333.9109773 HLLINC'S STATE §
IL6CR . 18'S
llinors Institute of
State Water Survey Division : Natural
SURFACE WATER SECTION ZSOUIMAZES
SWS Contract Report 273
DESIRABLE LOW FLOW RELEASES FROM IMPOUNDING RESERVOIRS:
FISH HABITATS AND RESERVOIR COSTS
Volume |
by
Krishan P. Singh, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
Ganapathi S. Ramamurthy, Graduate Research Assistant
Prepared for
IMinois Environmental Protection Agency
Champaign, Illinois
September 1981
=
..
oo
Cont
>
i
may
CXS
ie]
esol
em
Batok
a
ce
bases)
&f3
Banded
ber
oe
Fjesme
‘ne.
WLLINC!S STATE WATER SURVEY LIBRANY LUFT
mR 18 ‘03
DESTRABLE LOW FLOW RELEASES FROM IMPOUNDING RESERVOIRS:
Risk HABETATS AND’ RESERVOIR COSTS
Volume I
by
hrishame. sineh, Ph.D., Principal Sclentist
Ganapathi S. Ramamurthy, Graduate Research Assistant
Prepared for
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Champaign, Illinois
September 1981
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013
http://archive.org/details/desirablelowflow01 sing
CONTENTS
Introduction
Acknowledgments
Hydraulic geometry parameters
Low flow release criteria
Concept of hydraulic geometry
Hydraulic geometry parameters
Formation of riffles and pools
Hydraulic geometry parameters for pool conditions
Evaporation and sedimentation
Evaporation loss
Sedimentation
Available lake sedimentation data
Regional relations
Fish suitability curves
Suitability curves for nine target species
Riffles and pools
The IFG Incremental Methodology
Methodology and computer program
Data inputs
Fish suitability or preference
Flow velocity and depth for low flow releases
Supply-storage-drought duration-frequency
Net lake evaporation
Lake sedimentation
Reference data
Reservoir costs program
Storage subroutine
EVAP subroutine
SDEVST subroutine
COST subroutine
RESULT subroutine
Fish suitability program
Riffle conditions
Pool conditions
Analyses and results
Sensitivity analysis: parameter b
Low flow release costs
Cost versus fish preferences
Conclusions and suggestions
Suggestions for future research
References
PAGE
LO3
152
155
158
(i!
INTRODUCTION
Modification of river flow resulting from the construction and operation
Of a dam or impounding structure has been identified as a significant factor
causing water quality and aquatic habitat problems. State, local, and cor-
porate water use planning often presumes that all water in a stream is
potentially available for off-stream uses. This assumption clearly contra-
dicts legislative mandates regarding the public interest in preserving water
in the stream for instream flow uses, e.g., for water quality and aquatic
organisms, fish and wildlife.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been trying to identify
promising strategies for reserving instream flows (Dewsnup et al., 1977;
Gould et al., 1977). Some of the strategies that may be considered are:
1) Imposing conditions and restrictions, designed to protect and
preserve instream flow needs, on applications to appropriate (for
example, the approval of a reservoir might be conditioned on the
release of water during certain periods of the year to sustain the
downstream fishery). The use of this strategy requires a state
policy that affords some measure of protection to instream values.
2) Appropriating water for instream flow needs by authorizing a state
agency to appropriate water to maintain minimum streamflows and
protect the natural stream environment.
3) Planning programs for the statewide water plans to identify and
indicate the amount of streamflows to be reserved for instream uses
at various times of the year.
It should be noted that Public Law 92-500 makes provision for minimum
flows when projects are constructed or licensed by federal agencies. The
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to specify
minimum flows required for maintaining streamwater quality, and other federal
agencies are authorized to determine the minimum flows required to support
fash and waslidsiaceer
Low flow criteria for fish and wildlife need to be developed for deter-
mining the suitability of various low flow regimens for fish and wildlife.
In order to choose a minimum low flow release which keeps the fishery in
good condition and, at the same time, does not unduly saddle the developer
with extra cost, the decision maker needs to know the estimated increase in
cost of a reservoir to provide minimum low flow over that with no such flow,
for a range of low flows. The extra cost of impoundment may not be considered
by the developer as a gift to the fishery and water quality interests; rather,
it may be considered a fee that he pays for the use of water resources (pre-
sently enjoyed by the downstream interests) and for altering the streamflow
regimen to meet his particular needs.
A study on water quality control through flow augmentation from upland
reservoirs (EPA, 1971) was undertaken in a 60-mile section of the Sandusky
River in North Central Ohio. The main findings of this study are:
1) chemicals such as calcium, magnesium, fluoride, and sodium had lower
concentrations at high flows and vice versa, 2) concentrations of total
phosphorus and soluble orthophosphorus were lower during low flow periods
than high flow periods (probably due to agricultural surface runoff), 3)
immediately downstream from sewage treatment plants, orthophosphorus concen-
trations did increase with decreasing river flow, 4) nitrate and potassium
concentrations were variable and showed no correlation with river flow, and
5) oxygen concentrations varied widely above and below saturation at low
flows. some such studies are needed for Illinois streams to assess the
effect of low flows on various water quality parameters.
imrorder to develop information on fish suitability or preference for
different flow releases and the associated incremental costs, the investiga-
tions and analyses presented in this report are arranged under the following
heads:
Hydraulte Geometry Parameters. Daily flow data at 123 gaging stations
were analyzed to evaluate low flows at 8 levels. Relations between mean
velocity and flow and between mean depth and flow were established for the
low flow range at each of the 123 stations selected. A brief review of the
information on riffles and pools provided a measure of estimating mean depth
°
in pools when the mean depth at the riffle is known.
Evaporatton and Sedimentation. Information on net lake evaporation
(i.e., lake evaporation minus precipitation) for different drought durations
and recurrence intervals was available from Illinois State Water Survey
BPultecam SIA (Terstriep et al., in preparation, 1981). The sediment data
on 98 lakes, surveyed over the years by State Water Survey personnel, were
used in developing regional relations between percent capacity loss and
reservoir capacity-inflow ratio.
Fish Suttabtlity Curves. Data on fish suitability or preference versus
flow velocity and flow depth for both juveniles and adults of the nine target
fish (bluegill, bluntnose, carp, channel cat, largemouth bass, smallmouth
bass, drum, white bass, and white crappie) was furnished by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency. The domains of suitability in terms of
velocity and depth of flow were analyzed for each fish species.
Methodology and Computer Progran. Computer programs were developed to
generate information on fish suitability for each of the eight low flow
releases at each of the 123 stations, and to compute the capital cost of
reservoirs with storage adequate to meet four supply rates, eight low flow
releases, and.various design droughts. The extra capital cost equals cost
with a low flow release minus the cost with no mandatory release at a given
set of net supply, design drought, and low flow release parameters.
Analyses and Results. The fish suitability and capital cost data are
developed for all the study stations. However, five river basins (each with
three stations with increasing drainage area) are analyzed in detail to
assess the suitable levels of low flow releases and the associated incre-
mental capital costs.
Conelustons and Suggesttons. The main findings are highlighted and
suggestions are made to improve the methodology for evaluating fish prefer-
ences. The necessary field work, data collection, research, and technology
are described briefly.
Acknowledgments
The study was jfintly supported by the Illinois Environmental Protection
ay
Agency and the Illinois State Water Survey of the Illinois Department of
Energy and Natural Resources (previously, Illinois Institute of Natural
Resources). William Rice of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
served in a liaison capacity during the course of this study. Masahiro
Nakashima, graduate research assistant, helped in finalization of the report.
Linda Riggin prepared the illustrations and Kathy Brown typed the final report.
HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY PARAMETERS
The following criteria were used in selecting the stations for deter-
mining the hydraulic geometry parameters at various low flow releases:
1) The daily flow record should be 16 years or more to provide satis-
factory flow estimates for low flow release criteria.
2) The flow corresponding to 90 percent duration should be greater
than, zere.
3) The Wabash, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers (i.e., the interstate
rivers) are not to be included.
A total of 127 gaging stations met the above criteria. However, four
stations were excluded (04091500 - Little Calumet River at Harvey, 05538000-
Des Plaines River at Joliet, 05560000 - Illinois River at Peoria, and
05584000 - Illinois River at Beardstown) because the daily flow data avail-
able are for the years prior to 1939 and because the flows in later years
have significantly changed from the previous flows because of changes in
regulation procedures.
igeetinal Jist of 123 selected gaging stations is given in table 1, which
contains the USGS number, stream and gaging station, drainage area in square
miles, mean flow in cfs obtained from the USGS publications on Water Resources
Data in Illinois, and the 7-day 10-year low flow for the 1970 effluent level
(Singh and Stall, 1973). The locations of these gaging stations are shown in
figure l.
Low Flow Release Criteria
The U.S. Geological Survey publishes observed daily flows at various gaging
stations on streams in Illinois every year. These daily flow data, updated to
September 1976, are available on DISK at the State Water Survey for quick
10.
HWwWNhM —
OO ONANDU
USGS NO.
03336900
03337000
03337500
03338500
03339000
03343400
03345500
03346000
03379500
03380500
03381500
03612000
05415500
05419000
05420000
05435500
05437000
05437500
05438250
05438500
05439500
05440000
05440500
05441000
05443500
05444000
05445500
05446500
05447000
05447500
05448000
05466000
05466500
05467000
05467500
05468500
05469000
05495500
05510500
05512500
ee
TABLE 1.
STREAM AND GAGING STATION
SALT FORK NEAR ST. JOSEPH
BONEYARD CREEK AT URBANA
WEST BRANCH SALT FORK AT URBANA
VERMILION RIVER NEAR CATLIN
VERMILION RIVER NEAR DANVILLE
EMBARRAS RIVER NEAR CAMARGO
EMBARRAS RIVER AT STE. MARIE
NORTH FORK EMBARRAS RIVER NEAR OBLONG
LITTLE WABASH RIVER BELOW CLAY CITY
SKILLET FORK AT WAYNE CITY
LITTLE WABASH RIVER AT CARMI
CACHE RIVER AT FORMAN
KE. F. GALENA RIVER AT COUNCIL HILL
APPLE RIVER NEAR HANOVER
PLUM RIVER BELOW CARROLL CK. NEAR SAVANNA
PECATONICA RIVER AT FREEPORT
PECATONICA RIVER AT SHIRLAND
ROCK RIVER AT ROCKTON
COON CREEK AT RILEY
KISHWAUKEE RIVER AT BELVIDERE
S. B. KISHAWAUKEE RIVER NEAR FAIRDALE
KISHWAUKEE RIVER NEAR PERRYVILLE
KILLBUCK CREEK NEAR MONROE CENTER
LEAF RIVER AT LEAF RIVER
ROCK RIVER AT COMO
LKHORN CREEK NEAR PENROSE
ROCK CREEK NEAR MORRISON
ROCK RIVER NEAR JOSLIN
GREEN RIVER AT AMBOY
GREEN RIVER NEAR GENESEO
MILL CREEK AT MILAN
EDWARDS RIVER NEAR ORION
EDWARDS RIVER NEAR NEW BOSTON
POPE CREEK NEAR KEITHSBURG
HENDERSON CREEK NEAR LITTLE YORK
CEDAR CREEK AT LITTLE YORK
HENDERSON CREEK NEAR OQUAWKA
BEAR CREEK NEAR MARCELLINE
HADLEY CREEK AT KINDERHOOK
BAY CREEK AT PITTSFIELD
STREAM GAGING STATIONS IN ILLINOIS
D.A. IN
SQ MI
134
4.46
68
958
1290
186
1516
319
1131
464
3102
244
17.6
247
230
1326
2550
6363
85.1
538
387
1099
tod BG
103
8755
146
158
9551
201
1003
62.4
155
WYs
183
151
130
432
349
cel
39.4
Q(7, 10)
CFS
MEAN Q
CFS
110
#251
Die 5
704
939
154
1216
252
881
392
2521
299
1253
167
147
890
1513
3892
63.8
gS
253
690
59.7
55.7
5071
95.1
92.2
5870
93.0
395
42.0
103
2t3
103
88.8
87.3
ene
199
eye ae
26.7
|
|
NO.
USGS NO.
05513000
05520000
05520500
05525000
05525500
05526000
05526500
05527000
05527500
05529000
05531000
05531500
05532000
05532500
05533000
05533500
05535000
05535500
05536000
05536215
05536235
05536255
05536265
05536270
05536275
05536290
05536340
05539000
05539900
05540500
05542000
05543500
05549000
05550000
05550500
05551200
05551700
05552500
05554000
05554500
"TABLE: 1. CONTINUED
STREAM AND GAGING STATION
BAY CREEK AT NEBO
SINGLETON DITCH AT ILLINOI
KANKAKEE RIVER AT MOMENCE
IROQUOIS RIVER AT IROQUOIS
SUGAR CREEK AT MILFORD
TROQUOIS RIVER NEAR CHEBANSE
TERRY CREEK NEAR CUSTER PARK
KANKAKEE RIVER AT CUSTER PARK
KANKAKEE RIVER NEAR WILMINGTON
DES PLAINES RIVER NEAR DES PLAINES
SALT CREEK NEAR ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
SALT CREEK AT WESTERN SPRINGS
ADDISON CREEK AT BELLWOOD
DES PLAINES RIVER AT RIVERSIDE
FLAG CREEK NEAR WILLOW SPRINGS
DES PLAINES RIVER AT LEMONT
SKOKIE RIVER AT LAKE FOREST
W. F. OF N. B. CHICAGO RIVER AT NORTHBROOK
NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER AT NILES
THORN CREEK AT GLENWOOD
DEER CREEK NEAR CHICAGO HEIGHTS
BUTTERFIELD CREEK AT FLOSSMOOR
LANSING DITCH NEAR LANSING
NORTH CREEK NEAR LANSING
THORN CREEK AT THORNTON
LITTLE CALUMET RIVER AT SOUTH HOLLAND
MIDLOTHIAN CREEK AT OAK FOREST
HICKORY CREEK AT JOLIET
W. B. DU PAGE RIVER NEAR WEST CHICAGO
DU PAGE RIVER AT SHOREWOOD
MAZON RIVER NEAR COAL CITY
ILLINOIS RIVER AT MARSEILLES
BOONE CREEK NEAR MCHENRY
FOX RIVER AT ALGONQUIN
POPLAR CREEK AT ELGIN
FERSON CREEK NEAR ST. CHARLES
BLACKBERRY CREEK NEAR YORKVILLE
FOX RIVER AT DAYTON
N. F. VERMILION RIVER NEAR CHARLOTTE
VERMILION RIVER AT PONTIAC
Q(7, 10)
CFS
MEAN Q
CFS
96.7
182
1928
536
351
1607
9.46
3540
4992
246
p3)3
104
13.9
448
16.2
434
11.9
erent
88.3
36.5
fo
17.4
1.83
14.6
98.5
178
10.9
83.0
30.1
249
320
10700
13.1
821
2501
38.9
50.2
1657
124
378
NO.
81
82
33
3y
85
86
87
38
39
90
oi
S)2
3\s
94
SD
96
Of
98
ots)
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
dul2
1s
114
eS)
116
Tay,
118
119
129
121
22
123
USGS NO.
05558500
05560500
05562000
05563000
05563500
05567500
05568000
05568500
05568800
05569500
05570000
05571000
05572000
05574500
05575500
05576000
05576500
05578500
05579500
05580000
05580500
05581500
05582000
05582500
05583000
05584500 -
05585000
05585500
05587000
05589500
05590000
05592000
05592500
05593000
05594000
05595000
05596000
05597000
05599000
05599500
05600000
“TABLE 1. CONCLUDED
STREAM AND GAGING STATION
VERMILION RIVER AT LOWELL
BUREAU CREEK AT PRINCETON
CROW CREEK (WEST) NEAR HENRY
FARM CREEK AT FARMDALE
FARM CREEK AT EAST PEORIA
KICKAPOO CREEK NEAR KICKAPOO
KICKAPOO CREEK AT PEORIA
MACKINAW RIVER NEAR CONGERVILLE
MACKINAW RIVER NEAR GREEN VALLEY
ILLINOIS RIVER AT KINGSTON MINES
INDIAN CREEK NEAR WYOMING
SPOON RIVER AT LONDON MILLS
SPOON RIVER AT SEVILLE
SANGAMON RIVER AT MAHOMET
SANGAMON RIVER AT MONTICELLO
FLAT BRANCH NEAR TAYLORVILLE
SOUTH FORK SANGAMON RIVER AT KINCAID
SOUTH FORK SANGAMON RIVER NEAR ROCHESTER
SANGAMON RIVER AT RIVERTON
SALT CREEK NEAR ROWELL
LAKE FORK NEAR CORNLAND
KICKAPOO CREEK AT WAYNESVILLE
KICKAPOO CREEK NEAR LINCOLN
SUGAR CREEK NEAR HARTSBURG
SALT CREEK NEAR GREENVIEW
CRANE CREEK NEAR EASTON
SANGAMON RIVER NEAR OAKFORD
LA MOINE RIVER AT COLMAR
LA MOINE RIVER AT RIPLEY
ILLINOIS RIVER AT MEREDOSIA
MACOUPIN CREEK NEAR KANE
CANTEEN CREEK AT CASEYVILLE
KASKASKIA RIVER AT BONDVILLE
KASKASKIA RIVER AT SHELBYVILLE
KASKASKIA RIVER AT VANDALIA
KASKASKIA RIVER AT CARLYLE
SHOAL CREEK NEAR BREESE
KASKASKIA RIVER AT NEW ATHENS
BIG MUDDY RIVER NEAR BENTON
BIG MUDDY RIVER AT PLUMFIELD
BEAUCOUP CREEK NEAR MATTHEWS
BIG MUDDY RIVER AT MURPHYSBORO
BIG CREEK NEAR WETAUG
Q(7, 10)
CFS
7.30
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
1.00
0.54
eo © <@
mM mM ONO MOO-
Oo fe
Hw Oo oO”
bo
DOJO WO NOKeTS
oO
MEAN Q
CFS
734
131
36.0
18.2
43.8
66.7
168
487
688
14632
45.5
693
1030
261
400
203
408
571
1695
235i
146
152
187
TRE
1235
16.53
3261
432
780
EPS)
532
aT
10.1
738
1412
1944
515
3622
452
699
223
1788
36.4
.
u
" 90°
--—13 ow
se!
3
»
¥ a
Cc aw |
" a nee
* Kostwau®
ae
5 Ro
Aivel
aw ; i
XM
== Ea Fy ates ad ee a
| ieee ;
5 26
y 3
vy =
aS a
x ayy oa 29
é
| = eRe
28
Ls en at
Mtsesnnlle 31 30 Gree
Mur C
Etvarets
33
34
| se
35 Terje, cee
aye Lye en
36
<
z 108 \%
=
Sc Ge
38
Bear ‘
re
40° MN 2
Wi Ciny.
110
a
<< Man
39 40
399
PA
‘- “is fa
17
+ es 9
3 ee Cu (ve Ein, ¢
7 : :
116 Tiee™ P =
5 Cragae’ es, -
10 5 AD
| Sy & |
| 118 all y |
| ue :
| %, : Rene a, |
| %, huke a
| oD ;
—— 5 : "1 =
£
et | ant E a SS ae yeas . c Es
» S
SZ 120
| ue eS Brine
| Muay cone saline
i} Wn s
S) ah |
|
| | |
STATUTE MILES |
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 a |
\ |
0 20 40 60 30 ay
KILOMETERS
) Bien,
7
91 sor == m
Figure 1. Locations of 123 study gaging stations
computer processing.
considered in evaluation of economic and other impacts for mandating a
particular low flow release froman impounding reservoir.
= {1(0j=
The following eight low flow release levels were
1) Median 31-day low flow during the period May-October, Q(31)P
2) Half median 3l-day low flow during the period May-October, 0.5Q(31)P
3) Median 61-day low flow during the period May-October, Q(61)P
Ay sisi ihiz
5) ilohy
6) Flow
7) Etow
8) Flow
median 61-day low flow during the period
at 90 percent duration using daily flows
at 85 percent duration using daily flows
at 90 percent duration using daily flows
at 85 percent duration using daily flows
May-October, 0.5Q(61)P
May-October, Q(90)P
May-October, Q(85)P
for the record, eo)
for the record, Q(85)
The partial record, May through October, was used to determine whether Q(90)
and Q(85) were higher or lower than Q(90)P and Q(85)P, respectively.
In developing the flow-duration information, two probability levels were
determined for a flow 0:
duration, p, in-percent for flow @ eis:
p= [p5 + (100 - p,)I]/2
Py for flow < QO and Po £OE >
QO. Then, the flow-
Let there be’ 21 daily flows equal to Q cfs in the daily Elow record gaeea
gaging station.
duration applies to llth Q value, and allows 10 values
<
Assuming the normal law of errors, the developed flow-
to be slightly lower
(but not lower than the next lower observed value) and 10 values to be
slightly higher (but not higher than the next higher observed value). A few
examples are given on the next page.
aq
USGS No. 03 345500 USGS No. 03 346000
Py Po Pp Q,cfs Py Po p Q,cfs
0.10 99.94 99.92 300 Apel} 100.00 99.43 0.00
0.30 99.89 99.80 4.00 83) 98.36 98.02 0.20
0.50 99.54 99.52 9.00 B16 97.26 97/05 0.40
ih 12 99.05 98.96 13.00 Byels 95.21 95e08 1.00
e210 98.23 98.07 P7200 10.14 90.15 90.01 D240
2.05 JV aees is) 97.14 20.00 15.23 85.09 84.93 4.40
5.20 95.13 94.97 26.00 DORI7, 80.01 79.92 6.60
10.36 90.04 89.84 40.00
i. 11 85.06 84.97 57.00
20.15 80.14 79.99 82.00
The flow at 85 and 90 percent duration were determined by straight-line
interpolation.
The lowest average flows over 3l-day and 61-day periods during May
through October each year as well as the mid-date of the low flow occurrence
were calculated for each year of record at a gaging station. These flows
were ranked from low to high and the flow at the 50 percent probability or
a 2-year recurrence interval was interpolated from the flows at the nearest
lower and higher probability levels.
Computer programs were developed for calculating the 8 flow releases at
each of the 123 gaging stations. The flow releases are listed in table 2
Piel. 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, and 8. Low flow releases for levels 2 and
4 are 50 percent of those for levels 1 and 3.
Concept of Hydraulic Geometry
The concept of hydraulic geometry of a stream system was first stated
by Leopold and Maddock (1953). It suggested relationships between width,
jeeewow depth, D, and flow velocity, V, at a particular cross section of
the stream, and the discharge, Q. The relationships are expressed by:
<4
i}
~
USO=-U4ZOSUKZOOUKOMUTONUSODYUGCOUIAO FO KCOWUIZONUAGO=
—
es
TABLE 2. Q, V, and D for 8 low-flow release conditions
Vahues for Q,,V, & D for econditions*
Cl C2 (5) C4 (G5 C6 Cr
03336900 Salt Fork near St. Joseph
ORO Do 110 136 10 6.55 9.20 10.00 9.50
OR D5 0.39 0.62 0.44 On52 0.54 0.153
OR 52 0.47 0.54 0.49 Oris On 52 Onae
03337000 Boneyard Creek at Urbana
esr 0.99 BAS 1 3}7 Vos 1.38 1.20
0.41 O25 O50 0.30 0.29 0.32 0.29
0.48 0.44 0.50 0.46 0.45 0.46 0.45
03337500 West Branch Salt Fork at Urbana
4,83 Bop 6.22 Bo Ul 3.65 4,32 4.00
ORSnl ORyaZ 0.35 Ones Omer 0.29 0.28
Oran 0.39 0.56 0.43 0.45 0.49 0.47
03338500 Vermilion River near Catlin
36.50 18.30 40.00 20.00 2745 32.49 Bh lo 333}
0.43 0.33 0.45 0.34 0.38 0.41 0.40
1.04 0.93 1.06 0.94 0.99 tole 1.02
03339000 Vermilion River near Danville
61.50 30.80 74.80 37.40 42.36 54.22 50.48
0.28 0.16 Io 333} 0.19 Ona 0.26 0.24
1.66 1.45 ats) oS WoD5 Tio 1.60
03343400 Embarras River near Camargo
2.08 1.04 6.45 Brice 0.69 ofS 1.38
0.48 0.46 0.52 OR50 0.45 0.48 O.47
ORs 2 Oraal OnGi 0.41 ORIN 0.29 0.25
03345500 Embarras River at Ste. Marie
54.30 21 520 83.80 41.90 38.00 49.42 39.57
0.92 0.84 0.97 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.88
0.84 0.62 1.02 OSS ORwiZ 0.81 ots
03346000 North Fork Embarras River near Oblong
4.01 Onl 9.47 4.74 1157) 35 V2 2.40
ORS 0.32 0.44 0.38 Omsil 0.35 Onss
0.46 Ons 0.64 0.49 5535 0.42 0.38
03379500 Little Wabash River below Clay City
5}5 510) fold 38.50 19.30 6.66 10.00 9.20
OFais 0.60 0.94 Olewiari 0.57 0.64 0.63
OReial On 52 1.06 0.78 0.49 0.59 0.56
03380500 Skillet Fork at Wayne City
1.84 0.92 ASTAS) 3.89 0.74 621 Weal
One 0.27 0.70 Om5al Oo25) Ons 0.31
0.33 Ona Oo 51 0.41 0226 0.30 0.30
03381500 Little Wabash River at Carmi
63.90 32.00 123.00 61.50 24.00 36.00 29.93
Ono 0.64 Vel O85 0.56 OE SW/ 0.62
5s} 0.85 eed OZ Onuis 0.87 0.83
c8
(op)
ITEM
PO — =" — =" —_ — _ —_
OSA DOV SGATAVSAODVAHOUVO SA FV SOWODSADND
ine)
ae)
usonuso-ousoou sav
C1
03612000
2.42
0.41
0.46
05415500
4.34
0.61
0.60
05419000
39.70
0.63
Eee 3
05420000
29.20
0.165
0.90
05435500
390.00
0.76
4.48
05437000
705.00
0.89
2.93
05437500
1454.00
Meat il
1.80
05438250
8.85
0.76
0.60
05438500
T3510
0.99
0.90
05439500
20.10
0.82
0.64
05440000
138.00
0.99
1.11
TABLE 2.
aS =
CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
G2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Cache River at Forman
lee 1 9.90 4.95 0.468 W525
Onsit OF ial 0.54 One5 Ong2
0.36 On76 0.59 0.29 0/36
E. F. Galena River at Council Hill
Bo WN Dott ll 2.89 2.94 3.48
0.47 0.67 Ona2e OnDs 0.56
0.58 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.60
Apple River near Hanover
19.90 49.20 24.60 29.73 33.16
0.48 0.69 0.52 0256 0.59
1168 2.48 Tentat 1.94 BiO\5
Plum River below Carroll Ck. near Savanna
14.60 39.80 19.90 17.74 21.63
0.338 0.82 0.48 0.44 0.52
0.82 0.94 0.85 0.84 0.86
Pecatonica River at Freeport
195.00 437.00 219.00 292.00 326.00
0.54 0.80 0557 0.66 0.69
3.26 4.70 3.44 3.92 2
Pecatonica River at Shirland
353.00 787.00 394.00 594.00 625.00
On7Z2 0.91 On75 0.84 0.85
1.95 Some 2.08 2.65 2a
Rock River at Rockton
HeTeoOn! 1779500 890.00 1103.00 1235.00
1.24 TAG 1.36 tos) 1.58
1.29 1.99 1.42 1.58 167
Coon Creek at Riley
443 ele 5.60 5.28 6.85
0.47 0.89 O55 OF53 0.63
OnSil 0.63 0.54 0.53 0.56
Kishwaukee River at Belvidere
36.90 92.00 46.00 Biiece 64.36
0.80 1.06 0.86 0.92 0.95
0.64 eu] Cara 0.79 0.84
S. B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale
Ovo 28.60 14.30 Sets 18.78
0.469 0.90 0.76 O77 0.81
0.50 0.73 0.57 0.59 0.63
Kishwaukee River near Perryville
69.00 156.00 78.00 107.00 WZ No Oe
0.81 1.02 0.84 0.92 0.95
0.96 Waste 0.98 05 1.08
ooNnN
ITEM
(es) (SS) pho NO ne) we) ine) ine) ne)
Unt OwWwvostOnNVAS HO -—VaO ov scsOwov a OwWVGaA OAV SO DGB SANNTDB AA LUVUAAW
bo
lo
C1
05440500
7.65
0.51
0.51
05441000
18.40
1.57
0.53
05443500
1765.00
1.64
2e26
05444000
32.60
0.92
One
05445500
22.90
0.40
1103
05446500
2137.00
1.43
2.43
95447000
13.60
0.92
0.67
95447500
106.00
0.94
0.93
05448000
2.98
0.51
0.34
05466000
8.85
0.61
0.53
05466500
28.00
0.96
0.57
Sitio
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values! for’ Qi, "Vi, %& Di for condttions*
C2 C3 on C5
C6
Killbuck Creek Near Monroe Center
3.83 9.21 4.61 Siew
0.33 0.58 0.37 0.43
0.42 0.54 0.44 0.47
Leaf River at Leaf River
9.20 43.40 215 1K0 14.05
1.49 1.68 1.59 Wao!
