My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8157
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8157
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:24:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8157
Author
Pitlick, J., M. V. Steeter, B. Barkett, R. Cress and M. Franseen.
Title
Geomorphology and Hydrology of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers and Implications for Habitats Used by Endangered Fishes.
USFW Year
1999.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS <br />Streamflow <br />The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), along with other federal and state agencies, has operated <br />gauging stations in the Colorado River basin since the late 1800s. We have examined streamflow <br />records from many gauging stations on the main-stem of the Colorado River, and other gauges on <br />regulated and unregulated tributaries in western Colorado (Van Steeter, 1996). For the purpose of <br />illustration, this report discusses trends from six gauges that have relatively long records and are <br />relevant to our work. These gauges are: East River at Almont, Yampa River at Maybell, Colorado <br />River at Glenwood Springs, Colorado River near Cameo, Gunnison River near Grand Junction, <br />and Colorado River near the Colorado-Utah State Line. The first two sites are representative of <br />rivers with little flow regulation, while the latter four are representative of rivers with significant <br />flow regulation. Table 1 lists information on these gauges and Figure 1 shows their locations. <br />Table 1. Summary information on gauging stations used to evaluate long-term trends in <br />streamflow of the Colorado River and selected regulated and unregulated tributaries. <br /> USGS Period of Qp Qm Stat. Sign.1 <br />Gauge Number Record <br />-- <br />- <br />= (m3/s) <br />----------------- (m3/s) <br />------------- (p< 0.05) <br />---------------- <br />--------------------------- <br />East River ------------------- <br />09112500 ------- <br />-- <br />------------ <br />1911-1949 79 10 <br />at Almont 1935-1949 66 9 <br /> 1950-1995 64 9 N,N <br />Yampa River 09251000 1916-1949 299 46 <br />at Maybell 1950-1995 282 42 N,N <br />Colorado River 09072500 1899-1949 504 82 <br />at Glenwood Springs 1950-1995 286 61 Y,Y <br />Colorado River 09095500 1934-1949 725 116 <br />near Cameo 1950-1995 517 107 Y,N <br />Gunnison River 09152500 1902-1949 490 73 <br />near Grand Junction 1950-1995 306 71 Y,N <br />1. Statistical significance determined using a T-test; Y indicates the difference in peak discharge (Qp) and mean <br />annual discharge (Qm) for pre- and post-1950 periods is statistically significant at the a = 0.05 level; N indicates the <br />difference is not statistically significant. <br />Discharge records from these gauging stations were partitioned into "unregulated" and "regulated" <br />time periods on the basis of when there were major changes in the amount of water stored in <br />reservoirs. Plots of cumulative reservoir storage capacity vs. time (Fig. 4) show that the greatest <br />increase in storage capacity in the upper Colorado River basin occurred in 1950, when Granby <br />dam was completed; on the Gunnison River, a large increase in storage occurred in 1966, when <br />Blue Mesa Reservoir was completed. Based on these results, we partitioned the discharge records <br />of the Colorado River and Gunnison River at 1950 and 1966, respectively. One additional reason <br />for splitting the records in mid-century, rather than in the 1930s when the first large reservoirs <br />were built, is that, typically, the regulated portion of the streamflow record is longer than the <br />unregulated portion. By splitting the data as such it-increases the number of years indicative of <br />unregulated or slightly regulated conditions, which increases the sample size and strength of our <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.