Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11 <br /> <br />storage gage data, Priority 5 data generally were not used dil'ect'ly in <br /> <br />Dositioning the isohyets. Priority 1 stations were used "as is" with no <br /> <br />adjustments leeded. <br /> <br />Figul'e 1 shows clearly the low number of high prior'ty 'complete <br />and near complete 30-year data sets) data points in Colorado. Using <br /> <br />priority 1 and 2 stations only, it would have been nearly impossible to <br /> <br />produce a mar of the scale and resolution we desired. Adding short <br /> <br />:^ecord 1 enqth and seasonal data to the analyses (Figure 2), was <br /> <br />imperative to achieve reasonable data density particularly in the <br /> <br />mountains. <br /> <br />A. "Normal_-:.r_a,tjo" adj ustment~_proc.::dure <br />Priority 2 stations (25-29 years of cOl'1plete data) ranged fror" <br /> <br />stations \ViU' just one missing month to as l'1uch as 5 consecuti ,e years <br /> <br />of missini] (iata. For these stations, the "normal-ratio" procedure was <br /> <br />used to estimate monthly precipitation for each missing month. The <br /> <br />"normal-rat'io" procedure (Linsley et al., 1982) for estimating missing <br /> <br />monthly precipitation totals is described by the following equation: <br /> <br />EST. <br />J <br /> <br />= J._,~~O\ <br />I PAVG. <br />, <br /> <br />x <br /> <br />PAVG. <br />J <br /> <br />"here <br /> <br />EST, - estimated precipitation value for a specific month at <br />J <br /> <br />station j, <br /> <br />PMON, <br />'I <br /> <br />recorded preci'pitation values for the specific month at <br /> <br />each of the i 3D-year stations within the salDe ('I imatic <br /> <br />re'lion as station j. <br /> <br />PAVG, - 30~year normal s for the speci fi c month at each of the i <br />l <br /> <br />stations in the same climatic region. <br />