0.13 0.03 -0.11 -0.02 0.14 -0.04 -0.09 0.04 -0.19 -0.13 0.31 0 0.07 -0.15 0.25 -0.27 0.29 -0.18 0.32 0.03 0.35 0 0.28 -0.24 0.15 -0.2 0.2
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.75 0.51 0.27 0.44 -0.01 -0.03 -0.23 0.12 -0.11 -0.21 -0.08 0.1 -0.3 0.02 -0.09 -0.03 -0.3 0.13 -0.24 -0.05 -0.5 0.3 -0.05 0.29 -0.12 0.16 -0.32 -0.11 -0.41 0.37
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.11 0.47 0.88 0.95 -0.08 0.18 0.02 0.5 0.4 0.44 0.04 0.35 0.24 0.37 0.15 0.34 0.35 0.21 -0.02 0.24 -0.08 0.24 0.1 0.33 -0.25 -0.07 0.2 -0.02 0.02
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.85 0.96 0.92 0.53 0.85 0.65 -0.17 -0.1 -0.15 -0.1 -0.24 0.17 -0.1 -0.27 -0.16 0.24 -0.03 -0.24 0.09 -0.36 -0.18 -0.2 -0.18 0 -0.18 -0.24 -0.07 0.05 -0.11 -0.33
30d MIN R JAS 0.06 0.25 0.35 0.9 0.18 0.28 0.33 0.04 0.34 0.26 0.34 0.14 0.34 0.07 0.32 -0.2 0.29 0.16 -0.06 0.29 0.21 -0.05 0.18 0.07 0.27 -0.08 0.02 0.05 0.07 -0.42
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.85 0.82 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.93 0.54 0.8 0.21 0.13 0.12 -0.14 0.21 0.31 0.13 -0.26 0.13 0.37 0 0.12 -0.03 -0.25 0.06 -0.11 0.09 -0.22 -0.27 -0.13 0.04 0.22
JAS yield 0.05 0.18 0.95 0.87 0.67 0.04 0.57 0.18 0.42 0.84 0.74 -0.19 0.79 0.26 0.69 0.01 0.78 0.41 0.36 -0.05 0.58 -0.38 0.48 0.07 0.58 -0.45 0.29 -0.05 0.51 0.02
JAS BF yield 0.16 0.16 0.91 0.74 0.43 0.11 0.69 0.3 0.61 0 0.72 -0.29 0.84 0.31 0.76 -0.09 0.85 0.4 0.33 -0.02 0.55 -0.38 0.55 0.1 0.64 -0.38 0.42 -0.15 0.64 0.07
3d MAX Q JAS 0.23 0.15 0.57 0.87 0.76 0.08 0.36 0.18 0.65 0 0 -0.23 0.59 0.44 0.84 -0.15 0.6 0.59 0.06 0.29 0.33 -0.05 0.33 0.31 0.42 -0.18 0.16 -0.1 0.29 0.07
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.51 0.84 0.43 0.48 0.69 0.89 0.51 0.59 0.59 0.48 0.26 0.37 -0.25 -0.26 -0.19 0.2 -0.23 -0.23 -0.05 -0.2 -0.32 0.13 -0.35 0.19 -0.32 0.03 -0.4 0.23 -0.36 -0.27
7d MIN Q JAS 0.09 0.18 0.86 0.61 0.24 0.16 0.69 0.18 0.42 0 0 0.01 0.34 0.21 0.6 -0.01 0.93 0.26 0.42 -0.08 0.64 -0.55 0.48 -0.17 0.58 -0.51 0.33 -0.1 0.64 -0.02
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.87 0.33 0.04 0.23 0.95 0.36 0.3 0.78 0.22 0.3 0.23 0.08 0.31 0.43 0.49 -0.3 0.25 0.85 0.03 0.25 0.12 0.02 0 0.42 0.09 0.02 -0.16 0 0.07 0.2
3d MAX BF JAS 0.3 0.21 0.49 1 0.72 0.15 0.53 0.21 0.61 0 0 0 0.48 0.01 0.05 -0.2 0.62 0.6 0.15 0.15 0.36 -0.18 0.36 0.38 0.45 -0.22 0.16 0 0.38 0.07
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.19 0.69 0.68 0.78 0.92 0.56 0.36 0.44 0.31 0.98 0.73 0.56 0.43 0.98 0.24 -0.2 -0.02 -0.3 0.34 -0.44 0.11 -0.09 0.03 -0.14 -0.14 -0.09 0 0.46 -0.14 -0.19
7d MIN BF JAS 0.13 0.16 0.91 0.57 0.24 0.18 0.91 0.25 0.61 0 0 0.01 0.37 0 0.33 0.62 0.93 0.28 0.42 -0.08 0.58 -0.61 0.36 -0.14 0.45 -0.58 0.38 -0.15 0.69 -0.07
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.78 0.46 0.11 0.33 0.63 0.16 0.36 0.54 0.14 0.1 0.11 0.01 0.37 0.3 0 0.6 0.24 0.28 0.03 0.25 0.12 0.02 0.21 0.52 0.3 -0.05 -0.16 0 0.07 0.2
323-2 3d MAX GW JAS 0.09 0.57 0.96 0.39 0.45 0.51 0.78 0.85 1 0.25 0.29 0.85 0.89 0.17 0.93 0.15 0.28 0.17 0.93 -0.66 0.67 -0.61 0.64 -0.48 0.51 -0.44 0.38 0.2 0.42 -0.07
323-2 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.31 0.43 1 0.36 0.87 0.96 0.25 0.36 0.71 0.88 0.96 0.36 0.52 0.79 0.43 0.15 0.16 0.79 0.43 0.02 -0.42 0.31 -0.45 0.46 -0.35 0.18 -0.3 -0.2 -0.25 0.05
323-2 7d MIN GW JAS 0.25 0.64 0.96 0.57 0.1 0.45 0.57 0.51 0.92 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.31 0.03 0.71 0.36 0.72 0.05 0.71 0.02 0.17 -0.55 0.82 -0.44 0.78 -0.3 0.47 0 0.6 -0.07
323-2 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.05 0.96 0.72 0.32 0.35 0.8 0.53 0.88 0.43 0.22 0.22 0.88 0.68 0.07 0.96 -0.18 0.78 0.03 0.96 0.03 0.32 0.07 -0.39 0.63 -0.34 0.81 -0.44 0.17 -0.58 0.34
323-3 3d MAX GW JAS 0.34 0.93 0.89 0.93 0.88 0.45 0.57 0.57 0.85 0.11 0.07 0.29 0.26 0.11 1 0.36 0.92 0.25 0.51 0.04 0.2 0 0.27 -0.21 0.85 -0.22
323-3 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.27 0.75 0.29 0.27 0.37 0.75 1 0.83 0.74 0.83 0.75 0.32 0.55 0.59 0.18 0.38 0.67 0.67 0.08 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.05 0.51 -0.17 0.42
323-3 7d MIN GW JAS 0.39 0.71 0.96 1 0.72 0.29 0.57 0.39 0.78 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.31 0.05 0.78 0.45 0.67 0.14 0.34 0.13 0.32 0.01 0.34 0 0.59 -0.18
323-3 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.11 0.8 0.6 0.37 0.61 0.44 0.46 0.8 0.49 0.14 0.22 0.57 0.92 0.09 0.96 -0.22 0.77 0.05 0.88 0.2 0.61 0.4 0 0.5 0.17 0.57
323-4 3d MAX GW JAS 0.76 0.22 0.8 0.5 0.36 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.45 0.42 0.22 0.67 0.25 0.35 0.67 0.16 1 0.28 0.67 0.28 0.4 0.17 0.21 -0.31 0.69 -0.16
323-4 3d MAX GW JAS DOY 0.89 0.57 0.72 0.67 0.77 0.57 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.89 0.67 0.78 0.52 0.78 1 0 0.18 0.67 1 0.57 0.58 1 0.64 0.39 -0.41 -0.15
323-4 7d MIN GW JAS 0.5 0.76 0.9 0.58 0.23 0.95 0.76 0.85 0.9 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.31 0.04 0.85 0.38 0.7 0.03 0.85 0.22 0.49 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.24 -0.02
323-4 7d MIN GW JAS DOY 0.67 0.58 0.8 0.58 0.3 0.95 0.35 0.22 0.53 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.45 0.95 0.58 0.07 0.6 0.85 0.58 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.34 0.67 0.67 0.95
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 166
Table E-11: Autumn seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Innisfil Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
ON
D t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
323-2
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-2
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-2
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-2
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-3
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-3
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-3
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-3
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-4
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
323-4
3d M
AX G
W O
ND
DO
Y
323-4
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
323-4
7d M
IN G
W O
ND
DO
Y
OND total R 0 0.12 0.06 -0.04 0.54 -0.06 0.33 0.03 0.28 0.15 0.35 0.1 -0.07 0.06 0.32 -0.09 -0.15 0 -0.35 0.2 -0.35 -0.5 -0.21 0.5 -0.15 -0.4 -0.2 0.18 -0.24 -0.24
7d MAX T OND 0.99 0.12 0.1 -0.19 -0.02 0.02 -0.02 -0.12 -0.29 -0.37 -0.22 0.35 -0.56 -0.27 -0.16 0.3 -0.46 -0.05 0.02 -0.02 0.02 0.09 -0.21 0.02 -0.15 0.03 -0.2 0.15 -0.31 -0.12
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.49 0.48 0.01 -0.02 0.19 0.02 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.21 0.08 -0.02 -0.32 0.02 -0.03 0.16 -0.36 0.05 -0.32 0.1 -0.32 -0.4 -0.33 0.32 -0.3 -0.34 -0.27 -0.02 -0.39 -0.33
7d MIN T OND 0.71 0.58 0.94 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.3 -0.15 0.06 -0.01 0.19 0.08 -0.15 -0.33 -0.01 -0.06 -0.16 -0.07 -0.09 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.15 0.17 -0.09 -0.25 -0.09 -0.04 -0.05 -0.08
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.81 0.28 0.89 0.71 0.05 0.01 -0.04 -0.07 0.04 0.12 0.03 -0.24 0.18 0.17 -0.01 0.17 0.18 0.59 0.09 -0.43 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.35 0.39 0.09 0.33 0.13 0.12
3d MAX R OND 0 0.91 0.25 0.81 0.76 -0.05 0.15 -0.06 0.53 0.37 0.6 -0.16 0.24 0.15 0.49 0.02 0.13 0.16 -0.05 0.06 -0.05 -0.35 -0.15 0.5 -0.15 -0.49 -0.05 0.11 -0.09 -0.2
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.73 0.93 0.9 0.66 0.94 0.75 -0.04 -0.3 -0.05 -0.13 0.05 0.17 -0.05 0.13 -0.01 0.37 -0.04 0.28 -0.15 -0.34 -0.15 -0.34 0.02 -0.09 0.02 -0.02 -0.31 0 -0.35 0.45
30d MIN R OND 0.05 0.89 0.68 0.08 0.83 0.38 0.8 0 0.13 0.03 0.15 0.34 -0.01 0.06 0.12 -0.23 -0.09 -0.27 -0.24 0.43 -0.31 -0.46 -0.12 0.63 -0.12 -0.34 -0.05 0.26 -0.02 -0.37
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.86 0.48 0.74 0.39 0.69 0.73 0.08 0.98 0.09 0.16 0.01 -0.05 0.1 -0.11 0.09 -0.53 0.03 -0.5 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.11 -0.02 0.03 -0.08 -0.02 0.29 -0.13 0.37 -0.12
OND yield 0.28 0.25 0.86 0.82 0.86 0.03 0.84 0.61 0.73 0.84 0.78 -0.28 0.56 0.27 0.81 -0.35 0.49 0 0.16 0.09 0.16 -0.35 0.24 0.44 0.18 -0.49 0.35 0.15 0.31 -0.28
OND BF yield 0.57 0.15 0.41 0.96 0.65 0.15 0.63 0.91 0.53 0 0.65 -0.31 0.69 0.23 0.74 -0.44 0.59 0 0.31 -0.06 0.31 -0.13 0.36 0.32 0.3 -0.31 0.49 0.22 0.45 -0.28
3d MAX Q OND 0.16 0.39 0.77 0.46 0.91 0.01 0.84 0.57 0.95 0 0 -0.23 0.4 0.15 0.71 -0.21 0.32 0 0.02 -0.13 0.02 -0.5 0.12 0.44 0.12 -0.62 0.16 0.04 0.13 -0.24
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.71 0.17 0.93 0.75 0.36 0.55 0.51 0.19 0.84 0.28 0.23 0.37 -0.32 -0.07 -0.2 0.22 -0.28 -0.07 -0.09 0.13 -0.17 -0.02 -0.08 0.22 -0.02 0.18 -0.35 0.26 -0.35 0.12
7d MIN Q OND 0.78 0.02 0.21 0.57 0.49 0.36 0.84 0.96 0.69 0.02 0 0.11 0.21 0.29 0.46 -0.32 0.84 0.02 0.53 -0.02 0.45 -0.06 0.48 0.14 0.42 -0.12 0.6 0.04 0.71 -0.28
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.82 0.29 0.95 0.19 0.52 0.56 0.62 0.82 0.66 0.29 0.38 0.56 0.79 0.27 0.26 0.06 0.3 0.22 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.33 0.17 0.22 0.11 -0.11 0.04 0.06 0 -0.06
3d MAX BF OND 0.21 0.54 0.91 0.96 0.95 0.05 0.98 0.65 0.73 0 0 0 0.44 0.07 0.32 -0.3 0.41 -0.07 0.2 -0.02 0.2 -0.31 0.15 0.47 0.09 -0.46 0.38 0.26 0.35 -0.33
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.73 0.24 0.55 0.82 0.52 0.95 0.14 0.38 0.03 0.17 0.08 0.42 0.39 0.22 0.81 0.24 -0.27 0.55 -0.09 -0.28 -0.09 0.06 -0.13 -0.17 -0.06 0.32 -0.43 0.07 -0.43 0.41
7d MIN BF OND 0.57 0.07 0.15 0.54 0.49 0.61 0.89 0.74 0.91 0.05 0.01 0.21 0.28 0 0.24 0.1 0.29 0.07 0.56 0.02 0.49 0.06 0.45 0.17 0.39 -0.15 0.67 0.18 0.78 -0.37
7d MIN BF OND DOY 1 0.83 0.86 0.78 0.01 0.53 0.28 0.29 0.04 1 1 1 0.8 0.94 0.39 0.78 0.02 0.78 -0.07 -0.38 -0.07 0.2 0.3 0.09 0.33 0.34 -0.11 0.28 -0.11 0.22
323-2 3d MAX GW OND 0.3 0.96 0.34 0.79 0.79 0.87 0.67 0.48 0.67 0.63 0.36 0.96 0.79 0.1 0.96 0.56 0.79 0.07 0.85 -0.31 0.93 0.17
323-2 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.55 0.96 0.78 0.96 0.19 0.87 0.31 0.19 0.66 0.79 0.87 0.7 0.7 0.96 0.91 0.96 0.41 0.96 0.24 0.35 -0.39 -0.04
323-2 7d MIN GW OND 0.3 0.96 0.34 0.96 0.79 0.87 0.67 0.36 0.52 0.63 0.36 0.96 0.62 0.16 0.96 0.56 0.79 0.13 0.85 0 0.24 0.17
323-2 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.12 0.79 0.22 0.87 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.15 0.74 0.29 0.7 0.12 0.96 0.87 0.33 0.35 0.87 0.87 0.55 0.62 0.91 0.62
323-3 3d MAX GW OND 0.51 0.51 0.29 0.64 0.26 0.64 0.96 0.71 0.96 0.45 0.25 0.71 0.81 0.11 0.6 0.64 0.7 0.14 0.35 -0.08 0.94 0.28 0.73 0.09 0.73 -0.29
323-3 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.09 0.96 0.31 0.6 0.92 0.09 0.78 0.03 0.92 0.15 0.31 0.15 0.49 0.67 0.49 0.12 0.59 0.6 0.77 0.81 -0.02 -0.43 0.09 0.48 0 -0.56
323-3 7d MIN GW OND 0.64 0.64 0.34 0.78 0.26 0.64 0.96 0.71 0.81 0.57 0.34 0.71 0.96 0.17 0.74 0.78 0.85 0.21 0.29 0 0.96 0.28 0.64 0.09 0.64 -0.34
323-3 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.2 0.92 0.29 0.44 0.21 0.1 0.96 0.28 0.96 0.1 0.33 0.03 0.58 0.7 0.73 0.13 0.31 0.63 0.28 0.38 0.16 0.38 0.02 0 0.11 0.3
323-4 3d MAX GW OND 0.56 0.56 0.42 0.79 0.79 0.87 0.36 0.87 0.38 0.3 0.13 0.63 0.29 0.05 0.91 0.25 0.19 0.02 0.75 0.02 0.8 0.04 0.95 0.22 0.82 -0.41
323-4 3d MAX GW OND DOY 0.59 0.67 0.95 0.91 0.32 0.75 1 0.45 0.7 0.67 0.52 0.91 0.44 0.91 0.87 0.45 0.83 0.59 0.4 0.8 0.16 0.8 1 0.52 0.04 -0.25
323-4 7d MIN GW OND 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.87 0.71 0.79 0.3 0.96 0.27 0.36 0.16 0.71 0.29 0.01 1 0.3 0.19 0 0.75 0.02 1 0.04 0.75 0 0.91 -0.37
323-4 7d MIN GW OND DOY 0.47 0.72 0.33 0.81 0.72 0.55 0.17 0.27 0.72 0.4 0.4 0.47 0.72 0.4 0.85 0.33 0.21 0.27 0.52 0.42 0.09 0.34 0.4 0.21 0.47 0.27
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 167
Table E-12: Occurrences of probable correlation where Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank indicate parameter
correlation but linear regression does not for Innisfil Creek.
