Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />.($~';i%). <br />"5:W:~ <br />~~it!;j <br /> <br />(~~~i~) <br /> <br />.l'IrI"','" 91 <br />~f>!..J"O f c; .~ <br /> <br />Main Stem Gunnison River Inflows <br /> <br />below Gunnison Tunnel: INFL3 and INFL4 <br /> <br />1: <br /> <br />Excluding the Uncompatgre River, gains for the mainstem of the Gunnison <br /> <br />River below the Gunnison Tunnel were developed using 4 USGS gaging stations:. <br /> <br />the Gunnison River near Grand Junction (09152500), the Gunnison River below <br /> <br />Gunnison Tunnel (09128000), the Uncompatgre River at Delta (09149500), and the <br /> <br />Gunnison River at Delta (09144250). The first 3 stations represent the <br /> <br />boundaries of the reach, and the last station divides the reach into upper and <br /> <br />lower reaches. These 2 reaches represent the Gunnison River above and below <br /> <br />the mouth of the Uncompatgre River. <br /> <br />Sufficient streamflow records exist to compute the gains for the entire <br /> <br />reach for the period of study by subtracting the flows of the Gunnison River <br />~ <br /> <br />below the tunnel and the Uncompatgre.River at Delta from the flow of the <br /> <br />Gunnison River near Grand Junction. The gains for the years before 1964 were <br /> <br />adjusted to reflect depletions and change in storage which would have occurred <br /> <br />if the Paonia and Smith Fork Projects were operating. <br /> <br />The Gunnison River at Delta has 10 years (1977-86) of streamflow records <br /> <br />'that are concurrent with the other 3 stations. With the data .from this <br /> <br />. station, the gains for 1977-86 for the upper and lower reaches were computed. <br /> <br />Subtracting the. flows of the Gunni son and Uncompatg re Rivers at Del ta from the <br /> <br />Gunnison River near Grand Junction showed that one-third of the time a loss <br /> <br />occurred in the lower reach, with most of the losses occurring from 1982-1986. <br /> <br />A review of the computed gains in this reach indicated that the losses are not <br /> <br />likely and are probably a result of the accuracy of one or more of the gagIng <br /> <br />stations. A comparison of the magnitude of the losses to the flow of the <br /> <br />2 <br />