Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t'''~ :' ~ -,1 ('~ Ii) P <br />UO"-J,jJ <br /> <br />. Figure 1. Instream flow quantification techniques frequency of use. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br /> 30 <br />GI <br />In <br />:) <br />... <br />0 <br />>- <br />u 20 - <br />C <br />CD <br />::I <br />.,. <br />CD <br />... <br />II.. <br /> 10 <br /> <br /> <br />IFIM <br /> <br />Wetted Perimeter <br />Tennent A B F <br /> <br />7Q10 R2CROSS <br />Proleulonal Judgement <br /> <br />Instream Flow Methodolo <br /> <br />Sixteen states reported using the Tennant Method (Tennant 1976). Several states reported using the <br />Wetted Perimeter (Nelson 1980, Stalnaker et al. 1995), Aquatic Base Flow ("ABF") (U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service 1981; Kulik 1990), and 7Q 1 0 methodologies, as well as professional judgement. <br />California and Colorado reported using the R2CROSS methodology. Other reported methodologies <br />were specific to individual states. <br /> <br />The quantification methodologies employed by the 11 western states with instream flow <br />legislation, and the instream flow research needs that were identified within each of those states, are <br />summarized in Table 1. The most widely used methodologies in the western United States were <br />IFIM, Tennant, and Wetted Perimeter. They may also be suitable for developing instream flow <br />recollUllendations in Colorado. These methodologies, along with R2CROSS, are briefly summarized <br />below. <br /> <br />4 <br />