If you are offering to write an image to data parsing tool, I will jump on your offer kindly!!!!

The data is still inaccurate as the NWRFC mostly uses USGS and other locality gauges and most of the time does not operate gauges on their own. In many cases they will post past data based on forcasted trends until a gauge updates in which case you can see the big graph chiggers and resets.

But still I would love to get the Image to Txt parser if you can help me there

I have never seen that txt plot... Me likey!!!

USGS does not have a gauge for the Cle Elum so they are probably using the NWRFC. I will add that into the todo list but you won't see it replace the gauge until I can confirm that they either have direct access to the gauge stream for more updated data which is unlikely or a separate gauge on the river. Sure they might be accurate right now but there has not been any weather changes from what is forcasted. You can always access the NWRFC with a simple click but I don't think it is in our best interest to post theoretical data as observed data which is what the NWRFC does until a source is available to revise or make a correction. What I am saying is that when a gauge only posts every 4 hours NWRFC will add the forcasted amounts and report it as ovbserved until a new true observation rebuilds the forcast and graphs, that is why often they show big changes or drops in the graph and sometimes complete blanks.

I think it is better to air on the side of caution and allow the paddler to obtain his forcasted data seperate and ensure what he gets from the USGS, PUD etc. which we mirror is indeed true gauge readings. Posting up the NWRFC when they are incorrect could cause people to plan on rivers that are not going to be runnable or could be way to high. This happens to the NWRFC all the time not during heat spells that go exactly to plan, more during rain events, fall storms and the occasional hot winter day). I have seen the NWRFC report thunder creek holding at 1000 which is runnable when over the period of 2 hours it jumped into the 1900 range, the same is true with Robe to.

Again this is just how we have done it... if folks want it done differently it can always change. So the above is just our history and a bit of my opinion.

As for Dreamflows, they are not just better programmers and paddlers, they also have a more refined social skill set and greater diversity of cleavage... 



in their mountain ranges

I am digging the method of extrapolation your using which seems more accurate than even the NWRFC model. That is however only so accurate because it is posting every 15 minutes If it were hourly or every 4 hours which most gauges are it would not be so accurate. I am pretty sure they use the inflow data posted every 24 hours which is why your calculation is much more accurate than theirs. Again tomorrow morning you will see more accurate details as they post up observed amounts and revisions.

What your suggesting now is not simply using the NWRFC but a new method, which again we can do, and it might be more accurate for the cooper than just the inflow, but I would personally prefer to either have your method or a 24 hour inflow reading than a hippity hoppity graph from NWRFC

Just go paddle the Cooper!!! If there is enough water to get down, it's fun...

Sometimes there is just too much fun to be had...

Hey - for anyone interested - the actual inflow the past three hours has been 1480 cfs. Not sure why BuRec doesn't even have a report this morning...

Big fun today!!! Fluffy and boofalicious...