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 />O;JJH2 <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />came out with greater WUA than rainbow, brown, or cutthroat. This <br />indicates to me that something is inherently wrong with the brook <br />trout probability curves and that a major review of brook trout <br />curves is required. However, Bovee (personal communication) reports <br />that if temperature probability curves are used in the matrix cal- <br />culations for brook trout the correlation between WUA and biomass is <br />much better for brook trout. <br /> <br />The percent weighted usable area (dependent variable) for <br />various species, life stages, and streams was plotted against median <br />year water discharge pattern; one in five low water year, and one <br />in five high water year discharge patterns (independent variable). <br />These graphs are found in Appendix C. <br /> <br />Comparison of Minimum Flow Recommendations <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendations made with the four methods were similar in <br />most instances (Table 10). The greatest discrepancies occurred <br />between the Montana Method and the other three methods. In five <br />of the eighteen streams reaches the Montana Method gave quite <br />different results from the other three methods. In four of the <br />five instances (Cucharas, Huerfano, South Fork of the Rio Grande, <br />and Sangre de Cristo) these differences can quite readily be ex- <br />plained by the placement of the U.S.G.S. gage in relation to the <br />study area location. On these streams the gage is several miles <br />below the study area and below the confluence with other tributaries. <br />If the influence of these tributaries could be subtracted out, the <br />Montana Method would closely approximate the recommended flows <br />obtained with the other three methodologies. <br /> <br />The only instance where the Montana Method gave a higher <br />recommendation than the other methods and no direct explanation <br />was discernible was on the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River. No <br />tributaries or diversions increased or decreased the flow of this <br />river between the U.S.G.S. gaging station and the study reach. How- <br />ever, it has been observed by DOW biologists over the past few years <br />.t:/lat_on li!rg"" ,streams with peak flows in excess of two orders of.. <br />magnitude greater than the annual minimum flow, the Montana Method <br />generally gives a much greater recommended minimum flow than the <br />R-2 Cross Method. This is probably the case with the Lake Fork of <br />the Gunnison River where peak flows in excess of 3,000 cfs are <br />contrasted against winter minimums of about 30 cfs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.