Spearman's Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Time Scale Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-value τ p-value R² p-value slope sign
JFM Total R W323-4 3d MAX GW DOY 0.75 0.01 0.64 0.04 0.48 0.11 +
Water yield 3d MAX BF 0.69 0.01 0.6 0.02 0.47 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 3d MAX BF DOY -0.73 0.00 -0.58 0.03 0.35 0.01 -
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.63 0.02 0.57 0.03 0.18 0.07 +
3d MAX BF DOY 7d MIN BF -0.72 0.00 -0.6 0.02 0.45 0.00 -
AMJ Total R 3d MAX Q 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.03 0.43 0.01 +
Total R 7d MIN Q 0.73 0.00 0.6 0.02 0.40 0.01 +
Total R 7d MIN Q DOY -0.72 0.00 -0.54 0.04 0.36 0.01 -
3d MAX R 3d MAX Q 0.71 0.00 0.56 0.03 0.35 0.01 +
3d MAX R DOY 3d MAX Q DOY 0.67 0.01 0.56 0.03 0.44 0.00 +
3d MAX BF W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY -0.77 0.01 -0.69 0.03 0.12 0.17 -
W323-2 7d MIN GW W323-3 7d MIN GW 0.75 0.01 0.64 0.04 0.47 0.02 +
JAS BF yield W323-3 7d MIN 0.8 0.00 0.64 0.03 0.49 0.01 +
3d MAX Q 7d MIN BF DOY 0.77 0.02 0.59 0.01 0.46 0.00 +
3d MAX BF 7d MIN BF DOY 0.79 0.00 0.6 0.01 0.43 0.00 +
7d MIN BF W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY -0.73 0.01 -0.61 0.03 0.41 0.01 -
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-2 3d MAX GW DOY 0.78 0.00 -0.66 0.02 0.05 0.24 +
W323-2 3d MAX GW W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY -0.73 0.01 -0.61 0.03 0.46 0.01 -
W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY W323-3 7d MIN GW DOY 0.91 0.00 0.63 0.00 -0.01 0.37 +
OND Total R 3d MAX R 0.77 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.37 0.00 +
7d MAX T 7d MIN Q -0.69 0.00 -0.56 0.02 0.37 0.01 -
7d MIN T DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.72 0.00 0.59 0.01 0.21 0.03 +
3d MAX R Water yield 0.66 0.00 0.53 0.03 0.46 0.00 +
7d MIN R DOY 3d MAX BF DOY -0.71 0.00 -0.53 0.03 0.20 0.04 -
Water yield 7d MIN Q 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.02 0.19 0.05 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.85 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.45 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 168
Spearman's Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Time Scale Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-value τ p-value R² p-value slope sign
3d MAX Q W323-2 7d MIN GW DOY -0.74 0.01 -0.62 0.03 0.25 0.07 -
7d MIN Q W323-4 7d MIN GW DOY 0.84 0.00 0.71 0.01 -0.11 0.88 +
3d MAX BF DOY 7d MIN BF DOY 0.67 0.00 0.55 0.02 0.12 0.10 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 169
Appendix F. Whitemans Creek Complete Analysis Results
Table F-1: Results from Mann-Kendall trend analysis for Whitemans Creek. Shading
corresponds to confidence levels of very certain (VC), probably trending (PT) and
warning (W). Note insufficient data record length for groundwater analysis.
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual Mean T 0.283 0.016 VC
7d MAX T 0.089 0.454
7d MAX T DOY 0.390 0.001 VC
7d MAX T JFM -0.054 0.653
7d MAX T JFM DOY -0.090 0.467
7d MAX T AMJ 0.122 0.300
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.135 0.263
7d MAX T JAS 0.098 0.406
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.058 0.633
7d MAX T OND 0.181 0.124
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.111 0.369
7d MIN T 0.143 0.225
7d MIN T DOY 0.071 0.557
7d MIN T JFM 0.044 0.713
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.165 0.168
7d MIN T AMJ -0.070 0.558
7d MIN T AMJ DOY -0.128 0.291
7d MIN T JAS 0.337 0.004 VC
7d MIN T JAS DOY -0.017 0.902
7d MIN T OND 0.105 0.376
7d MIN T OND DOY -0.023 0.859
Annual Total P -0.013 0.924
JFM Total R 0.073 0.540
AMJ Total R 0.044 0.713
JAS Total R -0.124 0.294
OND Total R 0.060 0.614
3d MAX R -0.102 0.391
3d MAX R DOY -0.038 0.754
3d MAX R JFM -0.025 0.838
3d MAX R JFM DOY -0.014 0.913
3d MAX R AMJ 0.105 0.376
3d MAX R AMJ DOY -0.239 0.042 PT
3d MAX R JAS -0.152 0.196
3d MAX R JAS DOY -0.128 0.281
3d MAX R OND 0.022 0.859
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 170
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.097 0.414
30d MIN R 0.152 0.243
30d MIN R DOY 0.230 0.051 W
30d MIN R JFM 0.117 0.368
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.093 0.437
30d MIN R AMJ 0.083 0.487
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.056 0.643
30d MIN R JAS -0.092 0.438
30d MIN R JAS DOY -0.003 0.989
30d MIN R OND 0.038 0.754
30d MIN R OND DOY -0.006 0.967
Annual PET 0.337 0.004 VC
Annual P-PET -0.098 0.406
Annual Richards Baker Flashiness Index 0.267 0.023 VC
Annual 10:90 exceedance 0.092 0.438
Annual yield -0.083 0.487
JFM yield -0.019 0.881
AMJ yield 0.086 0.470
JAS yield -0.165 0.161
OND yield -0.095 0.422
3d MAX Q -0.076 0.522
3d MAX Q DOY -0.062 0.606
3d MAX Q JFM -0.057 0.634
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.070 0.558
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.079 0.505
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.018 0.891
3d MAX Q JAS -0.146 0.215
3d MAX Q JAS DOY -0.124 0.299
3d MAX Q OND -0.032 0.796
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.090 0.453
7d MIN Q 0.022 0.859
7d MIN Q DOY 0.144 0.225
7d MIN Q JFM 0.067 0.577
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.042 0.733
7d MIN Q AMJ -0.019 0.881
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.129 0.285
7d MIN Q JAS 0.016 0.902
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.118 0.320
7d MIN Q OND -0.111 0.347
7d MIN Q OND DOY -0.241 0.044 PT
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 171
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual BF yield -0.143 0.225
JFM BF yield 0.016 0.881
AMJ BF yield -0.051 0.673
JAS BF yield -0.111 0.347
OND BF yield -0.146 0.215
3d MAX BF -0.098 0.406
3d MAX BF DOY -0.158 0.182
3d MAX BF JFM 0.010 0.946
3d MAX BF JFM DOY -0.125 0.307
3d MAX BF AMJ -0.130 0.270
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY -0.193 0.117
3d MAX BF JAS -0.168 0.153
3d MAX BF JAS DOY -0.041 0.750
3d MAX BF OND -0.114 0.334
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.144 0.229
7d MIN BF 0.025 0.838
7d MIN BF DOY 0.172 0.145
7d MIN BF JFM 0.032 0.796
7d MIN BF JFM DOY -0.042 0.733
7d MIN BF AMJ -0.041 0.733
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.103 0.433
7d MIN BF JAS 0.029 0.817
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.140 0.236
7d MIN BF OND -0.143 0.225
7d MIN BF OND DOY -0.166 0.197
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 172
Table F-2: Annual analysis of Spearman’s Rank for Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-values
are below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
Tota
l R
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
R B
Index
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
Mean T -0.2 0.9 -0.37 -0.22 0.47 0.3 0.68 0 -0.42 0.08 0.66 0.02 -0.06 0.37 -0.35 -0.28 -0.32 -0.21 -0.34 -0.21 -0.03 -0.14 -0.36 -0.18
Total P 0.25 -0.35 0.97 0.96 -0.39 0.21 0.09 -0.08 0.33 0.18 -0.15 -0.2 0.69 -0.18 0.82 0.69 0.49 0.37 0.62 -0.06 0.29 0.21 0.61 -0.13
PET 0 0.04 -0.54 -0.41 0.55 0.31 0.48 0.12 -0.36 -0.01 0.6 0.23 -0.15 0.4 -0.52 -0.47 -0.45 -0.26 -0.45 -0.1 -0.16 -0.25 -0.46 -0.07
P-PET 0.03 0 0 0.94 -0.46 0.1 -0.02 -0.11 0.38 0.12 -0.26 -0.24 0.66 -0.25 0.85 0.74 0.55 0.37 0.66 -0.05 0.31 0.22 0.65 -0.13
Total R 0.2 0 0.01 0 -0.42 0.21 0.09 -0.15 0.37 0.16 -0.2 -0.28 0.66 -0.13 0.85 0.75 0.58 0.31 0.62 0.05 0.37 0.2 0.61 -0.01
7d MAX T 0 0.02 0 0 0.01 -0.08 0.2 0.13 -0.21 0.24 0.57 0.26 -0.15 0.27 -0.37 -0.32 -0.26 -0.22 -0.49 0.04 -0.16 -0.18 -0.49 0.03
7d MAX T DOY 0.08 0.22 0.06 0.55 0.23 0.62 0.07 0.05 0.09 0 0.1 0.02 0.42 0.34 0.09 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 -0.1 0.08 0.08
7d MIN T 0 0.62 0 0.92 0.62 0.24 0.67 0.08 -0.43 0.12 0.47 0.09 0.19 0.11 -0.02 0.06 0 -0.16 -0.03 -0.3 0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.28
7d MIN T DOY 0.98 0.62 0.48 0.53 0.39 0.44 0.77 0.66 -0.33 0.12 0.15 0.4 -0.07 -0.13 -0.08 -0.05 -0.27 0.24 -0.04 0.06 -0.13 0.01 -0.01 0.11
3d MAX R 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.6 0.01 0.05 -0.24 -0.35 -0.26 0.37 0.05 0.51 0.38 0.66 -0.16 0.35 0.25 0.27 -0.06 0.33 0.2
3d MAX R DOY 0.63 0.28 0.95 0.5 0.34 0.16 0.99 0.48 0.47 0.16 0.14 -0.18 -0.03 0.03 0.09 0.11 -0.18 0.31 -0.14 -0.1 0.04 0.25 -0.14 -0.14
30d MIN R 0 0.38 0 0.13 0.25 0 0.56 0 0.38 0.04 0.42 0.3 -0.01 0.41 -0.25 -0.17 -0.28 -0.16 -0.5 -0.32 -0.08 -0.08 -0.5 -0.26
30d MIN R DOY 0.91 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.9 0.59 0.01 0.13 0.29 0.08 0.08 0 -0.27 -0.33 -0.27 -0.07 -0.21 -0.09 -0.23 -0.16 -0.18 -0.06
R B Index 0.73 0 0.38 0 0 0.37 0.01 0.28 0.69 0.03 0.85 0.95 0.63 -0.09 0.63 0.47 0.51 0.07 0.52 0.04 0.22 0.11 0.53 0.02
10:90 exceedance 0.03 0.3 0.02 0.15 0.46 0.11 0.04 0.53 0.44 0.79 0.88 0.01 0.99 0.61 -0.09 0.01 0.04 -0.44 -0.61 0.04 0.43 -0.15 -0.61 0.02
Annual yield 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.62 0.92 0.65 0 0.59 0.15 0.11 0 0.6 0.93 0.72 0.14 0.7 0.04 0.56 -0.06 0.69 -0.04
Annual BF yield 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.95 0.72 0.79 0.02 0.53 0.32 0.05 0 0.97 0 0.67 0.08 0.62 0.08 0.66 -0.09 0.61 0.01
3d MAX Q 0.06 0 0.01 0 0 0.13 0.97 0.99 0.11 0 0.31 0.09 0.11 0 0.83 0 0 -0.19 0.45 0.22 0.59 -0.11 0.43 0.16
3d MAX Q DOY 0.22 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.92 0.35 0.16 0.36 0.07 0.35 0.7 0.7 0.01 0.4 0.63 0.28 0.22 -0.13 -0.03 0.39 0.21 -0.14
7d MIN Q 0.04 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.04 0.43 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.2 0.11 0.11 -0.06 0.99 0.07
7d MIN Q DOY 0.23 0.73 0.56 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.79 0.07 0.72 0.14 0.55 0.06 0.59 0.8 0.83 0.84 0.63 0.2 0.44 0.52 0 -0.17 0.13 0.97
3d MAX BF 0.86 0.08 0.36 0.06 0.03 0.35 0.76 0.76 0.44 0.11 0.83 0.63 0.17 0.21 0.01 0 0 0 0.85 0.52 0.98 -0.06 0.09 -0.07
3d MAX BF DOY 0.41 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.23 0.29 0.54 0.85 0.96 0.71 0.14 0.64 0.35 0.53 0.4 0.74 0.58 0.53 0.02 0.74 0.33 0.73 -0.07 -0.14
7d MIN BF 0.03 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.65 0.85 0.95 0.05 0.41 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.21 0 0.46 0.61 0.71 0.1
7d MIN BF DOY 0.29 0.45 0.67 0.46 0.95 0.84 0.64 0.09 0.53 0.24 0.41 0.12 0.71 0.92 0.9 0.81 0.97 0.34 0.4 0.67 0 0.68 0.4 0.57
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 173
Table F-3: Winter seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
JFM
tota
l R
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
JFM total R 0.01 0.16 0.16 -0.03 0.51 0.06 0.13 -0.41 0.79 0.55 0.62 -0.26 0.39 -0.33 0.52 -0.22 0.35 -0.35
7d MAX T JFM 0.94 0.31 0.38 0.12 -0.13 -0.13 0.16 0.23 -0.09 -0.09 -0.16 -0.13 0.06 0.3 -0.34 -0.03 0.09 0.19
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.35 0.07 -0.01 0.06 0.15 0.28 0.06 0 0.15 0.04 0.29 0.07 0.04 0.27 -0.15 -0.1 0.11 0.25
7d MIN T JFM 0.37 0.02 0.96 0.07 -0.36 -0.2 0.52 0.03 0.15 0.38 -0.08 -0.17 0.38 0.09 0.06 -0.15 0.37 0.1
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.88 0.48 0.71 0.69 0 0.14 0 0.33 -0.01 -0.08 -0.08 0.13 0.12 0.54 -0.1 0.14 0.11 0.32
3d MAX R JFM 0 0.45 0.37 0.03 0.99 0.26 -0.33 0.04 0.41 0.19 0.58 -0.07 0.07 -0.14 0.34 0.04 0 -0.15
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.72 0.44 0.1 0.24 0.42 0.13 -0.09 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.26 0.27 -0.03 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.02 0.17
30d MIN R JFM 0.45 0.34 0.71 0 0.99 0.05 0.6 0.01 -0.05 0.18 -0.3 -0.18 0.29 -0.06 0.06 -0.14 0.32 -0.11
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.01 0.18 0.98 0.86 0.05 0.81 0.78 0.94 -0.36 -0.15 -0.34 -0.06 0.04 0.46 -0.21 -0.06 -0.02 0.25
JFM yield 0 0.6 0.37 0.37 0.95 0.01 0.66 0.79 0.03 0.75 0.79 -0.51 0.64 -0.19 0.6 -0.24 0.62 -0.16
