Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />CD <br />L."") <br /> <br />r:~l <br /> <br />') <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CHAPTER III <br /> <br />RIVER BUDGET RESULTS <br /> <br />annual pickup values. It should be noted that the width of the confidence <br /> <br />limits reflects the precision of the estimate, but may not be an indicator of <br /> <br />its accuracy. In other words, the width of the confidence band cannot be <br /> <br />used to choose the best or "most correct" of the four budgets. <br /> <br />The innermost pair of lines straddling the mean in Figure 5 represent <br /> <br />the mean annual salt pickups using upper and lower bounds on consumptive <br /> <br />use as previously discussed. As can be seen, they lie within the 95 <br /> <br />percent confidence limits. Even though there is no reason to believe that <br /> <br />the original estimate of consumptive use is incorrect, if it were, the mean <br /> <br />pickup would still lie within the confidence limits. Furthermore, in <br /> <br />addition, the widest possible ranges for salt pickup resulting from varying <br /> <br />the amount of unaccounted flow assigned to each component in the budget lie <br /> <br />within the 95 percent confidence limits in the mean. Therefore, it was <br /> <br />decided not to make any modification to the estimate of mean annual salt <br /> <br />pickup (i.e., 580,000 tons per year). <br /> <br />Comparison of Results <br /> <br />Table 16 and Figure 9 display the mean annual salt pic~Jp values from <br /> <br />the four budgets. Note that if the flow adjustment procedur,a is used there <br /> <br />is little difference between the Cisco and State Line budgets. For the sake <br /> <br />of comparison, Table 17 and Figure 10 display the mean annual salt pickup <br /> <br />values for the period 1952-1974 as estimated by the previously mentioned four <br /> <br />budgets as well as the ten USGS methods. The comparison with the USGS <br /> <br />estimates is not exactly legitimate because the USGS estimat'as did not <br /> <br />include ungaged inflow nor municipal imports. It can be seen that the <br /> <br />III-3 <br />