My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04021
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:53:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:05:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8062
Description
Federal Reserved Water Rights
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
9/1/1979
Author
R Barry Nehring
Title
Evaluation of Instream Flow Methods and Determination of Water Quantity Needs for Streams in the State of Colorado - September 1979
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
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
<br />OG~137 <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />Incremental (IFG4) Method <br /> <br />The Incremental Method using the stage discharge approach was <br />completed with the cooperation of and input from personnel of the <br />Instream Flow Service Group. Avera~e depth and avera~e velocitx <br />were the only two parameters used in formulatin~ minimum flow <br />recommendations with the Incremental Method. <br /> <br />The average depth, average velocity, and recommended instream <br />flows for each transect are given in Table 6. All three parameters <br />for each transect were totalled and averaged. The average recom- <br />mended flow in cfs was the discharge level used to compare with <br />results of the other methodologies. As was the case with the mul- <br />tiple transect R-2 Cross, the parameter that first became limiting <br />or co-limiting was average depth, 60 times out of 96, or 63% of the <br />time. <br /> <br />\ <br />1 <br />I <br />I <br />1 <br />l <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />In determining the flow level at which either average velocity <br />or average depth became limiting, generally the flow was taken either <br />just above or just below the point at which that factor became limit- <br />ing. Possibly all values should have been interpolated to get the <br />exact flow level at which one parameter became limiting. However, <br />I felt this was unnecessary in most instances since the requested <br />discharge levels (Q) were usually only a few cfs apart. In instances <br />where the differences between adjacent discharge levels was 10 cfs <br />or greater then exact values were interpolated. Where adjacent input <br />Q requests were only 1 to 5 cfs apart, I felt the differences would <br />average out, i.e., one flow was actually too high, the other too low, <br />producing very nearly the same average flow as if all recommended <br />flow levels had been interpolated exactly. <br /> <br />Ihe Incremental Method produced minimum flow recommendations <br />that closely approximated those from the Single and Multiple Tran~ect <br />.R-2 Cross Method. Since average depth was the determining factor <br />in the vast majority of instances for both methods it is perhaps <br />not so strange that minimum flow recommendation from the two methods <br />would agree quite well. <br /> <br />The Incremental Method offers great advantages over the R-2 Cross <br />Methods because of its capability of interfacing with the IFG3 or <br />Habitat Computer Model. This system allows for a detailed analysis <br />of the stream habitat available to the trout at any flow regime de- <br />sired. This facet of the study will be discussed in subsequent sections. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.