|
<br />o
<br />CD
<br />to
<br />l'\:J
<br />
<br />CONTENTS - Continued
<br />
<br />TABLES
<br />
<br />Table
<br />
<br />Page
<br />
<br />1 Colorado River Basin gaging stations selected for analysis ,..,....,..',." 5
<br />2 Root-mean-square errors (weighted by Cm -2) of two equations describing the
<br />concentration-streamflow relationship ..,.."""."..,..."..,..,. 11
<br />3 Identification of stations. seasons, and solutes where solute
<br />concentration (C) or load (L) is relatively independent of streamflow ." 13
<br />4 Significant long-term trends in concentration (mg/(L'a)) by linear
<br />regression...".."..".."".".",..,...,."""..,..."..,." 18
<br />5 Significant long-term trends in concentration (mg/(L'a)) by log
<br />regression ..."...,..."..",..,..".."..,..".",.,..."..,.., 20
<br />6 Significant long-term trends in concentration (mg/(L'a)) by semilog
<br />regression ".."...,..."...,.."..".".."."..".,..'.".."., 22
<br />7 Significant long-term trends in concentration (mg/(L'a)) by nonlinear
<br />regression ofthe residence time equation """,..,..',.",'.,..". 24
<br />8 Significant long-term trends in concentration (mg/(L'a)) with highest
<br />confidence levels of the different regressions "."."..,...".""" 26
<br />9 Significant long-term trends in mass fraction (%/a) by linear regression ,.,. 28
<br />10 Significant long-term trends in mass fraction (%/a) by log regression ".... 30
<br />11 Significant long-term trends in mass fraction (%/a) by semilog
<br />. regression ....................................................., 32
<br />12 Significant long-term trends in mass fraction (%/a) with highest confidence
<br />levels of the different regressions ,..",....."."",......"..',." 34
<br />13 Significant differences in mean concentration and mass .fraction (P :5 0,06)
<br />between the pre-1963 and the post-1965 periods, December-March ... 39
<br />14 Significant differences in mean concentration and mass fraction (P:5 0.06)
<br />between the pre-1963 and the post-1966 periods, May-June .."..,.. 40
<br />16 Significant differences in mean concentration and mass fraction (P:5 0,05)
<br />between the pre-1963 and the post-1965 periods.
<br />
<br />August-November ,..",.",."..".."."""..,...,..".."..,. 41
<br />16 Comparison by season of the pre-19G3 and the post-1965 sulfate
<br />concentrations and mass fractions ..'..',..".",."......".",." 42
<br />17 Significant trends in the post-19G6 period. December-March .,...".."., 43
<br />18 Significant trends in the post-1965 period. May-June",.,...,........,.., 45
<br />19 Significant trends in the post-1966 period. August-November ..".",..,.. 46
<br />
<br />FIGURES
<br />
<br />Figure Page
<br />1 Map of salinity control project sites and gage stations in the Colorado
<br />River Basin..".."..",..".",.",..,..".."..,..".."...,., 3
<br />2 Historical vs, projected TDS at Imperial Dam (without salinity control) ...,.. 4
<br />3 Average monthly streamflow variation, Colorado River at Cisco.
<br />
<br />Utah. 1928-1982 ...,.....;.............,.."....."...,......,.. 8
<br />4 Average monthly variation in TDS load. Colorado River at Cisco,
<br />Utah,1928-1982 ".",..."."...,..".",.".."...,......"." 8
<br />6 Residence time equation on log-log scale ",....."""."..',..,......, 1 0
<br />6 Linear trend of magnesium ion concentration with a linear correction for
<br />the variability ofstreamflow ..'.., , . , , , . . , . . .. . . . , . , , , . . , , . , , . . . , . . 3G
<br />7 Log-log trend of magnesium ion concentration with a power correction
<br />for the variability of streamflow , , . . , . . . . , . , , , . , , . . , . . . , . . . , . . . , , . , , 36
<br />
<br />iv
<br />
|