Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O:j~~'')l <br />u.,t t)'tJ <br /> <br />using stochastic methods. Consequently, conclusions should be <br />limited to those based on the means and variance computed from the <br />results of the entire run. Actual run results are presented on <br />that basis. <br /> <br />Presentation of Results <br /> <br />Results are tabulated for several stations throughout the system and <br />for all the reservoirs. In particular, the mean monthly flow or vol- <br />ume, mean monthly time-weighted and flow-weighted concentrations, and <br />the time-weighted standard deviation of the monthly results based on <br />the 30-year runs are given for the following stations: <br /> <br />Inflow to Lake Powell, Node 9 of Figure 2 <br />Lake Powell, Element 10 <br />Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Node 10 <br />Colorado River near Grand Canyon, Node 11 <br />Lake Mead, Element l3 <br />Colorado River below Hoover Dam, Node 13 <br />Lake Mohave, Element 14 <br />Lake Ilavasu, Element IS <br />Outflow from Parker Dam after ~fl~D and CAP diversions, Node 19 <br />Colorado River at Imperial Dam, Node 16 representing total flow <br />to satisfy Colorado River flows, All-American Canal diversions, <br />and Gila Gravity Main Canal. <br /> <br />Run numbers are those assigned chronologically as the computer runs <br />were made. The runs are described in a systematic fashion independent <br />of these numbers. Only a few selected plots and listings are included. <br />Detailed computer output can be obtained from the authors. <br /> <br />Base Runs <br /> <br />Many runs were made in developing a base condition. Errors in data, <br />previously undetected program "bugs," various attempts at modeling <br />the system, and the desire to attain a realistic duplication of river <br />basin operations necessitated this. The previous discussions involv- <br />ing ungaged tributary inputs, present modified data, reservoir param- <br />eters, and operating criteria described the final approaches and values <br />used. The hydrologic budget for the base condition is summarized in <br />Table V. <br /> <br />Three runs were made for comparison with results of the Biennial <br />Report. They involve the same total mass of water and salts, but <br />are based on different distributions for downstream boundary flows <br />and ungaged tributary inputs in the Parker-Imperial reach. The <br />runs are: <br /> <br />22 <br />