JFM BF yield 0 0.58 0.8 0.02 0.64 0.28 0.73 0.3 0.39 0 0.39 -0.43 0.77 -0.02 0.8 -0.39 0.75 0.09
3d MAX Q JFM 0 0.36 0.08 0.62 0.64 0 0.13 0.07 0.05 0 0.02 -0.29 0.3 -0.2 0.36 -0.03 0.28 -0.16
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.12 0.44 0.69 0.31 0.44 0.68 0.11 0.3 0.75 0 0.01 0.09 -0.47 0.13 -0.13 0.48 -0.45 0.19
7d MIN Q JFM 0.02 0.73 0.8 0.02 0.5 0.69 0.85 0.09 0.8 0 0 0.08 0 0.17 0.51 -0.29 0.97 0.23
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.59 0 0.43 0.4 0.72 0 0.26 0.92 0.25 0.46 0.31 -0.2 -0.04 0.23 0.78
3d MAX BF JFM 0 0.04 0.38 0.71 0.57 0.04 0.22 0.72 0.22 0 0 0.03 0.46 0 0.24 -0.07 0.49 -0.04
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.19 0.85 0.57 0.38 0.43 0.81 0.39 0.42 0.73 0.16 0.02 0.88 0 0.09 0.82 0.68 -0.28 0.06
7d MIN BF JFM 0.04 0.61 0.51 0.03 0.53 1 0.91 0.06 0.9 0 0 0.09 0.01 0 0.18 0 0.1 0.31
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.04 0.26 0.13 0.55 0.05 0.38 0.33 0.54 0.14 0.34 0.6 0.35 0.26 0.18 0 0.81 0.72 0.07
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 174
Table F-4: Spring seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
AM
J to
tal R
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
AMJ total R -0.27 0 -0.32 -0.38 0.7 -0.04 0.49 -0.09 0.72 0.5 0.38 0.2 0.74 -0.48 0.25 0.22 0.73 -0.22
7d MAX T AMJ 0.11 0.37 0.14 -0.11 -0.14 -0.17 -0.19 0.19 -0.25 -0.2 -0.2 -0.16 -0.35 0.14 -0.09 -0.17 -0.39 -0.07
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.99 0.02 -0.03 0.09 -0.17 -0.24 -0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.11 -0.04 0.1 0.04 0.25 -0.31 0.08 0.04 0.02
7d MIN T AMJ 0.06 0.41 0.88 0.28 -0.21 0.29 -0.11 -0.06 -0.45 -0.55 -0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.06 -0.5 -0.22 -0.16 0.28
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.02 0.52 0.61 0.09 -0.36 0.14 -0.22 -0.35 -0.23 -0.28 -0.08 0 -0.11 0.1 -0.18 0.1 -0.04 -0.02
3d MAX R AMJ 0 0.41 0.33 0.21 0.03 -0.08 0.1 -0.1 0.48 0.22 0.33 0.28 0.36 -0.16 0.12 0.32 0.37 -0.07
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.8 0.31 0.16 0.08 0.42 0.63 0.01 -0.22 -0.24 -0.26 -0.33 0.33 0.01 -0.17 -0.24 -0.1 0.02 -0.03
30d MIN R AMJ 0 0.28 0.95 0.53 0.21 0.56 0.96 0.03 0.46 0.43 0.08 0.04 0.5 -0.08 0.18 -0.12 0.47 0.25
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.61 0.27 0.96 0.74 0.04 0.55 0.21 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.07 -0.44 -0.14 0.09 0.15 -0.36 -0.11 0.1
AMJ yield 0 0.14 0.95 0.01 0.17 0 0.16 0.86 0.5 0.8 0.77 -0.12 0.66 -0.29 0.53 0.11 0.69 -0.1
AMJ BF yield 0 0.23 0.52 0 0.1 0.2 0.13 0 0.36 0 0.57 -0.32 0.61 -0.22 0.8 0.03 0.62 -0.15
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.02 0.25 0.82 0.01 0.63 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.7 0 0 -0.34 0.32 -0.31 0.54 0.17 0.36 -0.13
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.25 0.37 0.55 0.25 1 0.1 0.05 0.63 0.01 0.47 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.27 -0.46 0.12 0.03 0.16
7d MIN Q AMJ 0 0.03 0.79 0.56 0.53 0.03 0.97 0.83 0.42 0 0 0.06 0.6 -0.44 0.35 -0.12 0.95 -0.11
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0 0.41 0.14 0.74 0.56 0.34 0.34 0 0.62 0.08 0.19 0.06 0.11 0.01 -0.36 0.01 -0.48 0.6
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.14 0.58 0.06 0 0.28 0.47 0.16 0.66 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.03 -0.08 0.34 -0.23
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.19 0.34 0.65 0.19 0.55 0.06 0.56 0.3 0.03 0.51 0.86 0.31 0.49 0.47 0.94 0.65 -0.08 -0.11
7d MIN BF AMJ 0 0.02 0.83 0.37 0.83 0.03 0.89 0.5 0.54 0 0 0.03 0.88 0 0 0.04 0.65 -0.21
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.21 0.69 0.9 0.1 0.91 0.71 0.86 0 0.56 0.55 0.39 0.47 0.36 0.54 0 0.18 0.54 0.23
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 175
Table F-5: Summer seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
JAS t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
JAS total R -0.23 -0.33 -0.2 0.09 0.69 -0.06 0.65 -0.28 0.65 0.63 0.59 0.45 0.52 -0.19 0.55 0.62 0.51 -0.18
7d MAX T JAS 0.18 -0.15 0.13 -0.01 -0.04 0.26 -0.51 -0.13 -0.46 -0.55 -0.26 -0.26 -0.48 -0.27 -0.45 -0.15 -0.46 -0.28
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.05 0.38 0.13 0.16 -0.15 0.11 -0.1 0.02 -0.09 -0.05 -0.12 -0.02 -0.02 0.06 0.05 -0.26 -0.01 0.09
7d MIN T JAS 0.24 0.44 0.45 -0.07 -0.3 -0.25 -0.11 0.2 -0.12 -0.15 -0.07 -0.14 -0.14 0.02 -0.2 0.04 -0.13 0.02
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.58 0.94 0.34 0.7 0.08 -0.09 -0.14 -0.05 0 -0.03 0.05 0.04 -0.07 -0.19 0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.12
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.82 0.39 0.08 0.65 0.1 0.33 -0.21 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.44 0.14 -0.48 0.29 0.36 0.12 -0.45
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.71 0.12 0.54 0.14 0.59 0.55 -0.14 -0.21 -0.32 -0.22 -0.39 0.3 -0.2 0.01 -0.07 -0.16 -0.2 -0.04
30d MIN R JAS 0 0 0.58 0.53 0.41 0.05 0.43 -0.16 0.62 0.68 0.51 0.29 0.67 0.06 0.61 0.25 0.64 0.08
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.1 0.46 0.92 0.24 0.76 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.07 0.09 -0.02 0.01 0.07 0.37 -0.02 0.07 0.07 0.4
JAS yield 0 0 0.59 0.47 0.99 0.02 0.06 0 0.67 0.92 0.91 0.29 0.79 0.01 0.82 0.55 0.78 -0.01
JAS BF yield 0 0 0.77 0.4 0.87 0.09 0.2 0 0.61 0 0.74 0.23 0.9 0.15 0.91 0.5 0.89 0.12
3d MAX Q JAS 0 0.12 0.5 0.67 0.76 0.03 0.02 0 0.93 0 0 0.15 0.58 -0.11 0.66 0.5 0.57 -0.11
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.01 0.13 0.93 0.41 0.82 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.94 0.09 0.18 0.38 0.13 -0.18 0.2 0.33 0.12 -0.17
7d MIN Q JAS 0 0 0.9 0.43 0.69 0.42 0.25 0 0.68 0 0 0 0.45 0.34 0.77 0.36 0.99 0.31
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.26 0.11 0.73 0.91 0.27 0 0.94 0.73 0.03 0.97 0.39 0.52 0.3 0.04 0.08 -0.08 0.36 0.97
3d MAX BF JAS 0 0.01 0.75 0.25 0.89 0.08 0.67 0 0.93 0 0 0 0.24 0 0.64 0.35 0.75 0.01
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0 0.37 0.13 0.81 0.71 0.03 0.36 0.14 0.68 0 0 0 0.05 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.37 -0.04
7d MIN BF JAS 0 0 0.94 0.46 0.62 0.49 0.25 0 0.68 0 0 0 0.48 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.34
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.01 0.83 0.64 0.02 0.94 0.48 0.54 0.32 0.07 0 0.94 0.83 0.04
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 176
Table F-6: Autumn seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
ON
D t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
OND total R -0.12 0.06 0.15 -0.04 0.47 0.04 0.47 -0.06 0.57 0.53 0.67 0.04 0.11 -0.18 0.58 -0.31 0.03 -0.12
7d MAX T OND 0.5 0.14 0.15 -0.16 0.13 0.25 -0.01 -0.19 -0.13 -0.16 -0.03 0.19 -0.2 0.11 -0.1 0.19 -0.21 -0.18
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.73 0.42 0.07 0 0.25 0.23 0.11 0.12 -0.01 -0.04 0.01 0.24 -0.14 -0.04 0.06 0.2 -0.12 -0.03
7d MIN T OND 0.38 0.37 0.67 0.06 0.11 -0.02 0.35 -0.38 0.16 0.2 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.24 0.2 0.32 0.17 0.05
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.82 0.34 0.98 0.72 -0.36 -0.18 0.22 -0.19 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08 0.17 -0.12 0.08 -0.05 0.16 -0.1 0.12
3d MAX R OND 0 0.44 0.14 0.53 0.03 0.3 0.01 -0.01 0.33 0.28 0.45 -0.05 0.02 0.09 0.3 -0.1 0.03 0
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.8 0.14 0.18 0.89 0.29 0.08 0.02 -0.21 0.01 -0.08 0.14 0.43 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.07
30d MIN R OND 0 0.94 0.54 0.04 0.2 0.95 0.91 -0.28 0.4 0.35 0.47 0.3 0.32 -0.13 0.39 0.17 0.22 -0.27
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.75 0.27 0.48 0.02 0.26 0.96 0.21 0.09 0.18 0.16 0.09 -0.3 0.12 0.01 0.17 -0.32 0.12 0.13
OND yield 0 0.44 0.94 0.36 0.7 0.05 0.94 0.02 0.29 0.96 0.94 -0.22 0.74 0.13 0.95 -0.34 0.71 -0.04
OND BF yield 0 0.34 0.81 0.24 0.66 0.09 0.63 0.04 0.34 0 0.87 -0.34 0.79 0.18 0.92 -0.38 0.77 -0.01
3d MAX Q OND 0 0.87 0.94 0.19 0.66 0.01 0.43 0 0.62 0 0 -0.05 0.61 0.03 0.91 -0.27 0.57 -0.12
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.8 0.27 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.79 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.19 0.04 0.79 -0.37 -0.11 -0.15 0.42 -0.33 0.07
7d MIN Q OND 0.53 0.24 0.43 0.27 0.47 0.89 0.82 0.06 0.49 0 0 0 0.03 0.26 0.63 -0.21 0.97 0.02
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.29 0.53 0.83 0.16 0.63 0.62 0.87 0.45 0.96 0.44 0.3 0.87 0.54 0.13 0.16 0.23 0.32 0.57
3d MAX BF OND 0 0.56 0.71 0.23 0.79 0.07 0.91 0.02 0.33 0 0 0 0.39 0 0.36 -0.29 0.63 0.03
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.07 0.26 0.25 0.06 0.35 0.56 0.73 0.33 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.09 -0.16 0.16
7d MIN BF OND 0.85 0.22 0.48 0.31 0.55 0.87 0.6 0.19 0.47 0 0 0 0.05 0 0.06 0 0.35 0.17
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.49 0.3 0.84 0.78 0.5 0.99 0.69 0.11 0.44 0.83 0.96 0.48 0.69 0.9 0 0.86 0.35 0.33
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 177
Table F-7: Annual analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-value is
below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
Tota
l R
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
R B
Index
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
Mean T -0.13 0.73 -0.26 -0.16 0.29 0.2 0.5 0.02 -0.28 0.04 0.5 0.01 -0.03 0.26 -0.24 -0.2 -0.2 -0.15 -0.24 -0.13 -0.01 -0.1 -0.25 -0.12
Total P 0.44 -0.23 0.86 0.84 -0.28 0.14 0.07 -0.05 0.23 0.14 -0.11 -0.12 0.52 -0.13 0.63 0.49 0.35 0.27 0.44 -0.04 0.21 0.16 0.43 -0.08
PET 0 0.17 -0.37 -0.3 0.34 0.22 0.35 0.07 -0.23 -0.02 0.45 0.15 -0.12 0.27 -0.36 -0.34 -0.3 -0.18 -0.3 -0.04 -0.1 -0.18 -0.3 -0.04
P-PET 0.13 0 0.02 0.8 -0.34 0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.27 0.09 -0.18 -0.16 0.49 -0.18 0.65 0.54 0.38 0.28 0.47 -0.01 0.22 0.17 0.46 -0.07
Total R 0.36 0 0.07 0 -0.3 0.14 0.06 -0.11 0.26 0.13 -0.14 -0.18 0.49 -0.08 0.67 0.55 0.42 0.23 0.43 0.04 0.25 0.16 0.42 -0.01
7d MAX T 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.08 -0.06 0.13 0.08 -0.14 0.15 0.42 0.19 -0.1 0.18 -0.24 -0.2 -0.17 -0.17 -0.35 0.01 -0.1 -0.14 -0.34 0.02
7d MAX T DOY 0.24 0.42 0.19 0.7 0.41 0.71 0.05 0.05 0.09 -0.01 0.06 0.03 0.3 0.25 0.07 -0.02 -0.01 -0.02 0.05 0.03 0.04 -0.08 0.07 0.05
7d MIN T 0 0.69 0.04 0.96 0.74 0.46 0.78 0.08 -0.28 0.06 0.35 0.06 0.11 0.07 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 -0.1 -0.01 -0.22 0.01 0.04 -0.02 -0.2
7d MIN T DOY 0.93 0.75 0.68 0.69 0.52 0.63 0.78 0.63 -0.25 0.1 0.13 0.3 -0.05 -0.1 -0.08 -0.05 -0.22 0.19 -0.03 0.01 -0.09 0 0 0.05
3d MAX R 0.1 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.43 0.62 0.1 0.14 -0.18 -0.27 -0.19 0.26 0.03 0.36 0.27 0.48 -0.1 0.25 0.17 0.18 -0.05 0.23 0.14
3d MAX R DOY 0.83 0.42 0.9 0.59 0.46 0.37 0.96 0.73 0.55 0.3 0.1 -0.11 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 -0.12 0.22 -0.08 -0.08 0.03 0.15 -0.08 -0.11
30d MIN R 0 0.52 0.01 0.28 0.4 0.01 0.74 0.04 0.46 0.11 0.57 0.21 -0.01 0.32 -0.18 -0.14 -0.22 -0.14 -0.38 -0.23 -0.07 -0.06 -0.38 -0.18
30d MIN R DOY 0.97 0.49 0.37 0.35 0.3 0.27 0.85 0.71 0.08 0.26 0.54 0.21 0.06 -0.01 -0.19 -0.22 -0.16 -0.04 -0.15 -0.07 -0.15 -0.09 -0.13 -0.04
R B Index 0.85 0 0.5 0 0 0.54 0.07 0.51 0.75 0.13 0.97 0.94 0.71 -0.04 0.43 0.32 0.38 0.05 0.38 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.38 0.01
10:90 exceedance 0.13 0.46 0.11 0.29 0.63 0.28 0.14 0.67 0.55 0.85 0.97 0.06 0.96 0.8 -0.05 0 0.03 -0.29 -0.43 0.01 0.31 -0.1 -0.42 -0.01
Annual yield 0.16 0 0.03 0 0 0.15 0.7 0.83 0.65 0.03 0.74 0.28 0.26 0.01 0.77 0.79 0.57 0.09 0.52 0.02 0.39 -0.03 0.51 -0.04
Annual BF yield 0.24 0 0.04 0 0 0.23 0.93 0.9 0.79 0.11 0.67 0.42 0.2 0.06 0.99 0 0.51 0.06 0.45 0.05 0.47 -0.08 0.44 -0.01
3d MAX Q 0.25 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.96 0.88 0.21 0 0.48 0.19 0.35 0.02 0.88 0 0 -0.11 0.32 0.14 0.42 -0.09 0.31 0.09
