My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00601
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00601
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:26:51 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:50:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.300
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - USGS
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1996
Author
USGS
Title
Trend Analysis of Selected Water-Quality Data Associated with Salinity-Control Projects in the Grand Valley - in the Lower gunnison River Basin - and at Meeker Dome Western Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />f\) <br />r,) <br />r,) <br />-.J <br /> <br />The null hypothesis is that there is no trend, or <br />the value of coefficient b equals zero. If there is a sig- <br />nificant trend, the value of b is the magnitude of the <br />trend. Use of equation 3 does not adjust the annual or <br />seasonal loads for the effects of streamflow, To remove <br />the variation in annual or seasonal loads caused by <br />streamflow, the same flow-adjustment method that was <br />used for the seasonal Kendall test also was used for the <br />regression method. Flow-adjusted linear regression <br />was done in a two-step method. First, the loads were <br />regressed against streamflow using hyperbolic func- <br />tions, which had the highest coefficients of determina- <br />tion when compared to other flow-adjustment models. <br />Residuals from the flow+adjustment models were <br />tested for normality and :constant variance to verify <br />that assumptions for usiqg the parametric method were <br />not violated. Second, the residuals from the flow- <br />adjustment models, or the flow-adjusted loads, were <br />regressed against time using equation 3. The null <br />hypothesis is that there is no trend in the flow-adjusted <br />loads or that the value of coefficient b in equation 3 <br />is not significantly diffe(ent from zero. Regression <br />trend tests were done using procedures in SAS <br />(SAS Institute, 1982). <br /> <br />Step-Trend Analysis <br /> <br />Step-trend analysis can be used to determine if <br />there is a difference in population means or medians <br />between two or more sets of data. Parametric or non- <br />parametric methods can be used. The parametric test <br />for step trends is the two-sample t-test (Iman and <br />Conover, 1983). When using the Hest, it is assumed <br />that the data sets are normally distributed about their <br />mean values. The t-test determines if there is a signif- <br />icant difference between'the means of two data sets. <br />Parametric tests have diminished power to detect <br />true differences in mean values when applied to data <br />that are not normally dislributed. A commonly used <br />nonparametric test for step trends is the Wilcoxon <br />rank-sum test. That test 1s computed using a two- <br />sample t-test applied to the ranks of the data instead of <br />using the original data. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test <br />has no assumptions concerning data distributions. The <br />rank-sum test is used to test for the difference in medi- <br />ans between two data sets. <br />The step-trend tests were done using procedures <br />in SAS (SAS Institute, 1982). For tests involving com- <br />parisons among three or more data sets, multiple t-tests <br /> <br />were used on the original data (parametric method) and <br />on the ranks of the data (nonparametric method). <br />Repeated t-tests were done because they are more <br />applicable to unequal sample sizes than are other tests, <br />such as the Duncan multiple range test (SAS Institute, <br />1982). <br /> <br />TREND ANALYSIS FOR THE COLORADO <br />AND GUNNISON RIVERS <br /> <br /> <br />Monotonic trends in dissolved-solids and major- <br />ion data at three sites were investigated to examine <br />possible effects on salinity in the Colorado River <br />from salinity~ontrol projects in the Grand Valley <br />(the Grand Valley Unit) and in the lower Gunnison <br />River Basin (the Lower Gunnison Basin Unit). Gaging <br />station 09163500 (fig. 1) on the Colorado River near <br />the Colorado-Utah State line is the outflow site and is <br />downstream from the Grand Valley and the Gunnison <br />River. lt was not sufficient to evaluate trends only at <br />station 09163500 because trends at that station might <br />have been induced by salinity trends in the Colorado <br />River upstream from the Grand Valley or by trends <br />in the Gunnison River. Based on data in table l, <br />about 83 percent of the annual mean dissolved-solids <br />load at station 09163500 for water years 1970-93 was <br />accounted for at inflow gaging stations 09095500 <br />Colorado River near Cameo and 09152500 Gunnison <br />River near Grand Junction (fig. l). Therefore, <br />stations 09095500 and 09152500 were included in <br />the trend analysis. Plateau Creek (station 09105000) <br />accounted for only about 2 percent of the annual mean <br />dissolved-solids load at station 091635oo during <br />1970-93 (table I). Trends in Plateau Creek were <br />unlikely to have an effect on trends in the Colorado <br />River; therefore, trend analysis was not done for <br />station 09105000. <br />The period of record for the trend analysis was <br />water years 1970-93 (October 1969-September 1993). <br />Most major water-storage projects in the Colorado <br />River Basin upstream from the Grand Valley were <br />completed by 1965. Reservoir construction during a <br />time period being analyzed for water-quality trends <br />would complicate the flow-adjustment trend analysis <br />or render it unfeasible. Although there are dissolved- <br />solids data for 1966-93, the trend tests were done <br />on data from water years 1970-93 so as to have <br />concurrent records with periodic major-ion data for <br />the three stations. Two shorter periods also were <br />examined for trends. Water years 1980-93 were <br /> <br /> <br />TREND ANALYSIS FOR THE COLORADO AND GUNNISON RIVERS 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.