Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000475 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />highlights of this study are worth mentioning <br />here: <br /> <br />a. Individual correlation coefficients of up <br />to approximately 0.6 were obtained. <br /> <br />b. Correlation coefficients for precipitation <br />period No. 1 (October precipitation only) were <br />generally higher than the values for later periods. <br />This fact lends credence to the major storm con- <br />cept discussed in greater detail in a later section <br />of this report. <br /> <br />c. Correlation coefficients were such that <br />it appears that the evapotranspiration estimates <br />shown in Table III are probably. slightly higher than <br />actual values. A computation of the type de- <br />scribed in this Gwmison River study would enable <br />one to make better estimates of this <br /> <br />evapotranspiration 108s by repeated estimates of <br />the type described in this study. <br /> <br />d. Correlation coefficients obtained for <br />precipitation periods extending through April were <br />usually better than for periods including precipi- <br />tation from months following April. The reason <br />for this fact is not known. It suggests, however. <br />that forecasts of runoff from the Gunnison River <br />may be of acceptable quality if prepared at the <br />time the winter precipitation data are available for <br />April, without being concerned about the additional <br />amounts of precipitation that may fall later in the <br />season on the Basin. <br /> <br />e. This preliminary study illustrates one of <br />the procedures that might be followed in adapting <br />llreIined'1 climatological data to hydrologic prob- <br />lems of an operational nature. Better results <br />would be anticipated in smaller catchment areas. <br />