3d MAX Q DOY 0.39 0.12 0.29 0.1 0.18 0.33 0.89 0.57 0.28 0.55 0.2 0.42 0.8 0.78 0.08 0.59 0.72 0.51 0.15 -0.08 -0.01 0.32 0.15 -0.08
7d MIN Q 0.15 0.01 0.08 0 0.01 0.04 0.78 0.96 0.88 0.15 0.64 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.06 0.39 0.1 0.06 -0.03 0.95 0.06
7d MIN Q DOY 0.46 0.84 0.8 0.96 0.84 0.94 0.85 0.19 0.97 0.31 0.66 0.19 0.7 0.85 0.96 0.91 0.75 0.4 0.64 0.58 0.01 -0.12 0.11 0.92
3d MAX BF 0.96 0.22 0.56 0.2 0.14 0.56 0.84 0.96 0.6 0.3 0.88 0.69 0.38 0.42 0.06 0.02 0 0.01 0.96 0.73 0.96 -0.05 0.04 -0.05
3d MAX BF DOY 0.55 0.36 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.63 0.83 0.98 0.79 0.39 0.74 0.58 0.61 0.55 0.85 0.64 0.61 0.06 0.87 0.47 0.79 -0.04 -0.1
7d MIN BF 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.67 0.91 0.99 0.19 0.66 0.02 0.45 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.07 0.38 0 0.53 0.8 0.83 0.09
7d MIN BF DOY 0.49 0.63 0.82 0.7 0.94 0.93 0.77 0.24 0.76 0.41 0.52 0.3 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.84 0.97 0.59 0.65 0.71 0 0.75 0.56 0.62
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 178
Table F-8: Winter seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded. Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
JFM
tota
l R
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
JFM total R 0.03 0.14 0.1 -0.02 0.36 0.04 0.1 -0.27 0.6 0.39 0.44 -0.18 0.29 -0.22 0.34 -0.17 0.26 -0.25
7d MAX T JFM 0.87 0.2 0.26 0.1 -0.09 -0.09 0.12 0.14 -0.06 -0.07 -0.11 -0.11 0.03 0.21 -0.23 -0.04 0.06 0.12
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.42 0.24 -0.02 0.05 0.1 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.22 0.05 0.04 0.19 -0.11 -0.08 0.08 0.18
7d MIN T JFM 0.56 0.13 0.91 0.08 -0.28 -0.16 0.39 0.01 0.11 0.25 -0.07 -0.11 0.29 0.09 0.04 -0.09 0.28 0.08
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.9 0.56 0.79 0.65 -0.02 0.1 0 0.24 -0.01 -0.06 -0.06 0.1 0.06 0.42 -0.07 0.1 0.06 0.24
3d MAX R JFM 0.03 0.61 0.57 0.09 0.9 0.18 -0.26 0.04 0.26 0.14 0.42 -0.08 0.03 -0.1 0.22 0.02 -0.01 -0.11
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.8 0.6 0.19 0.34 0.56 0.3 -0.07 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.3 -0.02 0.1 0.14 0.13 0.01 0.15
30d MIN R JFM 0.54 0.47 0.79 0.02 0.98 0.12 0.69 0.02 -0.03 0.13 -0.24 -0.14 0.22 -0.04 0.03 -0.1 0.24 -0.07
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.12 0.42 0.98 0.94 0.16 0.82 0.87 0.91 -0.25 -0.1 -0.2 -0.04 0.02 0.4 -0.12 -0.05 -0.02 0.21
JFM yield 0 0.71 0.53 0.52 0.97 0.12 0.79 0.86 0.14 0.56 0.58 -0.34 0.48 -0.12 0.43 -0.17 0.46 -0.12
JFM BF yield 0.02 0.69 0.82 0.14 0.75 0.41 0.77 0.44 0.56 0 0.26 -0.31 0.58 -0.02 0.59 -0.26 0.56 0.06
3d MAX Q JFM 0.01 0.51 0.19 0.67 0.71 0.01 0.27 0.16 0.23 0 0.12 -0.21 0.21 -0.14 0.24 -0.02 0.2 -0.1
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.3 0.52 0.78 0.52 0.57 0.64 0.08 0.41 0.82 0.04 0.07 0.21 -0.32 0.1 -0.07 0.34 -0.31 0.18
7d MIN Q JFM 0.09 0.87 0.82 0.08 0.71 0.85 0.92 0.2 0.9 0 0 0.22 0.06 0.08 0.33 -0.19 0.91 0.15
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.2 0.21 0.26 0.62 0.01 0.58 0.54 0.81 0.02 0.47 0.91 0.43 0.56 0.63 -0.11 -0.02 0.15 0.66
3d MAX BF JFM 0.04 0.17 0.52 0.83 0.69 0.19 0.41 0.84 0.47 0.01 0 0.16 0.7 0.05 0.5 -0.05 0.3 -0.03
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.31 0.82 0.65 0.58 0.56 0.89 0.46 0.56 0.79 0.33 0.12 0.89 0.04 0.26 0.89 0.77 -0.2 0.06
7d MIN BF JFM 0.13 0.74 0.64 0.1 0.71 0.96 0.93 0.15 0.91 0 0 0.24 0.06 0 0.38 0.08 0.25 0.21
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.14 0.48 0.31 0.66 0.16 0.52 0.38 0.67 0.21 0.5 0.74 0.55 0.28 0.39 0 0.87 0.75 0.22
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 179
Table F-9: Spring seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
AM
J to
tal R
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
AMJ total R -0.17 -0.01 -0.23 -0.27 0.53 -0.04 0.38 -0.08 0.53 0.33 0.29 0.11 0.56 -0.34 0.17 0.15 0.55 -0.16
7d MAX T AMJ 0.31 0.24 0.09 -0.06 -0.11 -0.12 -0.12 0.11 -0.18 -0.14 -0.12 -0.11 -0.23 0.1 -0.04 -0.12 -0.23 -0.06
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.93 0.16 -0.01 0.07 -0.13 -0.19 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.09 0 0.08 0.04 0.19 -0.23 0.06 0.02 0.02
7d MIN T AMJ 0.19 0.62 0.96 0.19 -0.14 0.21 -0.06 -0.05 -0.3 -0.38 -0.28 0.14 -0.07 0.03 -0.37 -0.17 -0.11 0.21
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.11 0.75 0.67 0.27 -0.25 0.13 -0.14 -0.24 -0.17 -0.2 -0.06 0 -0.09 0.07 -0.15 0.07 -0.03 -0.02
3d MAX R AMJ 0 0.51 0.44 0.42 0.14 -0.07 0.06 -0.08 0.33 0.13 0.24 0.18 0.25 -0.09 0.09 0.22 0.23 -0.05
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.82 0.49 0.27 0.23 0.47 0.67 0 -0.1 -0.17 -0.16 -0.23 0.23 -0.01 -0.1 -0.19 -0.06 0.01 -0.03
30d MIN R AMJ 0.02 0.5 0.93 0.73 0.41 0.71 1 0.01 0.32 0.3 0.04 0.04 0.34 -0.06 0.11 -0.1 0.3 0.21
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.62 0.51 0.97 0.79 0.17 0.65 0.56 0.96 0.09 0.12 0.06 -0.3 -0.11 0.05 0.1 -0.24 -0.07 0.08
AMJ yield 0 0.3 0.96 0.07 0.31 0.05 0.33 0.06 0.6 0.62 0.59 -0.1 0.5 -0.2 0.38 0.06 0.5 -0.08
AMJ BF yield 0.05 0.43 0.6 0.02 0.24 0.44 0.34 0.08 0.49 0 0.38 -0.21 0.46 -0.17 0.62 0.01 0.47 -0.12
3d MAX Q AMJ 0.08 0.48 0.99 0.1 0.75 0.16 0.18 0.8 0.75 0 0.02 -0.23 0.22 -0.23 0.39 0.14 0.24 -0.11
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.54 0.53 0.65 0.42 0.98 0.3 0.18 0.8 0.07 0.57 0.21 0.17 0.07 0.2 -0.3 0.1 0.02 0.12
7d MIN Q AMJ 0 0.19 0.83 0.7 0.59 0.15 0.96 0.04 0.52 0 0 0.19 0.69 -0.31 0.27 -0.1 0.82 -0.07
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.04 0.56 0.27 0.86 0.68 0.59 0.56 0.73 0.76 0.23 0.33 0.18 0.25 0.06 -0.27 0 -0.35 0.54
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.32 0.8 0.19 0.03 0.39 0.62 0.26 0.51 0.57 0.02 0 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.11 -0.04 0.26 -0.19
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.4 0.48 0.71 0.31 0.67 0.2 0.72 0.56 0.15 0.71 0.94 0.41 0.58 0.57 0.99 0.82 -0.07 -0.06
7d MIN BF AMJ 0 0.17 0.9 0.53 0.85 0.17 0.94 0.08 0.66 0 0 0.16 0.89 0 0.04 0.13 0.7 -0.15
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.35 0.73 0.91 0.21 0.91 0.76 0.87 0.22 0.64 0.64 0.49 0.53 0.47 0.68 0 0.27 0.71 0.38
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 180
Table F-10: Summer seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above
and p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis
are shaded.
JA
S t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
JAS total R -0.14 -0.22 -0.15 0.08 0.53 -0.04 0.48 -0.18 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.32 0.37 -0.15 0.4 0.46 0.36 -0.15
7d MAX T JAS 0.41 -0.11 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.21 -0.37 -0.11 -0.32 -0.37 -0.2 -0.2 -0.35 -0.21 -0.3 -0.11 -0.33 -0.21
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.19 0.54 0.11 0.12 -0.12 0.05 -0.07 0.02 -0.06 -0.03 -0.07 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 -0.18 0.01 0.07
7d MIN T JAS 0.4 0.61 0.54 -0.05 -0.24 -0.18 -0.08 0.14 -0.09 -0.11 -0.04 -0.1 -0.1 0.03 -0.13 0.01 -0.08 0.01
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.66 0.95 0.48 0.77 0.05 -0.09 -0.09 -0.03 0.02 -0.01 0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.14 0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.09
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.94 0.48 0.16 0.79 0.1 0.24 -0.14 0.28 0.2 0.24 0.31 0.11 -0.32 0.2 0.25 0.11 -0.3
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.81 0.22 0.78 0.3 0.61 0.55 -0.11 -0.13 -0.21 -0.13 -0.28 0.22 -0.13 0 -0.07 -0.11 -0.13 -0.01
30d MIN R JAS 0 0.03 0.7 0.63 0.59 0.16 0.52 -0.12 0.45 0.5 0.36 0.21 0.51 0.06 0.43 0.19 0.49 0.06
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.3 0.54 0.9 0.42 0.88 0.42 0.46 0.5 0.03 0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.03 0.31 -0.02 0.06 0.03 0.33
JAS yield 0 0.06 0.72 0.59 0.92 0.09 0.21 0.01 0.85 0.8 0.73 0.2 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.41 0.62 0.02
JAS BF yield 0.01 0.03 0.85 0.51 0.97 0.23 0.46 0 0.77 0 0.57 0.16 0.75 0.12 0.77 0.39 0.73 0.1
3d MAX Q JAS 0.01 0.23 0.67 0.81 0.76 0.15 0.1 0.03 0.91 0 0 0.09 0.43 -0.07 0.49 0.36 0.43 -0.05
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.06 0.25 0.95 0.56 0.85 0.06 0.19 0.22 0.9 0.25 0.36 0.59 0.09 -0.1 0.12 0.27 0.07 -0.1
7d MIN Q JAS 0.03 0.04 0.97 0.58 0.85 0.53 0.45 0 0.85 0 0 0.01 0.61 0.25 0.59 0.26 0.96 0.22
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.38 0.22 0.79 0.87 0.43 0.05 0.99 0.72 0.07 0.93 0.5 0.7 0.55 0.15 0.04 -0.05 0.26 0.92
3d MAX BF JAS 0.02 0.07 0.91 0.46 0.83 0.25 0.7 0.01 0.91 0 0 0 0.48 0 0.8 0.25 0.57 0.01
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.01 0.53 0.3 0.95 0.83 0.14 0.51 0.28 0.72 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.79 0.15 0.27 -0.02
7d MIN BF JAS 0.03 0.05 0.94 0.63 0.79 0.53 0.45 0 0.85 0 0 0.01 0.69 0 0.12 0 0.11 0.25
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.38 0.23 0.7 0.94 0.62 0.07 0.94 0.71 0.05 0.93 0.55 0.78 0.58 0.19 0 0.97 0.93 0.14
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 181
Table F-11: Autumn seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Whitemans Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
ON
D t
ota
l R
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
OND total R -0.09 0.04 0.08 -0.03 0.34 0.02 0.34 -0.05 0.43 0.39 0.49 0.03 0.07 -0.11 0.42 -0.21 0.02 -0.09
7d MAX T OND 0.59 0.1 0.1 -0.11 0.09 0.16 -0.02 -0.11 -0.09 -0.12 0 0.13 -0.14 0.06 -0.08 0.14 -0.13 -0.15
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.8 0.57 0.05 0 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.09 0 -0.02 0 0.18 -0.09 -0.03 0.04 0.15 -0.07 -0.03
7d MIN T OND 0.65 0.57 0.79 0 0.07 -0.01 0.25 -0.24 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.1 0.01
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.87 0.52 0.99 1 -0.25 -0.12 0.14 -0.11 -0.06 -0.06 -0.09 0.13 -0.09 0.06 -0.05 0.13 -0.07 0.1
3d MAX R OND 0.04 0.62 0.33 0.7 0.14 0.22 0.01 -0.02 0.22 0.19 0.3 -0.03 0 0.07 0.2 -0.08 0 0
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.9 0.35 0.34 0.96 0.48 0.19 0.01 -0.14 -0.02 -0.08 0.06 0.32 0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.06 0.07 0.04
30d MIN R OND 0.04 0.91 0.61 0.14 0.43 0.97 0.96 -0.18 0.28 0.26 0.32 0.19 0.23 -0.1 0.3 0.11 0.17 -0.2
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.75 0.52 0.62 0.16 0.52 0.9 0.42 0.3 0.12 0.1 0.04 -0.19 0.1 0.01 0.12 -0.16 0.1 0.11
OND yield 0.01 0.61 1 0.61 0.74 0.19 0.9 0.09 0.5 0.87 0.8 -0.16 0.54 0.1 0.83 -0.24 0.52 -0.02
OND BF yield 0.02 0.48 0.89 0.44 0.75 0.27 0.65 0.13 0.55 0 0.68 -0.24 0.6 0.12 0.79 -0.27 0.58 0
3d MAX Q OND 0 1 1 0.4 0.6 0.07 0.73 0.06 0.8 0 0 -0.02 0.41 0.03 0.75 -0.19 0.38 -0.08
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.85 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.44 0.87 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.16 0.91 -0.27 -0.08 -0.09 0.31 -0.25 0.03
7d MIN Q OND 0.67 0.43 0.59 0.39 0.61 0.99 0.83 0.18 0.56 0 0 0.01 0.3 0.18 0.44 -0.14 0.89 0.02
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.53 0.73 0.87 0.45 0.71 0.66 0.96 0.56 0.94 0.55 0.48 0.87 0.01 0.3 0.11 0.18 0.22 0.51
3d MAX BF OND 0.01 0.66 0.82 0.46 0.78 0.25 0.92 0.08 0.48 0 0 0 0.42 0.01 0.52 -0.2 0.44 0.03
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.21 0.41 0.4 0.2 0.45 0.66 0.75 0.53 0.34 0.16 0.12 0.28 0 0.42 0.29 0.24 -0.1 0.12
7d MIN BF OND 0.9 0.45 0.67 0.54 0.69 0.99 0.7 0.34 0.55 0 0 0.02 0.9 0 0.19 0.01 0.55 0.12
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.62 0.39 0.86 0.95 0.58 1 0.81 0.23 0.52 0.93 0.98 0.65 0.84 0.9 0 0.84 0.47 0.47
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 182
Table F-12: Occurrences of probable correlation where Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank indicate parameter
correlation but linear regression does not for Whitemans Creek.
