My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Platte River Channel Becomes a Focus for Platte River Cooperative Program Studies2001
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Platte River Channel Becomes a Focus for Platte River Cooperative Program Studies2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 9:44:14 AM
Creation date
3/5/2013 12:17:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
various documents including, emails, RFP, Press Release, etc.
State
CO
NE
WY
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
2/2/2001
Author
CWCB Staff
Title
Staff files for Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
Messrs. Lochhead, Simpson, and Robotham 5 <br />The Service's information shows that 62 percent (13 of 21) of confirmed - 0° "5 °w `c <br />spring sightings on the Platte River have occurred at flows above 1,800 cfs. <br />Furthermore, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (1993) found that <br />64 percent of confirmed whooping crane roost nights (spring and fall combined) <br />were at flows greater than 2,000 cfs, and 39 percent greater than 2,400 cfs. <br />Some experts believe length of stay is associated with habitat quality. In <br />this regard, of the six times when stays of multiple nights where documented, <br />five had average flows greater than 2,000 cfs (Nebraska Game and Parks <br />Commission 1993). The targets prepared by the Service would provide a range <br />from 2,400 cfs during 54 percent of whooping crane migrational periods to <br />lesser amounts of 1,800 cfs and 1,300 cfs in about 46 percent of the periods. <br />Page 6. 2.1. Peak Flows <br />Comment: Colorado asks for clarification of "wet" and "very wet" frequencies <br />of peak flows. "What is the basis for the exceedence frequency for peak <br />flows? . it is unclear from the Service's analysis whether these <br />frequencies are based on the hydrologic record, or whether they are based on <br />biological criteria." <br />Tables 2 and 3 in Bowman and Carlson (1994).list the recommended exceedence <br />probability of the peak flows in the right -most column (i.e., the value in <br />parentheses). Although historic flow information was part of the information <br />base used to quantify the frequency of the recommended flows, they are based <br />primarily on scientific criteria to maintain channel width. <br />The first column in tables 2 and 3 lists the terms "very wet," "wet," <br />"normal," and "dry," and these were intended to be a general description <br />of the frequency of the target pulse flows. These terms should not be <br />given much weight beyond that general label. The exceedence probability <br />in the right -hand column of those tables identifies the desired probability <br />of occurrence for the pulse flow targets and not the general labels of <br />"very wet," etc. For example, the target exceedence probability of a <br />12,000 -cfs event is 40 percent. This means that, in any given year, the <br />recommended probability of one or more events of 12,000 cfs or higher <br />occurring is 40 percent. <br />Comment: How often have desired flows occurred historically during the. <br />desired timeframe, and how does this historic record relate to the <br />recommendation that peak flows occur more than 50 percent of the years during <br />the May 20-June 20 timeframe? <br />A great deal of confusion and misunderstanding has resulted from <br />characterizations of the Service's flow recommendations and flow targets as <br />being for the purpose of "maximizing" or "optimizing" habitat conditions. <br />Accordingly, the Service does not refer to its target flows as "desired <br />flows." When the Service revised its flow recommendations in March and May <br />1994, the context of discussions was the minimum magnitude, frequency, <br />duration, and quality of instream flows at which existing habitat conditions <br />could be maintained and degraded habitats rehabilitated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.