Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Figure I. Instream flow quantification techniques frequency of use. <br /> <br /> 3. <br />.. <br />.. <br />::> <br />- <br />0 <br />'" <br />u 2. <br />c: <br />.. <br />" <br />... <br />.. <br />~ <br />... <br /> ,. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />IFIM <br /> <br />Wetted Perimeter <br />Tennent A B F <br /> <br />7Q10 R2CROSS <br />Prof...lonel Judgement <br /> <br />I"stream 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 7QIO 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 II 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 I. 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 />recommendations in Colorado. These methodologies, along with R2CROSS, are briefly summarized <br />below. <br /> <br />4 <br />