Spearman's Rank Kendall's Rank Linear Regression
Time Scale Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ p-value τ p-value R² p-value slope sign
Annual Total P RBI 0.69 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.49 0.00 +
Annual yield 7d MIN Q 0.70 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.46 0.00 +
Annual yield 7d MIN BF 0.69 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.67 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.38 0.00 +
JFM BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.80 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.46 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.50 0.00 +
AMJ Total R 3d MAX R 0.70 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.43 0.00 +
JAS Total R 3d MAX R 0.69 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.44 0.00 +
7d MIN R 7d MIN Q 0.67 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.00 +
water yield 7d MIN Q 0.79 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.46 0.00 +
water yield 7d MIN BF 0.78 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.43 0.00 +
BF yield 3d MAX Q 0.74 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.43 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 3d MAX BF 0.77 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.34 0.00 +
3d MAX BF 7d MIN BF 0.75 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.31 0.00 +
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 183
Appendix G. Parkhill Creek Complete Analysis Results
Table G-1: Results from Mann-Kendall trend analysis for Parkhill Creek. Shading
corresponds to confidence levels of very certain (VC), probably trending (PT) and
warning (W).
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
Annual Mean T 0.26 0.026 PT
7d MAX T 0.111 0.347 7d MAX T DOY 0.228 0.053 W
7d MAX T JFM -0.083 0.487 7d MAX T JFM DOY -0.073 0.559 7d MAX T AMJ 0.140 0.236 7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.217 0.067 W
7d MAX T JAS 0.137 0.247 7d MAX T JAS DOY -0.021 0.870 7d MAX T OND 0.162 0.169 7d MAX T OND DOY 0.008 0.956 7d MIN T 0.159 0.178 7d MIN T DOY 0.039 0.754 7d MIN T JFM 0.108 0.361 7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.114 0.339 7d MIN T AMJ -0.041 0.733 7d MIN T AMJ DOY -0.155 0.198 7d MIN T JAS 0.321 0.006 VC
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.012 0.934 7d MIN T OND 0.076 0.522 7d MIN T OND DOY -0.021 0.870 Annual Total P -0.032 0.796 Total R JFM 0.035 0.775 Total R AMJ 0.098 0.406 Total R JAS -0.073 0.540 Total R OND -0.041 0.733 3d MAX R 0.013 0.924 3d MAX R DOY 0.011 0.935 3d MAX R JFM -0.095 0.422 3d MAX R JFM DOY -0.107 0.368 3d MAX R AMJ 0.067 0.577 3d MAX R AMJ DOY -0.056 0.643 3d MAX R JAS -0.019 0.881 3d MAX R JAS DOY -0.090 0.453
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 184
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
3d MAX R OND 0.029 0.817 3d MAX R OND DOY 0.148 0.320 30d MIN R 0.236 0.070 W
30d MIN R DOY 0.208 0.077 W
30d MIN R JFM 0.232 0.075 W
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.121 0.307 30d MIN R AMJ 0.052 0.663 30d MIN R AMJ DOY -0.005 0.978 30d MIN R JAS 0.137 0.247 30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.257 0.029 PT
30d MIN R OND -0.035 0.775 30d MIN R OND DOY -0.090 0.453 Annual PET 0.340 0.004 VC
Annual P-PET -0.073 0.540 Annual Richards-Baker Flashiness Index 0.137 0.260 Annual 10:90 exceedance -0.016 0.906 Annual yield -0.055 0.657 JFM yield 0.060 0.614 AMJ yield 0.109 0.363 JAS yield -0.087 0.477 OND yield -0.166 0.173 3d MAX Q 0.127 0.299 3d MAX Q DOY -0.005 0.976 3d MAX Q JFM 0.149 0.205 3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.090 0.453 3d MAX Q AMJ 0.052 0.670 3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.003 0.989 3d MAX Q JAS -0.098 0.423 3d MAX Q JAS DOY -0.220 0.072 W
3d MAX Q OND -0.152 0.213 3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.346 0.004 VC
7d MIN Q -0.292 0.028 PT
7d MIN Q DOY 0.217 0.075 W
7d MIN Q JFM 0.076 0.522 7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.123 0.300 7d MIN Q AMJ -0.042 0.733 7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.152 0.210 7d MIN Q JAS -0.246 0.062 W
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.217 0.075 W
7d MIN Q OND -0.173 0.169
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 185
Parameter tau 2-sided P-value Confidence
7d MIN Q OND DOY -0.207 0.099 W
Annual BF yield -0.244 0.044 PT
JFM BF yield -0.032 0.796 AMJ BF yield -0.146 0.222 JAS BF yield -0.059 0.635 OND BF yield -0.255 0.035 PT
3d MAX BF -0.095 0.441 3d MAX BF DOY -0.009 0.953 3d MAX BF JFM -0.006 0.967 3d MAX BF JFM DOY -0.073 0.547 3d MAX BF AMJ -0.129 0.280 3d MAX BF AMJ DOY -0.121 0.339 3d MAX BF JAS -0.059 0.635 3d MAX BF JAS DOY -0.031 0.818 3d MAX BF OND -0.176 0.146 3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.306 0.013 VC
7d MIN BF -0.287 0.030 PT
7d MIN BF DOY 0.211 0.083 W
7d MIN BF JFM 0.051 0.673 7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.119 0.319 7d MIN BF AMJ 0.015 0.910 7d MIN BF AMJ DOY -0.057 0.674 7d MIN BF JAS -0.242 0.067 W
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.211 0.083 W
7d MIN BF OND -0.188 0.135 7d MIN BF OND DOY -0.286 0.032 PT
Annual Average W285 GW 0.111 0.721 W285 3d MAX GW -0.111 0.721 W285 3d MAX GW DOY 0.067 0.858 W285 3d MAX GW JFM -0.091 0.756 W285 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.110 0.696 W285 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.121 0.584 W285 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY -0.189 0.380 W285 7d MIN GW 0.244 0.371 W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.045 0.928 W285 7d MIN GW JFM -0.055 0.876 W285 7d MIN GW JFM DOY -0.117 0.688 W285 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.253 0.228 W285 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.036 0.910
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 186
Table G-2: Annual analysis of Spearman’s Rank for Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-values are
below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
Tota
l R
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
RBI
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
W285 G
W
W285 3
d M
AX G
W
W285 3
d M
AX G
W D
OY
W285 7
d M
IN G
W
W285 7
d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.31 0.89 -0.46 -0.27 0.48 0.1 0.67 0.07 -0.35 0.05 0.56 0.22 0.19 0.3 -0.31 -0.28 -0.06 -0.29 -0.42 0.11 -0.23 -0.16 -0.42 0.11 -0.54 -0.31 0.13 -0.44 0.53
Total P 0.06 -0.35 0.96 0.95 -0.45 0.31 -0.06 -0.01 0.61 -0.13 -0.13 -0.44 -0.05 -0.28 0.83 0.51 0.47 0.24 0.61 -0.03 0.37 0.22 0.62 -0.02 0.25 0.24 0.44 0.2 -0.46
PET 0 0.04 -0.55 -0.36 0.49 0.09 0.41 0.04 -0.28 0.16 0.41 0.35 0.24 0.18 -0.4 -0.45 -0.08 -0.23 -0.52 0.21 -0.19 -0.08 -0.52 0.21 -0.64 -0.54 0.05 -0.35 0.36
P-PET 0 0 0 0.92 -0.54 0.28 -0.09 0 0.6 -0.18 -0.19 -0.47 -0.09 -0.28 0.85 0.58 0.48 0.24 0.7 -0.09 0.37 0.17 0.7 -0.08 0.32 0.25 0.41 0.27 -0.48
Total R 0.12 0 0.03 0 -0.44 0.27 0.02 -0.1 0.62 -0.16 -0.11 -0.55 -0.14 -0.24 0.89 0.57 0.58 0.17 0.64 -0.06 0.39 0.14 0.64 -0.05 0.26 0.28 0.42 0.21 -0.44
7d MAX T 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 -0.39 0.25 -0.02 -0.34 0.25 0.37 0.27 -0.01 0.22 -0.46 -0.38 -0.28 -0.1 -0.57 0.17 -0.21 0.08 -0.57 0.16 -0.55 -0.48 0.43 -0.07 -0.08
7d MAX T DOY 0.58 0.07 0.61 0.1 0.11 0.02 0 0.09 0.22 -0.03 -0.13 -0.15 0.18 0.03 0.25 0.06 0.2 -0.02 0.01 0.11 0.13 -0.01 -0.01 0.11 0.79 -0.12 -0.55 0.7 0.26
7d MIN T 0 0.71 0.01 0.62 0.92 0.15 0.99 0.14 -0.19 -0.02 0.57 0.13 0.04 0.25 0.01 0.18 -0.02 -0.11 -0.09 -0.12 -0.01 -0.08 -0.1 -0.12 -0.44 0.2 0.31 -0.49 0.08
7d MIN T DOY 0.7 0.96 0.8 0.99 0.57 0.93 0.59 0.41 0.03 0.33 0.07 0.39 0.4 -0.02 -0.17 -0.12 -0.42 0.23 0.14 0.06 -0.21 0.11 0.14 0.06 -0.13 -0.15 0.35 0.01 -0.26
3d MAX R 0.04 0 0.09 0 0 0.04 0.2 0.26 0.87 -0.08 -0.3 -0.27 -0.02 -0.5 0.51 0.17 0.56 0.01 0.45 0.23 0.01 0.49 0.46 0.24 -0.19 0.02 0.35 -0.07 -0.57
3d MAX R DOY 0.76 0.46 0.36 0.28 0.36 0.15 0.87 0.91 0.05 0.63 0.22 0.31 0.28 -0.1 -0.1 0 -0.41 0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 -0.01 0.03 -0.04 -0.35 0.16 0.22 0.15
30d MIN R 0 0.44 0.01 0.26 0.52 0.02 0.44 0 0.69 0.07 0.2 0.3 -0.15 0.38 0 0.13 -0.2 0.04 -0.23 0.19 0.16 -0.17 -0.22 0.19 -0.31 0.09 0.07 -0.49 0.42
30d MIN R DOY 0.2 0.01 0.03 0 0 0.11 0.39 0.46 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.19 0.15 -0.44 -0.34 -0.51 0.17 -0.35 0.07 -0.24 0.17 -0.34 0.05 -0.66 -0.38 0.22 -0.52 0.26
RBI 0.29 0.77 0.17 0.6 0.43 0.96 0.32 0.83 0.02 0.9 0.11 0.4 0.28 -0.36 -0.16 -0.37 -0.02 -0.24 -0.08 0.29 -0.34 0.13 -0.07 0.29
10:90 exceedance 0.09 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.85 0.15 0.92 0 0.59 0.03 0.41 0.04 -0.15 0.03 -0.34 -0.17 -0.2 -0.33 0.06 -0.4 -0.22 -0.34
Annual yield 0.08 0 0.02 0 0 0.01 0.16 0.95 0.35 0 0.57 0.98 0.01 0.35 0.39 0.72 0.6 0.21 0.69 -0.13 0.55 0.2 0.69 -0.12
Annual BF yield 0.11 0 0.01 0 0 0.03 0.73 0.3 0.51 0.34 0.99 0.46 0.05 0.03 0.87 0 0.24 0.37 0.54 -0.42 0.75 -0.04 0.54 -0.42
3d MAX Q 0.72 0.01 0.67 0 0 0.11 0.26 0.92 0.01 0 0.02 0.25 0 0.91 0.05 0 0.18 -0.2 0.32 0.1 0.13 0.08 0.33 0.11
3d MAX Q DOY 0.1 0.17 0.2 0.17 0.34 0.57 0.89 0.55 0.19 0.98 0.11 0.84 0.33 0.17 0.35 0.23 0.03 0.26 0.15 -0.14 0.38 0.28 0.17 -0.13
7d MIN Q 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.96 0.63 0.44 0.01 0.91 0.19 0.04 0.66 0.25 0 0 0.06 0.39 -0.2 0.27 0.1 1 -0.19
7d MIN Q DOY 0.54 0.86 0.23 0.62 0.72 0.34 0.55 0.48 0.73 0.2 0.9 0.29 0.68 0.09 0.06 0.45 0.01 0.58 0.42 0.26 -0.26 0.13 -0.19 1
3d MAX BF 0.19 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.45 0.97 0.22 0.94 0.96 0.37 0.18 0.05 0.73 0 0 0.46 0.03 0.13 0.14 -0.1 0.27 -0.25
3d MAX BF DOY 0.36 0.21 0.64 0.34 0.42 0.65 0.94 0.65 0.53 0 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.48 0.02 0.25 0.81 0.65 0.11 0.59 0.46 0.56 0.1 0.14
7d MIN BF 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 0.59 0.44 0.01 0.96 0.2 0.05 0.69 0.21 0 0 0.05 0.34 0 0.29 0.12 0.57 -0.17
7d MIN BF DOY 0.53 0.91 0.24 0.65 0.79 0.36 0.54 0.5 0.76 0.18 0.87 0.28 0.78 0.09 0.05 0.49 0.01 0.55 0.45 0.28 0 0.15 0.42 0.32
W285 GW 0.11 0.49 0.05 0.37 0.47 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.72 0.6 0.91 0.38 0.04 0.3 -0.59 0.71 0.11
W285 3d MAX GW 0.38 0.51 0.11 0.49 0.43 0.16 0.75 0.58 0.67 0.96 0.33 0.81 0.28 0.4 -0.2 -0.33 0.1
W285 3d MAX GW DOY 0.73 0.2 0.88 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.1 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.65 0.85 0.53 0.07 0.58 -0.18 -0.66
W285 7d MIN GW 0.2 0.58 0.33 0.45 0.56 0.85 0.03 0.15 0.99 0.85 0.53 0.15 0.13 0.02 0.35 0.63 -0.27
W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.11 0.19 0.31 0.16 0.2 0.83 0.47 0.83 0.47 0.09 0.69 0.23 0.48 0.76 0.79 0.04 0.45
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 187
Table G-3: Winter seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R J
FM
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
W285 3
d M
AX G
W J
FM
W285 3
d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
W285 7
d M
IN G
W J
FM
W285 7
d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
Total R JFM 0.12 0.29 0.17 0.02 0.46 0.06 0.1 -0.41 0.69 0.43 0.47 -0.09 0.45 -0.41 0.18 -0.08 0.46 -0.29 -0.05 0.11 -0.17 -0.56
7d MAX T JFM 0.49 0.28 0.41 0.26 -0.03 0.04 0.14 0.17 -0.26 -0.04 -0.22 -0.11 0.04 0.21 -0.42 -0.26 0 0.31 0.46 -0.32 0.48 0.38
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.08 0.1 0.03 0 0.19 0.15 -0.06 -0.03 -0.06 -0.08 0.15 -0.13 -0.28 0.02 -0.31 -0.21 -0.21 0.12 0.39 -0.34 0.42 0.42
7d MIN T JFM 0.33 0.01 0.85 0.13 -0.02 -0.19 0.54 0.01 -0.04 0.43 -0.26 -0.29 0.54 -0.05 0.01 -0.33 0.52 0.03 -0.36 0.42 -0.29 -0.05
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.91 0.12 0.98 0.44 0.03 0.26 -0.1 0.25 0.02 -0.18 -0.11 0.21 -0.1 0.21 -0.09 0.31 -0.09 0.29 -0.33 0.36 -0.4 -0.14
