Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table <br /> <br />LIST OF TABLES <br /> <br />Page <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Location, classification, and category of <br />streams selected for study ...... <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />Cross sectional evaluations, dates completed, <br />average flows and range of flows . . . . <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />~y flo,,! J2a.ram.~t,e~used ,~~ <[e_t,erl!lip,e m:lJ1;lmulll- <br />Uow requirements using the, R-2, Cross,SiI1gl.e... <br />'lXilJ1Sec 1; ,Mg!JlAA-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />3-A <br /> <br />Key flow parameters used to determine minimum <br />flow requirements for the multiple transect <br />R-2 Cross and IFG4 methods . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Minimum flow recommendations using the Single <br />Transec t (R-2 Cross) Method . . . . <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />5 Minimum flow recommendation using the Multiple <br /> Transect (R-2 Cross) Method . . . 12 <br />6 Minimum flow determinations using the <br /> Incremental (IFG4) Method . . . . 16 <br />7 Minimum flows (cfs) derived by the <br /> Montana Method . . . . . . 20 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />Minimum flow recommendations by four dif- <br />ferent methods expressed as percent average <br />. flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />Predicted weighted usable area in ratios for <br />individual species vs actual species composition <br />(percent) in the stream. . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Comparison of the minimum flow recommendations <br />generated using four different methodologies <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />Comparison of multiple R-2 Cross and IFG4 <br />methodologies for average depth and average <br />velocity predictions . , . . . . . . . . . <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Comparison of the reliability of the Single <br />Transect R-2 Cross and IFG4 methods for pre- <br />dicting field velocity measurements . . . . . <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />Cross and IFG4 methods <br />in predicting field <br /> <br />Comparison of the R-2 <br />for relative accuracy <br />measured velocities . <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />iii <br /> <br />, <br />