0.34 0.90 0.58 0.45
Rock River at Como
883.00 1923.00 JoZ 008 137900
oti lo %2Z 115 6) Wowtts}
Lott Bo 33 ese CaO
Elkhorn Creek near Penrose
Oa 3X0) 35.60 17.80 Po NZ
ORwal 0.95 0.74 0.80
0.65 0.91 0.67 0.74
Rock Creek near Morrison
Vio50 28.20 15 HO 19.42
0.24 0.47 0.28 0.36
0.91 1106 0.94 1.00
Rock River near Joslin
1069200) 2502100) 125 100" Fl 725.00
Jo i a5 0 1623: ese
los 2s H{0) TEIGY 2319)
Green River at Amboy
6.80 15.60 7.80 NOR
OR Gi 0.99 On7 1 0.81
0.56 0.70 0.58 0.62
Green River near Geneseo
53.00 128.00 64.00 86.00
Os 12 lpOn Oreti 0.86
0.88 0.95 0.90 0.92
Mill Creek at Milan
1.49 4.99 2a 50 15228)
0.41 0.61 0.49 0.39
0.26 0.41 0.32 O25
Edwards River near Orion
443 113% 80 6.90 4.76
0.50 0.69 0.56 0.51
0.43 0.60 0.49 0.44
Edwards River near New Boston
14.00 43.20 21.60 18.22
0.81 1.06 0.90 0.86
0.38 Onis 0.49 0.44
C7
oOo vl
e e e
= &— ©
NWO
14.53
1.54
0.45
1487.00
1.49
2els
22.75
0.81
0.75
19.91
0.36
1.00
1813.00
1.37
PAN
c8
16.09
1.56
0.48
1670.00
1.60
2.21
25.82
0.84
0.79
21707
0.39
1.02
2015.00
1.41
.— cs = Le) WwW WW Lo 1e) Lo
WOae ONUVSOH-VASH CV SAU UTU SH OVS ONT AO DV AOU SA LS
=
7
cs oflouosd
ITEM
C1
05467000
8.77
0.57
0.45
05467500
3.43
0.90
0.39
05468500
12.60
0.73
0.98
05469000
19.60
0.43
Ae25
05495500
2.165
0.50
0.28
05510500
teid2
0.64
0.25
05512500
0.53
0.59
0.19
95513000
3%.62
0.92
0.39
05520000
30.60
0.36
1.58
05520500
655.00
1.10
1.50
05525000
37.10
0.53
1.18
eq 5
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 C3 C4 C5
Pope Creek near Keithsburg
4.39 15.60 7.80 5.49
O44 0.71 0.155 0.48
Ose 0.59 0.42 0.36
Henderson Creek near Little }
US 72 Sie! Af 4,39 1.42
0.81 05 0.94 0.78
Ones 0.49 0.41 Ons
Cedar Creek at Little York
6.30 17.60 8.80 9.16
0.6 1 0.79 0.67 0.67
0.82 1.06 0.89 0.90
Henderson Creek near Oquawka
9.80 35.50 17.80 13.94
0.30 0.59 0.41 0.36
Iyer 1.38 1628 1.18
Bear Creek near Marcelline
Wess in.1 1 4.56 Oei2
0.42 0.69 0.58 0.36
0.19 0.52 0.36 0.14
Hadley Creek at Kinderhook
O56 4.50 Bees 0.19
G:..55 0.82 0.790 0.40
0.19 0.38 0.29 Oat
Bay Creek at Pittsfield
Oni, 1.91 0.96 OFnS
0.48 0.87 Ono 0.40
Oh 0.28 0.22 Oras
Bay Creek at Nebo
1:81 10.50 De 0.69
0.80 tous 1.00 0.66
O.33 0553 0.44 One5
Singleton Diten at Illinoi
HSI 3i0) 36.40 18.20 2427,
0.20 0.41 Ones 0.30
1.46 16/1 1.49 1.54
Kankakee River at Momence
328.00 744.00 372.00 569.00
0.80 lie 0.85 p08
ile Mieil 1.58 WOU 041
Iroquois River at Iroquois
18.60 48.80 24.40 2e225
0.44 0.58 0.48 0.46
0.82 Tie:36 0.94 0.90
C6
622.00
1.07
1.46
28.75
0.50
1.03
ITEM
OI Ol Ol On Ol = + — Bom =
1Sy
Oo <2ony =|.) isis) S/O) ls) Siw Ss Sp Sis =] fp) ols) So lV Sf) Cols) S| (a SS) SD) ON S|) S|} (HW
C1
Yu
05525500
14.20
0.94
0.59
05526000
79.40
0.49
0.50
05526500
0.78
0.53
0.29
05527000
710.00
0.52
3.00
05527500
824.00
1.06
Neve
95529000
13.80
0.91
0.48
95531000
0.88
0.60
On2t
05531500
16.90
0.74
0.75
05532000
3.49
0.46
0.51
05532500
47.40
0.77
0.83
05533000
4.66
0.63
0.56
=6=
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 C3 cy C5 C6
Sugar Creek at Milford
fo Ie 22.80 11.40 Ge5S 11.34
Osis lo IO 0.88 0.30 0.88
0.46 0.69 0.54 0.49 0.54
Iroquois River near Chebanse
39.70 110.00 500 51.36 O55 S/
0.29 0.63 Oeil 0.36 0.43
ORs 0.64 G56 @255 0.58
Terry Creek near Custer Park
0.39 1.40 0.70 0.49 Onin t
0.70 0.42 0.55 0.64 0.53
0.20 0.40 Onzit Omee 0.29
Kankakee River at Custer Park
355.00 796.00 398.00 615.00 671.00
0.30 ORS 0.33 0.46 0.50
2.70 3.05 radaat (5) 2.93 BSI
Kankakee River near Wilmington
412.00 949.00 475.00 704.00 797-00
0.78 Wauss 0.83 0.99 105
0.96 tot! 1.00 Vol} 1 ois
Des Plaines River near Des Plaines
6.90 19.20 9.60 59 (23) Seis
No 3 0.86 0.97 1.09 1.00
0.38 0.54 0.43 0.34 0.40
Salt Creek near Arlington Heights
0.44 Te 0.88 0.28 0.54
0.54 0.67 0.60 O25 1 0256
(324 Ones OMA 0.18 0.23
Salt Creek at Western Springs
8.45 23.60 1160 6. 37 10.20
0.65 02738 0.69 0.62 Alay
On 67 Ons 0.71 0.65 0.69
Addison Creek at Bellwood
1.75 55 13} SSM f 1.09 1.64
Or3 OR Sit 0.39 0.24 0.30
0.40 O59 0.46 O533 0.39
Des Plaines River at Riverside
23.79 74.80 37.40 18.62 28.19
O555 0.97 0.69 0.49 0.60
0.64 0.98 0.76 0.58 0.68
Flag Creek near Willow Springs
2635 5.60 2.80 3.59 4.03
Onda On167 0.54 0.58 0.60
0.44 0.60 ON 0.51 0253
c8
ITEM
WI ul ul
.
Oo [on Ov fon) Ov Ul
SA oeaSOeah oe = 0b 0 YU a) OO = =o <2 'o1
. . . .
»
Ov
GOs ODVASAHOUMUI SA FV SOWT SAND
C1
05533500
16.20
0.22
0.53
05535000
2.58
0.67
0.43
05535500
2.38
0.64
0.40
05536000
13.20
0.58
0.71
05536215
17.70
1.03
0.68
05536235
ieee 0.
0.60
0.30
05536255
1.09
0.82
0.22
05536265
eT
0.16
0.84
- 05536270
1.74
0.27
0}. 37
95536275
24.80
0.84
0.97
05536290
36.90
0.56
1.46
lig
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 G3 C4 C5 C6
Des Plaines River at Lemont
8-10 26.60 i3s0 8.82 Bo 37
Oral 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.20
0.42 0.62 0.49 0.43 0.49
Skokie River at Lake Forest
1.29 2.97 1.49 1265 We 97.
0.53 Corl Uigsi5) 0.57 0.61
O33 0.46 G535 Ossi 0.39
W. F. of N. 8B. Chicago River at Northbrook
1.19 335 15) 1.58 ol 1.44
0.51 O71 0.56 0.48 0.54
0.29 0.45 0.33 0.527 0.31
North Branch Chicago River at Niles
6.60 21630 10.70 (oho) 9.23
0.46 0.68 0.54 0.47 0.52
0.50 0.91 0.64 0.52 0.59
Thorn Creek at Glenwood
8.85 19.80 9.90 13.89 Uses
0.91 05 0.93 0.99 1.00
0.46 0.73 0.49 0.59 0.62
Deer Creek near Chicago Heights
G55 1.89 0.95 0.72 0.99
0.42 0.80 0.56 0.48 OLS
0.26 0.35 0.29 0.27 0.30
Butterfield Creek at Flossmoor
O55 152 0.76 OAS) 0.76
0.69 0.89 Ono 0.67 0575
(O21 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.22
Lansing Ditch near Lansing
0.74 1a 0.87 0.55 0.78
0.10 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.10
On73 0.87 0.75 0.68 0.74
North Creek near Lansing
0.87 aee5 los: 0.59 0.90
0.23 0.29 0.24 0.21 On25
0.24 0.43 0.28 0.19 0.24
Thorn Creek at Thornton
12.40 31.30 15.70 18.45 2 leew
0.59 0.95 0.67 0.72 0.78
0.82 1.03 0.87 0.90 0.93
Little Calumet River at South Holland
18.50 49.90 25.00 30.38 33.74
0.47 0.61 0.51 0.53 0.55
1.09 1.65 1.24 1.34 1.40
C7
14.05
0.21
0.50
c8
ITEM
On
Os On
~ ~ ~ =] ~ | x ron) ron
is) Sho) SS) te} = /d) Oy le) cS) 1B) OS) GS) fs) eS Ss) S| (DW lS) SD ID) eS) SS a S33 WS SD) @) (eo) (8) Ko) te) eS} (DB) Co)
~~)
C1
05535340
0.49
0.26
0.36
05539000
7.19
OE Sis
0.46
05539900
7.09
0.71
0.83
95540500
49.40
0.84
0.67
05542000
2.14
0.36
0.33
05543500
4643.00
Z05)8)
Zao
05549000
5.80
1303
0.49
05550000
169.00
ins2
0.99
05550500
1.64
0.44
ORSit
0555111200
4.9Q4
0.71
0.47
05551700
9.10
0.81
0.68
Values for Q),) V,
TABLE 2.
are
CONT
INUED
& D for conditions*
C2 G3 c4 C5 C6
Midlothian Creek at Oak Forest
O25 0.90 0.45 0.20 (55353
0.19 0.35 Ome5 OR, OR22
O80 0.43 Q.35 0.28 0.32
Hickory Creek at Joliet
3.60 9.40 4.70 Beas 6.81
0.23 0.38 0227 0.30 O282
Ons Onion 0.40 0.43 0.46
W. B. Du Page River near West Chicago
B05 9.48 4.74 2.50 3.80
0.59 0.76 0.64 0.55 OaGi
0.60 0.95 0.68 0.51 0.62
Du Page River at Shorewood
24.70 61.40 30570 40.10 44.70
0.62 0.93 0.68 Olenati 0.81
0.48 0.74 0253 0.60 0.63
Mazon River near Coal City
1.07 4.90 2.45 0.74 1.59
0.28 0.48 0.38 O25 Ons2
On27 0.40 0.34 ORZ5 ORSO
Illinois River at Marseilles
2322.00 4967.00 2484.00 4445.00 4729.00
ZehO 3.09 AEA T 2.92 3.01
62 2.39 Pain 2726 Bis Sie
Boone Creek near McHenry
2.90 6.47 3.24 4.99 5.49
0.69 1 He) Ons 0.94 TOO:
0.40 Oe Sy 0.41 0.47 48
Fox River at Algonquin
84.50 214.00 107.00 119.00 145.00
0.97 Wek6 1.08 lo Ws aes
0.78 Ta07 0.84 0.87 0.94
Poplar Creek at Elgin
0.82 2628 TA 0.80 italia)
0.42 0.45 0.43 0.42 0.43
0.30 0.41 O33 0.30 5 s'S}
Ferson Creek near St. Charles
2.47 OS Sioulte) 1.89 Ziel
0.60 0.75 0.64 0.56 0.61
0.39 O359 0.42 Oasin 0.40
Blackberry Creek near Yorkville
4.55 10.80 5.40 8.20 9.25
ORS 0.88 0.62 0.77 0.82
0.56 0.71 0.59 0.66 0.68
C7
39.40
0.76
0.60
1.00
0.28
Osa
4342.00
2.89
ae ye)
164.00
1.30
0.98
c8
4647.00
2.99
Pas Mi |
ITEM
“s
ONvVas OFVUSGOWVASONVAOH-VAO OCT SOOT ASO®
~]
oo
co
CO
oo
Cc
lee)
Cc
lee)
(ee)
va owvae ONUVASAO DN Ss
C1
05552500
350.00
1.28
1.63
05554000
1.09
0.23
0.21
05554500
6.26
0.23
0.54
05555500
17.90
0.41
0.70
95556500
3.03
0.45
0.41
05558500
1.05
0.61
0.28
05560500
1.01
0.54
0625
05562000
2.60
0.91
0.19
05563000
3.76
0.86
0.30
05563500
9.69
0.62
0.53
05567500
13.00
0.74
0.53
= Oe
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Fox River at Dayton
175.00 415.00 208.00 269.00 314.00
0.96 Wo Si OS iter leeee
1.34 ilventeal 1.41 551 1259
N. F. Vermilion River near Charlotte
O55 Zao 1.08 0.49 0.83
0.22 0.24 O23 On22 0.22
ORNS 0.29 0.21 0.14 0.18
Vermilion River at Pontiac
335 43 9.97 4.99 4.31 6.370
Oe 0.30 0.20 0.19 0.24
0.48 0.59 0.52 0.51 0555
Vermilion River at Lowell
8.95 26.20 335 1M0) 1335 (S) iW Fasls}
Onse 0.47 ORsii 0.38 0.41
0.58 0.77 0.64 0565 0.70
Bureau Creek at Princeton
ieS2 6213 Bre On 2.44 3.36
Oms2 0.64 0.46 0.41 0.48
0.36 0.47 0.41 0.40 0.42
Crow Creek (West) near Henry
0.53 1.79 0.90 ORS5 OnDSif
ORD 0.65 0.60 0.54 0.57
0.24 0.33 O227 On2 i 0.24
Farm Creek at Farmdale
O51 150 0.75 0.39 0.61
0.40 0.64 0.48 0.36 0.44
0.20 0.28 O22 0.18 521
Farm Creek at East Peoria
Ua} 3.92 1.96 lie 2x KO)
0.74 {503} 0.84 0.381 0.85
Only 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18
Kickapoo Creek near Kickapoo
1.88 7.65 3.83 2.46 3.09
0.73 Tele 0.86 Ours 0.82
Os22 0.41 O}res i 0225 0.28
Kickapoo Creek at Peoria
4.85 220 10.60 5.87 7283
0.46 0.85 0.64 0.50 0.56
0.44 0.66 0.54 0.46 0.50
Mackinaw River near Congerville
6.50 21.60 10.80 9.43 12.89
0.44 1.08 0.64 0.58 0.74
0.46 0.59 0.51 0.50 0.53
ooui
“90s
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
ITEM Gil C2 C3 cy G5 C6
89. 05568000 Mackinaw River near Green Valley
Q 56.50 28.30 70.60 B5es0 44.71 52.87
V 1.49 2016 tro 35 1.86 166 1.54
D 0.69 0.39 0.84 0.47 Oak 0.66
90. 05568500 Illinois River at Kingston Mines
Q 5208.00 2604.00 5951.00 2976.00 4790.00 5222.00
V 0.93 0.66 1.00 Orval 0.90 0.93
D 9.51 7.40 9.98 Reastate 9.23 Jase
91. 05568800 Indian Creek near Wyoming
Q 4.99 2.0'5}0) 6.98 3.49 2604 B35 IO
V OSs 0.61 0.79 0.67 0.59 0.65
D 0.41 On35 0.44 0.38 0.34 D5 Si
92. 05569500 Spoon River at London Mills
Q 47.80 23.90 81.90 41.00 31.86 41.96
Vv 0.47 0.38 0.55 0.44 0.41 0.45
D 1.44 Os 1.88 134 Vets Vo 35
93. 05570000 Spoon River at Seville
Q 85.40 42.70 155.00 17.50 50 ens 68.33
Vy 0.99 oz 0.86 WeOe to 13) Vo OS
D 1.29 0.81 1.90 oA 0.91 Voll
94. 05571000 Sangamon River at Mahomet
Q 8.78 4.39 Io 3st 505 4.50 6.88
V OSTS 0.56 0.83 0.62 0.56 0.67
D 0.40 0.37 0.41 0.38 Onsit 0.39
95. 05572000 Sangamon River at Monticello
Q 15.00 e5O 2200 11.00 9.82 13.19
Vv 0.56 OR58 0.58 0455 O55 0.56
D 0.65 0.49 ORiiS 0.57 0.54 0.61
96. 05574500 Flat Branch near Taylorville
Q 335 2 LAW AS) (eye Wf 4.08 Vo O2 2.90
V 0.44 ORss 0.61 0.47 0.27 0.41
D 5 57/ 0.49 0.69 0.59 0.43 OB55
97. O5575500 South Fork Sangamon River at Kincaid
Q Vio 30) 505: 19.60 9.80 AS} fo 50)
V 0.66 0.50 0.82 0.62 0.45 0.56
D On oil 0.49 0.53 Oni 0.48 OR50
98. 95576000 South Fork Sangamon River near Rochester
Q 16.20 8.10 37.80 18.90 8.00 14.41
V 0.65 0.50 0.88 0.68 0.50 0.62
D Ons 0.64 1.00 0.82 0.64 0.76
99. 05576500 Sangamon River at Riverton
Q 66.90 83550 111200 55150 48.64 62.61
V 01385 0.62 1.09 0278 0.73 0.83
D he Se lo I@ 5 510) mes Wo21l 1.29
C7
43.79
1266
0.56
4924.00
0.91
9.32
10.27
0.54
0.69
47.56
0.73
1.20
c8
yar Ml
1.54
0.66
5472.00
0.96
9.68
—
oO
=_
—s
oO
=k
oO
=
oO
=
oO
—_
fo)
Ue Spor aoo Usb OVC one 26 oS oa eu Se =a)
—_
_
C1
05578500
14.00
0.75
0.52
05579500
9.82
0.63
0.46
05580000
esi
0.74
0.59
05580500
10.20
0.70
0.56
05581500
17.70
0.77
0.54
05582000
148.00
38
1.05
05582500
4.29
0.37
0.70
05583000
389.00
1.32
1.17
05584500
19.30
0.81
0.80
05585000
52.20
1.40
1726
05585500
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 C3 on C5
Salt Creek near Rowell
7.00 19.40 9.70 8.34
0.67 0.79 0.70 0.69
0.44 0.56 0.47 0.46
Lake Fork near Cornland
4.91 10.80 5.40 6.92
0.45 O..67 0.47 0.253
0.40 OS47 0.41 0.43
Kickapoo Creek at Waynesville
3.69 12.40 6.20 3.04
0.63 0.82 OOF 0.61
0.48 0.69 0.56 0.45
_ Kiekapoo Creek near Lincoln
5.10 18.00 9.00 7.19
0256 0.83 0.67 0.63
0.46 O67 0.54 O1854
Sugar Creek near Hartsburg
8.85 21 s20 13.60 13255
0.58 0.92 0.69 0.69
0.48 0.58 0.52 0.52
Salt Creek near Greenview
74.00 176.00 88.00 116.00
ota 150 1.09 1.24
0.85 No tht 0.89 0.97
Crane Creek near Easton
2215 5.38 2.69 2.44
0.30 0.40 Ons2 OniSi
0.60 O73 0.63 0.62
Sangamon River near Oakford
195.00 570.00 285.00 305.00
1.09 Loy. lieteal 5,23)
0.88 15 3if 08 1.06
La Moine River at Colmar
9.65 42,60 21530 8.167
Ona 0.96 0.83 0.69
0.63 1.06 0.83 0.61
La Moine River at Ripley
2CnLO 104.00 52.00 25.95
1.42 1.38 1.40 1.42
0.95 Vets 1.28 0.95
Illinois River at Meredosia
6367.00 3134.00 7384.00 3692.00 5980.00
1.04
8.01
0.76 1.11 0.81 1.01
Bowl 8.61 6.14 Told
C6
13%
C7
— =—
—s —
—
—.
—
=.
_— —_—
rh Ss
Seay seawaod) soca Soci soa) S22 eo] Sf vile) Se
PO
FU =a OD
C1
05587000
15.70
0.85
0.45
05589500
0.87
0.65
0.22
05590000
0.32
0.40
0.15
05592000
13.40
0.86
0.44
05592500
62.80
0.60
1.68
05593000
82.30
0.73
ior,
05594000
16.80
0.58
0.80
05595000
180.00
0.42
3 nll
05596000
4.62
0.64
0.40
05597000
6.68
1.71
0.24
95599000
4.10
0.29
0.67
=P) =
TABLE 2. CONTINUED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C2 C3 C4 C5
Macoupin Creek near Kane
(@5.35 38.30 19.20 6.93
ORO 1.09 0.90 0.68
0.38 0.56 0.48 0.37
Canteen Creek at Caseyville
0.44 16y7, 0.84 0.35
0.61 0.69 0.65 0.60
OS 1S 0.30 0.22 0.14
Kaskaskia River at Bondville
0.16 0.48 0.24 0.19
Os 35} 0.45 O37 0.35
Ojala 0.18 Ons Oein
Kaskaskia River at Shelbyville
6.70 2590 13.00 {ho W'5
On73 1.00 0.85 0.74
Onsul 0.63 0.44 Onse
Kaskaskia River at Vandalia
31.40 110.00 55.00 41.34
0.48 0.72 0.58 0.53
1.19 2.21 We Syif 1.36
Kaskaskia River at Carlyle
41.20 189.00 94.50 56.74
0.62 0.90 0.76 0.67
0.70 aon Lot] 0.85
Shoal Creek near Breese
8.40 38.90 19.50 9.63
0.47 On75 0.61 0.49
0.58 heals 0.86 0.61
Kaskaskia River at New Athens
90.00 339.00 170.00 140.00
OR S51 0.56 0.41 0.38
OBA 4.08 3203 2.79
Big Muddy River near Benton
2 S\| 16.30 8.15 Howie
0153 0.90 Oia 0.49
OG Sil 0.65 0.50 0.28
Big Muddy River at Plumfield
Sia Si Ales A te 2200
1.43 Zeit 1.98 1.38
0.19 0.38 0.30 Oe
Beaucoup Creek near Matthews
205 9.28 4.64 0.92
0.22 0.41 0.31 0.16
0.53 0.87 0.70 0.41
C6
47.13
0.55
1.46
58.90
0.68
0.87
1 78
0.53
0.68
149.00
0.39
2.86
c8
—e=
TABLE 2. CONCLUDED
Values for Q, V, & D for conditions*
C1 G2 C3 cy G5
05599500 Big Muddy River at Murphysboro
48.10 24.10 116.00 58.00 81.08
1.03 0.74 Wo DS) lo I 0.33
(Pw as) 0.66 0.97 C202 Oma
05600000 Big Creek near Wetaug
ez oe 3623} 1.62 0.52
0.22 0.16 Om 3il ORT, 0.16
0.50 0.39 0.78 0.60 0.39
C6 C7
0.97 0.95
0.76 0.75
0.81 0.80
0.20 0.20
0.46 0.46
Median 3l-day low flow during the period May-October.
Half median 31-day low flow during the period May-—October.
Median 61-day low flow during the period May-October.
Half median 61-day
Flow at 90 percent
Flow at 85 percent
Flow at 90 percent
Flow at 85 percent
low flow
duration
duration
duration
duration
during the period
using daily flows
using daily flows
using daily flows
using daily flows
May-—October.
May-October.
May-October.
LOL thes record.
for the record.
= hs
Leopold and Maddock showed that these relationships are valid for different
cross sections along the stream, even when the values of a, Db, ice
m change. The relationships were found to be greatly similar and consistent,
even for stream systems in different physiographic settings.
Stall and Fok (1968) confirmed the general relationships for Illinois
streams. They used the data from 166 gaging stations to develop parameters
needed to define the hydraulic geometry of the streams, and presented the
results as separate sets of equations for 18 major river basins. The general
form of the Tellatdonship) dis:
In (parameter) = a- bF +c Ind,
in which parameter refers to Q, A (area of flow section), V(= Q/A), W (width
of the stream at the surface), and D(=]=_A/W): a, b, and © are cCoehemweremec
F and Ay denote flow duration and drainage area in square miles, respectively;
and In represents the natural logarithm. The set of values of a, b, and ec
for a parameter were developed by considering values of the parameter at 9
values of F (0.1, 0.2, 0:3, 02.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9) at teaene eee
gaging stations in a major river basin.
Hydraulic Geometry Parameters
The intent was to use the already developed hydraulic geometry equations
for calculating hydraulic geometry parameters for Q(90) and Q(85) and for the
other 6 flow releases from corresponding F values from flow-duration curves.
A preliminary investigation for the gaging stations in the Sangamon River
basin revealed that the developed relationships yielded parameter values
which were significantly different from those indicated by the actual data.
The hydraulic geometry relationships were significantly improved by
dividing the Sangamon basin into 3 sub-basins on the basis of flow duration
25
(Singh, 1971) and by making a few changes in the structure of the equations.
These improved relationships not only indicated better fit over the range of
F values, but also yielded considerably lower estimates of standard error.
It was decided to calculate the parameters A, V, W, and D at each gaging
station for the discharges corresponding to the 8 low flow release criteria
with the following procedure:
Peto Ww. and Di) vyersus Q on logarithmic paper for the range of
Q, encompassing all the low flow release values being used as criteria.
2) Draw best-fit straight lines indicating the general relation
log (parameter) = a + b (log Q)
Pimwyoleiwd 1s the intercept and b is a coefficient.
Byeoneck that V and A, and D and W relations are compatible in the
sense that V xX A = Q and D X W= A.
Pemeatculate a set of values of A, V, W, and D for each of the 8 low
flow release criteria.
Relevant information was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey office
in Champaign, Illinois, to develop A, V, W, and D versus Q curves for 26
gaging stations to update the information available at the other 97 gaging
Searzous (Singh, 1981). Values of the 3 parameters (Q, V, and D) for each
flow release at the 123 stations are given in table 2.
Formation of Riffles and Pools
The lateral deviation of a natural stream from a straight course results
in a smooth sinuous or meandering course. A vertical deviation generally
results in a concave longitudinal stream bed profile with undulating deeps
and shallows, which are usually called pools and riffles, respectively (Yang,
1971). Yang demonstrated the formation of riffles and pools in natural streams
as a means of channel self-adjustment that satisfies the law of least time
rate of energy expenditure. The fundamental difference between riftfles and
pools is the difference in energy gradients. In a complete cycleteteampoes—
riffle sequence, the riffle is defined as the portion that has an energy
gradient steeper than the average energy gradient of the completemeyemen
whereas the pool is the portion that has an energy gradient milder than the
cycle average. The riffles act as submerged dams to slow down the release
of water from the pools behind them.
A nonmeandering channel has an undulating bed with deeps and shallows
that alternate along its length, spread more or less regularly at a repeating
distance equal to ™5 to 7 widths) (Leopold et al.,1964). The same holdsmror
the meandering channels. The plan and profile of a meandering laboratory
channel (Friedkin, 1945) and of a meandering reach of the Popo Agteuhaver
near Hudson, Wyoming (Leopold and Wolman, 1957) are shown in figure 2. The
erossings are located at the points of inflection (Bj) D,) and §) valonugeene
meandering course in figure 2A, and these are the locations for rimless elas
pools are located at the bends (A, C, E, and G). Because of the trabiibaruess
obstructions, and various geologic constraints, the location of riffles and
pools may not be very precise and the spacing may vary within a reasonable
IbstimMalie
Hydraulic Geometry Parameters for Pool Conditions
The U.S. Geological Survey usually makes the low flow measurements at
the riffles. Thus, the parameters V and D (i.e., velocity and depth) apply
to the riffle conditions at the low flows. As the water stage moves from
low to high, the water slope difference between pools and riffles disappears.
At high flow, the water surface slope is uniform throughout the whole reach.
—
uJ
ud
OO
a 80 ee, aaa St =————
(=) = - \ <1
Eg | THALWEG BED - LOW FLON eer |
=>
ud
=
Lu
} | Taauwes BED - BANKFULL STAGE——~ ea
6
10 20 30 40 50 0 70
DISWANCE. IN FEET
Plan and profile of a meandering laboratory channel (from Friedkin, 1945)
MAGNETIC NORTH
SCALE OF FEET
0 200 400
eG — ee
EXPLANATION
RIFFLE
PROFILES
ELEVATION IN FEET
(ARBITRARY DATUM)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
DISTANCE ALONG STREAM, IN FEET
B. Plan and profile of a meandering reach of the Popo Agie River near
Hudson, Wyoming (after Leopold and Wolman, 1957)
Figure 2. Meandering laboratory channel and Popo Agie River
es
The relative ear of a pool below the riffle bed depends on a number
of factors such as the stream order (or the drainage area as its surrogate),
the river flow, the bed material, and the flow variations. Three Stream
profiles for the Little Wabash River 5 milles north of Hffinghame@aramaaee
area 166 sq mi), for the Clay City gaging statiom (drainage areqmaieed
mi), and for the area near Hodgson Bridge 4 mi south of Golden Gate (drain-
age area 1875 sq mi) are given by Herricks et al. (1980). For the first
reach and a flow of 8.12 cfs, the average pool depth below the riffle bed
is about 2 feet; for the second reach and a flow of 527 cfs, the@amenace
pool depth bellow the riffle is about 2.5 feet; and for the third fegeonmre
is about 2.8 feet. Thus, the average depth of the pool bed below the riffle
bed may be approximated by b x log A in which b is a coefficient and A is
drainage area in sq mi. The coefficient b varies between 0:3 andOvoe-can
the above three reaches. To allow for bed level variations along a cross
section, a value of 0.75 is adopted for the coefficient in this ietudyeeeeaass
value seems to be a fair representation of the riffle and pool depths and
sequences that could be obtained from the past publications.
The average velocity in the pool, Mes is obtained from the values of
depth and velocity at the riffle, a and U8 with the equation of continuity:
Qu
Il
d. th Ogi) aloe TA.
Vv
(dix ivy aid
P rf =p
in which as is the average water depth in the pool.
EVAPORATION AND SEDIMENTATION
The amount of net reservoir storage available for meeting the project
purposes can be obtained from the gross reservoir storage after making
Suitable allowances for net evaporation loss from the reservoir during a
design drought and for the storage loss because of the sediment entrapped
in the reservoir. Because the occurrence of a design drought cannot be
predicted in advance (e.g., a 25-year drought may occur in any year 1 through
25>, 2 25-year drought may not occur at all in the 25-year period, or a more
severe drought may occur in this period), the gross storage provided at the
beginning usually equals the sum of storage lost to net evaporation during
the design drought, storage lost to sedimentation over the design period, and
storage needed to meet project purposes.