3d MAX R JFM 0.01 0.86 0.27 0.89 0.86 0.32 -0.38 -0.05 0.45 0.13 0.52 0.2 0.12 -0.21 0.03 0.27 0.16 -0.15 -0.16 0.24 -0.25 -0.22
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.73 0.83 0.38 0.27 0.12 0.06 -0.25 0.14 0.06 -0.01 -0.03 0.36 -0.09 0.17 0.01 0.23 -0.09 0.2 0.16 -0.03 0.11 -0.47
30d MIN R JFM 0.57 0.42 0.74 0 0.56 0.02 0.14 -0.07 0.01 0.34 -0.33 -0.24 0.62 -0.01 0.07 -0.54 0.59 0.01 -0.15 0.1 -0.07 -0.17
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.01 0.33 0.88 0.95 0.14 0.78 0.43 0.67 -0.47 -0.34 -0.25 0.03 -0.31 0.46 -0.14 -0.02 -0.29 0.36 -0.23 0.17 -0.25 -0.05
JFM yield 0 0.13 0.72 0.8 0.91 0.01 0.74 0.95 0 0.46 0.57 0.12 0.48 -0.33 0.41 0.12 0.49 -0.34 -0.19 0.21 -0.32 -0.46
JFM BF yield 0.01 0.82 0.64 0.01 0.3 0.47 0.97 0.04 0.04 0 0.01 -0.02 0.71 -0.29 0.7 -0.22 0.7 -0.25 0.28 -0.3 0.17 0.15
3d MAX Q JFM 0 0.2 0.38 0.12 0.53 0 0.87 0.05 0.14 0 0.95 0.06 -0.05 -0.09 0.14 0.15 0 -0.09 0.06 0.06 -0.03 -0.34
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.58 0.52 0.44 0.09 0.21 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.86 0.5 0.92 0.72 -0.1 0.08 0.21 0.2 -0.11 0.05 0.07 0.05 0 -0.09
7d MIN Q JFM 0.01 0.81 0.1 0 0.58 0.5 0.61 0 0.07 0 0 0.77 0.56 -0.15 0.35 -0.31 0.99 -0.1 -0.17 0.18 -0.21 -0.42
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.01 0.21 0.89 0.76 0.22 0.23 0.31 0.95 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.59 0.66 0.39 -0.1 -0.12 -0.12 0.88 0.44 -0.46 0.49 0.52
3d MAX BF JFM 0.3 0.01 0.07 0.97 0.6 0.87 0.94 0.69 0.43 0.01 0 0.43 0.22 0.03 0.55 0.14 0.37 -0.14 0.07 -0.21 -0.07 0.18
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.63 0.12 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.17 0 0.91 0.48 0.2 0.4 0.25 0.07 0.48 0.43 -0.31 -0.09 -0.21 -0.01 -0.32 -0.08
7d MIN BF JFM 0 0.98 0.22 0 0.58 0.34 0.58 0 0.08 0 0 0.98 0.54 0 0.5 0.03 0.06 -0.08 -0.25 0.23 -0.3 -0.4
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.09 0.07 0.47 0.85 0.09 0.39 0.24 0.95 0.03 0.04 0.14 0.59 0.77 0.56 0 0.42 0.6 0.64 0.44 -0.46 0.49 0.52
W285 3d MAX GW JFM 0.87 0.15 0.24 0.27 0.32 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.5 0.57 0.4 0.85 0.83 0.61 0.18 0.83 0.53 0.47 0.18 -0.91 0.97 0.58
W285 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.75 0.33 0.31 0.2 0.27 0.48 0.94 0.77 0.62 0.55 0.37 0.85 0.87 0.59 0.16 0.55 0.98 0.5 0.16 0 -0.9 -0.68
W285 7d MIN GW JFM 0.61 0.13 0.19 0.39 0.23 0.47 0.75 0.83 0.47 0.34 0.61 0.94 1 0.54 0.13 0.83 0.34 0.37 0.13 0 0 0.61
W285 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.07 0.25 0.2 0.89 0.68 0.52 0.15 0.62 0.89 0.15 0.66 0.31 0.78 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.82 0.23 0.1 0.06 0.02 0.05
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 188
Table G-4: Spring seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R A
MJ
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
W285 3
d M
AX G
W A
MJ
W285 3
d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
W285 7
d M
IN G
W A
MJ
W285 7
d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
Total R AMJ -0.24 0.02 -0.34 -0.39 0.84 -0.11 0.29 -0.24 0.73 0.53 0.61 0.07 0.63 -0.33 0.34 0.2 0.7 -0.12 -0.35 0.34 -0.05 -0.51
7d MAX T AMJ 0.17 0.34 0.17 -0.13 -0.45 -0.04 -0.12 0.04 -0.19 -0.27 -0.34 0.05 -0.02 0.18 -0.32 -0.17 -0.04 0.03 -0.01 0.32 -0.6 -0.09
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.9 0.04 0.05 0.05 -0.18 -0.08 0.13 0.29 0.18 0.04 -0.16 -0.04 0.16 0.22 -0.17 -0.01 0.14 0.15 -0.02 0.23 -0.19 -0.26
7d MIN T AMJ 0.04 0.33 0.76 0.25 -0.27 -0.03 -0.12 0.06 -0.38 -0.56 -0.36 0.08 -0.19 -0.05 -0.46 0.03 -0.31 -0.19 0 0.22 -0.2 0.06
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.02 0.45 0.78 0.14 -0.25 0.09 -0.15 -0.11 -0.22 -0.16 -0.16 -0.07 -0.07 0.01 -0.09 0.21 -0.2 -0.17 0.32 -0.18 0.06 0.4
3d MAX R AMJ 0 0.01 0.28 0.11 0.14 -0.08 0.12 -0.25 0.54 0.43 0.57 0.06 0.43 -0.32 0.42 0.16 0.52 -0.15 -0.32 0.31 0.03 -0.42
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.52 0.82 0.65 0.86 0.6 0.64 0 -0.06 -0.01 -0.21 -0.15 0.44 -0.12 -0.05 -0.31 0.36 -0.14 -0.04 0.12 -0.32 0.18 0.07
30d MIN R AMJ 0.08 0.5 0.46 0.47 0.39 0.48 0.99 0.02 0.37 0.07 0.1 0.19 0.24 0.2 -0.16 0.33 0.21 0.22 -0.24 0.08 0 -0.25
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.16 0.81 0.08 0.73 0.51 0.15 0.74 0.9 -0.16 -0.06 -0.23 0.09 -0.49 0.32 -0.11 -0.2 -0.46 -0.16 0.17 0.06 0.09 -0.1
AMJ yield 0 0.27 0.29 0.02 0.2 0 0.97 0.03 0.36 0.53 0.73 0.08 0.49 -0.07 0.2 0.29 0.54 0.01 -0.3 0.31 -0.1 -0.45
AMJ BF yield 0 0.11 0.81 0 0.35 0.01 0.23 0.68 0.72 0 0.32 -0.1 0.49 -0.13 0.76 -0.04 0.57 -0.02 -0.16 0.12 0.06 -0.31
3d MAX Q AMJ 0 0.05 0.37 0.03 0.37 0 0.39 0.57 0.18 0 0.06 -0.16 0.29 -0.3 0.34 0.13 0.34 -0.12 -0.37 0.46 -0.17 -0.38
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.69 0.76 0.81 0.63 0.68 0.72 0.01 0.26 0.62 0.64 0.56 0.36 0.03 -0.26 -0.35 0.04 -0.02 0.11 0.41 -0.48 0.28 0.29
7d MIN Q AMJ 0 0.91 0.37 0.27 0.69 0.01 0.49 0.17 0 0 0 0.09 0.87 -0.57 0.26 0.18 0.94 0.03 -0.1 0.23 -0.33 -0.36
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.05 0.3 0.2 0.77 0.96 0.06 0.79 0.26 0.06 0.69 0.45 0.08 0.14 0 -0.21 0.12 -0.49 0.2 -0.01 -0.21 0.23 0.2
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.04 0.06 0.33 0.01 0.6 0.01 0.07 0.36 0.53 0.25 0 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.23 -0.24 0.33 -0.1 -0.31 0.35 -0.17 -0.42
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.26 0.32 0.98 0.88 0.24 0.35 0.03 0.06 0.25 0.09 0.81 0.44 0.83 0.31 0.48 0.16 0.19 -0.12 -0.11 0.01 0.04 -0.2
7d MIN BF AMJ 0 0.8 0.41 0.07 0.24 0 0.43 0.24 0.01 0 0 0.05 0.89 0 0 0.05 0.26 -0.06 -0.19 0.31 -0.27 -0.51
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.5 0.86 0.4 0.27 0.32 0.41 0.84 0.2 0.37 0.94 0.92 0.5 0.52 0.87 0.24 0.57 0.5 0.72 0.32 -0.58 0.38 0.67
W285 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.23 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.26 0.26 0.67 0.41 0.56 0.32 0.6 0.22 0.16 0.75 0.99 0.31 0.72 0.53 0.29 -0.83 0.74 0.83
W285 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.23 0.27 0.43 0.44 0.55 0.28 0.26 0.79 0.85 0.31 0.69 0.11 0.1 0.46 0.49 0.23 0.98 0.31 0.04 0 -0.86 -0.84
W285 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.88 0.02 0.52 0.49 0.84 0.91 0.54 0.99 0.76 0.75 0.84 0.58 0.36 0.27 0.45 0.58 0.89 0.37 0.21 0 0 0.72
W285 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.06 0.76 0.38 0.83 0.16 0.13 0.82 0.38 0.73 0.12 0.3 0.21 0.35 0.22 0.51 0.15 0.52 0.08 0.01 0 0 0
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 189
Table G-5: Summer seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R J
AS
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
Total R JAS -0.33 0.12 -0.23 0.12 0.64 0.12 0.47 -0.28 0.73 0.61 0.69 0.5 0.72 -0.09 0.48 0.46 0.72 -0.08
7d MAX T JAS 0.05 -0.39 0.02 0.06 -0.23 -0.01 -0.38 -0.16 -0.56 -0.66 -0.56 -0.12 -0.52 0.1 -0.53 -0.21 -0.52 0.1
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.49 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.09 0.21 0.3 0.18 -0.12 0.19 0.08 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.09
7d MIN T JAS 0.18 0.9 0.92 -0.17 -0.16 -0.24 0.14 0.33 -0.3 -0.21 -0.33 -0.26 -0.3 0.18 -0.17 -0.25 -0.29 0.17
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.5 0.71 0.21 0.32 0.12 0.12 -0.13 0.1 0 0.01 -0.03 0.27 -0.08 -0.03 0.11 0.17 -0.08 -0.03
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.18 0.63 0.34 0.5 -0.04 0.06 -0.15 0.5 0.27 0.52 0.35 0.49 -0.02 0.21 0.28 0.49 0
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.5 0.97 0.8 0.17 0.49 0.8 0.14 -0.08 0.12 0.19 0.18 0.3 0.15 -0.13 0.29 0.11 0.17 -0.13
30d MIN R JAS 0 0.02 0.09 0.41 0.43 0.74 0.43 -0.03 0.26 0.42 0.26 0.03 0.36 0 0.35 0.07 0.36 0
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.1 0.34 0.62 0.05 0.56 0.37 0.65 0.85 -0.07 0.04 -0.08 -0.34 -0.38 0.45 0.01 -0.25 -0.37 0.45
JAS yield 0 0 0.23 0.08 0.98 0 0.5 0.14 0.7 0.89 0.96 0.21 0.72 0.15 0.7 0.43 0.72 0.17
JAS BF yield 0 0 0.09 0.24 0.94 0.12 0.29 0.01 0.81 0 0.85 0.2 0.72 0.12 0.88 0.47 0.72 0.14
3d MAX Q JAS 0 0 0.31 0.05 0.85 0 0.32 0.14 0.64 0 0 0.22 0.67 0.11 0.65 0.38 0.67 0.13
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.89 0.05 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.4 -0.32 0.22 0.35 0.4 -0.32
7d MIN Q JAS 0 0 0.28 0.09 0.64 0 0.4 0.03 0.03 0 0 0 0.02 -0.14 0.55 0.38 1 -0.13
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.61 0.56 0.63 0.32 0.86 0.92 0.46 0.99 0.01 0.4 0.49 0.53 0.06 0.42 0.02 -0.22 -0.13 1
3d MAX BF JAS 0 0 0.23 0.32 0.53 0.24 0.09 0.05 0.97 0 0 0 0.21 0 0.89 0.44 0.55 0.04
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.01 0.22 0.31 0.15 0.34 0.1 0.54 0.7 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.01 0.37 -0.21
7d MIN BF JAS 0 0 0.32 0.1 0.64 0 0.34 0.04 0.03 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.46 0 0.03 -0.12
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.66 0.58 0.63 0.33 0.88 0.98 0.48 1 0.01 0.35 0.44 0.47 0.07 0.46 0 0.82 0.23 0.51
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 190
Table G-6: Autumn seasonal analysis of Spearman’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R O
ND
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
Total R OND -0.21 -0.1 0.34 -0.1 0.75 -0.2 0.58 -0.04 0.7 0.56 0.57 -0.21 0.24 -0.18 0.54 -0.4 0.25 0.09
7d MAX T OND 0.21 0.11 0.05 -0.13 -0.03 0.22 -0.02 -0.24 -0.16 -0.27 0.07 0.35 -0.39 -0.24 -0.12 0.05 -0.35 -0.19
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.56 0.54 -0.01 -0.12 -0.02 0.11 0.19 0.08 -0.04 -0.16 0.19 0.23 0.01 0.12 -0.11 0.04 0.01 0.12
7d MIN T OND 0.04 0.76 0.93 0.09 0.35 -0.08 0.39 -0.49 0.27 0.23 0.16 0.03 0.15 -0.04 0.15 0.03 0.19 0.12
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.56 0.45 0.48 0.62 -0.15 -0.09 0.03 -0.12 0.05 0.16 -0.15 -0.06 0.1 0.09 0.05 -0.14 0.09 0.1
3d MAX R OND 0 0.87 0.92 0.04 0.38 -0.08 0.29 -0.04 0.63 0.54 0.61 -0.18 0.24 -0.05 0.61 -0.35 0.3 0.22
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.23 0.2 0.53 0.66 0.59 0.63 -0.11 -0.19 -0.18 -0.27 -0.03 0.46 -0.19 -0.31 -0.18 0.53 -0.16 -0.07
30d MIN R OND 0 0.91 0.25 0.02 0.85 0.09 0.53 -0.26 0.45 0.28 0.42 0.01 0.19 -0.15 0.16 -0.19 0.2 0
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.81 0.16 0.64 0 0.47 0.84 0.28 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.1 -0.44 0.21 0.23 0.14 -0.26 0.17 0.01
OND yield 0 0.37 0.84 0.12 0.76 0 0.3 0.01 0.46 0.88 0.78 -0.36 0.67 0.34 0.82 -0.56 0.69 0.39
OND BF yield 0 0.12 0.38 0.19 0.36 0 0.12 0.11 0.4 0 0.62 -0.54 0.68 0.48 0.9 -0.66 0.7 0.59
3d MAX Q OND 0 0.69 0.28 0.37 0.4 0 0.88 0.01 0.58 0 0 -0.21 0.43 0.16 0.65 -0.49 0.47 0.3
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.22 0.05 0.18 0.86 0.73 0.31 0.01 0.94 0.01 0.03 0 0.23 -0.44 -0.4 -0.37 0.6 -0.45 -0.37
7d MIN Q OND 0.17 0.02 0.96 0.4 0.57 0.17 0.28 0.27 0.22 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.41 -0.43 0.99 0.5
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.32 0.17 0.5 0.84 0.6 0.79 0.08 0.39 0.2 0.05 0 0.38 0.02 0 0.29 -0.35 0.7 0.55
3d MAX BF OND 0 0.52 0.54 0.39 0.78 0 0.32 0.36 0.44 0 0 0 0.03 0.02 0.1 -0.57 0.44 0.45
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.02 0.78 0.83 0.87 0.42 0.04 0 0.28 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0 -0.42 -0.4
7d MIN BF OND 0.16 0.04 0.95 0.29 0.63 0.09 0.36 0.25 0.34 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.56
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.61 0.29 0.5 0.49 0.59 0.21 0.69 0.98 0.96 0.02 0 0.08 0.03 0 0 0.01 0.02 0
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 191
Table G-7: Annual analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-value is
below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are shaded.
