Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N <br />'" <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />26TZ <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />T_~l~ 4. - Cor~elation ~trix for 12 Colorado R~7Z= Stations <br />(Heath-ly F-l_) <br /> <br /> ~.~- r'-~-I-~-~ 7 - <br />Station* 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 <br />1 1.00 0.92 0.99 0.96 0.93 0.94 0.86 0.81 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.21 <br /> 0.89 .97 .93 .91 .91 .81 .80 .90 .89 .96 -0.08 <br />2 1.00 .92 .81 .83 .80 .76 .60 ,93 ,88 .83 0.36 <br /> .88 .77 .83 .82 .73 .64 ,84 .85 .83 0.04 <br />3 1.00 .95 .93 .93 ,82 .75 .98 .97 .93 0.22 <br /> .93 .86 .88 .78 .74 .95 .90 .88 -0.07 <br />4 1.00 .89 .96 .80 .85 .89 ,97 .93 0.01 <br /> .85 .86 .72 .80 ,80 .84 .86 -0.15 <br />5 1.00 .94 .78 .76 .91 .88 .94 0.20 <br /> Stations .88 .74 .71 .80 .84 .91 -0.03 <br />6 1. Lees Ferry 1.00 ,83 .80 .89 .93 .93 0.03 <br />2. San Juan, Bluff .84 .70 ,84 .86 .89 -0.10 <br />7 3. Colo. R., Cisco 1.00 .66 .79 ,79 .87 0.27 <br /> 4. Colo. R., Cameo .67 .78 .68 .82 -0.01 <br />8 5. Yampa R. 1.00 ,66 .79 .88 -0.07 <br />6. White R. ,61 .68 .84 -0.15 <br />9 7. Duchesne R. 1.00 .94 ,89 0.28 <br /> 8. Green R., LaBarge ,86 .82 -0.03 <br />10 9. Gunnison, Grand Jet. 1. 00 ,91 0.08 <br /> 10. Gunnison, Blue Mesa .83 -0.15 <br />11 11. Green R., Utah 1.00 0.19 <br /> 12. Virgin R. -0.08 <br />12 1.00 <br /> <br />*Simp1e correlation coefficients given for 1942-1956 historic monthly flows on first line and <br />for a 3D-year synthetic trace of monthly flows on the second line (da,tll generate4 for. the July <br />1974 report). <br /> <br />