My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05652
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:10:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.300
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agency Reports - USGS
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1997
Author
USGS
Title
Interim Results of Quality-Control Sampling of Surface Water for the Upper Colorado River National Water - Quality Assessment Study Unit - Water Years 1995-96
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.
/
39
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 /> Table 3. Distribution of field-blank samples <br />0 I'~, no sample or not appltcahle; lah, office laborUfory] <br />-.....J . <br />en <br />Co:) Site Land Previous General <br /> use site chemical <br /> constituents <br /> Slate Line Mixed Reed h <br /> Dor.~ero Mixed Baker i <br /> Gunnison Mi;~ed Gunnison near m <br /> near Grand Grand Junction <br /> Junction <br /> Gunnison Mixed Lab cleaned <br /> Tunnel refe.rence2 Lab cleaned <br /> Lab cleaned <br /> East Rural urban. Gunnison at <br /> recreation 32 Road <br /> Gore Rural urban, French <br /> recreatIOn <br /> French Mining French <br /> Dry Agriculture Lab cleaned <br /> Baker Reference. Lab cleaned <br /> srmJ Lab cleaned <br /> <br />Concentration range at previous site1 <br />Dissolved Suspended <br />Nutrients organic organic <br />carbon carbon <br /> <br />Trace <br />elements <br /> <br />h <br />I <br /> <br />h <br /> <br />h <br />I <br /> <br />m <br />In <br /> <br />m <br /> <br />m <br /> <br />In <br /> <br />III <br /> <br />m <br /> <br />h <br /> <br />III <br /> <br />h <br /> <br />'Concenlralion ranges with respe("{ /0 all SIIes wilhin the ~urface-waler network.. I = low. m = medium. h = high. <br />:Oownslrearn from major reservoir .<.y:~aem. <br />3Phy.<.iographlc prOVlnl'~, ~nn = Smnhem Rocky Mountain. <br /> <br />different combinations of sources of variability. <br />The pre-processing split replicate. the concurrent <br />and sequential replicate. and the post-processing <br />split-replicate samples collected in surface water of <br />the UeOl study unit for water years \ 995-96 are <br />discussed in the following sections. <br />Data published by the U.S. Geological <br />Survey are rounded. For example. a calcium value of <br />ISO mg/l (milligrams per liter) is reponed (rounded) <br />to the nearest 10 mg/L. A calcium value of 6.5 mg/L <br />is rounded to Ihe nearest 0.1 mg/L. Data rounding is <br />incorporated in the assessment of replicate analysis in <br />this report by using a unit called the lowest rounding <br />unit. A lowest rounding unit of I would represent <br />10 mgfl for the 150 mg/L sample and would represent <br />0.1 mg/L for the 6.5 mg/L sample. A lowest rounding <br />unit is equal to the magnitude of the least significant <br />figure reported by the USGS National Water Quality <br />laboratory. In this report. the differences between the <br />environmental and replicate values are given in the <br />units of the constituent and in lowest rounding units. <br />The use of lowest rounding units for comparison <br />avoids skewing comparisons when values of conslitu- <br />ents span orders of magnitude. For example. consider <br /> <br />the two pairs of magnesium values for the French <br />and Dry sites (table 4). The environmenlal and split- <br />replicate values for French are 5.5 and 5.6 mg/L, <br />resulting in a difference of -0. I mg/L. The Dry envi- <br />ronmental and splil-replicate values are 36 and <br />37 mg/L. resulting in a difference of -I mg/L. Both <br />of the differences are -I unit of the leasl significant <br />figure or -I unit of the lowesl rounding value. The <br />practical difference between the environmenlal and <br />replicate values is similar in both of these cases (the <br />only smaller difference available for each pair of <br />samples would be zero). A comparison of the actual <br />magnitude difference between the environmenlal and <br />split-replicate pairs (-0.1 to -I mg/L) is of little <br />use. A difference between the environmental and split- <br />replicate sample for Ihe Dry site could not be 0.1 mg/I. <br />because the dala are reported to the nearesl whole <br />milligram per liter. <br />Percent differences between the environmental <br />and replicate values do not yield practical significance <br />for many of the constituents in this data set. For <br />example. the chloride environmental and replicate <br />values for French have a -0.] mg/L difference <br />(table 4). which represents a -lO percent difference. <br /> <br />QUALITY-CONTROL SAMPLING PROGRAM 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.