Blank cells indicate insufficient data for analysis.
Mean T
Tota
l P
PET
P-P
ET
Tota
l R
7d M
AX T
7d M
AX T
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
7d M
IN T
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
3d M
AX R
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
30d M
IN R
DO
Y
RBI
10:9
0 e
xceedance
Annual yie
ld
Annual BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
3d M
AX Q
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
7d M
IN Q
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F
3d M
AX B
F D
OY
7d M
IN B
F
7d M
IN B
F D
OY
W285 G
W
W285 3
d M
AX G
W
W285 3
d M
AX G
W D
OY
W285 7
d M
IN G
W
W285 7
d M
IN G
W D
OY
Mean T -0.21 0.71 -0.33 -0.18 0.3 0.07 0.5 0.05 -0.23 0.03 0.44 0.14 0.13 0.21 -0.22 -0.18 -0.06 -0.18 -0.29 0.09 -0.13 -0.07 -0.3 0.09 -0.42 -0.2 0.07 -0.29 0.36
Total P 0.21 -0.23 0.84 0.82 -0.31 0.2 -0.03 0.01 0.43 -0.08 -0.12 -0.3 -0.03 -0.17 0.66 0.38 0.33 0.17 0.48 -0.02 0.25 0.14 0.5 -0.01 0.16 0.2 0.29 0.2 -0.27
PET 0 0 -0.39 -0.23 0.32 0.08 0.29 0.02 -0.2 0.11 0.3 0.24 0.16 0.12 -0.28 -0.32 -0.02 -0.17 -0.4 0.16 -0.12 -0.05 -0.4 0.15 -0.56 -0.42 0.11 -0.24 0.22
P-PET 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.77 -0.38 0.19 -0.07 -0.01 0.41 -0.14 -0.15 -0.32 -0.06 -0.17 0.72 0.43 0.35 0.18 0.55 -0.07 0.27 0.12 0.55 -0.06 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.24 -0.31
Total R 0.29 0 0.17 0 -0.3 0.16 0.02 -0.07 0.45 -0.1 -0.09 -0.39 -0.08 -0.17 0.71 0.4 0.42 0.13 0.5 -0.05 0.27 0.09 0.52 -0.04 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.24 -0.22
7d MAX T 0.08 0 0.06 0.02 0.07 -0.25 0.14 -0.02 -0.25 0.16 0.26 0.18 -0.01 0.13 -0.32 -0.26 -0.2 -0.09 -0.44 0.11 -0.14 0.03 -0.42 0.11 -0.42 -0.38 0.33 -0.02 0
7d MAX T DOY 0.7 0.06 0.64 0.28 0.36 0.14 0 0.07 0.15 -0.02 -0.1 -0.11 0.11 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.15 -0.03 0 0.06 0.11 0 -0.01 0.06 0.56 -0.11 -0.38 0.51 0.13
7d MIN T 0 0.24 0.09 0.69 0.93 0.42 0.98 0.11 -0.11 -0.01 0.44 0.09 0.03 0.15 0.01 0.12 -0.02 -0.08 -0.07 -0.07 -0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.07 -0.33 0.16 0.24 -0.38 0.18
7d MIN T DOY 0.75 0.84 0.9 0.97 0.67 0.91 0.69 0.53 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.29 0.3 0 -0.12 -0.08 -0.29 0.17 0.11 0.05 -0.16 0.06 0.11 0.04 -0.07 -0.16 0.25 -0.02 -0.18
3d MAX R 0.19 0.96 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.38 0.52 0.85 -0.06 -0.23 -0.2 -0.01 -0.37 0.36 0.11 0.39 0 0.34 0.16 0.01 0.36 0.35 0.16 0.02 -0.02 0.24 -0.11 -0.4
3d MAX R DOY 0.85 0.01 0.51 0.42 0.55 0.34 0.93 0.95 0.18 0.75 0.16 0.2 0.16 -0.07 -0.07 -0.01 -0.29 0.23 -0.02 0.03 0.01 0.08 -0.01 0.03 -0.02 -0.24 0.11 0.11 0.13
30d MIN R 0.01 0.65 0.07 0.38 0.59 0.12 0.55 0.01 0.83 0.17 0.34 0.24 -0.11 0.29 0 0.07 -0.15 0.03 -0.19 0.15 0.11 -0.11 -0.19 0.15 -0.16 0.05 0.05 -0.38 0.3
30d MIN R DOY 0.41 0.48 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.29 0.53 0.61 0.08 0.25 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.1 -0.3 -0.22 -0.35 0.15 -0.26 0.05 -0.16 0.12 -0.26 0.03 -0.47 -0.33 0.2 -0.33 0.18
RBI 0.48 0.07 0.37 0.76 0.67 0.98 0.55 0.88 0.09 0.98 0.35 0.53 0.54 -0.24 -0.12 -0.27 -0.01 -0.18 -0.05 0.21 -0.23 0.07 -0.04 0.21
10:90 exceedance 0.24 0.88 0.5 0.33 0.35 0.48 0.9 0.39 0.98 0.03 0.69 0.09 0.57 0.16 -0.1 0.02 -0.24 -0.11 -0.15 -0.22 0.04 -0.25 -0.16 -0.23
Annual yield 0.22 0.33 0.1 0 0 0.07 0.36 0.98 0.52 0.04 0.7 1 0.09 0.5 0.57 0.53 0.43 0.16 0.55 -0.12 0.39 0.13 0.55 -0.11
Annual BF yield 0.32 0 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.86 0.51 0.66 0.53 0.94 0.71 0.21 0.13 0.9 0 0.16 0.27 0.41 -0.3 0.58 -0.03 0.41 -0.29
3d MAX Q 0.76 0.03 0.9 0.04 0.01 0.25 0.41 0.91 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.4 0.04 0.96 0.17 0.01 0.37 -0.14 0.25 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.26 0.09
3d MAX Q DOY 0.3 0.06 0.35 0.32 0.47 0.61 0.86 0.64 0.33 0.99 0.18 0.85 0.39 0.31 0.55 0.38 0.12 0.44 0.11 -0.11 0.27 0.21 0.11 -0.1
7d MIN Q 0.09 0.34 0.02 0 0 0.01 0.99 0.7 0.53 0.05 0.93 0.28 0.14 0.8 0.41 0 0.01 0.16 0.54 -0.17 0.19 0.08 0.98 -0.16
7d MIN Q DOY 0.62 0 0.38 0.71 0.79 0.54 0.73 0.68 0.78 0.38 0.89 0.41 0.79 0.23 0.2 0.51 0.09 0.65 0.54 0.32 -0.18 0.1 -0.16 0.98
3d MAX BF 0.45 0.9 0.51 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.53 0.94 0.36 0.94 0.97 0.53 0.36 0.19 0.8 0.02 0 0.51 0.12 0.28 0.3 -0.07 0.2 -0.19
3d MAX BF DOY 0.68 0.15 0.77 0.5 0.61 0.88 1 0.85 0.73 0.04 0.64 0.52 0.49 0.7 0.16 0.45 0.85 0.74 0.24 0.66 0.58 0.71 0.08 0.11
7d MIN BF 0.09 0.43 0.02 0 0 0.01 0.95 0.68 0.55 0.04 0.95 0.29 0.14 0.82 0.37 0 0.02 0.14 0.53 0 0.36 0.27 0.64 -0.15
7d MIN BF DOY 0.6 0 0.41 0.73 0.84 0.55 0.72 0.69 0.82 0.36 0.88 0.4 0.87 0.22 0.19 0.55 0.09 0.63 0.56 0.37 0 0.29 0.53 0.41
W285 GW 0.22 0.94 0.1 0.58 0.58 0.22 0.1 0.35 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.17 0.16 -0.47 0.51 0.13
W285 3d MAX GW 0.58 0.67 0.22 0.5 0.5 0.28 0.76 0.67 0.66 0.95 0.5 0.88 0.35 0.67 -0.24 -0.24 0.04
W285 3d MAX GW DOY 0.85 0.58 0.76 0.5 0.5 0.35 0.28 0.5 0.49 0.5 0.76 0.88 0.58 0.17 0.5 -0.16 -0.54
W285 7d MIN GW 0.42 0.42 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.95 0.13 0.28 0.95 0.76 0.76 0.28 0.35 0.13 0.5 0.67 -0.18
W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.31 0.45 0.53 0.38 0.53 1 0.71 0.62 0.61 0.25 0.71 0.4 0.62 0.71 0.9 0.11 0.62
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 192
Table G-8: Winter seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R J
FM
7d M
AX T
JFM
7d M
AX T
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN T
JFM
7d M
IN T
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX R
JFM
3d M
AX R
JFM
DO
Y
30d M
IN R
JFM
30d M
IN R
JFM
DO
Y
JFM
yie
ld
JFM
BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JFM
3d M
AX Q
JFM
DO
Y
7d M
IN Q
JFM
7d M
IN Q
JFM
DO
Y
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
3d M
AX B
F J
FM
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
7d M
IN B
F J
FM
DO
Y
W285 3
d M
AX G
W J
FM
W285 3
d M
AX G
W J
FM
DO
Y
W285 7
d M
IN G
W J
FM
W285 7
d M
IN G
W J
FM
DO
Y
Total R JFM 0.08 0.2 0.1 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.06 -0.26 0.54 0.3 0.33 -0.05 0.3 -0.28 0.13 -0.04 0.3 -0.19 -0.05 0.07 -0.16 -0.43
7d MAX T JFM 0.66 0.18 0.3 0.2 -0.01 0.03 0.1 0.11 -0.18 -0.03 -0.15 -0.07 0.04 0.16 -0.26 -0.18 0.02 0.23 0.35 -0.29 0.38 0.23
7d MAX T JFM DOY 0.23 0.29 0.01 0 0.13 0.14 -0.05 0 -0.04 -0.06 0.1 -0.1 -0.19 0.02 -0.23 -0.14 -0.14 0.09 0.29 -0.27 0.25 0.29
7d MIN T JFM 0.58 0.08 0.96 0.12 -0.02 -0.14 0.45 0.01 -0.04 0.28 -0.2 -0.21 0.37 -0.02 -0.01 -0.24 0.37 0.03 -0.27 0.4 -0.24 -0.04
7d MIN T JFM DOY 0.96 0.24 0.99 0.5 0.01 0.21 -0.09 0.2 0 -0.12 -0.08 0.18 -0.07 0.16 -0.06 0.24 -0.08 0.23 -0.28 0.26 -0.31 -0.12
3d MAX R JFM 0.05 0.96 0.44 0.9 0.95 0.23 -0.31 -0.03 0.34 0.06 0.39 0.14 0.09 -0.15 -0.01 0.21 0.1 -0.11 -0.16 0.22 -0.2 -0.16
3d MAX R JFM DOY 0.92 0.88 0.41 0.42 0.22 0.17 -0.21 0.14 0.03 0 -0.03 0.34 -0.08 0.1 0.01 0.16 -0.08 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.05 -0.31
30d MIN R JFM 0.71 0.54 0.77 0.01 0.62 0.07 0.21 -0.05 -0.01 0.26 -0.26 -0.21 0.48 -0.01 0.04 -0.41 0.45 0 -0.13 0.06 -0.04 -0.16
30d MIN R JFM DOY 0.12 0.5 0.98 0.97 0.25 0.85 0.42 0.76 -0.34 -0.23 -0.17 0.04 -0.22 0.34 -0.08 -0.02 -0.2 0.28 -0.2 0.11 -0.16 0
JFM yield 0 0.3 0.84 0.83 0.98 0.04 0.86 0.97 0.04 0.34 0.42 0.07 0.35 -0.22 0.29 0.11 0.34 -0.23 -0.13 0.15 -0.24 -0.35
JFM BF yield 0.07 0.87 0.72 0.09 0.47 0.73 0.99 0.13 0.18 0.04 -0.01 0 0.5 -0.18 0.54 -0.13 0.49 -0.15 0.2 -0.18 0.16 0.12
3d MAX Q JFM 0.05 0.4 0.58 0.25 0.66 0.02 0.86 0.13 0.33 0.01 0.97 0.02 -0.04 -0.06 0.1 0.11 -0.02 -0.05 0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.27
3d MAX Q JFM DOY 0.75 0.68 0.57 0.22 0.29 0.41 0.04 0.23 0.79 0.68 0.99 0.91 -0.07 0.06 0.13 0.15 -0.07 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.02 -0.08
7d MIN Q JFM 0.08 0.81 0.26 0.03 0.69 0.62 0.66 0 0.2 0.04 0 0.83 0.68 -0.13 0.24 -0.21 0.92 -0.1 -0.13 0.15 -0.16 -0.27
7d MIN Q JFM DOY 0.09 0.37 0.93 0.9 0.35 0.39 0.55 0.94 0.04 0.19 0.29 0.75 0.73 0.44 -0.07 -0.07 -0.1 0.81 0.35 -0.37 0.38 0.39
3d MAX BF JFM 0.44 0.12 0.18 0.96 0.74 0.96 0.95 0.8 0.63 0.09 0 0.58 0.46 0.15 0.69 0.09 0.26 -0.1 0.02 -0.15 -0.02 0.16
3d MAX BF JFM DOY 0.81 0.29 0.42 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.35 0.01 0.92 0.51 0.44 0.53 0.38 0.23 0.69 0.59 -0.2 -0.04 -0.15 0.02 -0.26 -0.04
7d MIN BF JFM 0.07 0.9 0.43 0.03 0.65 0.54 0.64 0.01 0.23 0.04 0 0.91 0.68 0 0.56 0.13 0.24 -0.08 -0.2 0.22 -0.24 -0.23
7d MIN BF JFM DOY 0.27 0.17 0.61 0.85 0.17 0.51 0.48 0.99 0.1 0.17 0.39 0.78 0.78 0.55 0 0.56 0.83 0.66 0.35 -0.37 0.38 0.39
W285 3d MAX GW JFM 0.87 0.3 0.39 0.42 0.41 0.63 0.79 0.71 0.56 0.71 0.56 0.87 0.87 0.71 0.3 0.96 0.66 0.56 0.3 -0.81 0.89 0.35
W285 3d MAX GW JFM DOY 0.83 0.38 0.42 0.22 0.44 0.52 0.91 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.59 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.27 0.67 0.96 0.52 0.27 0 -0.77 -0.45
W285 7d MIN GW JFM 0.63 0.25 0.46 0.48 0.35 0.56 0.87 0.9 0.63 0.48 0.63 0.87 0.96 0.63 0.25 0.96 0.44 0.48 0.25 0 0.01 0.43
W285 7d MIN GW JFM DOY 0.19 0.49 0.39 0.91 0.73 0.65 0.35 0.64 1 0.29 0.73 0.42 0.82 0.42 0.24 0.65 0.91 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.16 0.19
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 193
Table G-9: Spring seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R A
MJ
7d M
AX T
AM
J
7d M
AX T
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN T
AM
J
7d M
IN T
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX R
AM
J
3d M
AX R
AM
J D
OY
30d M
IN R
AM
J
30d M
IN R
AM
J D
OY
AM
J yie
ld
AM
J BF y
ield
3d M
AX Q
AM
J
3d M
AX Q
AM
J D
OY
7d M
IN Q
AM
J
7d M
IN Q
AM
J D
OY
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
3d M
AX B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
7d M
IN B
F A
MJ
DO
Y
W285 3
d M
AX G
W A
MJ
W285 3
d M
AX G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
W285 7
d M
IN G
W A
MJ
W285 7
d M
IN G
W A
MJ
DO
Y
Total R AMJ -0.17 0.02 -0.24 -0.27 0.66 -0.12 0.24 -0.16 0.58 0.36 0.47 0.06 0.43 -0.24 0.24 0.14 0.5 -0.09 -0.25 0.28 0.01 -0.35
