Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.....-- <br />>> ""-J Subclasses <br />W <br /> W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <br />cFs 4.5 23.6 80 144 302 392 5D9 <br />If 151 328 433 543 <br />If 192 360 464 565 <br />Totals 4.5 23.6 80 487 990 1289 1617 <br />Averages 4.5 23.6 80 162 330 430 539 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8 <br />846 <br /> <br />846 <br />846 <br /> <br />The Piedra River in the vicinity of Arboles falls in subjCass 5. On that <br /> <br /> <br />basis, it could provide the initial data for stream simulation for itself <br /> <br /> <br />and two other streams in Class C. With less confidence, the simulated <br /> <br />reach could represent the three streams in subclass 6 and, at a sti 11 <br /> <br />lower level of confidence, the three streams in subclass 4. One would be <br /> <br /> <br />reluctant to stretch it any farther. This would leave seven streams in <br /> <br /> <br />Class C unrepresented. <br /> <br />The analysis, showing UCRB streams by group and size class was drafted in <br /> <br /> <br />April and submitted to the Study Manager by memorandum dated May 2, 1978 <br /> <br /> <br />(attachments B-1 and B-2). Attachment B-3 presents a summary of the <br /> <br /> <br />analysis. This suggests, strictly on the basis of the stratification <br /> <br /> <br />process, candidate streams considered suitable to provide initial data <br /> <br /> <br />for simulation of representative reaches in the upper portion of average <br /> <br /> <br />annual flows in each class. This was a simplification of the detailed <br /> <br /> <br />subclass stratification used in the foregoing example. The candidate <br /> <br /> <br />reaches selected by the Steering Committee (the February 1 list as <br /> <br /> <br />revised April 4) are also displayed. <br /> <br />21 <br />