Evaporation Loss
Net yield from a reservoir is obtained by subtracting evaporation loss
from the gross reservoir storage during the design period of critical draw-
down. The net reservoir storage to provide the net yield (taken as 2, 5, 10,
or 20 percent of mean flow in this study) depends on the associated risk of
Beeemme a lesser yield. In this study, the risk implied is that the net
yield may be less than the desired yield once in more than 25 or 40 years.
die daily rainfall records are available for 68 years, 1911-1978, for
9 raingage stations: Chicago, Rockford, Moline, Peoria, Springfield, and
Carbondale in Illinois; St. Louis in Missouri; and Evansville and Indiana-
Eobesean Indiana. Urbana, Illinois has 49 years of record but this has
extended to 68 years (Terstriep et al.,in preparation, 1981). For computing
net lake evaporation, two continuous data sets are needed: one for
302
precipitation and the other for lake evaporation. Data for lake evaporation
are not directly available, but evaporation pan data at several locations
available for about seven months of each year, excluding the winter period,
can be used to develop suitable lake evaporation estimates with the method-
ology described by Roberts and Stall (1967). This has_been done in Bulletin
51A (Terstriep et al., in preparation, 1981) in terms of monthly lake evapora-
tions at the 10 raingage stations. The net evaporation each month was obtained
by subtracting the monthly precipitation from the monthly evaporation. Thus,
net evaporation will be negative in a month in which rainfall exceeds the
lake evaporation. Statistical analyses were performed to develop the net
evaporation estimates for critical durations of 1 to 60 months and recur-
rence intervals of 2 to 100 years. The tabulated information in Bulletin
51A was used in this study for considering the compensatory storage for net
evaporation losses.
Bulletin 51A provides the information on reservoir yield and associated
reservoir storage and critical drawdown duration in months for the design
recurrence interval. The storage in inches of runoff can be easily converted
to storage in acre-feet (ac-ft). The water surface area in acres, A for
the storage in ac-ft, S, is obtained from the following equation (Dawes and
Wathne, 1968):
Ay = O23 art
Ww
The evaporation loss in ac-ft, EVL, is obtained from
EV = 06> Ae (NEL/12)
in which NEL is the net evaporation loss in inches from the lake during the
critical drawdown period, and effective surface area for evaporation loss is
65 percent of that at the normal pool because of reduction in water surface
area as the water level lowers during the critical period.
a ae
Sedimentation
Annual reservoir capacity loss because of sedimentation can be read
from a graph (Stall, 1964) when drainage area and reservoir capacity are
Known. A single equation was fitted to this graph by Singh et al.(1972):
0.64
a /
ee ieee 0 oon an 2 810)
in which capacity loss is in inches per year and A is the drainage area in
Square miles. The above equation is independent of the reservoir capacity-
inflow ratio which is believed to be a significant parameter for evaluating
trap efficiency of the reservoirs (Brune, 1953).
In the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study (UMRCBS, 1970),
the stream sediment yield, Yo: in tons/sq mi/year is given by
in which ais -0.12, A is the drainage area in square miles, and k is a
coefficient which varies from one land resource area, LRA, to the other. The
State of Illinois was divided into 10 LRAs by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (Austin, 1965). For each LRA, the coefficient k was found from the regres-
sion analysis with the log-trangormed equation
log Yo = tog ike iar loge A
and the available data. The annual sediment yield, for a given drainage area A
is obtained by multiplying A and Yo: To convert this yield into ac-ft per
year, the sediment trapped in the reservoir is calculated:
Sediment in tons/year = A * Y, * trap efficiency
in which the trap efficiency equals percent trap efficiency in figure 3, divided
by 100.
It is necessary to measure the specific weight of deposited sediments to obtain
(€S61 ‘aunig 4teqjye) OTJeA mMOTJuT-AQToOedeo snsisA AouaTtoTsjo deal,
"€ oan3stTy
MO14ANI IWANNY LOOS-3YOV Y3ad ALIOVdV9D 1334°-3YOV — OILVY MOTANIALIOVdV9 “1/9
Ol g c
NISv@ ONILD
NiISwH ONILT
(€b6t 6E61) WIOAH IASI IINAYDINGS
SHIOAY353.) .HOINIS &
SNISVA ONIL1IS 90 co)
1934439 NISNOIL V8 Id0
ONITLNIA BO ONIDIZIS HLIM
SUIOAU ISIN OIONOd WWHEN OO
SdDIOAHAS IH OVONOd LYWWHON @
GO c0 LO
(7bGL BYAL) HIOAH IST
HWIOAH ASF
HIOAH 3S34
HIOAH ASF
SYIOAYHSSAY G3A0NOd 1VWHON
YO4d SSAYND 3AdOTSANSA
SYIOAYSSSY GAGNOd 1WWYON
YOd SAYNO NVIGAW
S00
c0'0
100
S00°0
c00'0
L00°0
0
OL
02
Of
Ov
os
09
OL
08
06
00
l
IN390Y3d — AONAIDISS35 dV¥L
esis
the volume of materials deposited in a reservoir. Equations for computing
Specific weights of reservoir sediments are given in the UMRCBS. For the
Illinois condition, the specific weight varies from about 40 to 60 lbs/cu ft.
Available Lake Sedimentatton Data
The State Water Survey has been conducting lake sedimentation surveys
for more than 40 years. The data on 98 lakes surveyed over the years (see
listing in table 3) were analyzed to develop information on the following
factors:
Location of lake
Drainage area, sq mi
Average discharge, inches/yr
Average lake capacity, ac-ft and inches
Capacity—-inflow ratio, CP/TI
Annual sediment rate, ac-ft/yr
Percent capacity reduction
The average lake capacity equals the mean of the capacities for the first
and second surveys, and the annual sediment rate equals the loss in reservoir
capacity between the two surveys divided by the time interval in years. The
capacity-inflow ratio, CP/I, is average lake capacity in inches divided by
the average discharge entering the lake in inches/year.
Regtonal Relattons
An effort was made to correlate the percent capacity reduction, PCR, with
basin factors (such as drainage area and main channel length and slope) and
CP/I. The available data were broken into regional sets to improve the corre-
lations. These analyses showed that the inclusion of basin factors did not
Oo wo &©O™~ OV UW & WN Ee
TABLE Sa MM Ginows rakes! watteheSedamenttam arte:
-
Name of Reservoir
Nelson, Lake No. 4
Lake No. 3
Ewan elOncda INO ssaleZ
Lake Calhoun
Armstrong, Pond No. 13
ROR Ce bya OMINCIS Cray @zlsiam N Ones lel
Lake Bracken
Lake Storey
Lake Bloomington
Avon, Reservoir No. 19
Canton, Lake No. 36
Van Winkle, Lake No. 18
Spring; Lake No. 23
Carthage, Reservoir No. 26
Ateyle, Lake No. 25
Vermont, Lake No. 24 (new)
Asteria, Reservoir Now 21
Saukenauk, Lake No. 35
Lake Vermilion
C.B. & 0... Reservoir Now 28
Clayton, Reservoir No. 29
Mts Sternlamne, Reservoir No. 333
Virginia Reservoir
Power Farms, Pond No. 43
G. Ms & 0% Wakes Pond No wets
Bolton Farms, Pond No. 38-1
Holton Farms, Pond No. 38-2
Hose & Davis Farms, Pond No. 45
Aschauer, Pond No. 33
Lake Decatur
Knapp, Pond No 929
Lake Springfield
Jacksonville, Pond Now 24
Mlii@e Senee weaink, Rome NO. 25
Morgan, Pond No. 46
Mauvaise Terre Lake, Pond No.
Schmidt, Pond No. 44
Lake Oakland
Big blwe Greek sReserayole
Pittsfield, Reservoir No. 34
Franklin, Pond No. 16
Langdon, Pond No. 42
Waveriiy. Pond No. ey
Roodhouse, Pond No. 4
Haslalsv lew Onc NOR,
Location
Millersburg
Matherville
Kewanee
Galva
Toulon
Rio
Galesburg
Galesburg
Bloomington
Avon
Canton
Canton
Macomb
Carthage
Colchester
Vermont
Astoria
Lima
Danville
Camp Point
Clayton
Me. “Stermiame
Virginia
Cantrall
Tadlilwila
Sherman
Sherman
Pleasant) Pillasms
Riverton
Decatur
Springfield
Springfield
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Chatham
Oakland
Pittsfield
Pittsfield
Franklin
Franklin
Waverly
Roodhouse
Hillview
46.
47.
48.
49,
D0
Ba.
De
bee
54.
5.
56.
bye
BBs
o's
60.
Bl.
BZ.
6a.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
eo.
7A
aes
iota
V3
ia
ee
70%.
es
Pe.
a.
80.
BL.
BZ.
83.
84.
Bes
86.
a7.
88.
Bo.
2108
TABLE 3. Illinois Lakes with Sediment Data (continued)
Name of Reservoir
Whitehall, Pond No. 5
Vineyard, Pond No. 10A
Lake Charleston
Ridge Lake
Craig and Davidson Lake
Stevenson's Lake
Greenfield, Pond No. 8
Woodbine, Pond No. 6
Arctic Lake
Vevay Park Lake
Lake Carlinville
Walton Park Lake
Edwards Lake
Lake Gillespie
New Mount Olive Reservoir
Wilsonville, Mine Pond No. 4
Lake Staunton
Panama Lake
Etcheson's Lake
Patterson Lake
Farina Lake
Schaefer Lake
Kinmundy, I.C.R.R. Reservoir
New Olney Reservoir
Brown Park Lake
Salem City Reservoir
Racoon Lake
Steiner Lake
Ashley City Reservoir
Nashville Reservoir
Bluford, I.C.R.R. Reservoir
Farrell Lake
Lake Miller
Mt. Vernon, Reservoir No. 2
Lake Coulterville
Lake Duquoin
Norris City Reservoir
Christopher City Reservoir
Thompsonville, I.C.R.R. Reservoir
West Frankfort Reservoir (New)
Johnson City Reservoir
Herrin, Reservoir No. l
Baker's Lake
Flucks Lake
Knights of Pythias Lake
Location
Whitehall
Whitehall
Charleston
Charleston
Martinsville
Martinsville
Greenfield
Greenfield
Carlinville
Greenup
Cansieimyasiive
Tae eehit redid
Gillespie
Gillespie
White City
Wilsonville
Staunton
Panama
Vandalia
Edgewood
Farina
Edwardsville
Kinmundy
Olney
Flora
Salem
Centralia
Fairfield
Ashley
Nashville
Bluford
Mt. Vernon
Mt. Vernon
Mt. Vernon
Coulterville
Sunfield
Norris City
Christopher
Thompsonville
West Frankfort
Johnson City
Herrin
Marion
Marion
Marion
SHINS
o2F
93%
94".
5)
J6%
oe
eke
EOGe
TABLE 3. Illinois Lakes with Sediment Data (coneluded)
Name of Reservoir
Marion Reservoir
Eldorado Reservoir
Dering iWoalCo. sResenvodas
Carbondale Reservoir
Crab Onchard lake
Little Grassy Lake
Alto Pass Reservoir
Anna State Hospital Lake
Location
Marion
Eldorado
Eldorado
Carbondale
Carbondale
Carbondale
Alto Pass
Anna
= 4 9/—
Significantly improve the regional correlations. The regionalization of the
lakes was improved by plotting the PCR versus CP/E on log-log graphs by con-
Sidering various regional configurations. The final regions are shown in
figure 4. They do not cover the whole state because in some large areas
there were either no lakes or no sediment surveys. The following relations
were obtained from the plots:
Region a 8B Range, /I
1 ORS 20 -0.293 O02 = O28
2 0.520 -0.563 0.04 - 0.7
3 0.930 -0.563 OC2Se— 06
4 O22 12 -0.485 02035 = 0.7
5 0.205 -0.705 0.04 - 1.0
6 Qe Zell -0.932 O03 7— 0.8
7 0.380 -0.809 0.11 - 0.9
8 0.203 =0.593 O205]— OFS
9 0.584 -0.012 OL6s— 06
The percent capacity reduction PCR is obtained from
GE B
RGRe ar Ginn).
il
in whichCP is the average capacity over the period considered. The coeffi-
tence ais a function of factors such as sediment characteristics, lake
operation, annual precipitation and storm distributions, and overland slopes
and general land use. Regionalization assumes minor variations from the
mean for these factors over the region under consideration. The extrapolations
cP ; hes :
beyond the range of ( i values from the data may be justifiable if the extra-
F CP
Hotations are for ( values not too far away from the data values. There
were some data points (about 10) which may be considered outliers as far as
the above relations are concerned. The reasons for such outliers may be the
type of outlet works and method of lake operation, watershed management prac-—
tices, atypical land use, etc.
fe judgment about the trap efficiency and the specific weight of reser-
sediments.
FISH SULTAR TLL CURVES
Instream flow needs arise from various uses such as recreation, fish-
eries and aquatic habitats, and navigation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice's Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group has been very active in devel-
oping methodologies for estimating streamflows suitable for maintenance of
fisheries. Research being conducted by them and by others has helped in a
continuing improvement inthe understanding of the problemand in its solution.
The suitability of a stream reach in maintaining fish habitats depends
on a number of factors such as flow velocity, depth and width of stream, water
quality, temperature, and stream bottom materials. In this study, only two
important parameters are considered, both of which can be changed through
management of flows: flow velocity, V, and flow depth, D.
Sultabi lity, CurvesmionryNime larcer jspeeres
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency provided fish suitability
or preference tables for the following juvenile and adult fish: bluegill, blunt-
“nose, carp, channel catfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, drum, white bass,
and white crappie. These 9 fish are the target species for studies relating to
Illinois streams. The fish suitability or preference as a funchtem enema
velocity and depth for each of the 9 fish, juvenile and adult, are given in
table 4. Analyses can include the habitat preferences of each life stage such
as spawn, fry, juvenile, and adult. However, only the preferences for the
juvenile and adult fish are analyzed in this study to estimate the effect of
various low flow releases from impounding reservoirs on the fish population.
The fish suitability or preference curves are drawn in figure 5 for the
9 target fish, juvenile and adult, with respect to flow velocity, V, and flow
Fish Preferences for
TABLE 4
1. BLUEGILL
JUVENILE
VEL PREF DEPTH
0.00 1.00 0.00
-O4 1.00 «50
06 98 ~65
-08 295 -78
-10 - 86 -98
215 ~56 edie
-20 aoe ee
23 26 1.30
025 20 1.38
29 13 1.42
33 09 1.50
38 05 1.60
43 02 1.64
48 0.00 1.70
100.00 0.00 3.45
3.53
3.80
4.12
444
4.85
5.20
5.40
5.70
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.90
100.00
55) Ve
Various Velocities and Depths of Flow
ADULT
VEL PREF DEPTH
0.00 1.00 0.00
22 1.00 80
26 94 05
32 84 26
43 250 52
5y | 44 80
58 34 10
AKeyS} AZ) 30
5 fo 21 54
ott 16 15
84 13 00
92 lit 23
6 SZ 03 4O
1.47 01 50
1652 0.00 50
GO Oy On OOO gt Go) CON WO) CON HOUNO NOM) ans
. e e . e e e . s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e es e .
oo
Ne
—.
oO
ape
TABLE 4. Continued
2. BLUNTNOSE
JUVENILE ADULT
VEL PREF DEPTH PREF VEL PREF DEPTH PREF
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
orilat 1.00 - 30 0.00 -12 -93 19 0.00
525 89 42 -31 19 - 80 238 48
33 Bhs) 46 250 21 -60 44 80
44 -20 -61 1.00 25 »39 ~50 1.00
50 -11 -70 1.00 -31 - 30 83 1.00
208 O04 he -90 -50 19 1.00 88
1.00 0.00 ~83 275 =D -10 1.04 80
100.00 0.00 84 40 1.16 03 1.06 «50
86 - 30 1.34 0.00 roi) a3
1.00 -18 100.00 0.00 1.38 ep
1.50 0.00 Lowes -05
100.00 0.00 2.30 01
2.80 0.00
100.00 0.00
3. ‘CARP
JUVENILE ADULT
VEL PREF DEPTH PREF VEL PREF DEPTH PREF
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.90 0.00
25 1.00 1.90 0.00 025 1.00 1.40 0.00
~35 98 Za -02 35 -97 1.80 03
245 94 2.40 -06 245 92 2.00 06
Aly . 88 2.60 ote ~50 86 2.25 - 10
~55 80 2.80 22 255 46 2.50 116
“56 41 3-00 84 alo2 42 Zale 24
~65 »35 3.10 92 Aa fs) 38 2.90 34
80 - 30 350 97 95 - 36 3.00 48
1.00 26 B00 1.00 1.90 - 33 3.20 -90
1.20 025 6.00 1.00 2.30 o3e 3330 -96
260 24 6.20 .98 2.60 29 3.40 98
2.90 022 6.40 92 2.83 26 3.60 1.00
3.40 217 6.50 88 3655 14 5.90 1.00
4.00 08 6.60 - 36 4.20 06 6.10 98
4.40 ~O4 6.80 28 4.70 01 6.20 96
4.85 0.00 7.00 24 4.90 0.00 6.35 -90
100.00 0.00 7.60 - 18 100.00 0.00 6.65 -70
8.60 - 10 7.10 -40
9.60 05 7.30 32
10.40 01 (PREIS) 22
11.10 0.00 8.60 oe
100.00 0.00 9.00 08
9.60 04
10.20 01
10.80 0.00
100.00 0.00
ny iores
TABLE 4. Continued
4. CHANNEL CATFISH
JUVENILE ADULT
VEL PREF DEPTH PREF VEL PREF DEPTH PREF
0.00 -O7 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
me »10 1.00 0.00 025 1.00 1.80 0.00
-93 214 2.40 46 - 30 98 1.90 O4
1.08 -20 3.40 - 66 °35 -96 2.20 10
ESN . 36 3.60 72 -715 84 2.80 16
1.71 - 60 3.80 - 80 ZS) ~50 3.20 20
2.05 92 4.00 94 2.30 44 3.40 24
2.10 96 4.20 -98 2.40 . 38 3.60 ~ 30
eel 1.00 4.36 1.00 Ze52 “oe 4,00 ~70
3.10 1.00 4.60 -99 2.65 28 4.20 82
3.12 99 4.85 -96 3.35 20 4.60 90
3e 15 98 5.00 -90 S35 (( 14 4,68 98
3625 74 5.40 - 66 4.10 96 4.80 1.00
3.30 56 6.20 44 4,28 0.00 100.00 1.90
3.40 245 6.80 - 30 100.00 0.00
3.55 . 38 9.60 -10
4.05 233 12.00 0.00
4.20 - 30 100.00 0.00
4.35 24
4,50 el2
4.60 0.00
100.00 0.00
5. LARGEMOUTH BASS
JUVENILE ADULT
VEL PREF DEPTH PREF VEL PREF DEPTH PREY
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
“15 -99 -20 0.00 -20 1.00 1.900 0.00
225 96 57 eile 25 98 1.60 ~O4
-35 -90 80 520 37 91 20350 2
315) 70 95 238 -50 83 3.41 - 30
-75 Ay 1.02 48 68 68 3.90 ~40
-90 30 Pats 80 ~90 42 eT RO ~60
1.05 22 1.28 92 1.10 32 5.43 «32
foe 211 1.38 98 1.28 24 5.70 -90
1.60 -O4 1.48 1.00 1.45 20 5.95 -96
1.77 01 100.00 1.00 1.90 14 6.20 -99
2.00 0.00 2.25 08 7.00 1.00
100.00 0.00 2.55 0.00 9.00 1.00
100.00 0.00 20.00 0.00
100.00 0.00
6.
—s
Oo
OF EWNHNNN - —
‘ene, ) Oe eh. Oe Om seh ee cee fe
SMALLMOUTH BASS
JUVENILE
PREF DEPTH
1.00 0.00
1.00 «3
96 -50
arte ~70
-74 1.00
64 1.13
49 1.20
28 1.30
-20 100.00
el2
-06
0.00
0.00
JUVENILE
PREF DEPTH
1.00 0.00
1.00 1.82
-96 2a3
-90 2.60
84 2.82
ote 3.10
-46 3.38
229 3 ir
-20 9.00
Salis) 100.00
- 10
O04
0.00
0.00
TABLE 4.
aD A hee
Continued
100.00
PREF
tS
-76
84
93
a hie
~95
-90
513)
-76
~62
46
- 30
+ 116
08
-O4
0.00
0.00
WWWWhh —- — ©
oe. @) ‘e: ei) 6) e)-8 4e
ine)
U1
4.05
PREF
0.00
0.00
-O7
20
46
~70
82
92
-98
1.00
1.00
8.
om
oO
9.
—
oO
WHITE BASS
JUVENILE
VEL PREF DEPTH
0.00 1.00 0.00
2.00 1.00 1.40
2.07 98 1.90
2.35 88 2.40
2.65 -74 2.70
2.95 56 3.20
3.50 24 3.60
3.85 06 3.90
4.00 0.00 4.10
0.00 0.00 7-90
8.30
9.30
10.00
10.380
12.60
13.60
14.00
100.00
WHITE CRAPPIE
JUVENILE
VEL PREF DEPTH
0.00 1.00 0.00
+25 1.00 72
~50 94 1.00
80 84 1.10
1.05 ~74 1.30
1.45 254 1.50
Toe 38 1.60
2.00 Sy 1.70
2.30 24 Jefe
2.68 sills 3-95
2.94 212 4.30
3.50 -06 4.70
3.90 0.00 Sed
0.00 0.00 6.00
7.10
7.60
100.00
TABLE 4.
=A Gi
Concluded
OO FWWWWPhHWYNhD O
ee 8 ~S. 10. (Ol) [Ol (b> ere eae
oO
ul
—
oO
No —-— —
. 8
Ul
193)
3.05
100.00
ome)
e e
-00
PREF
1.00
1.00
-96
84
-70
745
34
26
-20
- 16
-10
.O4
0.00
0.00
DOO S&S EWN O
@.. 8). 58) 8) Oat 20h. Ole 18 °
18.00
ADULT
DEPTH
—
oO
ODWWWWPNDM WW O
-00
-00
-40
- 60
fe)
-00
-20
53
a5
-00
FISH SUITABILITY (S)
I
Juvenile
|
|
|
IPalebage 5).
Sie
FLOW VELOCITY (V), ft/sec
BLUEGILL
Svs D ———
S vs V
BLUNTNOSE
Svs D———
S vs V
FLOW DEPTH (D), ft
Fish suitability or preference cunyes
FISH SUITABILITY (S)
CHANNEL CAT
Svs D ———
S vs V
0.75
0.50
0.25
4
FLOW DEPTH (D), ft
Fiioure 5.
6
Continued
\
e |
|
Juvenil
\
| Adult
FISH SUITABILITY (S)
A=
FLOW VELOCIIYe (> ft/sec
1.00
LARGEMOUTH
BASS
0.75 age ae alee
S vs V
SMALLMOUTH
BASS
Sista
S vs V
0 2 + 6 8 10
FLOW DEPTH (D), ft
Figure 5. Continued
FISH SUITABILITY (S)
0.75
0.50
0.25
hoe
FLOW VELOCITY (V), ft/sec
!
uvenile
WHITE BASS
S vs D— ——
Svs Vi
4 6 8 10
FLOW DEPTH (D), ft
Figure 5. Continued
FISH SUITABILITY (S)
0.75
0.50
Juvenile
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
—50-
FLOW VELOCITY (V), ft/sec
WHITE CRAPPIE
Svs D ———
SEVSiV)
FLOW DEPTH (D), ft
Figure 5. Concluded
-
Gepeny Dw Some observations of interest for suitability > 0.5 are:
Meenaeciil. The juvenile fish prefers a dpeth of 1.2 - 4.8 ft and a
@emeeity)~ 0.16 ft/sec, whereas the adult prefers a depth of 2.6 - 6.1 ft
muemeaevelocity < 0.48 ft/sec. The overall preference is for very low to low
velocities and low to medium depths---a condition in pools at low to medium
flows.
Pmeeelunenose., The juvenile fish prefers a depth of 0.5 - 0.8 ft and a
weveciey < 0.37 ft/sec, whereas the adult perfers a depth of 0.4 - 1.1 ft and
eevelocity < 0.23 ft/sec. The overall preference is for very low to low
velocities and very low to low depths---a condition at riffles and shallow
parts of the pools at very low to low flows.
eecsepeseihe juvenile fish prefers a depth of 2.9 - 6.6 ft and a velo-
See s020 ft/sec, whereas the adult likes a depth of 3.0 - 7.0 ft and a
Welocity < 0.51 ft/sec. The overall preference is for very low to low velo-
cities and medium to high depths---a condition in deep pools at low and
medium flows.
meaeciannels Cat. The juvenile fish prefers a depth of 2.5 = 5.9 ft and
@ewelocity of 1:57 - 3.35 ft/sec, whereas the adult fish likes a depth of
Peewand taeher and a velocity < 2.15 ft/sec. The overall preference is for
3 = 6 ft depth and 1.5 - 2.2 ft/sec velocity---a condition of medium flow in
the pools and somewhat higher flows at the riffles.
5) Largemouth Bass. The juvenile fish prefers a depth > 1.0 ft and a
metoeity < 0.7/0 ft/sec, whereas the adult fish prefers a depth > 4.3 ft and
a velocity < 0.83 ft/sec. The overall preference is for medium to high depths
and low velocities---a condition of medium flows in the pools.
6) Smallmouth Bass. The juvenile fish prefers a depth > 1.0 ft anda
welocity < 0.74 ft/sec, whereas the adult fish likes a depth > 2.8 ft and a
Seo =
velocity < 2.62 ft/sec. The overall preference is for low to high velo-
cities and depths and this fish may be found at different rangester itowe
7) Drum. The juvenile fish prefers a depth > 2.5 ft and agmemoeasm
< 1.81 ft/sec, whereas the adult prefers avdepth > 2.9 £t and jaeweloeuema:
ine)
12 £t/sec.. Thevoverall preference is foradepins > 2.5 £t and agvetserty
| A
1.8 ft/sec---a condition which may be found at riffles and pools at medium
and higher flows.
8) White Bass. The juvenile fish prefers a depth of 2.53 > (ieeeee ond
a velocity < 3.05 ft/sec, whereas the adult likes a depth > 4.0) feyamdya
velocity < 3.08 ft/sec. The overall preference is for depth Seo emepeamameto—
city < 3 ft/sec---a condition which may be found in the pools at low to high
flows and at the riffles at medium to high flows.
9) White Crappie. The juvenile fish prefers a depth of 1.0 — 5.4 ft
and a velocity < 1.54 ft/sec, whereas the adult prefers a depth >y2.2srepaad
a velocity < 0.63 ft/sec. The overall preference is for low to) medimgyera—
cities and low to high depths---such conditions can occur in pools and at
riffles for low to high flows.
The domain for 0.5 —- 1:0 suitability is mapped in terms of velocreyeaud
depth for the juvenile fish in figure 6 and for the adult fish 2m )fveunemy
for all the target species. It is evident from figure 6 that all the jguvenrle
fish except for bluntnose and channel catfish have some common V-D space.
Similarly, figure 7 shows that with the exception of bluntnose fish, the
adult fish have some common V-D space.
Riffles and Pools
Let the riffles have an average length 1. along the stream and an average
width w. for a certain flow in a stream reach. The corresponding average pool
1
JUVENILE
FLOW VELOCITY, ft/sec
N
FLOW DEPTH, ft
Figure 6. Velocity-depth domain for juvenile fish preference 0.5 - 1.0
ADULT
3 8 8
3
= 6 °
< 4 4
p + t
S) 7 7
Ore
Lu
>
=
(e)
pd |
jue
1
5
: 5
|e IE =
i3 (ai 3
1 1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
PLOW DEPTH, ft
Figure 7. Velocity-depth domain for adult fish preference 0.5 - 1.0
lengh and width are denoted by Hs and bee: respectively. The average depths
for the riffle and pool are d and ae The local values of qd and as vary
from the average values for the riffle and pool, and the percent variation of
the local values from the average value is usually less for the riffles than
the pools. The hydraulic geometry relations yield the average values of
depth and velocity. The local values in the riffles and pools may be higher
or lower than the average values. It is common knowledge that the velocity
and depth at the banks are much lower than the average values for a straight
river reach. However, these values may be higher along one bank along the
bend. The varying velocities and depths in riffles and pools provide a range
of subareas or cells of water more suitable to one fish than the other, de-
pending on their relative preferences. This variety helps in maintaining
different life stages of various fishes and provides a semblance of continuum
for their development, even with more frequent flow variations.
The IFG Incremental Methodology
The Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has developed a methodology (Bovee and Milhous, 1978), termed the IFG
Incremental Methodology, to describe the effects of incremental changes in
streamflow on the instream fishery potential. The methodology allows calcu-
lations of weighted usable area, WUA, as an index of habitat suitability. The
WOUA in a river reach divided into n cells is defined as
WUA = ‘ SNCs) ee SS A Gi oak) | Eee Sa a a x A
se 7
meemmach o(d), S(v), ::., are suitability indexes for depth, velocity, ...;
A is the surface area of the cell which is relatively homogeneous in respect
Peed, V, -..; and subscript i refers to the cell i. This procedure approximates
mt
the total water surface area in a simulated reach to an equivalent area of
preferred habitat for the fish under consideration.
The concept of multiplying the suitability indexes or preferences is
rather open to question. The preference curves for velocity and depth are
derived, considering both velocity and depth as independent variables.
However, the hydraulic geometry relations indicate a definite relationship
between velocity and depth in terms of drainage area and percent flow duration.
