Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,.., <br />- <br /> <br />c.o <br />in <br /> <br />I::;') <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CHAPTER II <br /> <br />GRAND VALLEY RIVER BUDGET <br /> <br />interest. Using the cisco gage necessitates including the Dolores River and <br /> <br />ungaged inflows between State Line and Cisco both with associated error. <br /> <br />Secondly, there appears to be a definite loss of flow between State Line and <br /> <br />Cisco which has not been accounted for. Figure 6 illustrates' the 7-year <br /> <br />moving average of annual flow loss between State Line and Cisco. The flow <br /> <br />loss was calculated by summing the flow of the Colorado River near State Line <br /> <br />and the Dolores River near Cisco, then subtracting the flow of Colorado River <br /> <br />near Cisco. Finally, the USGS maintains that the State Line gage is reliable <br /> <br />and recommends its use for this analysis.l/ For the sake of analysis <br /> <br />however, budgets using both stations, each with and without B,djusted flows, <br /> <br />are presented in this report. <br /> <br />1/ Memorandum from Dannie L. Collins, USGS, WRD, Grand Junction, <br />Colorado, 10/7/81, and memorandum from Robert F. Middleburg, USGS, WRD, <br />Lakewood, Colorado, 12/01/81. <br /> <br />II-IS <br />