My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7924
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7924
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:31 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 9:38:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7924
Author
Loar, J. M. and M. J. Sale.
Title
Analysis of Environmental Issues Related to Small-Scale Hydroelectric Development, V. Instream Flow Needs for Fishery Resources.
USFW Year
1981.
USFW - Doc Type
TM-7861, (contract no. W-7405-eng-26),
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
21 <br />equal to the August MMF or 0.015 m3/s/km2 (crosk). The ABF is assumed <br />to be adequate for all periods of the year, unless additional releases <br />are necessary for fish spawning and incubation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife <br />Service 1981). Instream flow releases recommended during the spawning <br />and incubation periods are presented in Table 2-1. Like the Montana <br />Method, the NEFRP relies on flow statistics which can be obtained <br />without extensive field surveys. <br />The ABF which is calculated by this procedure is recommended as <br />the minimum instantaneous discharge immediately below the dam during <br />normal runoff conditions. During low-flow periods when inflow to the <br />reservoir is less than the ABF, minimum releases equal to the inflow <br />are requested. The NEFRP is unique in that alternative proposals for <br />the flow release locations, schedules, and supplies can be submitted <br />by the developer. Provided that such proposals are supported by <br />biological justification and are found to afford adequate protection <br />to aquatic biota, USFWS personnel may incorporate all or part of such <br />proposals into their recommendations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />1981). Thus, the NEFRP supports the ABF as sufficient to maintain <br />aquatic life but does not preclude the same maintenance (or level of <br />protection) at lower flows (W. Knapp, personal communication). <br />Other variations of methods that use a constant yield factor as <br />the basis for determining instream flow needs have been proposed by <br />Robinson (1969) for the Connecticut River and by Chiang and Johnson <br />(1976) for streams in Pennsylvania. Robinson's recommendations were <br />somewhat lower than the present New England Flow Recommendation <br />Policy: 0.091 m3/s/km2 (crosk) or 1.24 ft3/s/sq mile (cfsm) for <br />maximum fishery values and 0.026\crosk (0.36 cfsm) for moderate fishery <br />values. The recommendations of Chiang and Johnson (1976) were based <br />on an even lower set of stream flow statistics, either _the__7Q10 <br />(minimum flow which persists for seven days once every ten years) or a <br />yield factor of 0.011 crosk (0.15 cfsm). These differences in minimum <br />flow requirements reflect the lack of a general consensus on what <br />flows satisfy the needs of aquatic ecosystems as well as differences <br />in basin runoff characteristics.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.