Consider the case for a low-flow release that gives S(d) = 0.4 and §S (v) = 0.4
for a particular fish. The multiplication concept will yield a combamedysuit—
ability or preference of 0.16. Two other criteria can be considered: the
minimum (MIN) of the two preferences, and the geometric mean (GM) of the two
preferences. Then: MPL preference Oa ouORes—s (Onno
min® [045 0.4] =s054
v0.4 x 0.4 = 0.4
MIN preference
GM preference
When the two preferences are equal, both MIN and GM criteria represent the
habitat suitability condition but the MPL (multiplication) preference grossly
underestimates it. For a case with unequal preferences, say 0.3 and 0.7, the
three criteria yield the following:
MPL preference Obs 10ky/==V0E 2 1
MIN preference = min [0.3, 0.7] = 0.3
VO53 x 0.7 = 0.46
GM preference
The GM preference implies that the combined reference will be less than
the mean preference but more than the MIN preference because of the positive
effect of the higher preference. GM preference or the MIN preference should
give a habitat suitability index closer to the actual than the MPL. The (GM ox
the mean of GM and MIN preferences may be the desirable habitat suitability
index for use in WUA computations.
La 7=
METHODOLOGY AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
The fish suitability or preference is evaluated with MIN and GM cri-
Bemaa for both juveniles and adults of 9 target fish, for both riffle and
pool conditions, and for each of the 8 low flow release criteria below each
of the 123 stream gaging stations. The reservoir costs for developing a
met supply equal to 2, 5, 10, and 20 percent of mean streamflow and a design
drought recurrence interval of 25 or 40 years are computed with 10 low flow
release criteria: no mandatory low flow release, a low flow release equal to
oF 10 to be met once in 10 years, and 8 low flow releases, Cl through C8, to
be met at 5-, 10-, 20-, 25- or 40-year recurrence intervals. The reservoir
cost depends on the storage capacity. Evaluation of storage for meeting the
design supply and the low flow release involves consideration of lake evapora-
tion and sedimentation. A brief description of the data inputs and salient
features of the computer program, developed to yield needed information,
follows together with an explanation of methodology where necessary.
Data Inputs
The main data inputs are fish suitability or preference, flow velocity
and depth for the 8 low flow releases, supply-storage-drought duration-
frequency (or recurrence interval) information, net lake evaporation data,
and lake sedimentation data.
Fish Suttabiltty or Preference
The data on fish preferences (both juvenile and adult) for the 9 target
fish as contained in table 4 are stored in the computer for use in the program.
Flow Velocity and Depth for Low Flow Releases
The data on 8 low flow releases, in cfs, and associated flow velocity
sige
~ t
and depth (in ft/sec and ft, respectively) as given-in table 2 for eachmer
the 123 stations are stored in the computer.
Supply-Storage-Drought Duratiton-Frequency
The net reservoir storage, in inches, and the associated drought dura-
tion for critical reservoir drawdown, in months, for 1l supply rates equal
to 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 7°45, and 50 percent of “meaneetaqeeamam
recurrence_intervals (5, 10, 20, 25, and 40 years) are stored in =thescomputcrums
for 112 gaging stations. Necessary data on these stations were available
from Bulletins 51 (Stall, 1964) and 55A (Terstriep et all-, inf preparamtonre
1981). A typical example of such data is shown below:
KICKAPOO CREEK NEAR LINCOLN
1.) 0:00": 208: 00714." 29), 207 7 6 8)4 SOG “SINS TG SAO Sean eee
l l 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 i
2 0200 S805 2205 439 W629 0F87 Se 120) Go Oe |
2 1 4 5 6 7 i, 8 8 8 9 9 }
3.12 OL S08 SUS 48% 473 PeNOIMN. 3 G62) “9468 eee
3 2 4 6 7 7 8 9 9 9 10 18
4 “200 os08" 278 251 177 PeOSe BIGGS 268) 22 On 2 cee
4 2 4 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 18 18
5 OV 210; 530° <55, 83) Fsl4- 145. 2480.8 2455S Oommen (
5 2 5 7 ih 8 9 9 18 18 18 20
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 refer to 5-, 10=, 20-, 25-, and 40-year recurrence
intervals. The eleven columns correspond to supply rates of 2) 5, 0s.
20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 percent of mean’ flow. The first iiameiaer
each number denotes the net storage in inches to meet a particular demand,
and the second line denotes the associated drought duration in months.
Net Lake Evaporatton
Net lake evaporation data for 10 locations -- Chicago, Rockford, Moline,
Peoria, Springfield, Urbana, and Carbondale in Illinois; St. Louis in Missouma™
and Evansville and Indianapolis in Indiana -- were stored in the computer. The
—50-
Gata were developed for Bulletin 51A (Terstriep et al., 1981).for 36 critical
meeeons —-- 1, 2. 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,
eee 20 52, 34. 36, 38, 40, 42. 44.46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58,
and 60 months -- for each of the 5 drought recurrence intervals of 5, 10,
Zoe 25, and 40 years.
Take Sedimentation
ihe values of a and 8 im the relation
B
PCR = as)
; ; . : 2 ep ; : :
in which PCR is the percent capacity reduction and lee is the capacity-—inflow
Eareo, were stored in the computer for the 9 regions.
Reference Data
The serial number (1 to 123), USGS gaging station number, applicable net
lake evaporation station number (1 through 10), applicable sediment region
(1 through 9), mean monthly flow in inches from Bulletins 51 (Stall, 1964) and
51A (Terstriep et al., in preparation, 1981), and drainage area in square
miles at each of the 123 gaging stations were stored in a tabular format in
the computer.
For sedimentation purposes, the part of northern Illinois not included
in any sediment region (because no lake sediment data are available in that
area) is considered to have the same characteristics as region 4; the area
west of region 8 is given the same characteristics as region 8; and that below
meeton 9 is taken to have characteristics similar to region 9.
Reservoir Costs Program
A computer program was developed to determine the gross storage (i.e., net
storage for meeting water demand and storage needed to meet lake evaporation
BAG
and sedimentation requirements) for four supply rates of 2, 5, 10 ande20mper—
cent of mean flow, two design recurrence intervals of 25 and 40 years for
supply, five recurrence intervals of 5, 10, 20, 25 or 40 years= tommlowmane
releases, and eight low flow releases, together with zero and Oe flow
releases, at each of the 112 gaging stations. The gross storage was con-
verted to the reservoir cost with a suitable cost equation. The program has
five main subroutines which are described briefly.
fad
Storage Subroutine
First, the net storage for the four supply rates of 2, 55) B0peamde2) pers
cent of mean flow and the associated drought durations in months is obtained
from the supply-storage-drought duration-frequency table (abbreviated as SSDF)
for the design recurrence intervals of 25 and 40 years and without any manda-
tory low flow release. Then, the four supply rates are converted to 9 x 4
matrix, by addition to each of them the low flow releases Cl through C8 and
Q5 10° The net reservoir storage and the associated drought duration for each,
of the supply-plus-release rates (total of 36 or 9 x 4) and for recurrence
intervals of 5, 10, 20, and 25 years with a supply design droughtwors> year
and for recurrence intervals of 5, 10, 20, and 40 years with supply design
drought of 40 years, are obtained by interpolation from the SSDF table. Thus
at each station there are 148 values each of storage and drought duration for
each supply design drought of 25 and 40 years; information is stored in two
2 Xx 148 arrays for storage in inches, SIT(2, 148), and drought duratvongag
months, DD. 148).
EVAP Subroutine
For a gaging station, the applicable net lake evaporation station is
obtained from the reference table. The net lake evaporation, in inches, for
the 2 x 148 array for the drought duration in months is obtained from the
net evaporation table directly or by interpolation. This’ tableors
-61-
stored in a matrix form 36 x 5 x 10 in which 36 denotes durations from 1 to
60 months: 5 refers to recurrence intervals of 5, 10, 20, 25 and 40 years;
and 10 pertains to the net lake evaporation station. The information on
evaporation in inches is stored in EV(2, 148).
SDEVST Subroutine
This (sediment-evaporation-storage) subroutine is used for computing
the gross storage. For a design drought of 25 years, 37 net storages (corres-
ponding to net supply rate with no mandatory low flow release; and 9 supply
fates equal to the net supply rate plus low flow release Cl, C2, ..., C8, or
Q7 10 pHneeeecuErence intervals of 5, 10, 20, and 25 years) for each of the
basic 2, 5, 10 and 20 percent of mean flow rate, are converted to gross
storages. Similarly, gross storages are calculated for the design drought of
40 years. This yields the gross storage array STG (2, 148). The gross
storage is calculated from the net storage as explained below.
Let Sy be the initial net storage. Initialize DELEV and DELSD equal
faezero. Capacity-inflow ratio, CIR, equals ey, where I is the mean inflow,
in inches, to the reservoir. The annual anor loss, ACL, equals
ACL = a (Gan) Os Oi x Sy
Capacity loss, in inches, from sediment over T years is
CESDS="ACES x=
Then,
3, = Scare (GIGSID) = INaILASID)
1 O
ea in ac ft, Sy is
640 AS
Sy (ae ft) = a ae
in which A is the drainage area in square miles. The corresponding water
surface area, WSA, in acres (Dawes and Wathne, 1968) is
=—o=
WSA = 0.23 [S, (ac FO
and the capacity loss from evaporation, CLEV, in inches is given by
CLEV = EV x 0.65 x WSA/(A x 640)
Therefore, gross Capacity S equalis
2
S5 = Sy + CLEV = DELEV
The ratio of difference in S5 and 5, to So? or DIF, is obtained from
Dilek = (S, =4S9 DUES
Oo O
DE. this Dik <050n Sy? the gross capacity equals § If not} anitaaige
2°
DELSD = CLSD
DELEV = CLEV
25 = So
and Start with icomputane, ACh again. Ii the sting SB is less than the 5, with
design drought recurrence interval of 25 or 40 years and with no mandatory |
low flow release, the final DA (which is less sometimes for low flow releases
at smaller recurrence intervals) is taken as equal to the Sy with design
drought and zero low flow release.
The subroutine yields values of gross storage on the assumption that
the reservoir can supply the net demand at the end of design drought, T,
years even when the critical drought occurs in the Tth year. If the net
storage for a supply of 2, 5, 10 or 20 percent of mean flow does ner meca
any storage, no reservoir is needed and no calculations are done for that
supply rate with or without low flow releases.
COST Subroutine
The capital reservoir cost in July 1980 dollars is computed (Singh and
Adams, 1980) from
Capital cost = 26400 (korea) ree + 1.5 (LC) WSA
—§3-
im which storage is in ac-ft, WSA is water surface area in acres at normal
pool level, and LC is the land cost in dollars per acre.
RESULT Subroutine
The subroutine prints the results in two series of tables: table 5
series for 25-year design drought and table 6 series for 40-year design
drought. Tables 5.009 and 6.009 for the Little Wabash River below Clay City
are included here as examples. The complete set of these tables for all
the gaging stations analyzed is in Volume II of this report (Singh and Rama-
morthy, 1981).
As shown in table 5.009, table 5 gives storage in ac-ft and the capital
cost of reservoir and land in thousands of dollars for a net water supply of
2ee25) 20 and 20 percent of mean flow at a gaging station, with different
levels of low flow releases:
Level ne aes
0 ZS The storage, So? is designed for a 25-year drought
when no flow release is mandated.
Q7 10 10 The storage, S, is designed for a 10-year drought with
Q5 i9 2s the minimum low flow release from the reservoir:
ito. o .make, 5. = 'S
oO oO
1* 5 The storage, Si, 1s designed for a 5-year drought with Cl
as the minimum low flow release from the reservoir: if
S , and 1.00. A set of 123 tables with b = 0.75, tables 8.001
Pomcet'23,,1S included in Volume II of this report (Singh and Ramamurthy,
1981). Table 8.009 is given here as an example. The Q1 through Q8 are the
Same,as Cl through C8 in table 2.
eS) sf
=60=
TABLE 7.009 FISH SUITABILITY BASED ON V & D FROM HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY
=) (@) 128)
USGS #
Ge:
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
JUVNL
ADULT
LUEGILL, 2
3379500
CRIT
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
MIN
GM
BLUNTNOSE, 3 =
Q)
-00
-00
-00
-00
03
slit
atallG
33
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
221
31
-00
-00
227
~37
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
Q2
-00
-00
+00
-00
06
-20
wl5
-39
-00
~00
-00
-00
00
-00
»00
-00
- 10
26
-00
-00
2 5
“51
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
00
-00
-00
-00
-00
CARP,
Q3
-00
-00
01
03
-01
03
-07
si
-00
-00
-00
-00
02
205
»00
-00
28
-40
-00
04
34
-46
x01
.09
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-62
-70
-00
-00
Q4
-00
-00
-00
-00
202
lt)
-10
ait
-00
-00
00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
<25
Se
-00
-00
233
39
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
00
-00
-00
-00
se
-31
-00
-00
Q5
-00
-00
-00
00
-07
221
-16
-40
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
00
-00
-00
09
o20.
00
-00
14
31
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
Little Wabash River below Clay City
Q6
-00
-00
-00
-00
-O4
-19
14
-37
00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
a8)
220
-00
-00
ald
34
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
HANNEL CAT, 5 = LARGEMOUTH BASS, 6 = SMALLMOUTH BASS,
RUM, 8.= WHITE BASS, 9 = WHITE CRAPPIE
Q7
-00
-00
00
-00
-O4
-18
14
38
-00
00
00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
12
-26
-00
-00
ile,
-33
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
Q8
00
-00
-00
-00
03
oe
Slat
33
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
20
~31
-00
-00
-26
«Siti
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
=— 69 —
TABLE 8.009 FISH SUITABILITY BASED ON ESTIMATED V & D IN POOLS
USGS i# 3379500 Little Wabash River below Clay City
FISH TYPE GRIT Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4y Q5 Q6 Q7
1 JUVNL MIN 245 -79 sHi2 34 .86 .57 She.
GM 67 .89 35 58 93 .82 85
ADULT MIN .80 -65 .88 .83 .62 .70 .68
GM 89 81 92 91 79 .84 82
2 JUVNL MIN -00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
GM .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00
ADULT MIN .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
GM 00 00 00 00 02 .00 .00
3 JUVNL MIN 84 225 .98 .90 -21 sling .38
GM 92 -50 98 95 46 .68 61
ADULT MIN 48 28 97 5(58) -26 33 soul
GM 69 53 98 79 51 57 ~55
y JUVNL MIN .08 OK .08 .08 BO .08 Oi
GM 21 20 nes 22 20 .20 220
ADULT MIN .18 BAG 323 .19 -16 Bota ealey
GM 42 -40 48 43 ho 41 41
5 JUVNL MIN .98 .99 293 .98 -99 .99 .99
GM 399 1200 297, 599 11.00) 1.00 .00
ADULT MIN 28 220 .29 «24 <19 221 -20
GM 48 44 53 4g 4y 46 45
| 6 JUVNL MIN O08 1.00 299) (1.00) 1.00), 1.00 .00
GM (OOM MOO TOO) 100. 1200; 1.00 .00
| ADULT MIN -59 -50 5 NEP 49 253 252
| GM 66 61 75 68 60 .63 -62
| 7 JUVNL MIN .82 ay(8} 295 .86 Tal Shi -75
| GM 91 86 -97 .93 .85 .88 Shy
ADULT MIN SSH 215 295 Sy El «09 .38 .28
GM 82 39 97 88 29 -6i1 {58
8 JUVNL MIN 6S) as) .88 81 (2 eS) AYA
GM 89 - 86 94 -90 85 oor. . 86
ADULT MIN 02 .00 aly .05 .00 .00 .00
GM 15 00 oh? a3 00 .00 .00
9 JUVNL MIN TeOOme 1400 Poo OO. et OO = 100 .00
GM 100). 11200 To 008 100. 1.00 .00
ADULT MIN .64 .40 .85 .69 . 36 .49 WAS
GM 80 Aoi 91 83 60 e710 eM)
1 = BLUEGILL, 2 = BLUNTNOSE, 3 = CARP,
4 = CHANNEL CAT, 5 = LARGEMOUTH BASS, 6 = SMALLMOUTH BASS,
7 = DRUM, 8 = WHITE BASS, 9 = WHITE CRAPPIE
=70=
ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Information on capital costs of reservoirs to meet four water supply
rates and eight low flow releases at various drought recurrence intervals
was developed with the computer program for 112 gaging stations. The fish
preferences for the nine target fish, both juveniles and adults, were developed
for values of b (zero which is applicable’ to riffles, and 0:55 7027 seeamce.0
for the pools) with both MIN and GM criteria, at 123 gaging stations, for each
of the eight low flow releases considered. The costs and fish preferences
were analyzed to examine the following:
1. How does the fish preference change with the value of b?
2. Do the pools provide most of the fish habitat during low flow conditio
3. What are the relative costs of providing low flow releases?
4. Do these costs vary with drainage area above the gaging station and
with less variability in low flows?
5. What are the trade-offs between costs and fish habitat suitability
in different parts of the state? )
6. What data, field surveys, models, and analyses may be needed to
analyze a river drainage system in terms of low flows, costs, and
fish habitats?
Sensitivity Analysis: Parameter b
The fish suitability values for the juvenile and adult species of the
nine target fish at each of the 123 gaging stations and eight low flow releases
were calculated for four values of b: zero, which applies to the riffles; and
0.5, 0.75, and 1.0, which apply to the pools with increasing depth. Valuesiam
fish suitability are plotted against values of minimum flow release (ranging
from 6.66 cfs to 38.50 cfs) in figure 8 for the juveniles and adults of the
target fish as well as an average of these fish, for the Little Wabash River
1-0
0.8
0.6
0.4
oy ai
BLUEGILL —
Adult
= ee ite BEUEGILE.—
= Juvenile
ai
bo 0
< = ees el yp a
=)
n
= 2. BLUNTNOSE — Juvenile 2. BLUNTNOSE — Adult
a
0.4 i
0.2 pa 0
0.5, 0.75, 1.0 Sars a >
0 \ aie oe — SS : a
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
MINIMUM FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 8. Fish suitability or preference for the low flow range at the Little
Wabash River bellows Clay City (bij="0, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0)
Fish oWiiPABn Ei,
OFSi ae Juvenile
MIN
GM ——---—
50. —_—
0.6 f— b= 0R0t5,08/S romeo
4. CHANNEL CAT — Juvenile
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
MINIMUM FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 8. Continued
FISH SUITABILITY
a9 Fe
1.0
5. LARGEMOUTH BASS —
Adult
0.8
0.6
5. LARGEMOUTH BASS —
Juvenile
0.4
0.2
ee
0 (both)
eee ee mar I ae
1.0, 0.75 GM-
0.8
6. SMALLMOUTH BASS —
Juvenile
0.6
4 a
—_—
. —_
-—
0.2
0 10 20 30
MINIMUM FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 8. Continued
FISH SUITABILITY
0.8
0.6
7, DRUM — Adult
0.2
0 it, athe) (Cay Seramny Ot J. Se eee x Ses
—
—_—
_
-—
ee
—_—
_—
=_—
8. WHITE BASS — Adult
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
8. WHITE BASS — Juvenile
Reon eters ch ee ie 2 ms fe
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
MINIMUM FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 8. Continued
FISH SUITABILITY
AVERAGE FISH SUITABILITY
1.0 -—0.75—" ee ese
ies 0.56 Lass os ‘if
| ic 9. WHITECRAPPIE- 0.8. ----
9. WHITE CRAPPIE — Juvenile piles Le aes”
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
MINIMUM FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 8. Concluded
is |
below Clay City. The drainage area is 1131 square miles, the og equals
0.47 cfs, and the mean flows Sol Jerse yas (eiven anecaples i:
1) Bluegill. The juveniles have zero preference for the riffle condi-
tion because the flow velocity for the flow range exceeds 0.48 ft/sec. The
preference increases with an increase in b because of larger depths and lower
velocities at the low end of the flow range, but it decreases considerably as
the flow increases. The GM criterion gives higher values than the MIN. The
adults, too, have zero preference for the riffle condition because the flow
depth is less than 1.0 ft. The preference increases with an increase in b
and an increase in discharge to about 20 cfs. For the bluegill fishj a
minimum flow release of 15 to 20 cfs is indicated during a drought period.
This range yields a MIN of about 0.8 with b = 0.75, -and 1.0 with bo = eiegetor
the adult fish. The corresponding values are about 0.4 and 0.6 for the
juveniles.
2) Bluntnose. The juveniles' GM preference for the riffles decreases from
0.21 to 0.03 and the MIN preference decreases from 0.07 to 0.01 withean increase
in flow release from 6.66 to 38.5 cfs. The preference is zero for the pools
with b = 0.5, 0.75,,0r 1.00 because of flow depths exceeding yl Sate aaa
adults' GM preference for b = O decreases from 0.40 to 0.18 and their MIN
preference decreases from 0.16 to 0.07. The preferences for b = 0.5, 0.75,
or 1.00 are either small or zero. Thus, the Little Wabash River below Clay
City does not provide a desirable habitat for the bluntnose because of the
requirements of low velocities and depths.
3) Carp. The juveniles have zero preference for the rittle (conde son
because of small flow depths (0.57-0.94 ft). For the pool conditions, the
preference increases greatly from b = 0.5 to 0.75 and it is 1.0 for the entume
flow range for b = 1.0. A low flow release of 20 cfs and b = 0.75 give GM
a Te
and MIN values of 0.95 and 0.90,respectively. The adults, also, have a zero
preterence for the riffle condition, but the preferences for the pool condi-
tion increase considerably with increases in b and in flow release. For the
range of low flow releases under consideration, both GM and MIN are 1.0 with
pe-ee0e) the corresponding values with b = 0./5 are 0.79 and 0.64 with 20 cfs,
medew,go sand 0.97 with 38.5 cfs.
4) Channel Cat. The juveniles have practically zero preference for the
riffle condition because of small flow depths. For the pool condition, the
MiNereererence is about 0.08 for b = 0.5, 0.75 or 1.00, but the GM slightly
increases from 0.20 to 0.23, with an increase in low flow release. The adults
have a zero preference for the riffle condition but the preference for the
pool condition increases considerably with increases in b and in flow release.
The fish like large depths and low velocities. With b = 0.75, the MIN and GM
Peererences are OL-19 and 0743 with 20 cfs, and 0.23 and 0.48 with 38.5 cfs.
With b = 1.0, the MIN and GM preferences are 0.54 and 0.73 with 20 cfs, and
Cw eranasO.86 with 38.5 cfs.
5) Largemouth Bass. The juveniles have MIN and GM preferences which
vary from 0.25 to 0.28 and from 0.32 to 0.40, respectively, with flow releases
Mom NrOnG.5 cis at the’riffle. For the pools, with b= 0.5, 0.75 or 1.00,
the preferences range from 0.86 to 1.0 for the low flow range under considera-
Eten ew tlow release of < 20 cfs is indicated. The adults have a zero
preference for the riffles but their preference increases considerably with
an increase in b and somewhat. slowly with an increase in flow. The MIN and
iuepreterences with b= 0.75 are 0.24 and 0.49 with 20 cfs, and 0.29 and 0.53
Wet o0.) Cis. These preferences with b = 1.0 are 0.39 and 0.62 with 20 cfs,
Andon andmOMOVs with see ol Cis.
oe
6) Smallmouth Bass. The juveniles have MIN and GM preferences which
vary from 0.33 to 0.34 and from 0.39 to 0.46, respectively) witheelem
releases from 20 to 38.5 cfs at the riffle. For the pools withwou—eem
0.75, or 1.0, the preferences range from 0.93 to 1.00 for the low flow
range. A flow release of 15 to 20 or less cfs is indicated. The adults
have a zero preference for the rifflles’ for flow releases < 20NGiCypmmmemeae
preference increases considerably with increases in b and in flow. The MIN
and GM preferences with b = 0.75 are 0.62 and 0.68 with 20 cfs, and 0.75 and
0.75 with 38.5 cfs. These preferences with b = 1.0 are 0.74 and) Osgaewrem
20, Cés, and: 0 />vandeOss/ewebiasonome ks.
7) Drum. The juveniles’ have zero preference for the riffle ceondseran,
but their preference for the pools increases considerably with an increase
in b. For 20 cfs flow release, the MIN preferences are 0.35, 0.84, and
1.00, and the GM preferences are 0.60, 0.93, and 1.00, for b = O25, O575eand
1.0, respectively. For 38.5 cfs, the corresponding values are 059550795
and 1.0, and 0.76, 0.97 and 1.0. The adults have a zero preference for both
riffles and pools with b = 0.5. However, their preference increases rapidly
as the flow release increases with b = 0.75, and it is 1.0 with b =] 27G3a.
both MIN and GM for the entire low flow range. With b = 0.75, the MIN and
GM are 0.578 and 0288 ae 20rcrs and 0f95sandl0.97 vate scene ese
8) White Bass. The juveniles have zero preference for the riffles
because of the low depth of flow. However, the preference increases with
an increase in b in the pools and with an increase in flow release. The
MIN and GM preferences for b = 0.75 are 0.81 and 0.90 at 20 cfs, and 0.88
and 0.94 at 38.5 cfs. Both MIN and GM preferences are close to 1.0 with
b 1.0. The adults have a zero préference for both riffle and pool with
b
0.5. The fish requires larger depth of flow. The MIN and GM preferences
a Koes
-
Tisha mare OOa sand O.26 for 20 cis amd O.17 amd 0.42 for 38.5 cfs.
Il
With b 1.0, the corresponding values are 0.40 and 0.63 for 20 cfs and 0.54
meres 5 cor 38.5 cfs:
9) White Crappie. The juveniles' MIN preference for the riffle condi-
tion increases from 0.0 to 0.62 with the flow release increasing from 15.
eal
Pemeoesmers. Their preferences for the pools (b = 0.5, 0.75, or 1.0) lie
within 0.91 and 1.0 and decrease with an increase in flow. A 10-20 cfs flow
release will be adequate. The adults have zero preference for the riffle
condition because of low depths of flow. Their preference increases consi-
derably with an increase in b and to some extent with an increase in the flow
release. The MIN and GM preferences with b = 0.75 are 0.70 and 0.83 at 20
@eeesnaeosoovand 0.91 at 38.5 cfs. These preferences with b = 1.0 are 1.0
hOmmamelLow Of V5 to 38.5 cfs.
ice Elshestultability or preference values of the nine target fish in
the Little Wabash River below Clay City indicate that generally a flow of 15
to 20 cfs during drought conditions will be adequate to sustain the fish with
the exception of bluntnose (for which the conditions are quite different than
those for the others): The preferences for the pools with b = 0.75 and 1.00
are not as much different from each other as are those with b = 0.50 and 0.75.
The preferences are higher with b = 1.0 than with 0.75. The pools may have
lepensewntch correspond to b varying from 0.25 to 1.25. If a probabilistic
distribution of depths within a pool were available, the pool would show a
proliferation of one fish in one area and another in another area of the pool.
The value of b = 0.75 is considered a reasonable estimate but it needs to be
ehecked for different streams.
The average fish suitability or preference, as a mean of the nine indi-
vidual preferences, are shown in figure 8 for each flow release and b value,
Zags
For the juveniles, the average preferences for b = 0.75 are 0.66 MIN and
0.72 GM for 15 to 38.5 efs flow. For the adults; the average préterence
for b = 0.75 increases from 0.46 to 0.5/7 with MIN and 0758%to O¢66ugaem
GM, as the flow release increases from 20 to 38.5 cfs.
Low Flow Release Costs
Capital cost of the reservoir needed to meet the desired water supply
at the design drought recurrence interval (25 or 40 years) is denoted by C..
The capital cost of the reservoir needed to meet the desired water supply
and the flow release (Cl through C8, or level 1 through 8) at the design
drought recurrence interval is denoted by C. The increase in cost in pro-
viding the low flow release for the same design drought is, then, C - Co:
zr (Cc : : A : ; P
The ratio Ne » CR, is useful for plotting increases in costs with increases
‘oO
in low flow releases for the four water supply rates of 2, 5, 10 and 20
percent of mean flow. The incremental capital cost, AC, is obtained from
Ne = Ge AGO (oR, = ee,
Oo
In order to provide a space sampling, five river basins (each with 3
gaging stations) were selected. These are:
I. Litthe Wabash, River Basan sq mi Q7 10 cfs
009 Little Wabash River below Clay City ESE 0.47
010 Skillet Fork at Wayne City 464 0.00
O11 Little Wabash River at Carmi SO? 5.76
Il. Kishwaukee River Basin
020 Kishwaukee River at Belvidere 538 34.3
021 S.B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale 387 9.296
022 Kishwaukee River near Perryville 1099 6253
III. Bay Creek Basin
039 Hadley Creek at Kinderhook TZ, 0.00
040 Bay Creek at Pittsfield 39.4 0.00
041 Bay Creek at Nebo 161 0.00
he
IV. Vermilion River Basin sq mi 27 10 cfs
079 N.F. Vermilion River near Charlotte 186 0.00
080 Vermilion River at Pontiac SNe) 0.20
081 Vermilion River at Lowell 1278 SSN)
V. S.F. Sangamon River Basin
O96 Filat Branch near Taylorville 276 0.00
097 S.F. Sangamon River at Kincaid 562 OR.
098 S.F. Sangamon River near Rochester 867 0.84
18 tttle Wabash River Bastin. The range of the low flow releases for
the 3 gaging stations in this basin are:
No. Stream and gaging station Ramee Gls
009 Little Wabash River below Clay City 6 .66-38.50
010 Skillet Fork at Wayne City 0.74-7.78
O1l Little Wabash River at Carmi 24.00-123.00
The lowest flow release corresponds to C5 and the highest to C3.
iiemeceste ratios, Ck, for the-four supply rates and range of low flow
releases for the above three stations are imaneated ims Lous. Ope Os amd: tle
For providing 19.3 cfs low flow release, the extra cost for the four supply
rates and 25-year design drought for station 009 are:
Supply rate, 2% AG 10°s
2 Zee
5 2 0
10 jie) )S)
20 12930
ihus. the AG varies from 2 to 2.5 million dollars but the cost ratio
eons. 1.16, and 1.08 for-“supply rates-of 2, 5;-10, and 20 percent.
The cost ratio increases with decreases in supply rate and with increases in
low flow release. The values of Cy with 40-year drought are higher than for
the 25-year drought and the difference increases with increases in the supply
rate. AS a comparison, the extra cost of providing 19.3 cfs low flow release
with 40-year design drought for station 009 is given on page 85.
COST RATIO, C/Cy
Zee.
—
Oo
NO
NO
EOS
SUPPLY, % Cry 102s T = 25 years
5.164
8.169
13.347
23.380
SUPPLY, % Cy, 1008 T = 40 years
7.024
T0555
16.176
28.358
10 20 30 40 50
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 9. Gost ratio vs. low-Flow release ecunves.
