Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r I <br />. <br /> <br />II' H:. <br /> <br />altered return flow regimes resulting from project operation <br />would have to be overcome. <br /> <br />I' <br />, . <br /> <br />Due to the constraints noted above and the immediate <br />necessity for a workable prediction methodology, a statis- <br />tical approach was taken. The concepts considered indevel- <br />oping the methodology are set forth in the text of this <br />report. <br /> <br />I <br />I . <br />I ! <br />j <br />I <br />( <br />p <br />r <br />I <br />~ <br />, . <br />I . <br /> <br />I <br />, <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Relationships Investigated. <br /> <br />Several types of relationships were investigated before <br />a final decision on an annual regression analysis was made. <br />Among these were, monthly relationships between Pugatoire <br />River at Thatcher flows, project ditch diversions and <br />purgatoire River flows at Trinidad. Lagged monthly flows, <br />hydrograph separation and precipitation were also consid- <br />ered. None of the above yielded satisfactory results. It <br />was concluded that despite reasonable correlations through <br />the summer months, lack of precisely defined relationships <br />through the remainder of the year severely impaired accu- <br />racy. Apparently the hydrologic system does not completely <br />and consistently respond on a monthly basis. <br /> <br />. . <br />I <br /> <br />~ <br />il <br />r <br /> <br />Mass and double mass diagrams were also investigated. <br />Because the time since reservoir operation began is short, <br />no satisfactory conclusions could be reached. <br /> <br />-12- <br />