Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br /> <br />IV. Analysis <br /> <br />Data from all stations were assembled into a uniform data set <br />consisting of monthly precipitation values October 1950 through <br />September 1980. Seasonal data sets SUCh3S storage gage data and the <br />SCS snow course data wer'e processed separately since they did not <br />contain monthly readings throughout the year. All monthly data were <br />checked for accuracy and, when necessary, compared ~litf1 their original <br />hand-written dai ly observation form. For all complete years, annual <br />tota 1 s along wi th October-April and May-September sea s on a 1 to ta 1 s were <br />calculated. All missing or incomp'lete months and years were flagged for <br />later consideration during the adjllstment procedures. <br />An important aspect of this precipitat'ion analysis was "adjusting" <br />all precipitation to be consistent with the complete 1951-1980 period. <br />Separate procedures were used depending on the type of gage used <br />(standard raingage, storag'? gage, etc. 1 and the pl-iolrity assigned to the <br />station. Each procedure for adjustment is outl ined separately. <br />Priorities were assigned to each station based on the length of <br />record and the quality of the data collected. Table 1 shows the <br />priority definitions that were WerE! used and the implication that had <br />for the analysis. Stations which werE' used in this analysis are listed <br />in the appendix according to their priority rating. The approximate <br />locations for these stat"ions are shown in Figure 1 and, 2. The first 3 <br />categories contained mostly NW$ weather stations. SCS snow course data <br />and some lISFS and BLM storage gage data were givE'n a priority rating of <br />4. Data from priorities 2..4 all needed some adjustment before being <br />used. No adjustment was performed on pri ority 5 data whi ch was composed <br />of miscellaneous short record stations (!;-14 years) and much of the old <br />