7d MAX T AMJ 0.34 0.24 0.13 -0.08 -0.32 -0.04 -0.06 0.06 -0.15 -0.19 -0.24 0.03 -0.02 0.12 -0.21 -0.14 -0.04 0.03 -0.01 0.23 -0.45 -0.06
7d MAX T AMJ DOY 0.89 0.16 0.05 0.04 -0.13 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.12 0.02 -0.11 -0.05 0.08 0.17 -0.12 -0.02 0.08 0.12 -0.04 0.16 -0.13 -0.21
7d MIN T AMJ 0.16 0.46 0.77 0.18 -0.17 -0.04 -0.1 0.04 -0.28 -0.41 -0.25 0.05 -0.14 -0.04 -0.31 0.04 -0.24 -0.15 0.01 0.17 -0.08 0.06
7d MIN T AMJ DOY 0.11 0.66 0.82 0.31 -0.18 0.05 -0.1 -0.07 -0.16 -0.11 -0.11 -0.03 -0.05 0.02 -0.07 0.16 -0.15 -0.11 0.2 -0.13 0.01 0.24
3d MAX R AMJ 0 0.05 0.45 0.31 0.31 -0.07 0.09 -0.16 0.41 0.28 0.42 0.04 0.28 -0.23 0.29 0.1 0.36 -0.11 -0.23 0.28 0.03 -0.32
3d MAX R AMJ DOY 0.49 0.8 0.58 0.8 0.76 0.7 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.15 -0.12 0.32 -0.09 -0.04 -0.23 0.27 -0.1 -0.02 0.09 -0.27 0.18 0.02
30d MIN R AMJ 0.16 0.73 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.95 0.04 0.29 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.14 -0.1 0.22 0.13 0.17 -0.14 0.03 -0.01 -0.2
30d MIN R AMJ DOY 0.35 0.75 0.25 0.82 0.68 0.35 0.91 0.82 -0.13 -0.03 -0.15 0.05 -0.37 0.24 -0.07 -0.15 -0.34 -0.11 0.13 0.02 0.09 -0.05
AMJ yield 0 0.38 0.51 0.11 0.37 0.01 0.95 0.09 0.47 0.39 0.59 0.05 0.32 -0.07 0.15 0.21 0.38 0.02 -0.23 0.27 -0.1 -0.4
AMJ BF yield 0.03 0.28 0.89 0.01 0.53 0.1 0.4 0.71 0.88 0.02 0.22 -0.07 0.3 -0.07 0.58 -0.03 0.35 -0.01 -0.1 0.04 -0.03 -0.23
3d MAX Q AMJ 0 0.16 0.53 0.14 0.54 0.01 0.5 0.64 0.39 0 0.21 -0.11 0.2 -0.21 0.22 0.1 0.25 -0.09 -0.33 0.4 -0.15 -0.34
3d MAX Q AMJ DOY 0.71 0.86 0.78 0.76 0.87 0.8 0.06 0.39 0.76 0.79 0.69 0.52 0.02 -0.19 -0.23 0.05 -0.01 0.09 0.27 -0.31 0.25 0.19
7d MIN Q AMJ 0.01 0.9 0.65 0.42 0.77 0.1 0.61 0.37 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.25 0.91 -0.41 0.17 0.13 0.8 0.02 -0.08 0.17 -0.31 -0.28
7d MIN Q AMJ DOY 0.17 0.5 0.33 0.81 0.91 0.19 0.83 0.44 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.22 0.28 0.01 -0.12 0.07 -0.35 0.19 -0.03 -0.17 0.19 0.15
3d MAX BF AMJ 0.17 0.23 0.49 0.07 0.68 0.09 0.19 0.57 0.68 0.39 0 0.2 0.18 0.34 0.49 -0.18 0.21 -0.07 -0.15 0.25 -0.13 -0.28
3d MAX BF AMJ DOY 0.42 0.43 0.91 0.83 0.37 0.57 0.11 0.19 0.4 0.22 0.86 0.57 0.76 0.46 0.7 0.31 0.15 -0.1 -0.08 0.01 0.03 -0.17
7d MIN BF AMJ 0 0.83 0.65 0.17 0.39 0.03 0.57 0.47 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.94 0 0.04 0.23 0.4 -0.04 -0.15 0.25 -0.23 -0.42
7d MIN BF AMJ DOY 0.59 0.87 0.48 0.4 0.51 0.53 0.93 0.34 0.53 0.93 0.94 0.59 0.59 0.93 0.27 0.69 0.58 0.8 0.23 -0.49 0.29 0.56
W285 3d MAX GW AMJ 0.38 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.5 0.43 0.76 0.63 0.65 0.45 0.74 0.27 0.37 0.8 0.93 0.62 0.78 0.62 0.44 -0.66 0.56 0.7
W285 3d MAX GW AMJ DOY 0.34 0.42 0.59 0.57 0.66 0.34 0.35 0.91 0.94 0.37 0.9 0.18 0.3 0.58 0.57 0.42 0.96 0.42 0.09 0.01 -0.66 -0.69
W285 7d MIN GW AMJ 0.97 0.11 0.65 0.79 0.97 0.91 0.55 0.97 0.76 0.74 0.93 0.62 0.42 0.31 0.54 0.68 0.93 0.45 0.33 0.04 0.01 0.59
W285 7d MIN GW AMJ DOY 0.22 0.84 0.48 0.84 0.41 0.26 0.94 0.49 0.87 0.18 0.46 0.26 0.54 0.35 0.63 0.35 0.57 0.15 0.04 0 0.01 0.03
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 194
Table G-10: Summer seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and
p-value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R J
AS
7d M
AX T
JAS
7d M
AX T
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN T
JAS
7d M
IN T
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX R
JAS
3d M
AX R
JAS D
OY
30d M
IN R
JAS
30d M
IN R
JAS D
OY
JAS y
ield
JAS B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
JAS
3d M
AX Q
JAS D
OY
7d M
IN Q
JAS
7d M
IN Q
JAS D
OY
3d M
AX B
F J
AS
3d M
AX B
F J
AS D
OY
7d M
IN B
F J
AS
7d M
IN B
F J
AS D
OY
Total R JAS -0.24 0.08 -0.16 0.08 0.48 0.08 0.32 -0.19 0.54 0.46 0.51 0.35 0.56 -0.06 0.36 0.34 0.56 -0.05
7d MAX T JAS 0.16 -0.26 0.02 0.06 -0.17 -0.01 -0.28 -0.12 -0.39 -0.48 -0.38 -0.05 -0.4 0.05 -0.36 -0.16 -0.39 0.05
7d MAX T JAS DOY 0.65 0.13 0.01 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.11 -0.09 0.15 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.05
7d MIN T JAS 0.36 0.93 0.93 -0.12 -0.12 -0.18 0.1 0.24 -0.2 -0.14 -0.22 -0.19 -0.23 0.12 -0.09 -0.19 -0.22 0.11
7d MIN T JAS DOY 0.62 0.71 0.34 0.49 0.08 0.09 -0.08 0.06 0.01 0.03 -0.02 0.2 -0.05 -0.01 0.09 0.13 -0.06 -0.01
3d MAX R JAS 0 0.32 0.72 0.48 0.65 -0.04 0.06 -0.1 0.35 0.18 0.39 0.23 0.37 -0.01 0.15 0.2 0.39 0.01
3d MAX R JAS DOY 0.63 0.94 0.8 0.31 0.62 0.81 0.1 -0.04 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.26 0.13 -0.06 0.22 0.08 0.14 -0.06
30d MIN R JAS 0.05 0.1 0.26 0.55 0.62 0.73 0.56 -0.01 0.19 0.28 0.19 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.23 0.04 0.27 0
30d MIN R JAS DOY 0.26 0.48 0.68 0.16 0.71 0.55 0.84 0.93 -0.05 0.02 -0.07 -0.22 -0.29 0.37 0.03 -0.17 -0.28 0.37
JAS yield 0 0.02 0.45 0.24 0.93 0.04 0.61 0.28 0.77 0.74 0.85 0.16 0.57 0.1 0.53 0.31 0.57 0.11
JAS BF yield 0.01 0 0.33 0.43 0.87 0.3 0.43 0.11 0.91 0 0.68 0.13 0.58 0.08 0.7 0.33 0.57 0.08
3d MAX Q JAS 0 0.03 0.54 0.21 0.9 0.02 0.52 0.27 0.7 0 0 0.15 0.51 0.07 0.5 0.28 0.52 0.08
3d MAX Q JAS DOY 0.04 0.78 0.62 0.28 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.98 0.22 0.38 0.46 0.39 0.32 -0.21 0.14 0.28 0.32 -0.21
7d MIN Q JAS 0 0.02 0.4 0.19 0.77 0.03 0.47 0.12 0.09 0 0 0 0.07 -0.13 0.42 0.31 0.98 -0.11
7d MIN Q JAS DOY 0.75 0.77 0.75 0.5 0.95 0.98 0.73 0.95 0.03 0.59 0.66 0.69 0.22 0.47 0.03 -0.15 -0.11 0.98
3d MAX BF JAS 0.04 0.04 0.62 0.61 0.63 0.4 0.22 0.19 0.86 0 0 0 0.41 0.01 0.85 0.32 0.42 0.05
3d MAX BF JAS DOY 0.05 0.38 0.48 0.28 0.48 0.25 0.65 0.81 0.35 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.39 0.07 0.3 -0.15
7d MIN BF JAS 0 0.02 0.44 0.22 0.75 0.02 0.42 0.13 0.11 0 0 0 0.06 0 0.52 0.01 0.08 -0.1
7d MIN BF JAS DOY 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.55 0.93 0.97 0.75 0.99 0.03 0.53 0.64 0.66 0.24 0.53 0 0.79 0.41 0.58
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 195
Table G-11: Autumn seasonal analysis of Kendall’s Rank for the Parkhill Creek. Correlation coefficient is above and p-
value is below the diagonal. Correlation coefficient and p-values that meet thresholds for inclusion in analysis are
shaded.
Tota
l R O
ND
7d M
AX T
ON
D
7d M
AX T
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN T
ON
D
7d M
IN T
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX R
ON
D
3d M
AX R
ON
D D
OY
30d M
IN R
ON
D
30d M
IN R
ON
D D
OY
ON
D y
ield
ON
D B
F y
ield
3d M
AX Q
ON
D
3d M
AX Q
ON
D D
OY
7d M
IN Q
ON
D
7d M
IN Q
ON
D D
OY
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
3d M
AX B
F O
ND
DO
Y
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
7d M
IN B
F O
ND
DO
Y
Total R OND -0.14 -0.05 0.24 -0.08 0.56 -0.12 0.4 -0.02 0.51 0.39 0.41 -0.13 0.16 -0.12 0.38 -0.29 0.15 0.06
7d MAX T OND 0.43 0.07 0.04 -0.08 0 0.16 -0.06 -0.17 -0.11 -0.17 0.04 0.22 -0.28 -0.19 -0.07 0.06 -0.24 -0.16
7d MAX T OND DOY 0.79 0.68 -0.02 -0.08 -0.03 0.09 0.15 0.06 -0.01 -0.11 0.14 0.18 0 0.11 -0.08 0.02 0 0.08
7d MIN T OND 0.16 0.83 0.92 0.03 0.24 -0.04 0.27 -0.35 0.16 0.15 0.1 0.02 0.09 -0.04 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.06
7d MIN T OND DOY 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.84 -0.12 -0.05 0.02 -0.07 0.05 0.12 -0.15 -0.03 0.06 0.06 0.04 -0.11 0.05 0.08
3d MAX R OND 0 0.99 0.88 0.16 0.49 -0.03 0.17 -0.03 0.43 0.37 0.45 -0.11 0.18 -0.03 0.46 -0.25 0.23 0.17
3d MAX R OND DOY 0.48 0.34 0.62 0.8 0.76 0.85 -0.07 -0.12 -0.1 -0.19 0.01 0.32 -0.13 -0.23 -0.11 0.37 -0.12 -0.06
30d MIN R OND 0.02 0.73 0.38 0.12 0.9 0.31 0.67 -0.16 0.31 0.17 0.27 0.02 0.14 -0.11 0.09 -0.13 0.12 -0.01
30d MIN R OND DOY 0.91 0.31 0.74 0.04 0.68 0.87 0.49 0.36 0.1 0.11 0.05 -0.32 0.17 0.16 0.1 -0.17 0.14 0.01
OND yield 0 0.55 0.96 0.38 0.77 0.01 0.57 0.07 0.56 0.71 0.61 -0.23 0.49 0.24 0.64 -0.39 0.5 0.3
OND BF yield 0.02 0.33 0.55 0.39 0.5 0.03 0.29 0.33 0.52 0 0.47 -0.4 0.53 0.36 0.74 -0.45 0.54 0.45
3d MAX Q OND 0.02 0.8 0.41 0.58 0.41 0.01 0.98 0.12 0.8 0 0.01 -0.13 0.31 0.12 0.47 -0.35 0.33 0.23
3d MAX Q OND DOY 0.45 0.21 0.3 0.93 0.85 0.52 0.07 0.9 0.06 0.18 0.02 0.46 -0.33 -0.3 -0.23 0.43 -0.33 -0.28
7d MIN Q OND 0.37 0.11 0.98 0.63 0.75 0.31 0.47 0.45 0.33 0 0 0.07 0.06 0.54 0.3 -0.3 0.92 0.41
7d MIN Q OND DOY 0.51 0.28 0.54 0.83 0.74 0.86 0.2 0.55 0.35 0.18 0.03 0.5 0.08 0 0.2 -0.23 0.51 0.51
3d MAX BF OND 0.03 0.71 0.63 0.54 0.84 0.01 0.54 0.62 0.56 0 0 0.01 0.18 0.08 0.26 -0.39 0.32 0.33
3d MAX BF OND DOY 0.09 0.75 0.9 0.93 0.55 0.15 0.03 0.47 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.19 0.02 -0.3 -0.3
7d MIN BF OND 0.4 0.16 1 0.54 0.77 0.2 0.51 0.5 0.43 0 0 0.05 0.06 0 0 0.07 0.09 0.45
7d MIN BF OND DOY 0.72 0.38 0.64 0.73 0.65 0.34 0.73 0.94 0.97 0.09 0.01 0.18 0.1 0.02 0 0.06 0.09 0.01
Hydrologic Function: Framework Considerations and Approach to Subwatershed Baseline Characterization 196
Table G-12: Occurrences of probable correlation where Spearman’s Rank and Kendall’s Rank indicate parameter
correlation but linear regression does not for Parkhill Creek.
Spearman's
Rank
Kendall's
Rank Linear Regression
Time
Period Parameter 1 Parameter 2 ρ
p-
value τ
p-
value R²
p-
value
slope
sign
Annual P-PET 7d MIN Q 0.70 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.43 0.00 +
P-PET 7d MIN BF -0.52 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.48 0.00 +
JFM Total R JFM yield 0.69 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.45 0.00 +
AMJ BF yield 3d MAX BF 0.76 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.48 0.00 +
7d MIN BF DOY W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.67 0.01 0.56 0.04 -0.09 0.82 +
W285 7d MIN GW W285 7d MIN GW DOY 0.72 0.00 0.59 0.03 0.44 0.01 +
JAS Total R 7d MIN Q 0.72 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.49 0.00 +
OND Total R 3d MAX R 0.75 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.48 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN Q 0.68 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.38 0.00 +
BF yield 7d MIN BF 0.70 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.30 0.00 +
7d MIN Q 7d MIN Q DOY 0.73 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.26 0.00 +
7d MIN Q DOY 7d MIN BF 0.70 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.34 0.00 +
top related