Little Wabash River below Clay City
T = 25 years
2.2
1.8
—_—
ro)
6
SUPPLY, % Calo” ¢ ty 2 AG eae
COST RATIO, C/Cy
iS
N
4.489
6.607
SSIS)
17.031
1.8
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 10. Cost ratio vs. low-flow release curves:
Skillet Fork at Wayne City
COST RATIO, C/C,
22
a
oO
I)
N
1.4
1.0
Silk
SUPPLY, % Ci, A108 T = 25 years
8.581
15.156
25.454
45.896
6
SUPPLY, % Gpdoe-¢ T = 40Vea8
T3174
19.688
31.164
52.596
40 80 120 160 200
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Fieure 11. Cost ratdo vs. low-tlow release cunves:
iutele Wabash Raver jae (Carmi
Supply rate, 4% INC 10°
2 oe A Gs)
5) | 2.668
10 2432
20 S)5 (928)
The low flow range, 0.74 - 7.78 cfs, for the Skillet Fork at Wayne City
(figure 10) provides cost ratios <1.41 which are smaller than for station
009. The relatively high flow range, 24-130 cfs, for the Little Wabash River
Sameamuecereure 11) provides cost ratios <2.33. The extra capital cost per
cfs of flow release for a given design drought can be estimated from figures
Pere aidei! for the net water supply rates of 2, 5, 10, and 20 percent.
Some approximate estimates are:
Station T, years Supply rate, % ING pie GES, 10°s
009 25 2 Onl
5 OFZ
10 OQ. 22
20 OreZ
010 25 2 0.18
5 Orly
10 Oe
20 0.16
O}IGAE BS) 2 OF095
5 GF 09/2
10 OR092
20 0.082
The unit cost is higher for the Skillet Fork, which has more variable low
flow, than for the other two. The unit costs decrease with increase in
drainage area.
Il. Ktshwaukee River Basin. The range of the low flow releases for
Begs
-
the three gaging stations in this basin are:
No. Stream and gaging station Range, cfs
020 Kishwaukee River at Belvidere 36 .90-92 .00
O2e S.B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale 10.10-28.60
022 Kishwaukee River near Perryville 69.00-156.00
The lowest low flow release corresponds to C2 and the highest to C3. The
lowest flow releases are somewhat higher than the Q of 34.3.5 S.oeeand
70
6253" cus
The cost ratios, CR, for the 2 or 3 supply rates and rangeronerom
flow releases for the above three stations are shown in figures 12, 13, and
14. The curves for 2 and 5 percent supply rates for stations 020 and 022
and the curve for 2 percent for station 021 are not shown because these sup-
plies can be developed from the streams without any impoundments. The extra
capital cost per cfs of flow release for a 25-year design drought for net
water supply rates of 10 and 20 percent of mean flow, as developed from these
figures, are given below for the three stations.
Station T, years Supply rate, 4% AG per Es. 10°s
020 25 10 O.13
20 0.13
021 25 10 0.15
20 0.14
22 25 10 O11
20 Oats
The unit cost decreases with increase in low streamflows and decrease
in their variability, sorvwith, increase in draimape area.
III. Bay Creek Bastn. The range of the low flow releases for the 3
aa 7=
T = 25 years
6
SUPPLY, % Cy, 10° $ T = 40 years
COST RATIO, C/Cy
0 20 40 60 80 100
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 12: “Cost» ratio vs. low-flow release curves:
Kishwaukee River at Belvidere
—88—
SUPPLY, % Ga 10ers T = 25 years
1.668
3.848
7.424
T = 40 years
COST RATIO, C/C,
5 10 nS 20 25 30
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 13. Cost ratio vs. low-flow release curves:
S.B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale
-89-
T = 25 years
T = 40 years
COST RATIO, C/C,
0 40 80 120 160
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 14. Cost ratio vs. low-flow release curves:
Kishwaukee River near Perryville
200
=O
gaging stations in this basin are:
No. Stream and gaging station Range, cfs
O39 Hadley Creek at Kinderhook 0.19-4.50
040 Bay Creek at Pittsfield 0. 15=1oe
041 Bay Creek at Nebo 0.69-10.50
The lowest flow release corresponds to C5 and the highest to C3. thew -aay
10-year low flow at each of these stations is zero. The range O& dtaamage
areas for this basin, 39.4 to 161 sq mi, is much smaller than’ fereeaesoeuer
4 basins.
The cost ratios, CR, for the four supply rates and rance of Lower lon
releases for the above three stations are shown in figures 15, 16, and 17.
The extra capital cost per cfs of flow release for a 25-year design drought
for net water supply rates of 2, 5, 10, and 20 percent of meant foweeae
developed from these figures, are given below for the three stations.
Station T, years Supply rate, 4% AG per chse 10°s
039 225) 2 0527
5 OF27
10 0.32
20 0.44
040 25) yi 0.41
5 0.43
10 0.44
20 0.60
041 25 2 0.23
5 0.26
10 OS
20 0.40
HOME:
SUPPLY, % Cay Ores T = 25 years
2.788
3233
3.865
5.507
12
j=)
=
O
271.0
e
50 percent duration@becomes
less steep with the increase in drainage area (Singh, 1971).
V. South Fork Sangamon River Bastn. The range of low flow releases for
the 3 gaging stations in this basin are:
No. Stream and gaging station Range, cfs
096 Flat Branch near Taylorville 1.02-8.17
097 S.F. Sangamon River at Kincaid 4.13-19.60
098 S.F. Sangamon River near Rochester 8 .00-37 .80
The lowest flow releases correspond to C5 and the highest to C3. The /-day
10-year low flows are 0.00, 0.79, and 0.84 cfs, respectively. These are
much lower than the minimum low flow releases considered above.
The cost ratios, CR, for the four water supply rates and range of low
flow releases for the three stations are shown in figures 21, 22, and 23.
The extra capitol costs per cfs of flow release for a 25-year design drought,
as developed from these figures, are given on page 102.
-99—
SUPPLY, % Cys s T = 25 years
1.6 2.874
4.041 :
5377
fo)
40 years
COST RATIO, C/Cy
=
1EZ
MINIMUM LOW-FLOW RELEASE, cfs
Figure 21. Cost ratio vs. low-flow release curves: Flat Branch near Taylorville
-100-
SUPPLY, % Cyr 10S T = 25 years
2.2 3.585
5.185
7.765
12.605
1.4
i=)
O
O
See
kK
! i= Juvenile hs Adult
13-2! — | sh
I 1
ia i
h |
I
pal I
ibe (a i] | =] 1 —
i/ i
| il
I 2 f
==
ae 3/6 Sit. Snes ayy
* GM POOL
MIN RUFFLE Sots
1.0
1.20
Juvenile
COST RATIO, C/Cg
S)
05
1.00
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
AVERAGE FISH PREFERENCE
Figure 24. Cost ratio vs. average fish preference: Little Wabash River Basin
-106-
Table 9. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 9 3 USGS No. 03379500 ; Little Wabash River below Clay City
D.A. 1131 Sq Mi, >) Mean’ Flow! 881 ‘efs 4107.10) 0.47 ers
a is a a er ss is a ss i ss se ss ee es a ee ae
me ee ee ae ee a a a i ee ee es a ss ee
me a as a a a as is a ss se a a as i a a ee ee ee a a ae a a ee ee ee eee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
6.06) 85 00 O7 00 -00 .09 ele 00 00 00 03 P06
(hola. 00 06 00 -00 10 5 5) 00 00 00 OSPR 07
520) 7 00 O4 00 -00 2 S18 00 00 00 O4 1.09
10.006 00 O4 00 -00 13 219 00 00 00 Ouae 10
14.90 8 00 03 00 -00 20 -26 00 00 00 05) 1.14
15550 7 00 03 00 -00 21 ents 00 00 00 Obey #15
19.30) = 4 00 02 00 00 25 35 00 00 12 (a sama Weis!
30:.50) 73 00 01 00 -02 28 34 00 00 62 1a est
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
6.668 25 00 a6 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 £02 94206
(Cola 2 00 15) 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 00 02 W507
Or 2Or aa 00 14 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 00 02 FaRO9
10.00 6 00 14 00 00 -00 00 00 00 00 O2 ie 1.0
14.90 8 00 11 00 00 200 se 00 00 00 Oo Gis
55 Ona 00 11 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 00 OE tho HSS
19.30 4 00 10 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 00 O71 Lats
38.50 3 01 O7 00 00 -00 On 00 00 00 O'l * wsha sh
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
6.66 5 86 -00 eal aOMf S99 mai.00 otf (CeeleO.O S624 ot. 06
i anls. 2 19 00 a5) ON 99 1.00 offs 3 FOO 262° 07
CO) ZO! 7 ie 00 38 O07 99 1.00 ofS CS Noe 63/009
10.00) 6 67 00 aL ( -08 Sey 15 OW ale 13. Ts00 64+ “ae
TESO ane 47 00 81 -08 98" 1200 -82 oF sa00 +66°° Ane
ISs50 7 4S 00 84 08 96. 1400 62 (S) Weale -66 1.15
191.20) 74 34 00 -90 -08 98.) 11/500 - 86 81 6-200 «66°! erate
38.50 3 12 00 98 08 93 -99 95 88 99 66: « teak
D. Adult ( pool condition)
6.66 5 262 -00 -26 216 219 49 09 00 36 sok oes
(oilse 2 205 -00 28 26 520) 0) 5 5) -00 -40 26 SASF
20) 7 68 -00 Sil saline 20 ae 28 -00 45 729 9 alos
10200) 46 oho -00 5333) eal. 52 || 5536) - 38 -00 49 Pil ic iC)
V9 0) Vas 719 00 7 ae 23 58 66 02 63 HO! with. 14
15.550) =41 80 00 48 a ike) 23 59 Bi 02 64 HO . 4.515
1IGozO 2 83 00 63 5 WE 24 62 Tt 05 69 45 1.18
38.50 -3 88 00 O7 523) 29 5/5 95 lu 85 57. W388
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-107-
Table 10. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 93; USGS No. 03379500 ; Little Wabash River below Clay City
Depeetistssq Mi > Mean Flow 881 cfs ; Q(7,10) O.47 cfs
ee ee ee se ee ee ee a ee ee ee ae ee ee ee ee ea ee ee ee ee a se
me ee ee ss a ee ee a a ee
6.166 5 00 re -00 -00 125 31 -00 00 -00 AO9) PeOG
tio: 2 00 720 -00 00 S20 5) -00 -00 -00 OS SaleiO7
Bie O> tT .00 Alte) -00 -00 326 5333) -00 -00 -00 109°" 4.109
Wow 0..! 6 -00 19 -00 00 120 34 00 00 -00 S09 Met
1.90 °8 -00 oly -00 00 5 ol Soil -00 -00 -00 O09: lieatet
15.150 1 -00 omit 00 -00 eS Seri -00 -00 -00 J09>) | Heal'S
19.30 4 -00 ALIS) -00 -00 poe ~39 -00 00 a1 es al tks)
Se.150 ' (3 .00 303 -00 05 -40 46 -00 -00 oO GO de 34h
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
6.166. '.5 -00 -40 -00 -00 .00 -00 -00 00 -00 O4 § 1206
Tats) AL .00 39 00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 O04 Badei07
G..120 — 7 00 38 -00 -00 -00 .00 -00 -00 -00 Oo4 1.09
10.00 6 00 Soil -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 JOMe Fa 25110
14.90 8 -00 333 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 O4 1.14
ee 0! * +1 -00 333 -00 -00 .00 00 00 -00 -00 OL Teds
NOwSO 9 -00 me -00 -00 00 00 .00 00 -00 203°" Wesd
30650: 3 “03 SAS -00 -00 04 09 -00 -00 -00 JO4 © 1s 34
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
606 | 5 293 -00 46 s20re 1300: 1.00 .85 '6 82 -00 68 S20) eOOn © 1.00 ake) soe 1.400 se. sleO
14.90 8 69 -00 -90 wen 399." 1200 -90 -89 1.00 ot 3 te 1
Ameo" 1 67. 00 92 wet e990" 1.00 91 s09) 1.100 aS: Tels
1.30 74 58 -00 95 22 299° 7.00 93 90. 1.00 a3 “Ves
38.50 3 a5 -00 98 323 «97 1.00 -97 94 -99 elk Mie 34
D. Adult ( pool condition)
6.06 °5 Ske) 02 oil -40 44 - 60 29 00 .60 ot © 106
ate | 2 OM -00 Sys) -40 44 Foy 39 00 63 ee ae Oy.
We20: ° 7 82 -00 a5 15) oA o5 02 515 -00 On tS 7 809
10.00) ~G 84 -00 «Dif: wh -46 ~63 76" -00 Go. i am isa 8)
14.90 8 89 -00 -68 42 48 - 66 81 Bhs 79 dodo Male tt
15.50 1 .89 -00 -69 42 48 - 66 82 eS . 80 S55" eed
19.30 -4 91 -00 TAS) 43 49 -68 . 88 «23 83 Syela ail Ales
38.50 3 -92 -00 98 48 55 015 97 2 91 J66. Ots34
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C. = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-108-
Table 11. Fish Suitabihkity (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 10 3; USGS No. 03380500 ; Skillet Fork at Wayne City
DA. 464 Sq. Mi ;. Mean’ Flow 392 efsrer -OC7enl0)mOrOOmees
eee a nr ns a a ws we or a i a a es as a ss ss a ee a ee a a i ea a a ee ee ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
ne eS 00 -00 -00 -00 02 -05 -00 00 -00 sO Satis O02
BC) eae 2 -00 -00 -00 -00 02 ~05 -00 -00 -00 -07 1.02
Tera 2G -00 -00 -00 -00 03 06 -00 -00 -00 °01 Ga03
Voie 16 -00 -00 -00 -00 03 .06 -00 -00 -00 -01 1.03
1c -00 08 -00 -00 04 08 -00 -00 -00 602) 08
Porgy ao -00 ~13 -00 -00 05 08 -00 -00 -00 -03 1.04
Boo 94t -00 - 10 -00 -00 -07 valu -00 00 -00 +03 OCS
Tion('O: O53 -00 -03 -00 -00 -10 5 -00 -00 -00 #03 Velie
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
-00 12 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 0'l Ae
(4 5 -00 Pas) -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «02 OFneO2
S02 BZ -00 -20 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 O02 ONO2
distur -00 28 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 03.) thi3
eet Way. -00 28 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 03 2 aA08
Ipod: gel -00 227 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 ~03) O04
Coane Me -00 5/25) -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 03° OAH
3.89 4 -00 19 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 02 OFS
3
fieas
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
ot ao 10:0 -00 O4 Ove» AVG 100 5 2 oy, hOO 54. ne
392 2 1.00 -00 04 07, 1.00.) 45:00 a35 8, 1.00 55. Siem@e
eet BO 1.00 -00 ~05 JO. = le OO, © “e200 35 -50 1.00 55 | S08
ine? OY 1.00 -00 ~05 O07. 100, ~ 1.60 ~35 250 1.00 “55. Ves
Too oa -99 -00 05 07. 9 12100, “Tre'00 38 “52, 1100 56 (eee
Zety tee 98 -00 05 20.1 TOO, WOO 39 ~53. 1.00 256. TAs
3.89 94 92 -00 06 -07 -99 1.00 44 56, 100 56 o Mees
eto! eS 00 -00 -09 08 -99 1.00 A 5)5) 201, “e100 “55. Ucieap
D. Adult ( pool condition)
ate S'S 28 OM 5 10) lal 411 29 -00 -00 -06 onl lt MaeOe
Je Fe 29 -01 -10 mid ale «30 -00 -00 -07 D1 Oae2
eZ 6 - 30 -01 eld 011 eal -31 -00 -00 -07 ot1 O5s08
W227 Ok = 30 ~011 evaliel o11 of 31 -00 -00 07 « 1} 29508
104 ted ~32 -01 12 oI] 12 oe -00 -00 .08 12 (Gee
eral <2) 55 01 oe salad 12 A333) -00 00 09 12 DFS
3.89 4 36 -01 ~14 12 13 &3)5) -00 -00 10 13 "Ax@e
110 6B 41 -01 ot 13 15 38 -00 -00 a) 015 “aka
me mee ne ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ew ee we ae ee ee ew ee ee ee ee eee eee ee
= Minimum flow release
C/C_ = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-109-
Table 12. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 10 : USGS No. 03380500 ; Skillet Fork at Wayne City
Deieeedowsd) Mi: Mean Flow 392 cfs ; Q(7,10) 0.00 cfs
Meeeouvenite: ( riffle condition)
74 5 .00 .00 .00 .00 214 22 .00
“92.2 -00 -00 -00 -00 15 225 00
teed? 6 -00 -00 -00 -00 oalleg 125 -00
eet 7 -00 -00 -00 -00 omit s25 -00
oe et -00 -20 -00 -00 -19 027 -00
2 ao, -00 wae -00 -00 -20 .28 00
3.89 4 -00 i -00 -00 Ie 29 -00
ero. 3 -00 AS) -00 -00 si25 28 -00
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
eps S -00 26 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
ee) nie -00 27 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
lie 6 -00 ~29 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
sae 6 -00 ~29 -00 -00 -00 00 -00
104 64 -00 031 -00 e007” 1010 -00 -00
Zale $18 -00 32 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
3.89 4 -00 39 -00 -00 -00 .00 -00
3
-00 34 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
96 -00 225 A)
eee 5 1.00 -00 -20 site WOO, 1.00 <0
de ie 1.00 -00 seal site) NOO 1/2100 Dy
tee) 56 1.00 -00 22 ike 100, 100 59
Mot! 1.00 -00 «22 sles VOR TOO 59
1384 4 99 -00 023 aos) 100) 11.100 01
Bay ~ 8 -99 00 123 wore 100 00 163
4 1
3 1
ame: 5 53 -11 «32 «33 633 46 -00
“Je 2 54 11 32 33 33 47 00
twa? 26 055 -10 33 “33 34 48 -00
ered" “7, 255 -10 Go) o33 34 48 -00
Too 1 “516 -10 «35 34 34 48 -00
Bal = 8 57 09 Bbs ta 34 iw 00
3.89 4 -60 -09 Sit ~35 . 36 051 00
fee! *' 3 Gia snOe 9 Sateet 1
8200) 2 00 O4 00 -00 30 39 00 00 25 ieee (ha zs
26:00 #6 00 O4 00 -00 32 40 00 00 29 12) Tahien'S
LOTTO oS 00 02 00 00 -39 47 00 00 46 15° Om0'8
61.50 S34 00 02 00 OM 53)5) 41 00 00 5) liey Wee
68.90) Ba 00 01 00 5 (0) 33 -40 00 00 58 1S) Palees
(Zs) 00n aS 00 00 00 -08 «ti 52 00 00 69 ASR 1s
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
2h 00) 25. -00 3 If -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 Ov yf qa},
AO) 593} 7 00 iN'5) 00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 J02 Salieuint
S210 Oe 00 met 00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 O2 TF Gi-ae
36.00 6 00 5 133 00 00 00 00 -00 00 00 0) Paliests
49.76 8 01 09 00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 01. CaaS
Gals 50! Bey 01 08 00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 Ot Vie
63.90 1 01 08 00 00 00 90 -00 -00 00 Oil Waters
1Z2Z\00) is 03 03 00 00 502 OS -00 00 00 01 Shes
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
2.00 05 -69 -00 98 -08 199. 100 -96 89 1.00 Fikote. elas,
29) q')3 | -56 00 98 08 99 1.00 a S)if 91 1.00 Bee ileal)
B2R OO ae 153 00 -99 08 990) 100 .98 On 100 ite Talents
26.00 6 -48 00 99 08 96. > 1.00 98 911100 onl” Wales
NO 576 06 - 30 OOD, 100 08 Oa OO) 1100 94 1.00 «70: Se
61.50 4 24 00 1.00 08 96. 100: 1,00 95, 1.00 69 7 Meee
68.90 Fil eal OOP 100 08 G6.) 1100, 1.00 5 1/5019) 69 “Sees
Zs. 00s -06 00 97 08 88 94 -98 97 97 -65 “Wee
D. Adult ( pool condition)
24.00 25 -98 00 98 24 30 -74 -96 AU) - 88 59 1.09
29.98 FH 99 00 .98 525 5 3h aye 98 eal -90 60 <0
32500 2 99 00 99 26 31 Bf 98 Wee 91 60 fsa
26.00 % 1010 00 99 27 32 74 99 23 92 61 Tacs
49.576 *8 1.00 00 1.00 29 33 sia Wo0le QT 95 .62 Tae
61.50" 6G OT 00)” ~1.00 34 35 5S WH OO 30 97 -63 “tiee
63.90 4 96 00) 1200 35 35 ais 1.00 30 -97 -63 “Auge
NZ8n007 FS ie 00 96 56 39 Se re OKO) 4 -92 64 Saou
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
= Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-1ll-
Table 14. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 11 ; USGS No. 03381500 ; Little Wabash River at Carmi
neeeeaiOe sg) Mi +: Mean Flow 2521 cfs : Q(7,10) 5.70 cfs
a a ee es ss i ee a ee se ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
2400. 5 WOmeee6 00 .00. / 4 48 OOV 1 200) we 33 Py me S18)
29203 7 00 18 00 OO C42 48 00 00 yy ional aa
32.00 2 00 12 00 OO 42-48 00 00 47 sh sie Rees 2:
36.00 6 00 10 00 OOM 34h 48 00 00 51 lie eadentS
le. 76 *'8 00 07 00 Go! - 240 47 00 00 63 ye sabes
Gt250 4 00 05 00 O37 44 47 00 00 68 1Cewdie22
63290 1 00 05 00 One ad 47 00 00 69 i ees
123.00 3 00 00 00 a 40 45 00 00 74 TOM =r
Baeendule ( riffle condition)
24.00 5 00 44 00 00 00 . .00 .00 00 00 05 1.09
2993 7 02 38 00 00 OO 400 » 9400 00 00 OW TAA
B2200. 2 02 37 00 00... 00 00° - 200 00 00 OW Sete
36.00; 46 03 35 00 00 00 00.*.* 00 00 00 Ol arth
49.76 8 03 29 00 00 00 QO) 700 00 00 03 tome
61050 "4 03 26 00 00 03 05 .00 00 00 Oe
63.90 1 03 26 00 00 03 06,» 300 00 00 C4 tees
123200" *3 O4 09 00 OOF "07 fon S00 00 00 OFF Bas
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
24.00 5 eee OONees99 222," 1.00 - 1.00 98 95." 1.00 SE SS)
29°93 7 aioe 20077" >.99 260° 1500" “1.000 4799 95 1.00 Pi halberd
22200 (2 Wien 00 99 23) 299) 1.00 .99 95 1.00 Soe ede nie
36.00 6 .69 FOO 99 vag S90! 1) 100 .99 96 1.00 S76 Atos
49.76 8 OOOO. 624. 499. 1.00 1/..00 OF 1.00 Aso ae its!
61e50 4 47 OO) Te00, "ft 98. 1-00)" 1500 O7 > *1F00 Sy ee
63.90 1 Pic OOM RCO weet 9.98" 7.00 1.00:.-~.972 1.00 Se sles)
123,00 = 3 oan 600 .).99° 3.27 sO ai, OO are S904 8 B97 ST ilant ete
De? Adult ( pool condition)
2u-200 5 nso 00) 09. .49 Boe Gyo) 698. 9 sale | Zou as S09)
299 35~ 7 99 -00 99 -50 255 CTE 99 46 95 Alcs ashes al
moose 1.00 .00 99 251 ~50 18), «99. ett ~ «95 FO90— Hadi
eesooemo 1.00’ 300 .99 BSL Abo SA. 788) OG ORB) 96 TO) Me
noe7T6 8. 1.00 00), “1200 54 BOye scOr” 1200 52 =~ 98 wae
61.50 4 99 GO" “1400 58 FO AEB D> M100 55 «98 Bye tie
63.90 1 98 O00 0 1).00 59 59 O28 edo 55 .99 Tee Maes
123.00 3 85 OO. 298 73 60 52.386) 1200 64 =. 96 Se Well
= Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-112-
-
In the case of Skillet Fork at.Wayne City, the average fish pretenence
for the riffles is very small, both for the juveniles and adults, for the
low flow range of 0.74 to 7.78 cfs. In the pools, the juvenile fish pre-
ference is about 0.55 with MIN and 0.64 with GM for the entire low flow range
considered. The preference for the adults increases from 0.11 to 0.15 awa
MIN and 0.26 to 0.31 with GM as flow imcreases from 0.74 to 7.7/8 ets (the
extra veapi tallcost simereases From $0.13 to 1.13 million). Probably @immes
higher flow releases than 7.78 cfs will be needed to increase the adult fish
preferences considerably.
For the Little Wabash River at Carmi, the average fish preference for
the riffles is negligible for the adults and varies from 0.09 to 0.13 with
MIN and 0.16 to 0.19 with GM for the juveniles, for the low flow range
of 24 to 123 cfs. In the pools, the juvenile fish preferences decrease
from 0.73 to 0.65 with MIN and 0.77 to 0.71 with GM as the flow increases from 24°
to 123 cfs. The preference for adult fish increases from 0.59 to 0.64 with
MIN and from 0.68 to 0.74 with GM with increase in flow. The increase in
preference; is) rather small: The fish preferences need to be calculated for
flows less than 24 cfs to determine if a lesser flow release may be appro-
priate. The 7-day 10-year low flow is SLAG) (ibisin
A summary of the fish preferences at the two ends of low flow range (and
an intermediate value for station 009) is given in table 15. The pre-
ference of the bluntnose for the low flow ranges analyzed is very sma licy gene
decision on. avsuitable low flowselease wile be governed by the relative weight
for the target species, their preferences, and extra capital costs, AC.
Il. Kishwaukee River Basin. Cost ratio vs average fish preference curves
for juvenile and adult species, applicable to riffle and pool conditions, are
-113-
TABLE 15. Costs and Fish Preferences: Little Wabash River Basin (Pool Condition)
Q AC Fish number* with preference
Nes, cis 10°s i Crit <0 0.10-0.24 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1.00
009 esoo Q585 J MIN 2,4 S) 138 515 Or, 2
GM Zz 4 3 2-9
A MIN DT RO AD 3),049 1
GM 250 7 4,5 Sylehae) 1
5o.00) 4.600 J MIN 2,4 1 SED=2)
GM 2 4 1 Sa)
A MIN 2 4,8 5 13 (05,7 52
GM 2 4,8 5 PSS On ao
14.9 T7387 J) MIN 2,4 1 goes)
GM 2 4 1 BRD 9
A MIN Zao G55 3 Gio 52) 1
GM 2 8 4,5 3,0 Lee are,
010 Deve 0.13 J MIN De oH (ESS: I) SOl,.9
GM 2 34 738 [351,659
A MIN IARI POIRS) IAS 6
GM 738 2 Sass Oe) i
iver t.28 J MIN Zip Digit LPL 8) Delete
GM 2 4 3 7 is 5) Soon ©)
A MIN 2 48 She a ee, 1,6
GM Za 1yO B45 ise L356
i240 2.27 J MIN 2,4 i 39-9
GM Z 4 139-9
A.. MIN 2 4,8 5 6 eo so
GM Z 4,8 5 OR ell Chews)
i320" 10.87 J. MIN 124 3,5-9
GM 2 1 4 a5 -9
A MIN 2 SPatS) 1,4 SO 9
GM 2 4,5,8 Lois Ont so
+
—
I
= Bluegill, 2 = Bluntnose, 3 = Carp, 4 = Channel Cat, 5 = Largemouth Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, 7 = Drum, 8 = White Bass, 9 = White Crappie
fon)
Il
+ J and A denote Juvenile and Adult, resnectively.
=
shown in figure 25 for net water supply of 10 percent of mean flow, 25-year
drought, and b = 0.75, for the following three stations:
020 Kishwaukee River at Belvidere Cy = $1.399 million
021 S.B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale Ce = $3.848 million
O22 Kishwaukee River near Perryville Co = $2,133 miltvon
The e. is much higher for station 021 because the low flows are not as: well
sustained as for stations 020 and 022. The information used in developing
the curves! ini fieures25. is sivensinm Cablless to throughe2i.
For the Kishwaukee River at Belvidere, the average fish preference for
the riffles is negligible for the adults and rather small for the juveniles
for the low flow range of 36.9 to 92 cfs. In the pools, the juventleweicn
preference increases from 0.55 to 0.62 with MIN and from 0.65 to 0.68 with
GM as the flow increases from 36.9 to 92 cfs (the 7-day 10-year low flow is
34.3 cfs).+ The preference for the adults increases from 0.20 to OS43euwaew
MIN and from 0.35 to 0.56 with GM. The cost-preference curve has practically
the same slope for the low flow release range studied.
In the case of South Branch Kishwaukee River near Fairdale, the average
fish preference for the rifflles as negligible or very small for themya@vemummes
and adults, for’the low flow range of 10.1 to 28.6 cis. In the poolismmea=
juvenile fish preference is 0.53 with MIN and 0.63 with GM for the entire
flow range considered. The preference for the adults increases from 0.14
to 0.20 with MIN and 0.30 to 0.34 with GM as flow increases from 10.1 to
28.6 cfs (the extra capital cost increases from $1.50 to $4:14 million) eee
7-day 10-year low flow is 9.9 cfs.
For the Kishwaukee River, the average fish preference for the riffles
is negligible for the adults and is 0.14 with MIN and 0.18 with GM for
the juveniles, for the flow range of 69 to 156 cfs (the 7-day 10-year low
-115-
12
KISHWAUKEE RIVER AT BELVIDERE
ie = Juvenile Adult
10 == MIN
Oo 2 ¥ GM >
| =/= I = 6
ot =o i eens
| MH
Si He mn
t
|
|! 1
| 1
H4
| POOL
Ril RE aan
SOUTH BRANCH KISHWAUKEE RIVER
NEAR FAIRDALE
Juvenile Adult
COST RATIO, C/Co
KISHWAUKEE RIVER NEAR PERRYVILLE
Adult
Juvenile
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 O 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
AVERAGE FISH PREFERENCE
10
MIN
¥yGM
11
11
MIN
=
MIN
=}
|
|
—------~——~---MIN
SSS SSI hi
Figure 25. Cost ratio vs. average fish preference: Kishwaukee River Basin
-116-
Table 16. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 20 3; USGS No. 05438500 ; Kishwaukee River at Belvidere
A.
De 538 Sq. Mii 3) Mean Flow | 337 cfs 3) (OG, 10) =otocgmeus
Q Suitability for Fish Number
efs No 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 ave C/¢@
ee ae ee ae a a ss a a a a a a i a a a ee a a a ae a a a a a a ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
36.90 2 .00 902 -00 -00 SHS °22 -00 -00 -00 -O4 4.38
46.00 4 00 02 -00 00 21 ial 00 00 00 06 5.24
Moa 5 00 01 -00 00 25 34 00 00 14 2-08 6.232
5Os65) ol 00 01 -00 00 Ff, 35 00 00 Wi 09 6.55
64.36 6 00 01 -00 00 ait 33 00 00 ZS} 09 6.98
sa 13 00 00 -00 00 26 32 00 00 29 100 37288
fOr i 00 00 -00 00 25) 30 00 00 35 10) S766
92.00 3 00 00 -00 00 22 26 00 00 55 1 Soe
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
366900 a2 .00 09 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 300 -00 0:1 See
46.00 4 00 .08 00 -00 -00 .00 00 -00 -00 JO) Seoae4
MWlaee 5) -00 .O7 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 SOW 2a6n82
591-65) i .00 Ai0/ -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «01. 26.55
64.36 6 -00 207, .00 -00 00 .00 -00 -00 -00 «Ot. [6298
68.5% 8 00 -06 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 01 Sie55
(Sin 1 4) 00 06 .00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 «01 7586
92.00 3 BO) -05 -00 -00 .00 -00 -00 -00 .00 01 9242
C. Juvenile (pool condition)
36.90 2 SS -00 = 16 08 Re Oe 66 69: “1.00 55. Jase
Gn OO met 28 -00 520 08 <9) 00 70 (EZ WsG® 055° S524
Ro22 '5 5 11S) -00 34 08 abr 12.00 15 142 1200 «56> 6.32
5965 7 18 -00 -40 08 J5sqnl00 ay As T>- 00 251 -Os55
64.36 6 SS -00 49 08 s94. 1.00 ancl -76 -99 -58 6.98
68e 5 56 a3 -00 59 .08 94 99 79 aan 99 «59" hose
WBE (o 1 Pilz -00 .68 08 93 99 . 80 mail 99 -60° 7.86
F210 ORs sO 00 -89 08 -90 -96 -85 -O1 98 «62> Gene
D. Adult © pool! condition)
326.90) 72 55 -00 ae 55 aie) 45 00 200 we 20). Hieso
46.00 4 <6 -00 55 =16 ails) - 48 05 -00 - 33 23; ones
Mioee. 5 67 .00 30 16 20 51 24 -00 43 28° 6432
59.65 7 69 -00 31 Vf 21 52 31 -00 46 30° “6255
64.36 6 71 -00 33 wi 21 254 40 -00 50 32 6.98
66. 5a 28 (en 00 37 Vie 22 eS 50) 00 54 34 738
T3310, bel 76, 00 44 17 22 56 590 -.00 5i/ 36° Tace
92500733 Wale 00 60 19 24 «64 76 205 68 43, 9.42
Note Q Minimum flow release
C/C_ = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-117-
Table 17. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No.
20
; USGS No. 05438500 ; Kishwaukee River at Belvidere
Seeeeeoeoecod Mi +: Mean Flow 337 efs ;- Q(7,10) 34.3 cfs
Q Suitability for Fish Number
efs No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 avg c/C
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
36.90 ~ 2 00 15 00 -00 25 32 00 -00 -00 s08 “4.38
46.00 4 00 12 00 -00 26 35 00 200 -00 108 V 5.24
Since | 5 00 09 00 00 27 35 00 00 5313) wile: 76 as2
59.65 7 00 08 00 -00 28 35 00 -00 Si 2 “O55
64.36 6 00 05 00 -00 28 35 00 -00 42 se 86296
60.57 °8 00 03 00 -00 29 36 00 00 a rh 13 “7a3s
Ton ~ 1 00 02 00 -00 29 36 00 -00 a5) 1 als = se
2.00 3 00 00 00 205 32 a Sith 00 00 64 15. 9.42
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
36.90 2 00 - 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 J03) Paess
46.00 4 00 28 00 -00 00 00 00 -00 00 OB) M5.24
Syece 5 00 27 00 -00 00 00 00 .00 -00 03). "6932
59.65 7 01 26 00 -00 00 00 00 -00 00 -03 6.55
64.36 6 01 26 00 -00 00 00 00 -00 00 103) “6598
65.57 *8 02 25 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 i03 “7536
weero ' 02 24 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 103 2786
92.00 3 03 20 00 00 02 O4 00 00 00 03 “9.42
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
36.00) ° 2 -60 -00 41 720) 9) 1.00 81 203% Tx00 “65 “4238
46.00 4 353 -00 oS a2 eiok eh atl 10)0) 84 so5e 100 05) Vac
mime | 5 44 -00 58 el 98) 1.00 s86 s86- 1.00 66° 65.32
5Ow0D' «7 42 -00 -63 sel -98 1.00 87 sO08 00 610 6 55
64.36 6 39 -00 B40) Pea One — 1.00 . 88 Sim 1.00 167° #098
66.57 ~8 - 36 -00 -76 ae Ome 0.0 . 88 soe “k.00 20 “7538
Tomy O: 44 34 -00 82 22 -96 99 .89 - 88 99 100) * 1300
Y2.00)* 3 et -00 a9 see 95 98 92 -90 99 «68. 9542
D. Adult ( pool condition)
Bo690' -2 Pf O04 mye - 39 42 58 -00 00 ae 235 438
46.00 4 78 02 50 39 43 60 22 00 57 139 e524
Siaee °5 80 00 55 -40 yy 62 4g -00 -66 su Rowse
S905. OF 80 00 56 41 45 63 55 00 7 A5 6.55
64.36 6 81 00 Bt 41 45 64 63 -00 (40) wht VOe98
68.57 98 81 00 60 41 45 64 7a -00 ae 8. 7.38
tae 1 81 00 63 41 46 65 (ig 00 55 50 <7 «86
92.00 ° 3 80 00 76 42 47 68 87 wee .80 56° “922
Note Q = Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-118-
Table 18. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 21 3; USGS No. 05439500 ; S. B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale
D.A. 387 Sq Mi 3 Mean’ Flow 253 cfses, O(7-10)09.90nets
0 Suitability for Fish Number
efs No 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 avg C/E
A. Juvenile ( witele conditaon
Ole One -00 ~08 -00 5(0)0) 5 1) 5 BOO: -00 -00 1038) lies 9
14.30 4 -00 03 -00 -00 one aks) -00 00 -00 O41 06.555
ID5(e 3 -00 02 -00 -00 S115} 19 -00 -00 -00 87 -00 02 -00 -00 ols 19 -00 -00 -00 «OF, Maa62
Shes [fisy 6) -00 02 -00 -00 - 16 222 -00 -00 -00 04 Safe
19.66 738 -00 02 -00 -90 5 15 see 00 00 -00 Oe fs 02)
20.10 oa -00 02 -00 -00 - 16 22 -00 -00 -00 OL ery
26560) Ss -00 -01 -00 -00 22 ~29 -00 -00 02 06° 52.08
B. Adult ( ritflie: condition)
10.510) 2 -00 2 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -01 1.39
14.30 4 -00 - 10 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -90 OT 1.55
1.3 25 -00 - 10 -00 -00 00 .00 -00 -00 -00 -01 “560
1622) am -00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -90 01 See
18.78 “6 -00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «01 Wagi2
19166. 218 00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 <0 Views
20.110" 99 -00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «Oa
28,160) 9B -00 07 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «01 52508
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
10.10. a2 Oil -00 ~O7 .08 -99 1.00 47 250, 00 53 Ol.39
14.30 4 45 -00 -09 .08 98 1500 53 ‘6m, 1.00 -53_ Dab
5 ois 5 42 -00 ~ 10 08 398 1.00 254 262 1.00 53. Sg 768
16.22 Se 41 -00 -10 .08 3935 1/00 54 102. 100 553 Mise
18278 26 38 -00 onal 08 398" 7.00 258 -64 1.00 52 onehe
19.66 8 -31 -00 01 .08 SOF, Mes0O 58 “4 1500 52, Ato
20510) Ta oul -00 sult 08 97. 1.00 58 -64 1.00 “52. ihswe
26.60) 3 o21 -00 Bs 08 396. 1.00 365 -69 1.00 53: T2208
D. Adult ( pool condition)
OxaiO tae 338 510) sls -12 513 ~ 36 -00 -00 5 V2 a Teese
qe ai), aa 41 On ~ 16 Bi les: oA5 .38 -00 -00 Bells) 16 4085
15.s6s BS BS) 0) euler: <3 55) 39 00 -00 ay, «16 W.'68
16:22 i 43 .01 onlay «43 al’ 39 -00 .00 oly, 16 abe
18:08 6 4S -00 18 14 aat6 44 -00 00 <9 17 ewe
19.366 BS 46 -00 td 14 sill 41 -00 -00 19 17 ets
PANS WOl 1 46 -00 a ke) 14 16 44 -00 00 219 lt waleeran
28:60 43 54 -00 seul 215 We 4y -00 -00 26 .20 92,06
Note: Q Minimum flow release
C/C, = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-119-
Table 19. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 21 ; USGS No. 05439500 ; S. B. Kishwaukee River near Fairdale
Demeeeser og Mi + Mean Flow 253 cfs 3; Q(7,10) 9.90 efs
ee ee
me ee ee ee ee ee ee me ee re me ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ae ee ee ee a ee ee ee a a ee
e102 00 15 00 -00 (ae w20 00 00 00 OF = Ta3sg
14.30 4 00 15 00 -00 23 50 00 00 00 O08" = 4:655
iets 5 00 15 00 00 24 250 00 00 00 OS) 1560
i@nce 7 00 15 00 -00 23 - 30 00 00 00 OS) ¥ n62
ion to 6 00 14 -00 -00 25 31 00 00 00 OSs 72
19.66 ° 8 00 14 00 00 25 31 00 00 00 O83 Ta5
2oe10 ° 1 00 14 00 -00 25 AB ul 00 00 00 OSF Stan
28.60 3 00 10 00 -00 26 33 00 00 12 go 2508
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
10210 2 .00 235 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 oO. = te. 39
14.30 4 .00 331 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 503) Valied5
sets = 5 .00 oa -00 -00 -00 -00 00 00 -00 103) > t..60
texe2 | 'T 00 son -00 -00 -00 00 00 «00 00 x03) + ies
18.78: 6 -00 30 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 e083 STs%2
19.66 -'8 00 m510) -00 -00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 J03 “WT aihS
2060 © 1 00 - 30 -00 -00 .00 -00 00 -00 -00 OS: UT RarY
20.100 3 -00 wet -00 00 -00 00 00 00 00 03 “2.08
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
1On0 2 e180 -00 sel aoe 100M 1:.00 68 To+ 100 ~6 3) 4.39
14.30 4 “67 00 esl 219 299 1.00 rule: 73° T.00 763 l<55
Mets »D 65 -00 eae Bile) 799% 1.00 74 Toe, ViO0O «63. 1,60
low2e 7 64 -00 32 19 s99* 7.00 74 "Oe 1800 <63 ) We62
16%79 -'6 257 -00 255 420) 399) 1.00 76 80" 100 #63: le72
19.66 8 56 -00 - 34 20 <99. 1:00 <6 80- 1.00 163 Ws 75
20010 =" -56 -00 34 20 799: 1.00 276 80; 1.00 Pi ols Weak (a
26760 3 46 -00 39 -20 -98 1.00 . 80 83° 61.00 #63 2.08
D. Adult ( pool condition)
AG.10:/ 2 61 -08 . 38 155 wot 52 -00 -00 635 90) Se 39
14.30 4 64 OK 40 - 36 230 254 -00 -00 - 39 ag. Vile 55
wars” 5 «65 Pi Off 41 - 36 Ae |S) 54 00 -00 41 3%. M2 60
emionice. if 65 o OF 41 - 36 39 54 00 -00 «A «ol ths Oe
To.7o . 6 -67 .06 43 ost -40 155 00 00 Jos ose Vals Te
19.66 8 68 05 43 ait -40 55 00 00 4y 82) PRS
20.10 ° 1 68 05 43 37 -40 55 00 00 yy 32 ile HT
eBeo0 3 Ve 03 46 38 41 58 00 00 51 34 2.08
Note Q Minimum flow release
C/C_ = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-120-
Table 20. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 22 3; USGS No. 05440000 ; Kishwaukee River near Perryville
D.A. 1099 Sq Mi *« Mean Flow’ 9690 cfs 5.9 OG/,10) 62230ces
me ee eee ee ee ee a ee es a se a se a es se ee a a a a ea a a ae a a ee es ee
69.00 2 00 02 00 00 38 44 00 00 46 1h hes 2
Wo.s00) met 00 02 00 00 36 42 00 00 50 uy BL re}is}
NOM OO 5 00 01 00 02 29 230 00 00 61 14 6.39
Wiis 7 00 01 00 02 28 635 00 00 62 1H 659
121 300 > 6 00 01 00 03 2a 5 00 00 65 1H . 7.08
126.00) 9S 00 00 00 03 226 Ie 00 00 68 TA: yee
138.00) oa 00 00 00 o4 525 5 30) 00 00 69 14 37.80
156.00 3 00 00 00 05 24 23 00 00 71 1 6B ad
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
69.00 2 ON 09 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 04 sei62
fio. 00) eet On 08 1010 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 (O07) 996
NOOO eS 5(0) 1 ONG 00 -00 -00 On -00 -00 -00 -01 +6239
Hts 7 OM AO 00 00 00 50) 1 -00 3100) .-00 01 ©6559
129500) 16 OM AON 00 -00 501 401 -00 00 -00 O01 BY ss
128.00 ' 756 01 -06 00 -00 OM 01 -00 -00 -00 01 Sy ct
1388.00 24 AO 06 00 -00 610) 02 -00 -00 -00 01 “7290
156.00 23 Oe 05 A010 JOO 01 Oe -00 -00 -00 01 8.479
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
69500 nz2 523} -00 -96 08 96.) 1.100 92 06, 1.100 '67 o4.52
Fos00 4 20 -00 -96 08 .96 1200 5 9)2 166 “1.00 266 (4398
107 200: 25 BSS) .00 -97 .08 94 99 94 .88 -99 66 = 62380
Vi Ws6OO0 — 7 anli2 -00 58)7/ 08 93 99 95 - 88 99 66 6.52
12 (00° NG oalal -00 -98 08 93 99 95 .89 -99 66 7208
128.00 £8 5 IG -00 98 08 92 .98 -96 .89 98 65 > 7,0
188,00 #4 5 0 00 98 08 92 SON: 96 .89 98 65° hz290
15600 ES 08 00 98 08 291 -97 97 -90 98 65: 36.78
D. Adult ( pool condition)
69-500) 2 91 00 92 2 Selb 510) 89 13} - 80 54 4.52
Te OO) Ft 92 00 94 ean sei sual 90 13 81 54 4.98
NOV 500 5 89 00 OT 23 29 at 94 16 84 56 6.39
144. 300) 7 88 00 97 23 .29 oD 94 Ait 85 56 6.59
124.00" HG 86 00 97 23 229 A TAS) 95 18 86 57 = 208
128:.00 8 85 00 98 24 229 6 96 19 87 57 faa
138.00 = 83 00 98 24 30 oni 96 19 87 57 ~7.98
156,00 aS 79 00 OT 25 30 -76 97 20 89 57 8.79
Note: Q Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
° net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-121-
Table 21. Fish Suitabitity (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Release
“”
Station No. 22 ; USGS No. 05440000 ; Kishwaukee River near Perryville
D.A. 1099 Sq Mi; Mean Flow 690 cfs ; Q(7,10) 62.3 cfs
SS ieee ite tented eee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
69.00 ° 2 -00 ON? -00 -00 ~39 ~46 00 -00 «62 sui eee
7o.00 4 00 06 00 00 - 39 46 00 00 64 Shi LUBC\s}
HOWE OO? 5 00 O4 00 05 - 40 46 00 00 70 Filion asi)
it OO 7 00 03 -00 05 4 46 00 00 70 sto i659
121.00- 6 -00 03 -00 06 4 47 00 00 TE 9 08
28.00 68 00 02 00 07 2 47 00 00 ie o19” Fatt
13600 1 00 01 00 08 42 46 00 00 13} 5 IS) 7faSo)
156.00 3 00 00 00 09 43 46 00 00 73 Ae iejo cole w/e)
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
69.00 2 03 29 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 S047 Abe
Ta<00 4 03 28 -00 00 00 -00 00 00 00 03 4.98
NOWesO0! 5 03 21 -00 00 O4 08 00 00 00 OL 6.39
ile ON fi 03 19 -00 00 O4 09 00 00 00 OL) 6..59
t21.00 6 o4 y/ -00 00 05 10 00 00 00 OAS: 706
128.00 .8 O4 16 -00 00 05 silt 00 00 00 Ou
‘S800 1 O4 15 -00 00 05 F112 00 00 00 O4 . 7.90
156.00 3 O4 14 -00 00 06 Ps 00 00 00 Ot Sar9
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
69.00 2 48 00 98 22 96). 1.00 96 6 9)3}- {5 (0@ (ae debe
78.00 4 44 00 98 23 98 1.00 96 Oe OO TE BoO
NOOO! 5 - 36 00 98 23 1 (OKO) OT 9h 1200 72 63389
Th Ol) Wr 53) 00 98 23 Si 1.00 Q7 94 99 HA) SIA}
te1.00 6 a4 00 98 23 96 99 97 94 99 i Oo
125.00 8 Cae 00 98 23 -96 -99 98 94 99 Tal) aaeiieeetat
13600" 1 oul 00 98 23 96 99 98 94 99 if (alle P27 WSES)9)
156.00 3 29 00 98 24 95 .98 98 95 99 Tl 8279
D. Adult ( pool condition)
69.00 2 94 -00 -96 46 52 SZ 94 235 89 SOM) te
73.00 4 94 -00 97 -46 GZ sis 205 soit -90 365, 4596
1OnveOo = 5 92 00 98 me 52 Alls 97 -40 Ot 366 6.39
ie) tote) 44 92 00 98 47 52 ¢D 97 41 91 66 6.59
t21.00 6 91 00 98 48 53 aro 97 42 91 667 7.08
n26.00 °.8 91 00 98 48 58 6 98 HS 92 Siam set
790.00 "1 90 00 98 48 5S etal 98 44 92 Bi he 90
156.00 3 88 00 .98 4g SS ee rea A 99 245 92 or 8.79
Note Q Minimum flow release
C/€. = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
TABLE 22. Costs and Fish Preferences: Kishwaukee River Basin (Pool Condition)
Q AC Fish number* with preference |
Noga ®ets WOrS a (Great Ql 0.10-0.24 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1.00
O20) BGS eA sy Sule ian Dit 3 1 Tae ROG 9
GM 2 4 3 iL DAO 5 Oost
A MIN Pe] 8 3,455 5.48) 1
GM TAT RS) Sees S 1, 6.8
O25 0 liga) JS) iy ta ees 3,5-9
GM Z 4 1 Be -9
A MIN 28 4,5 3,659 7
GM Z 8 4,5 6 Le 59
OZ) WOst “12505 .cey MN 1 ogee 7 1,8 B09)
GM 2 4 3) 7 lon 0,0.
A MIN Zed 38 3,4 59 1,6
GM DEI 3.4599 1 36
28 0 (Grek eee SME 234 is 136 B09
GM z 4 Wes) 55105 1-50
A MIN 207 58 3.43.5 6,9 1
GM TAT ee 35455 1, Ga9
022), 69.0 75507 ag Mun 24 1 3,5-9
GM 2 4 i 3,9-9
A MIN 2 4,8 b) 6 13357 3S
GM 2 4,8 56 laa 3s
[5162 0) 165623) ea iEn apa 3,5-9
GM 2 4 1 3;9-9
A MIN 2 8 LIENS) 133 %6,:7 me
GM Z, 4,8 2) 1,356, 7m
oo
—
|
= Bile cdcl ieee Bluntnose, 3 = Carp, 4 = Channel Cat, 5 = Largemouth Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, 7 = Drum, 8 = White Bass, 9 = White Crappie
oO
ll
+ J and A denote Jufievnile and Adult, respectively.
-
flow is 62.3 cfs). In the pools, the juvenile fish preference is about
0.66 with MIN and 0.72 with GM over the low flow range studied. Similarly,
the preference for the adult fish is about 0.55 with MIN and 0.66 with GM.
The fish preferences need to be calculated at flows less than 69 cfs to deter-
mine if a lesser flow release may be appropriate.
A summary of the fish preferences at the two ends of the low flow range
is given in table 22. The decision on a suitable low flow release will be
poveried by the relative importance of the different target fish, their
preferences, and extra capital costs, AC.
III. Bay Creek Basin. Cost ratio vs average fish preference curves for
juvenile and adult species, applicable to riffle and pool conditions, are
shown in figure 26 for net water supply of 10 percent of mean flow, 25-year
design drought, and b = 0.75 for the following three stations:
039 Hadley Creek at Kinderhook Cy = $3.865 million
040 Bay Creek at Pittsfield Cy = $2.764 million
041 Bay Creek at Nebo C, = $5.918 million
The information used in developing the curves in figure 26 is given in tables
23 through 28. The 7-day 10-year low flows at all the above stations are
ZErO.
For Hadley Creek at Kinderhook (drainage area 72.7 sq mi), the
average fish preference for the riffles is negligible for both juveniles and
aeulesetor the low flow range of 0.19 to 4.50 cfs. In the pools, the
juvenile fish preference is about 0.45 with MIN and 0.48 with GM for the
low flow range studied. The preference for the adults is much lower, about
0.03 with MIN and 0.13 with GM. The preferences are rather independent of
tie tiew for the range 0.19 to 4.50 cfs.
COST RATIO, C/Cg
,
HADLEY CREEK AT KINDERHOOK
z
= =
Oo ae \ Adult
TEStim
! ;
2 sh 4
eA ae POOL
1 = RIFFLE -——--
| =
1.0
1.4 |
BAY CREEK AT PITTSFIELD
Juvenile Adult
ua MIN, GM
1.4
3
S
|
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
AVERAGE FISH PREFERENCE
Figure 26. Cost ratio-vs. average: fish preference: Bay Creek Basin
Table 23. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
station No.
Poeeteefesg Mi: Mean Flow 53.5 cfs ;. Q(7,10) 0.00 cfs
eee ee eee
mee ee ee ee a a ee ee ee
39 ; USGS No. 05510500 ; Hadley Creek at Kinderhook
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
19
oie
.58
76
1.16
re 5e
2025
4.50
B.
19
~53
58
-76
PFs)
Nee.
2.25
4.50
ed
Q
Sc
=
ct
WES OMA NV
-00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -01 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -02 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 00 02 00 -00
00 -00 -00 -00 01 -03 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 102 05 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 03 06 -00 -00
-00 02 -00 -00 06 -09 -00 -00
( riffle condition)
00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 -00 .00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 08 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 one -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 sie -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
-00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
~19
~53
58
WF ONAN AW
-90 -00 -00 -0O7 1.00 1.00 -00 05
93 -00 -00 S07. > 1500. 1.00 -00 -07
94 -00 -00 On FP 100-9 1:00 00 08
295 -00 -00 SOF 100) * 1.00 -00 -09
94 -00 -00 -07 -99 1.00 -00 -10
mie -00 -00 -O7 -99 1.00 -00 wile
~74 -00 -00 -O7 «99 1.00 -00 14
44 -00 -00 .08 a98 1.00 -00 ats)
( pool condition)
-07 oul 01 -00 -03 -07 -00 -00
.08 -10 01 -00 04 08 -00 -00
.08 -10 01 -00 -O4 -09 -00 .00
.08 -09 -01 -00 O04 -09 -00 -00
-09 -09 02 -00 04 -10 -00 -00
SV ee ees ey ey Eee
eo Ee oe eget |e ae ve
sy
e
oO
ine)
Sosy By Soy Ee
e « oe © e
oO
oO
— 2 a a et
© ce #6 «@. 4@ 0. ~@, We
oO
Ol
lel ee ee
Minimum flow release
= Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
2126=
Table 24. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 39 ; USGS No. 05510500 ; Hadley Creek at Kinderhook
D.A. 72.7:Sq Mi $3 “Mean Filow 53.5,cfs! 3) OC, 10) s0.00ners
a a a sn a a a se ee we ee ee ae ee ee ee
me a a i ee ee ee ee ee es ae a a ee a a ee ee
ee ea a a a ae es ee a a ss a a se ee ne ee ee a ae a ae a a a ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
sO WS -00 00 300 00 00 00 -00 ZOO -00 OO MeO
~53 6 -00 00 -00 00 -00 5 I) -00 s00 -00 50a), ho OS
5G mnt -00 -00 -00 -00 00 oti -00 -00 -00 SO eo S
Bi(loy 2 00 00 BOO 00 00 5113 -00 -00 -00 SONOS
Pauley «1 -00 00 -00 -00 06 51'S -00 -00 -00 102 RO9
1Vo52 1 -00 -00 -00 00 iO) 6 1 -00 -00 -00 605) ait
2.25 et -00 00 -00 -00 5 IZ od -00 -00 -00 508} hs 1/
1.50 53 -00 -06 -00 -00 5 5 320) -00 -00 -00 05 lees
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
sis) 5 -00 ~00 ~00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 Sie02
°53; = 6 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00: SOs
50) aah -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 1.05
So 2 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 “s05
1.16 8 -00 yi 1 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 «01 S169
1-52) 21 -00 o5 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 SNeOe
53 220 o32 211 -00 19 25 -00 -00 -00 13 “Ws05
58 S20 -31 <4 -00 19 025 -00 -00 -00 013 “A565
29 - 30 2 -00 -20 26 -00 -00 -00 213) 9205
- 30 ~29 13 -00 -20 Sail -00 -00 -00 13 Pieeg
.
=3
OV
Ww = = ch + ov vl
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C , = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-127-
Table 25. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Sugeuron No. 40 * USGS No. 05512500 + Bay Creek at Pittsfield
Reeeesowiesca Mi + Mean Flow 26.7 cfs ; (7,10) 0.00 cfs
me ee es es ss ss ee ee se ss es es ee ee ss ee ee
ee eee
em ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee se a a ee we ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
ca 45) -00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 200. 1.02
eeu 47 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 OO ee
=23 «(66 -00 90 00 -00 -00 01 -00 -00 -00 00 1.03
mee -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 01 -00 -00 -00 OO) ila
a0 6 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -01 -00 -00 -00 HOC) glo
oa a | -00 00 -00 -00 -00 02 -00 00 -00 -00 1.07
96 4 00 -00 -00 -00 -01 -03 -00 -00 -00 S00 = iets
191 3 -00 00 00 -00 -03 06 00 -00 -00 On lhe si
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
-00 .08 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -01 °
-00 08 -00 -90 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 ai) teshi
ms -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 A00s 7 102
4 Uae -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 1.02
25.6 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 200) “He0s
wes 2 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 S00) Os
30 68 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 SOC aici!
oa4 | -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 HOOT Ati
4 1
3
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
eo. 75 63 06 00 -07 -95 1.00 -00 -00 205 -40 1.02
meu) | 705 06 -00 -07 -95 1.00 -00 «00 . 86 On Oe
weg =O 67 06 -00 sO7 =96 1.00 -00 -00 . 86 s405 "1203
wean 2 nO 06 -00 -07 2oOrn 00 -00 -00 86 -40 1.03
230 3 69 05 -00 -07 -97 1.00 -00 -00 Or SAT Pero
waa) 1 ~715 04 -00 -07 -98 1.00 -00 -00 88 Se sae Orr
96 4 Bo. 03 -00 07 -99 1.00 -00 -01 -90 ee Mihail}
Wegl 3 49 -01 -00 .08 -99 1.00 -00 04 93 O90 lest
D. Adult ( pool condition)
Pe 5 04 19 -00 -00 -02 205 -00 -00 .00 OSnF leoe
wie! 7 O04 Failte) -00 -00 02 205 -00 -00 -00 103 Te02
reas 6 04 mia li -00 -00 -02 305 -00 -00 £00 203 “=7803
Stihy 2 O4 17 00 00 02 05 00 00 00 OR OS
230 8 04 3 it 00 -00 02 05 00 -00 00 Osne oe
70> i 05 Anil) 00 -00 03 ACIS) -00 00 00 03 S00
£96 4 05 ra | -00 -00 = 03. -06 -00 00 00 03) Tels
wot -3 -06 Se 2011 -00 203 OT 00 -00 .00 03) 91431
Note: Q Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-128-
Table 26. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 40 +» USGS No. 05512500 ; Bay Creek at Pittsiieild
D.A. 39.4 Sq Mi + Mean Flow 26.7. efs >; (7, 10) 0.00) cfs
me i a a i ss a a ss a a ae ee a a ee a ee ee ee ee ee
Q Suitability for Fish Number
efs No i 2 3 ui 5 6 i 8 9 avg C/C,
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
55 5 00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 .00 -00 -00 OOF wee
520) 7 00 00 -00 -00 -00 -06 -00 -00 -00 On See
~23) 36 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 08 00 -00 -00 oO E08
S22 2 -00 00 -00 00 00 08 -00 -00 -00 iO melee OS
30 8 -00 00 -00 00 -00 sO -00 -00 -00 «OTe ake OP}
as 1 -00 1010) -00 -00 -00 s2 -00 -00 -00 AO}. iS 1O)H/
m
-96 } -00 .00 -00 -00 06 14 -00 00 -00 02. Wiens
taigt 33 -00 -00 -00 -00 -09 a5 -00 -00 -00 -O8) Pheom
B. Adult. € riffle condition)
6 VS a5 -00 .00 00 -00 00 -00 -00 100 -00 OOF mel Oe
520) 7 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 OO) MieiO2
sen 36 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 O00 08
5a 2 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 OOF alos
3.20). 7S -00 OO -00 .00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 .00 xt.
x55) 1 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 JOF StheaOr
a96 2 -00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 OO, -00 -00 sO} 1ey salkenlhS
WoSil & -00 5 13) -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 sO} eilkesul
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
Raise 80 25 -00 -09 97 1.00 00 -00 92 5 ats02
20). nik 81 24 -00 -09 98; 1.00 -00 -00 «93 oAD ate Oe
923) 56 82 128 -00 09 -98. 1.00 .00 -00 93 45. pets
~2l 2 31 223 -00 09 98 t.00 -00 -00 -93 e435 ahe0s
~30: 48 83 323 -00 -09 =93, “1/00 -00 -00 -93 45. -1.08
«5S a] 205 ~20 -00 -10 -99. 1.00 -00 -00 94 AS ot OF
‘4 Oe ot -00 ~10 -99 1.00 -00 -09 -95 6 Siets
he Ot 33 66 -09 -00 o11 -99 1.00 -00 19 -96 hs oie
D. Adult ( pool condition)
oS -15 ~20 43 -00 00 ae Pie 00 00 -00 ok? st.62
20° 7 o20 42 -00 00 ois o19 -00 00 -00 ott. ahee2
ses 36 saul 41 -00 -00 ae) 19 -00 -00 -00 ot} eteOg
Bh ee Pr | ot 00 -00 = 15 19 00 -00 -00 « 11. 08
230. 48 | -40 -00 -00 oS 19 -00 00 -00 oi Aieees
oS. wl AEE . 38 -00 00 16 20 -00 -00 00 11 Shor
sey ey 25 «30 -O4 00 o KT ~2a 00 00 00 1 Sea
lkeGaiy ws eS 32 .08 00 Be: sac 00 00 00 12 Shee
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C_ = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
= 120=
Table 27. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 41; USGS No. 05513000 ; Bay Creek at Nebo
Teteeereiweog Mi * Mean Flow 96.7 efs ; Q(7,10) 0.00 cfs
ee eee ee ee ee ee ee a ee a ee ee
ee ew ee se ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee a a a ee
ee ee ee es ee ee a en se ss ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
669° -.5 -00 -00 -00 -00 ~02 105) -00 -00 -00 sO) 1 {018}
ees oi -00 -00 -00 100 308 -06 -00 -00 - 00 AO a) KOS)
1.50 6 -00 02 -00 -00 -O4 510) 7 -00 -00 -00 sO stove
eet 2 -00 SOV -00 -00 O04 08 -00 00 -00 S02 91.06
2.30548 00 -02 00 -00 05 .08 -00 00 -00 OZ eelelO
Beo2 o1 -00 -01 -00 00 06 onllO; -00 -00 -00 502 An W5
Bree 5) 4 -00 -00 00 00 08 52 -00 -00 -00 502 1622
O50 3 -00 -00 -00 -00 Ji ne -00 -00 00 2.03 “1.56
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
209) 25 -00 ais) -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 Onl MitraOS
ero. OT -00 11 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 Ot P05
p50 <6 -00 ajo) -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 OT S07
Is81 2 00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 01 p08
2238 -8 -00 08 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 oO #2. tO
B02 «1 -00 -07 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 ON Stee 5
B25 4 -00 06 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 Ol Pihe2e
50 3 -00 03 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 7005 917.56
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
369 «5 92 -00 00 07 ~99 1.00 06 2 1.00 8) 61.03
a ef 81 -00 -00 -07 -99 1.00 .08 “21 1.00 ot Bt-05
17.50 6 13 -00 01 -O7 -99 1.00 -10 20), 1.00 tO) ieiQ'7
heel a2 56 -00 01 08 -99 1.00 211 -29.. 1.00 60 #1608
2036 6 257 -00 01 08 -99 1.00 13 oS. 1.00 o5. Sti.
g262 51 44 -00 -01 08 298” 17.00 Bpils: -33 1.00 eS ete 15
Bao oh «30 -00 -02 .08 -97 1.00 19 2305; 1.06 eH 22
150. «3 215 -00 -03 .08 -94 1.00 -26 42 ~99 oi ie
Deeenduls { pool condition) ;
iG 04 05 -O4 G0) 4/ 18 -00 700 -00 [06neeIEOS
269 5
Mekho: al sallt/ -O4 205 05 .08 7 19 -00 -00 .00 - 06) ct<05
130 76 o Wik 503 205 «05 .08 Site! -00 -00 -00 ate 07
lies! 2 18 03 .06 .06 .08 20 00 -00 -00 On se O8
2530 8 Als! 308 -06 -06 08 20 -00 -00 00 On mlpen ©
aoe | 1 20 ators O07 OW, 09 we -00 -00 01 08° 4.15
mo (oy 221 02 08 08 09 23 00 00 02 OS win2e
We50 3 25 a2 -09 ae .10 Aye 00 00 05 10 i.56
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
Tables2s.
J
wre
a
~A.
wo I Cp
Galion! Nok.
161 5Sq) WMay es
44
.
9
USGS No. 05513000
-130-
; Bay Creek at Nebo
QC7, 10) "O200RerS
ee ae ee a a a a a i a se a i ee ss se ee es se ee ee
Mean Flow 96.7 cfs ;
Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
Releases
avg C/C
OSE EOS
03) 05
JOR, P27
04 1.08
PO ee tert)
<0 5
«OF: Ss2e
-04 He56
202 S208
HO i. (0)5)
OZ none
02° “308
502 ila 110
‘02 lo IS
OZ Niaee
02° “256
“54. “05
«55- “1105
55s) ilo (0)7/
255 NS
aaa) tha IG
«54 ate
54 eee
54. “156
16: SRDS
=) 9) aS
© KO “Orr
«19° “1208
oO altome)
sel” “tens
Ge Wo 22
24 Skee
ee es ee a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a a a ee a ew ee ew ee we wr ewe ee eww eee eee ee
769 5 00 SOO) -00 -00
dois} 7 00 00 00 00
1.250! *6 00 5(0)3} A010) -00
VAG = 2 -00 O4 -00 -00
Ds3o 48 00 OS) -00 -00
262 = -00 04 200 -00
Bed wet -00 00 00 -00
NOq50) 8 -00 -00 -00 -00
B. Adult ( runtile condition)
09 55 00 6, -00 -00
toulisi are -00 al -00 -00
W250 6 00 5 Wit 00 -00
dheoull. Be -00 18 -00 -00
Bago: 3 -00 ~ 18 -00 -00
Sno 4 -00 520) -00 -00
B25, 4 00 ee. -00 -00
1@o'50) 3 00 alts -00 -00
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
A69r 5 -96 00 -02 55
1oi3 7 -90 -00 OK, 5 IIS)
150) 36 .86 00 -08 5 15
{onl Ne 231 -00 09 ot
Zio AC ofS 500) 5 110) 5 hie
Boe -66 -00 512 “16
5.25 4 555) 00 eee 6 14/
1050) 93 39 .00 .18 auilts
D. Adult ( pool condition)
169. *5 -40 5 119) oI 520)
ost =f 41 . 6 523) 522
1.50 *6 42 18 523 523}
ach | 2 42 oll Tf we e24
22380 13 Hs 5 7 ne ges)
Bi.ioe, i oth 65) 26 -26
52> Wh 46 2 OT .28
ORS Oceas 47 08 5 5)0) 58)
Note Q = Minimum flow release
C/G
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-131-
TABLE 29. Costs and Fish Preferences: Bay Creek Basin (Pool Condition)
Q AC Fish number* with preference
foe cfs 10°s a CELE <0.1 Cleaver > -0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1.00
939°°0.19 0.064 J MIN / is AA ES eA oie)
GM He S07 4,8 eso o
A MIN 5-9 2
GM SACS lasee ) ES 5) 8)
POO 0 LoA28.\ J. .MIN Dee coil 8 1 Deion?
GM Diets I 4 8 1 520 9,
A MIN 2-5,/7-9 P36
GM oT Brose) DERE i) 6
O207°0.15 0.066 J MIN DED sel iy 1 3558)
GM 3,4,7,8 2 ES SIAL o eS)
A MIN 13-9 D
GM Sc iaacres) 26 2
Pool O.570. J. MIN Depb OMENS: 1 DO
GM DiS I 4,8 1 DROS
A MIN P39 2
GM STA aererens) 5.0 sae
Oi 02569 0.187 J MIN Dey a, 8 eels
GM 23 Aad 8 15 16,.9
A MIN 2-5, 7-9 16
GM i tees) VA 1 51,6
HOnoO 3.291 J MIN ae es 1 158 DO 9
GM 2 3,4 1 This: Dig Oyo
A MIN PREY TR otras} Le) 1.6
GM TET 9 Loos 45o76
* 1 = Bluegill, 2 = Bluntnose, 3 = Carp, 4 = Channel Cat, 5 = Largemouth Bass,
a
tl
Smallmouth Bass, 7 = Drum, 8 = White Bass, 9 = White Crappie
+ J and A denote Juvenile and Adult, respectively.
=132=
In the case of Bay Creek at Pittsfield (drainage area 3974 sqm )mememe
average fish preference for the riffles js negligible for both juveniles and
adults for the low flow range of 0.15 to 1.91 cfs. In the pools, ethesjuyge—
nile fish preference is about 0.40 with MIN and 0.45 with GM for the low flow
range studied. The preference for the adults is much lower, about 0.03 with MIN
and 0.11 with GM. The preferences are rather independent of the flow for the
Lance of On tom simcrs.
For Bay Creek at Nebo (drainage area 161 sq mi), the average fish
preference for the riffles is negligible for both juveniles and ad@itcmues
the low flow range of 0.69 to 10.50 cfs. In the pools, the juvenile fish
preference is about 0.46 with MIN and 0.55 with GM for the low flow range studied.
The preference for the adults is lower, varying from 0.06 to 0.10 with MIN and
from O18 ton0. 24. wath iEM
A summary of the fish preferences at the two ends of the low flow range
is given in table 29. It is evident that unless much higher flow releases
are considered, it may be satisfactory to keep minimum low flow release for
maintenance of the pools if the water quality is not adversely affected at
llow flows
Iv. Vermilion River Bastin. Cost ratio vs average fish preference
curves for juvenile and adult species, applicable to riffle and pool condi-
tions, are given in figure 2/7 for net water supply of 10 percent of mean
flow, 25-year design drought, and b = 0.75 for the following three stations:
079 N.F. Vermilion River near Charlotte Cy = $3.989 million
080 Vermilion River at Pontiac Ge = S67 20 mieletom
081 Vermilion River at Lowell C= SSS 2a msl eto
oO
1.20
NORTH FORK VERMILION RIVER NEAR CHARLOTTE
Juvenile
1.15
S
1 ear Ol eas a)
—
S
o1
POOL
RIFFLE —~—----
~>---= MIN
So ae > EM
COST RATIO, C/Co
VERMILION RIVER AT LOWELL
Juvenile
|
|
I
|
|
\
\
:
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1:0ie0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
AVERAGE FISH PREFERENCE
Figure 27. Cost ratio vs. average fish preference: Vermilion River Basin
-134-
The information used in developing the curves in figure 27 is given in tables
30 through 35. The 7-day 10-year low flows at the above stations are 0.00,
0.20, and 7.30 cfs. The 7-day 0-year low flow at Pontiac ais 2) 0nerememe
1.8 cfs is withdrawn by the town upstream of the gaging station.
For the North Fork Vermilion River near Charlotte (drainage area 186
sq mi), the average fish preference for the riffles is negligible for both
juveniles and adults for the low flow range of 0.49 to 2.16 cES. iimeene
pools, the juvenile fish preference is about 0.49 with MIN and 0.55 with
GM for the low flow range studied. The preference for the adults is much
lower, about 0.06 with MIN and 0.18 with GM. The preferences do not vary
appreciably with. increases in low) flow in the range of 0.49 to 2. voreaer
In the case of the Vermilion River at Pontiac (drainage area 579 sq mi),
the average fish preference for the riffles increases’ from 0.09 to O7lpeware
MIN and from 0.16 to 0.19 with GM for the juveniles, and decreases from 0.10
to 0.04 with MIN and 0.20 to 0.06 with GM for the adults, as Ghesitor
increases from 3.13 to 9.97 cfs. In the pools, the juvenile fish preference
is about 0.60 with MIN and 0.68 with GM, and the adult fish preference is
about 0.18 with MIN and 0.33 with GM for the low flow range studied. The
preferences for the pools are practically independent of the low flow release
within the study range.
For the Vermilion River at Lowell (drainage area 1278 sq mi), the
average fish preference for the riffles is about 0.10 with MIN and 0.17 with
GM for the juveniles, and about 0.03 and 0.05 for the adults for the low
flow range of 8.95 to 26.20 cfs. In the pools, the juvenile fish’ preference
is about 0.71 with MIN and 0.76 with GM, and the adult fish preference
increases from 0.33 to 0.46 with MIN and from 0.48 to 0.59 with an increase in
-135-
Table 30. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 79 ; USGS No. 05554000 ; N. F. Vermilion River near Charlotte
Sepeeeioe sg Mi s Mean Flow 124 cfs ;:. Q(7,10) 0.00 cfs
Q Suitability for Fish Number
efs No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 mM 8 9 avg C/C,
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
49 65 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 -00 00 OOM le OS
455), es -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -01 00 -00 -00 OOM tO
oS) ald -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -02 00 -00 -00 500) WoOS
¢95. 6 -00 00 00 -00 -00 02 00 00 00 p00) - WoOS
108° 4 00 00 00 -00 S00 08 -00 00 -00 sO. Ol lte Oli
fe09° <4 -00 00 -00 -00 00 03 -00 -00 200 010) Pg ON
331 8 -00 00 -00 -00 sO) O04 00 -00 -00 sOT. = TWeaO8
aero <3 00 -00 -00 00 08 -06 -00 00 -00 sO ~ 16 138}
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
549 5 -90 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 00 00 OOP S208
255 2 00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 00) 1208
ts. Tt -00 -00 00 00 -00 -00 00 -00 00 OOP ts05
263. 6 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 00 OOF et n05
1508 -4 -00 05 -00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 oO oll
eO9 - 1 00 05 -00 -00 00 -00 00 -00 -00 S01) ay
34 --8 -00 allO 00 -00 00 00 00 -00 -00 201 1608
2eto °3 -00 225 -00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 JOB aalients
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
s49 5 1.00 -00 00 50% AoO@O Ao l0Xo OM sil WoO) 48-1203
| a5: -2 1.00 00 00 OAM nae OOM mt O.0 02 G2 ‘Nolo EHS “1203
2 eee 1.00 -00 00 OMAN he COIs Wi00 O04 Ses OO 48 1.05
303 6 OO -00 -90 a OAme le OO at) 10,0 O04 523) > ko OO sH8. ©1805
7:08 4 1.00 -00 -00 SO = OO) 1.100 -06 CO OO FOr P Ts07
HaO9 .1 1.00 00 -00 Ome OO me 19,0 -06 525) Wol0) oa S107
asa © 6 1.00 -00 00 Ome OOM) 00 08 e266 1.00 «89 141.08
2b 3 1.00 00 On siO(Am lie OOl me 00 me SO OO. 550) a3!
| D. Adult ( pool condition)
49 «+5 P| -O4 -O4 02 Or + 16 -00 -00 00 (0/5) ipa f0)3!
OD) t2 = Ve -O4 -O4 -02 O07 16 -00 -00 -00 SS) 503}
ge aa | 5S) -O4 04 o(0)3} SON omits 00 00 -00 <06: 24.05
405 ©6 ats O04 -O4 203 O07 SI -00 100 00 06) =1505
He00, -4 «16 04 OS O04 OWA 18 00 -00 00 O65 9107
1.09 1 -16 O04 05 -O4 Orn .18 -00 -00 -00 06 *1.07
ead 28 Sal lité -O4 05 =05 07 te -00 -00 -00 .06 S106
ewao <3 ~ 18 03 06 -06 -08 720) -00 -00 00 SOW ie ss
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
—136-
Table 31. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 79 3; USGS No. 05554000 ; N. F. Vermilion River near Charlotte
D.A. 186 Sq Mi $ Mean’ Flow. 124 cfs): ,10(7, 10), 0200.céS
ee a a a on i is ne en i we es ss se a a ee ee ae a es ee ee ee ee
mee a a a ee ee ee ae a ae a a a es ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
49 95 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -06 -00 -00 -00 -01 1.03
5D. We -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -09 -00 -00 -00 OT Sos
awe I -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 ol2 -00 -00 -00 Ol, tieO5
=o3 HG -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -14 -00 -00 -00 «02 pi.05
1.08 4 -00 -00 -00 -00 .06 oie -00 00 -00 203. SiO
39° il -00 -00 00 00 06 17 -00 -00 -00 03, Bie7
iS es -00 -00 -00 -00 -10 19 -00 -00 -00 03, 71.08
Qe 5 -00 00 -00 -00 olf. HES} -00 -00 -00 05 eis
B. Adult ( riffille condition)
ato 5 00. <00. 500, 200, 00: 200. ..00) «.00., 290 00 Wiie0s
2 00) 00. 00 200) OC .00 00, 00), =.00 00: -atO3
if .00 .00 .00 .00 s00 00) . ..@0), ..60 .00 300° 24.105
6 .00 300, 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 °° 00). ~.00 00 et505
1.08). 4 -00 . 16 -00 00. . 00), .60 .00 00. 00 02) B07
1 .00 HS -00 .00 .00: -—.00) '..00 <00.. 2.60 02 BiheOT
8 .00 22) _ 200 300. 00. <00° .00. 200 , 06 02 .i.Gs
3 .00 -33 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 200. 400 t 1.00 »56 1.08
3
Pin N6 1.00 -00 - 10 o5e 9 100) 5100 34 ~55 1.00 «Savas
D. Adult ( pool condition)
e449 5 . 38 Ae | oii ie -26 34 -00 -00 -00 o WT wages
359) Re . 38 weal -19 14 -26 34 -00 -00 -00 lt wie
3 39 -20 -20 Sli 126 235 -00 -00 -00 17 S1S65
+03) WG 39 720) S| -18 -26 BE) -00 -00 -00 . 18 ees
HadG, 34 Oo 19 Bae 22 el 36 00 -00 00 18s Beer
1309) Al 40 19 522 wen 27 . 36 -00 00 00 18 See
esl) BS a) 19 ace wae wail ost 00 -00 00 19° 1.86
2a6- eS 43 Paks) 24 24 29 a30 -00 00 -00 20 Gai
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C/C_ = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
e167=
Table 32. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 80 ; USGS No. 05554500 ; Vermilion River at Pontiac
Dene 5To Sq Mi; Mean Flow 378 efs.; Q(7,10) 0.20 cfs
——
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
Bers Ae -00 Sy | -00 -00 -09 Pil) ) -00 -00 -00 709) 71.08
past? 15 -00 «GT -00 -00 =, aS 00 -00 -00 =1OT Et.
4.99 (4 01 210 -00 -00 ae) Sih) -00 -00 -00 sik Oiel3
Bie bi. if -01 mil -00 -00 211 = 16 -00 -00 -00 se el
6.26: 01 -01 wiht, -00 -00 5 (lal 216 00 -00 -00 te telG
6.70 .6 20.1 -80 -00 -00 id slht 00 -00 -00 Sate a al
S.2e 8 02 205 -00 -00 sia ais -00 -00 -00 ans a 520
Papt «3 02 - 80 -00 -00 aS) 19 -00 -00 -00 ot3) tt .24
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
Bets ce -00 sOL -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 - 00 BOne aie aks}
ae 5 00 - 80 00 00 00 -00 00 -00 -00 S08) eo 4
4.99 4 -00 -70 -00 00 -00 200 -00 -00 -00 08 et.13
Sari: 1.00 <60) Ot.13
Sari © T 99 -00 nls s0)F BOO) Ale, <6 -66. 1.00 264 Spa
6.26 1 -99 00 5 113) Oe 100). 1.0.0 -51 266. 1.00 Ot) Fhe 16
6
8
3
ine)
99 -00 a l3 O07. 71.00) © 1.00 aii “065 1.00 oat) Sethe Ay,
98 -00 214 307), 11600 1.00 -63 sOfs 11.00 261 $1220
-97 -00 eye) Oe? 1.00), 1.00 64 oo 1.00 G61 Veet
D. Adult ( pool condition)
2 44 90 Sails: « 14 Balls) -40 -00 00 Bali ly SVs
5 46 -00 219 a ee «6 41 -00 -00 219 ai a alee
4 ally -00 Plits) 14 PS iio) 41 00 -00 -20 alr Salih
mart: ft 49 -00 20 Pa = 16 42 -00 -00 oz || ote Ft.
1
6
8
3
= Minimum flow release
C/C, = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-138-
Table 33. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No.
D.A.
D9 Sq Mak 35
80
’
USGS
No.
05554500
Mean Flow
.
b
Vermilion River at Pontiac
Bye) Wiest p
QiC7s 10) "Oa 20%ers
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
91
( riffle condition)
-00
00; Se
-00 - 34
-00 5 alt
-00 5335
-00 535
-00 - 36
-00 5 Xe)
-00 239
condition)
ON 42
OM (3)
-06 44
06 44
-06 44
-06 45
-06 45
05 46
es eS ety eh eS
eo er se) er oF ie 6"
Sve Ses Se SS
oe ay et ee? ier ‘e™ 6C¥e
Sheesh eh Shes Ss Hs
‘am 267 0? 6% 0% ‘0.7 V8
ee
oe, @4 ep ef Sy. Co. un 7e
ae a a a er
° eq 6, ap “8g (6) “2
— —) =) —)2 —) — —’ —3
oy -@) (6) ‘e@, ey eo, ay @
SS a ee ee ee) eS
. (eet amex Deed Saaeeat \aiaet )
Minimum flow release
3513 2 OO
4013 5 503}
4.99 4 -O4
Sri | ae 205
6.26) 05
6270) =6 -06
G22 Te -06
STO 33 05
Bi Adiuilky
S513 2 -00
Hens 35 -00
4.99 4 -00
Prahie tih -00
SAL | -00
Gu) 86 -00
S222 #8 -00
9.97 "3 -00
35 3 2 1.00
Wt AS 1.00
4.99 4 1.00
Dit et 1.00
6.26 71 100
Gaf0 6 99
8.22 8 99
9 %3 -99
D. AGLI ( pool!
Zl -22 . 66
Beis 1S -68
4.99 4 -69
Diet Pal SE
6326, Bi ho
6.70 76 = nO
Ben22° VG 52
9.97 3S aps}
Note Q =
CC
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-139-
Table 34. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 81 3; USGS No. 05555500 ; Vermilion River at Lowell
Seneeierorsad Mi + Mean Flow 734 cfs 3; .Q(7,10) 7.30 cfs
ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee eee
me ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee et ee ee ee ee ee ee
a iiiienintiieniniendiediediee teed
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
M295 3°2 202 74 -00 -00 nS 219 -00 500) -00 62 TAOS)
mae 10r *4 -O4 sil 200 -00 sa Oe -00 00 -00 51@) Weil}
ieee. (5 .O4 47 -00 -00 3 4 523 00 00 -00 eC ew tet
oe5°\'7 O4 42 -00 -00 18 24 -00 -00 -00 S10 Ge6
eeOrr = tT -03 5538) -00 -00 -20 26 -00 -00 -00 S09 Te tals
P2293 °'6 03 58) -00 -00 -20 -26 -00 -00 -00 1099 vie ls
20.90 8 302 20 -00 00 ee. 29 -00 00 02 POS eae
26.2083 00 Helo) -00 -00 aa Se 00 00 mo SOON EZ
Beeeaault € riffle condition)
8.95 2 00 29 -00 -00 00 00 00 -00 -00 OB EOS
T3210 4 00 27 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 OB Mens
WSiclee aS} 00 26 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 @2- Yaa
faast. Tt 00 25 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 037 FLat6
WoO cal 00 24 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 00 00 O37 Gha ls
Khs93 206 00 24 00 -00 00 -00 00 00 00 OS teats
20.90 8 00 22 -00 -00 00 -00 00 00 00 OZ ikea
26620 ° 3 00 21 00 -00 00 00 00 00 00 O27 sile26
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
a295 212 SSE 00 56 SOR WsOO Wee -78 Ko. lado OG eho
te10< 94 395 00 5S 507 Sele) (Oo) 81 Oe Vado foloee® eeu 3
1lge92. 75 94 -00 78 ON: 299.) 12.00 yo) ie. 1000 Tal ee tea eat
foes. ST 92 -00 - 84 ON, Oras OO 82 79) 100 These
isegO! (et 88 -00 . 86 ON, a99 ey 1200 84 80 1.00 S72 TB LaAls
e934 6 . 88 -00 . 86 ON, 599) 1.00 84 80). 12100 S62 ESAS
20290) °8 363 200 89 sO OOM Ol ~85 Si Woo 5 ee Nee
26220: ‘3 -76 -00 92 AOI -99 1.00 Pich(f 82". 1400 Tl Onl e26
D. Adult ( pool condition)
8.95 2 73 00 315 V7 21 55) 47 00 52 Bis) NGOS)
W410 6 eh 78 00 44 18 Ze. J Sif 63 01 60 B08 Oats
13e Ce 15 78 00 45 18 323 58 64 01 61 BO) Sia
toast oT. 80 00 48 18 23 59 67 02 64 HO teat
ge GO: 01 81 00 254 18 23 -60 T2 03 66 1 ALS
T9316 81 00 54 18 23 -60 V2 03 66 NO eae
20.90 8 83 00 61 19 24 61 76 05 68 ea
26.120 3 85 00 69 19 25 63 79 06 11 HO tte 6
Note Q Minimum flow release
C/C = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-140-
Table 35. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 81 3; USGS No. 05555500 ; Vermilion River at Lowell
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
D.A. 1278 Sq ‘Mi; (Mean Flow? (7345cfs! 2 OG 10) 7esOmers
Q Suitability for Fish Number
efs No 1 2 3 4 5 6 te 8 9 ave “CAG
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
829542 505 81 -00 00 34 43 -00 00 00 18221209
te Oe 505) 52 -00 -00 . 38 -46 -00 00 -00 18 Pet3
W592 5 .O4 .68 00 00 6 BIS. 46 -00 -00 -00 e417 Seen
ste e al 305 765 00 -00 ~39 ae, 00 -00 -00 OTT Telest6
Wio8® 1 -O4 -58 -00 00 eal 49 -00 -00 -00 Pa iff tlh cake)
293406 O4 58 -00 00 41 49 -00 -00 -00 i hee ot no)
20290 Fao -o4 44 -00 00 a2 50 -00 -00 Bal! acl Te Gale
Z26ec0m Ss 02 . 38 -00 00 43 0 BZ 00 -00 - 30 Pa icme 26)
B. sAdult ( vetilescondition)
sigeisn 2 00 54 00 00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 06 = 09
‘steal Ola 00 Oe 00 00 00 00 00 00 -00 06-7 teats
WBeQe 5 00 sil -00 00 00 00 -00 00 -00 06 ae teas
Sie Si ae 00 550) 00 00 -00 00 00 -00 700 eat
Wo3h 7 89 00 69 a2 48 66 82 5 IS - 80 55" eae
WHoSlO 7 -90 00 Sat gA3 48 =67, 85 19 81 56. Slams
vpn cee 5 -90 00 74 ats 48 S07. 85 219 Rie) -56° Seas
2090! ao 91 -00 oo e438 49 uC 87 HE 83 -58° “ieee
2620S 92 00 83 44 150 68 .89 525 84 «59 Sees
Note Q = Minimum flow release
C/C. = Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
TABLE 36. Costs and Fish Preferences: Vermilion River Basin (Pool Condition)
Q AC Fish number* with preference
foeeers 105 tt Crit sok OW10-0.524° 0.225-0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1.00
eo 0249 0.124 J MIN Die D sear 8 ee ae sian]
GM Var) 4,7 8 HOw
A MIN 2-5 ,/-9 6
GM TE Seipes) Diy Bus 4 i550
Pee 025 30 1) J .MIN Zod 94 7 8 Ibias end ope)
GM 2 3,4 7 8 Mao.,09
A MIN 2-5,/-9 16
GM Tor, 9 2 Sih le, |0
Oe0rpsel5_ 0.532 J MIN Zigly 3 758 A ,0%9
GM Z. 4 3 ee)
A MIN 25h, 8 3545559 so
GM PST ieee) Sie one) 1
Soom (628° J. MIN PE 3 Uts: Ledi5,05 9
GM 2 4 5 1,5-9
A MIN Zihes® 34 52 6,9 1
GM Te} ee ies) 156
Gam no. 95 /1.036° J MIN Joga 5 £59
GM 2 4 so 52-9
A MIN 258 4,5 Beh LGu9
GM 250 43 TO 559 1
Pore 22.970 J MIN 2,4 133-9
GM 2 4 RS ae,
A MIN 2.50 4 5 Silda! eee.
GM Z 4,8 SS) SS aees,
*~
e
I
= Bluegill, 2 = Bluntnose, 3 = Carp, 4 = Channel Cat, 5 = Largemouth Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, 7 = Drum, 8 = White Bass, 9 = White Crappie
fo)
Il
+ J and A denote Juvenile and Adult, respectively.
flow from 8.95 to 26.20 cfs. The cost-preference curve steepens as the ratio
¢ :
lo inereases.
Oo
A summary of the fish preferences at the two ends of the low flow range
is given in Table 36. It is evident that unless much higher flow releases
are considered, it may be satisfactory to keep minimum low flow releases for
maintenance of the pools if the water quality is not affected adversely at
low flows. Generally, the fish preferences increase with drainage area,
largely because of higher pool depths.
Vv. S.F. Sanganon River Bastn. Cost ratio vs average fish preference curves
for juvenile and adult species, applicable to riffle and pool conditions, are
drawn in figure 28 for a net water supply of 10 percent of mean flow, 25-year
desien drought, andib = 02/75, fer thevfollowing three stations:
096 Flat Branch near Taylorville C, = $§ 5.877 mation
097 S.F. Sangamon River at Kincaid C, = § 7.765 midiaon
098 S.F. Sangamon River near Rochester Cy = $11.164 million
The information used in developing the curves in figure 28 is given in tables
37 through 42. The 7-day 10-year low flows at the above stations are 0.00,
O27 9 and O[S45crse
For the Flat Branch near Taylorville (drainage area 276 sq mi), the
average fish preference for the riffles is about 0.06 with MIN and 0.13
with GM for the juveniles and about 0.03 and 0.02 for the adults, for the
low flow rangesof 1.02 to 8.17 cis. Im the pools; the juvenile fish epres
ference is about 0.55 with MIN and 0.64 with GM for the low flow range
studied. The preference for the adults is much lower, from 0.11 to 0.16
with MIN and from 0.26 to 0.31 with GM as the flow increases from 1.02 to
8.17 cfs. The preferences do not increase appreciably with increase in flow.
1.4
w
N
Sis
Zz
ie} ==
at =| Oo
eae, <1
es
el
|
| |
og
let = \ oe]
POOL
RIFFOe == —
COST RATIO, C/Co
SOUTH FORK SANGAMON RIVER NEAR ROCHESTER
Juvenile
1.0
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 0 0.25 0.50 0:75 1.0
AVERAGE FISH PREFERENCE
Figure 28. Cost ratio vs. average fish preference: S.F. Sangamon Basin
Table 37. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 96 ;
De Are
27 O Su. aan
USGS No. 05574500 ;
Mean Flow
’
ZOBMCiySmes
Flat Branch near Taylorville
QiC7, 10) 0.00 efs
i a ea ae a a a a a a ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
-00
-00
-00
OM
OZ
01
-00
-00
202
-76
04
-90
“52
OlWWNHN—- —
OEWWNHNM - —
1
DO
C. . Juvenile ( pool condition)
WFoO-= ANN VU
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
= 30
36
29
28
24
moe
221
seat
onl)
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
( riffle condition)
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-00
-O4
~05
-05
06
06
06
-O7
210
condition)
-01
-01
-01
01
- 10
«12
se
SS)
5) 6
O07 11
-09 aa
10 = 15
11 A lit
12 Sells)
Sais: 19
1 19
19 25
-00 00
-00 -00
00 -00
00 -00
-00 -00
00 -00
00 -00
-00 00
100" 100
1000 1.00
-99 1.00
99 1.00
99 1.00
99 1.00
99 1.00
298° 12.00
11 29
12 -32
Sie ese
2 34
13 oo
i) ASS
PS | e355
IN) 39
Minimum flow release
1602 5 -99
Ath 2 -97
ZOU -96
2.90) +6 . 88
Bo52 1 83
3.90 8 . 80
OG et Otel)
81%. 3 48
D. Adulit: (© pool!
c@2 5 28
eyo, 2 oS
Z2cO4 4 V2
2.906 34
Broo, ol 535)
3590 a6 - 36
ORL wy 5 Sh
Sealion es 52
Note Qs
C/\ Ca
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
Table 38. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 96 ;
D.A.
276 Sq Mi;
USGS No.
Mean Flow 203 cfs ;
05574500 ;
?
Flat Branch near Taylorville
G(7,'10);.0200: cfs
ee eee
Suitability for Fish Number
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a eee ee
ee ee ee ee ee ee es ee a ee ee ee ee ee we ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee
he Juvenile ( riffle condition)
—_ = att 2 od = 3 —
6 48, 8, ie. - 48 Ye, 2
—_— oe -2 —-9 3 —-3 = —
eo i. © o @ © 8, ©
— —_3 3 =) 3 —- = — 3
ey .8.\ <3) 5a: ©, ‘. “2... ©
a oe a oe oe a er |
aL. i "eh .@>-/e: 0: “6. (es
e295 -00 5 -00
1s 76) .2 -00 64 -00
P204..7 aOin 63 -00
2590, 6 ~02 52 00
Boece 7) 02 42 00
3390 -8 Onl 39 -00
4.08 4 01 «38 -00
oa ie} 00 523} 00
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
TaO2en5 00 255 -00
Leto. 2 -00 53 -00
A SOu e 7 -00 55 -00
2590 «6 -00 49 -00
Bini aul -00 47 00
3.90 8 00 46 00
4.08 4 -00 46 .00
Better 3 00 39 00
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
Oe, a5 -99 -00 20
tenOan2 98 -00 ae
2204 «.»7 .98 00 5 23}
24900 ~6 94 -00 24
2asy2 91 -00 CD
3290» .8 .89 00 nZ5)
4.08 4 88 00 .26
CailitiasS -69 00 31
D. Adult ( pool condition)
Made & 5 455 ami) we
Tepov-2 -56 «10 34
2504 =»7 a5 .09 ~35
2006 9.09 +36
Seba. <1 -60 .09 «at
3.90 8 -60 09 “37
4.08 4 -60 .08 #38
eww: 3 65 607 41
Note Q = Minimum flow release
CAG, ns
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
Z1h6=
Table 39. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 97 ; USGS No. 05575500 ; S. F. Sangamon River at Kineaid
D.A. 562 Sq Mi s Mean Flow 408 cfs 3 "O(7,10)*0s79"%cES
me ee ee ee ee a ea ee a ee
ee ee a i ss a ss a a ee ee ee a ee a a a a a a a a es a ew ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
Hele = 15 00 19 -00 -00 -09 «13 -00 -00 -00 05.94 208
5530 ih -00 -13 -00 -00 -09 214 -00 -00 -00 sOUY “Weel
Bebb #92 -00 011 -00 -00 -99 14 -00 00 -00 OH" en8
50 6 -90 08 -00 -00 - 10 14 -00 -00 -00 Oe Savas
9.00° 8 -00 -06 -00 -00 -10 a) -00 -00 -00 037 “Was
9.80 4 -00 05 -00 -00 -10 ~15 -00 -00 -00 -03 1.19
T4530 4 -00 04 -00 -00 -10 015 -00 -00 -00 203" Mileage
19G60m F3 -00 02 -00 -00 211 216 -00 -00 -90 03: Bss7
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
Wed 3, 85 -00 ee -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 02> 4506
Dia 30) >i -00 -20 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 s02) "tM
P05 =e -00 19 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 S02) sale
Tes 30) M0 -00 a Mi -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 02> Meas
9.00 8 00 215 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 02 ~=fene
9.80 4 -00 aal'5 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 O02 eng
AteeSOls sal 00 oS) -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 OT te
1eo0's a3 -00 -09 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 “Ot Ay
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
We 25 93 -00 = 0 ~O7 -99 1.00 55 S05) 10 59° 108
Biko 0) > oe 89 -00 Ail 07: -99 1.00 56 «03 1200 “50° Waal
Died: ee 38 -00 ia 07 -99 1.00 56 7638 1.00 50 = ionlnl
Tae 0) Pa6 -80 -00 o11 07 -99 1.00 257 -64 1.00 <50 = tee
9.00 8 “if -00 my fli 07 -99 1.00 =50 s64° 1500 257 > tans
9.80 4 12 -00 -11 -O7 -99 1.00 258 HOH 1500 OT haa
VASO «07 -00 mln 08 -99 1.00 58 sort 15100 “507 tee
7960 © 3 48 -00 5 123 .08 -98 1.00 259 705 1.100 54. Test
D. Adult ( peol condition)
Nhs 25 tS 01 ST. a3 5 IIS -40 -00 -00 5 UT 16 tgs
S650) | 4 44 -00 Blt) 14 «15 -40 00 00 -18 Palbifee Pio 1
Ss Alolsiae= 44 -00 18 «t4 5 IS -40 OW -00 18 «lt “lee
ess O! 6 45 -00 etd 14 BS) -40 00 00 ailis: ly@t cilo '5
9:00! £28 46 JON Pals) 14 Balls; 41 -00 00 19 olT “Wane
O.180) at 46 00 18 Balt -16 41 00 00 19 elt tas
Piles Oy al 46 00 Puts, 14 6 41 -00 00 mg ht = eaters
19:i60' 143 SUT, -00 19 14 AG 44 00 00 20 ALT © alioesivt
Note: Q Minimum flow release
= Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-147-
Table 40. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 97 ; USGS No. 05575500 3; S. F. Sangamon River at Kincaid
D.A. 562 Sq Mi; Mean Flow 408 cfs ; Q(7,10) 0.79 cfs
em ee we ee ee ee me ee ee ee ee eee ee ee re ee ee a eee
me me me ee a ee ee es ee ee ee ee ee ee ee a a a ee ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
Has. .5 -00 3 32 -00 -00 ent 34 00 -00 -00 whOwetaOo
S50 7 -00 C2 -00 00 eu 33 -00 -00 -00 ley AS al
BieO> suc 00 26 -00 00 SATE 5 -00 -00 -00 5 VQ) hea
f250'. 6 -00 wee 00 00 26 5 Se -00 -00 -00 sO alos
9.00 8 -00 19 -00 -00 wep 5 3)] 00 -00 -00 [Oley eae sits)
9.80 4 00 o NT -00 00 525) 550) -00 -00 -00 HOO Pi Ve l9
ples Ol at -00 16 -00 -00 24 29 OO -00 -00 Ole AA
19600: 3 00 42 -00 00 520 326 00 -00 00 S067 sles
B. Adult ( riffle condition)
teh 5 -00 46 00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 305 Senos
55 Sie) Af -00 44 00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 505 WoW
Bb5. -2 00 43 00 00 00 00 -00 00 00 OF — Wot
350 6 00 44 -00 00 00 00 -00 00 00 OS. ho 15)
900 ..8 00 39 -00 00 00 00 30.0 00 00 O44 -- 1218
9.60 - 4 00 38 -00 00 00 -00 00 00 00 OW eo 1.19
lees). i 00 36 -00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 OE tee
ng300 3 00 30 -00 00 00 -00 -00 00 00 3 to Si
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
aati <5 96 -00 532 5G WoO oolw Ripe US We OW £67 Beso
50 S10) Ue 94 -00 5333} Oe OOM atOO ofS 79 1.00 sOn oh lall
565 ..2 94 -00 53)3) 51S W5OO Wao 5S Se e010 SO we tet
(Ses) ~90 00 58) SI WoOO “WoO oe 80; 12,00 H067 214815
9.00 8 - 86 -00 = 333) Ol OOOO ano 80 1.200 SOO 4 yats
9.80 4 “05 -00 0 333) SIS EO WE OW Baie) 80 1400 aO0 21.819
lo SiO 9 -82 00 533 51S) WoO teow ano 80" 14100 SOO nel eee
119-60! ~ <3 69 -00 - 34 -20 -99 1.00 onal: 81 1200 S64 se a3 7
De sAduit ( pool condition)
Bats pe5 -66 O7 42 5 Sif 39 54 00 00 44 22 ba 1808
By SHO) Hf 66 O7 42 0 Sie 39 54 00 00 42 S32 wile
5205 <92 66 07 42 oN - 39 54 00 00 42 B32 Pe lent
a0 eb 67 07 42 2317, 39 55 00 00 43 Be Tava5
9200 > -8 68 07 43 ea? -40 55 00 00 43 Some
G260), 4 68 06 43 5 31 -40 55 00 00 43 Be Wo ls)
eles Oe 21 68 06 43 aie -40 55 00 00 43 Be. Woee
19.60 3 69 06 4y 237. -40 56 00 00 4y Bie. Me Sih
Note Q Minimum flow release
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
=148=
Table 41. Fish Suitability (MIN Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 98 ;
DeyAte
867 Sq
Mi
USGS No. 05576000
; Mean Flow
;
S. F. Sangamon River near Rochester
Saleen sures
QC7 > 10) 0.64" ers
a a a a a a a a a a a a a ee ae a a a a a a a ee ee ee
a a in i a ee a a a a aa a a a ee a ee ee
ea a a a we a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a oe = ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
82.00) 5 -00 Salli -00
8210 62 -00 5 th -00
WOs27 7% 00 09 -00
W244 © -00 olO}S) -00
16%, 20 00 -O4 -00
18.5209 68 -00 -O4 -00
Io oo 7h -00 308 -00
37.80" '3 010 5 (0) 7] -00
Be Adult ( riffle condition)
8500) 5 -00 19 -00
8510 92 -00 Se) SOO
VWO>o27 -7 - 00 malts: -00
VAS = 6 -00 15 -00
N6e20 94 -00 14 -00
Nein 20) a 4) -00 4 IS) -00
18.90" “4 TOO = 3} -00
37.00 =3 Onl -08 -00
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
8.00) #5 ao -00 5
B10 2 ato -00 535)
VOSA <7 69 -00 5/5) ||
qc 6 5 Bz -00 -13
16.2010 45 -00 79
I6e20" ea 42 -O00 85
190 eet 5339) -00 - 86
37.580 ~°3 Ball(S) - 00 95
D Adult ( pool condition)
8.00 5 Gif -00 350
By il0i eae Bch / -00 - 30
WOG2H 7 afl -00 34
1s eo eHtai -00 43
162205 34 19 -00 46
18.520 +8 a6 -00 351
18.90 24 81 00 553)
a 000 "23 -90 00 -90
Note Q = Minimum flow release
C/AG=—
Ratio of reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
= 149-
Table 42. Fish Suitability (GM Criterion) for the Range of Low Flow Releases
Station No. 98 ; USGS No. 05576000 ; S. F. Sangamon River near Rochester
Duamemcorecqg Mi ; Mean Flow 571 cfs’; Q(7,10) 0.84 cfs
a a a a a a ee ew ee ee ee ee
A. Juvenile ( riffle condition)
8.00 5 -00 33 00 -00 «35 42 -00 -00 -00 Stee 109
B.10 2 -00 53 -00 -00 235 42 200 -00 -00 sea) 09
loge]. 7 00 - 30 -00 00 cSt uy -00 00 00 12s a lel
14.41 6 -00 -20 -00 -00 20 44 -00 -00 26 ee Ald
Wo.20 863 -00 218 -00 00 s30 44 00 -00 Sy Shonen thei)
ie.20 8 00 ila -00 00 38 45 -00 -00 39 ee aes
18.90 4 -00 = 16 00 -00 . 38 45 00 00 44 N6oo lence.
Spread 3 00 05 00 -00 530 4S 00 -00 66 Ve Aes
Beeekauit (riffle condition)
62.001 "5 -00 44 -00 -00 -00 00 00 -00 -00 205) 1209
B10 -2 -00 44 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 2055 1209
OL 7 sf -00 42 200 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 05> ele
W416 00 330 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 00 JOU MI ly
16.20: 1 .00 ASA -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 sO4 = 1.49
18.20 °8 =O) -36 -00 -00 200 -00 -00 00 -00 SOA liscH
18.90 4 a ON 635 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 cOu 122
a7.6c0 3 203 -26 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 “03 1.43
C. Juvenile ( pool condition)
B200545 89 -00 260 e205 7.008 1.00 387 ¥864 1200 ST . Ta09
Sato 2 89 00 -60 HeO ee OO 1.00 87 so0) 1.00 Ha Ne09
Wweey -T 83 -00 71 205) 12002 51.100 88 By -=1.00 te. tee
oad. 6 Te -00 85 21 299) -1..\00 90 88 1.00 eS noe a
ie yaya 0 nae 68 00 .89 21 992 200 90 g89!. 2100 G3 “ESTO
hea2o. 8 64 -00 92 21 =99) 1200 91 209s WOO TS tee
1890644 63 00 93 21 A979 100 91 £090" sO 3. wleee
87.00 3 -40 00 Git 22 297 1/00 95 «92. 1300 th tess
De Adult ( pool condition)
8.00 65 “02 -00 5155) 41 245 +62 ~/3))| -00 -66 e445 1509
6.110 <2 82 00 255 41 245 62 = oi 00 66 45 - 1.09
1.27 °F 85 -00 258 41 -46 63 65 -00 A HG ete 12
14.41 6 . 88 00 65 42 47 65 79 -08 it Se it eell
16, 20re1 89 00 68 42 48 66 6.1 12 79 Sf ea ee LS)
16.20° 8 90 00 WA 43 48 66 83 ay 81 Bor ite
18.90 4 90 00 3 43 48 67 84 18 81 56> 22
37-00 3 91 -00 95 045 51 pe 93 33 88 63 11.43
Note: Q = Minimum flow release
C7/Cereanavtoro:, reservoir cost with Q to that with Q=0 (T=25 years,
net water supply equals 10% of mean flow)
-150-
In the case of South Fork Sangamon River at Kincaid (drainage area
562 sq mi), the average fish preference for the riffles is about 0.04 with
MIN and 0.09 with GM for the juveniles, and about 0.02 and 0.04 for the
adults, for the low flow range’ of 4.13 to 19760 cis. in they pooltomueae
juvenile fish preference is about 0.57 with MIN and 0.66 with GMee=amaeeee
adult fish preference is 0.17 with MIN and 0.32 with GM, forthe lowsrlem
range studied. The fish preferences are practically unaffected by change
ing flow wlthin tthewrangenot 4.13 Lomo o0mers:
For the South Fork Sangamon River near Rochester (drainage area 86/7 sq mi),
the average fish preference for the riffles varies from 0.05 to 0.14 with MIN
and from 0.12 to 0.17 with GM for the juveniles and about 0.02 with MIN and
0.04 with GM for the adults, for the llow flow range of 8.00 to237 ,60neree
In the pools, the juvenile fish preference is about 0.65 with MIN and 0.72
with GM, and the adult fish preference increases from 0.28 to 0.52 with MIN
and from 0.45 to 0.63\with GM as the flow increases from 8.00) to 37 260Rerse
There is a significant increase in adult fish preference with increase in
flow but there is no such effect for the juveniles in the pools.
A summary of the fish preferences at the two ends of the low flow
range is given in table 43. It is evident that unless much higher flow
releases are considered, it may be satisfactory to keep minimum low flow
releases for stations 096 and 097 for maintenance of the pools if the
water quality is not affected adversely at low flows. The adult fish
preferences increase with drainage area, largely because of higher pool
depths.
TABLE 43. Costs and Fish Preferences: S.F. Sangamon River Basin (Pool Condition)
10) AC Fish number* with preference
Now “cts 10°s fee a Greist SOL @.10-0.24 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1.00
eee os OL 180° J MIN De Sih Jigs) eo xO 5'9
GM 2 3,4 Tes) 05.9
A MIN Zeit Ok, o
GM Tears) 2 3545 DBORS) 1
Solge.3o7 J MIN 24 3 1 mie) See)
GM 2 4 5) Le DEO),
A MIN Di AO BRO iG
GM Lith 5S Sieg oD 6
Uje 13 82654 J MIN 2,4 3 ile) eorO 49
GM 2 4 3 Z Ls 57, 0 5059
A MIN DTS Beep Nes, 16
GM 21s o Bee 9 1y'6
roo 2.901 J’ MIN Dig 3 1 Hats) Bystchy S)
GM 2 4 s) l 5-9
A MIN Did so Beta) 6
GM 25450 Sis nS RS)
C8395 .00 91.049 J “MIN 254 3 8 ie ST AN ARS)
GM ez 4 3} i o=9
A MIN ‘ a5 3147 69) 6
GM Vas) 4,5 S057 .9 It
By o0 8 4.752.° 5 MIN 2,4 1 3, OT 9
GM 2 4 1 3,9—9
A MIN 2 4,8 5 6 LS Rae)
GM 2D 4,8 >) 0 GAS ew BA)
7
—
|
seelieciii., 2 = Sluntnose,3°= Carp, 4 = Channel Cat, 5 = Largemouth Bass,
Smallmouth Bass, 7 = Drum, 8 = White Bass, 9 = White Crappie
fon)
I
t J and A denote Juvenile and Adult, respectively.
—1
On
QD
a
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
The hydraulic geometry parameters (flow velocity and depth, V and D;
flow width, W; and flow section area, A) have been derived (Singh, 1981),
but only V and D are given in this report for 8 low flow releases at each
of the 123 gaging stations. Methodologies have been developed for adjusting
reservoir storage to allow for capacity loss from evaporation and sedimen-
tation in the reservoir, for various design droughts and net water supply
rates of 2, 5, 10 and 20 percent of mean flow. The velocity-depth domains
have been analyzed for the juveniles and adults of the nine target £ish:
bluegill, bluntnose, carp, channel cat, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass,
drum, white bass, and white crappie. The domain charts indicate that most of
the fish will be in the pools and that the desirable flow environment of some
fish is quite different from that of others. Information on fish preference
and reservoir costs at each of the stations is included in Volume Il foipemes
report (Singh and Ramamurthy, 1981). The following conclusions are drawn from
this study:
Ll) The suitable criterion for defining a fish suitability or preteresee
from individual V and D preferences is somewhere between MIN and GM. The
basic data, from which individual preferences are derived, can be analyzed to
Clartfiy “the ‘criterion seleckrion.
2) C3 or the median 61-day low flow during the period May to October is
the highest low flow release at each of the 123 stations, but the lowest flow
release is C2 (i.e., one-half of the 3l-day median low flow during the period
May to October) for 83 stations, and C5 (i.e., flow at 90 percent duratien
using daily flows during May to October) for 40 stations.
3), he srorxemuliar a = d_. + b x (log of drainage area in sq mi), was used
in computing the average depth in the pools. The sensitivity analysis on
-
the value of b shows that fish preferences for the pools with b = 0.5 are
significantly low and that these preferences with b = 0.75 and b = 1.00 are
not significantly different from each other. A value of 0.75 has been used
in this study and it is considered to be satisfactory. However, field data
need to be collected to improve the estimate.
4) The role of the pools is very important in maintaining suitable
habitats for fish during low flow conditions as represented by the low flow
meleéases Cl through C8. The role of the riffles is important in their
acting as submerged dams to slow down the release of water from the pools
behind them, as well as in providing greater opportunity for oxygenation
because of shallow flow depths, higher velocity than in pools, and flow
turbulence.
5) Generally, the fish preference along a stream increases with drain-
age area because of increases inpool depths with comparable flows, if other
factors such as substrate, cover, and water quality remain similar.
6) Fish preferences and costs have been analyzed in detail for five
basins to provide geographical, areal, and hydrologic variation. For the
Little Wabash River Basin, the bluegill, carp, smallmouth bass, drum, and
white crappie have about 0.5 and higher preferences in the Clay City reach at
15 cfs; for the Skillet Fork at Wayne City, an increase in flow from 0.74
to 7.78 cfs does not significantly affect the low fish preferences; and for
the Carmi reach with low flow range 24-123 cfs, the bluegill, carp, large-
mouth bass, smallmouth bass, drum, and white crappie have about 0.5 and
higher preferences with 24 cfs, though the channel cat is added to the list
with 123 cfs. For the Kishwaukee River Basin, the fish preference steadily
increases withan increase in lowflow release over the range studied at Belvidere;
54
the increase is much smaller for the South Branch with less sustained low
flows; and the fish preference near Perryville is practically the samemfor
the fillow rancesstudied, aie. S697 boioonercr.
For the Bay Creek Basin with small drainage area sub-basins, the average
fish preferences are rather low for the low flow range studied. The sub-
basins have zero flow for many days in most years. Much higher low flows
than considered in this study will increase the reservoir costs tremendously.
In such very low flow streams, provision of some low flow releases provides
fish habitat for many fish though the preferences may vary from less than
0.1 to about 0.5. The Vermilion River Basin (draining to the Illinois River)
portrays the significant increase in fish preferences with an increase in
drainage area for the low flow releases considered. The increase in pre=
ference at a station is significant for minimum to mean range at Lowell,
whereas at the upper two stations, the increase in preference with increase
in release is rather small. Similar behavior is exhibited by the South Fork
Sangamon River Basin.
The information developed in this report (both Volumes I and II) can be
used to make rational decisions about the desirability of mandating minimum
low flow release from a dam, considering the historical low flows, 7-day 10-
year low flow, increase in variety and preference of the fish versus the
COSIES Re Ger
7) The cost versus fish preference (average as well as individual) curves
provide information for a decision maker regarding trade-offs between the two
Obieetivesr maximizing fish suitability and minimizing reservoir cost.
8) The range of low flow releases studied does not satisfactorily de-
lineate the cost-preference relationship over the entire low flow range. In
some cases, this range needs to be expanded for both lower and higher flows.
In the low flow range studied in this report, in most cases, the increase
in fish suitability is rather small with increase in flow; in some cases
the fish suitability is independent of the flow range; and in some cases
Ene vaso Suitability is negligible for the riffles.
9) For a design drought of 25 years, the minimum low flow release will
Psesromeene eritical drought duration. In other years, the flows released
weeieee nieher. The reservoirs can be so regulated as to provide desirable
flow release sequences (much higher than the mandatory minimum) for most of
the years.
10) Low flow release criteria to preserve fish habitats will vary from
one basin to another depending on the variability of the low flow regimen
and hydraulic geometry of the stream.
11) The lowest flow in the low flow range (Cl through C8) is much higher
than the 7-day 10-year low flow.
12) The design low flow releases are available in the first to the final
year of the design drought period, T, years. However, the storage lost to
sediments entrapped in the reservoir increases with years. Thus, higher low
flow releases can be mandated in the beginning, and these can be reduced with
ae)
the passage of years to the design values in the Tth year.
suggestions for Future Research
1) The reaeration capacity of the riffles at different low flows as well
as the dissolved oxygen, DO, levels in riffles and pools may be studied for
different streams and drainage areas to determine the minimum low flow needed
to maintain suitable DO levels in pools in different seasons of the year.
These flows will provide seasonal low flow benchmarks and thus allow con-
sideration of the water quality factor.
-156-
2) A number of pools may be studied to develop percentages of area with
different depth intervals, the distribution of vellocities in these subareas,
and the quality of substrates. Modeling of this information for a stream
system will help in better definition of fish preferences because of the
consideration of subareas. Some fish, excluded because of average depth,
may be there because of significant variation in pool depth from one place
to the other.
3) The desirability of occasionally flushing out some sediment to improve
the substrate may be examined from field observations and data collections.
4) The value of b in determining pool depth may be examined statisti-
cally from extensive field data. Factors which affect b are probably the
stream order or drainage area, runoff characteristics, sediment characteris-—
ties, channel “and, land slopes: etc:
5) The question about combined preference being represented by MIN or
GM, or some value between the two, may be answered by re-examining the avail-
able data collected by the Fish and Wildlife Service Group and other agencies,
and by augmenting the available data, where necessary, by more field work
for fish found predominantly in Illinois streams.
6) Relative weights may be developed for Illinois fish in computing the
average fish preference. These weights will reflect preferences of fishermen,
ecologists, commercial interests, and others for each target fish.
7) The analyses done in this report may be extended to a wider range of
low flows to provide more information on fish suitability and costs to the
decision maker.
The impact of damming, or regulation, of rivers on obligate riverine
fishes is generally negative (Holden, 1979). Some obvious immediate impacts
are the blockage of upstream and/or downstream migration, habitat alteration,
-157-
changes in temperature regimen of water released, and changes in turbidity
and water chemistry. Temperature effects can be moderated by providing
multiple-port release mechanisms that allow flow releases from the upper
water layers which are also rich in dissolved oxygen. The delayed impacts
are not well understood but may be caused by changes in flow duration and
suspended solid concentrations, and by the introduction of new species.
The relative magnitude of impacts depends on the project purposes, the
existing fisheries and flow regimen, and the severity of changes caused by
the reservoir operation.
-158-
i REFERENCES
Austin, M.E. 1965. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of
the Untted States. U.S., Department of Agriculture, Handbook 296, 82 p.
Bovee, K.D., and R.T. Milhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow
studtes: theory and techniques. Cooperative Instream Flow Service
Group; Paper No...55 Fort Collins; [Colorado y ai2 ape
Brune, G.M. 1953. Trap efftetency of reservoirs. Transactions, American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 34, p. 407-418.
Dawes, J.H., and M. Wathne. 1968. Cost of reservotrs in ILlinots.. Wilamods
State? Water Surveys (Cireular 965227 pr.
Dewsnup, R.L. et al. 1977. State laws and instream flows. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, publication FWS/OBS-77/27, 72 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Water qualtty control through flow
augmentatton. Report prepared by the Biology Department, Heidelberg
College, Tiffin, Ohio, for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1575p.
Friedkin, J.F. 1945. A laboratory study of the meandering of alluvtal rivers.
Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Gould, G.A. et al. 1977. Promising strategies for reserving instream flows.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, publication
FWS/OBS-77/29, 64 p.
Herricks, E.E. et al. 1980. Instream flow needs analysis of the Little Wabash
River Basin. University of Illinois, Environmental Engineering Series
Nox, Ol. Lol oe
Holden, P.B. 1979. In the Ecology of Regulated Streams, edited by J.V. Ward
and J\.A..Stanford.. Plenum Press, sNew York. p= 538=-63~-
Leopold, L.B., and T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels
and some phystoqraphte implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Raper 252.
Leopold, L.B., and M.G. Wolman. 1957. River patterns: braided, meandering,
and straight. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes tn
geomorphology. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, California, p. 203-215.
Roberts, W.J., and J.B. Stall. 1967. Lake evaporatton in Illinots. Illinois
State Water Survey, Report of Investigation 57, 44 p.
Singh, K.P. 1971. Model flow duration and streamflow variability. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 1031-1036.
Singh, K.P. 1981. Evaluation of hydraulic geometry parameters for various
low flow releases downstream of dams on Illtnots streams. Illinois
State Water Survey, Contract Report 251, 42 p.
Singh, K.P., and J.R. Adams, 1980. Adequacy and economics of water supply
tn northeastern Illinots, 1985-2010. TIllinois State Water Survey,
Report of Investigation 97, 205 p.
Singh, K.P., and G.S. Ramamurthy. 1981. Destrable low flow releases from
impounding reservoirs: ftsh habitats and reservotr costs. Volume ITI:
Appendices. [Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 273 (Volume II),
478 p.
SiieheekK-P-, and J.B. Stall. 1973. The 7-day 10-year low flows of Illinots
errcoms. tlilinois State Water Survey, Bulletin 57, 24 p. and 11 maps.
Stioeneekor.) AvP.) Visocky, and C.G. Lonnquist. 1972. Plans for meeting water
requirements tn the Kaskaskta River Basin, 1970-2020. T1linois State
Water Survey, Report of Investigation 70, 24 p.
Stall, J.B. 1964. Low flows of Illinois streams for impounding reservotr
destgn. Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin 51, 395 p.
Sealine, and ