Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />c. Data Supplied by the BR and Production Automation, Inc. <br /> <br />"t.:. <br /> <br />The Steering Committee, at the outset, elected to use the BR's <br />Colorado River Simulation System (CRSS) model, recognizing <br />that, as of December 21, 1977, several problems existed in <br />connect i on wi th it. F or one thi ng, the BR poi nted out that <br />final verification of the model could not be accomplished until <br />/lso,c <br />May, 1978. ~ 1\ December, 1977, completion of the study was <br />.... <br />projected for October 31, 1978. The time for completion was <br />extended, other problems were eventually resolved, and the CRSS <br />model was used. <br /> <br />...... <br />-.J <br />~1 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />That model, however, was built around a group of main-stem <br /> <br /> <br />gaging stations on the Green and Colorado Rivers, together with <br /> <br /> <br />downstream stations on major tributaries (Yampa, White, <br /> <br /> <br />Duchesne, Gunnison, etc.). It was recognized, therefore, that <br /> <br /> <br />supp 1 ementary hydro 1 ogi c mode 1 ing work woul d be requi red on <br /> <br /> <br />smaller sub-basins which were beyond the level of detail which <br /> <br /> <br />the CRSS model depicts. A technique for doing this was <br /> <br /> <br />developed by Dr. William A. Ganter, Production Automation, Inc. <br /> <br /> <br />Boulder, CD. Hydrologic data, compatible with output from the <br /> <br /> <br />CRSS model, was provided by Dr. Ganter for the upper White <br /> <br />River, Colorado River, etc. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Hydrologic data provided by the above two sources were avail- <br /> <br /> <br />able to the CIFSG in cubic feet per second (cfs) for various <br /> <br /> <br />percentile levels, from 0 to 100 in steps of 10 units. The <br /> <br />42 <br />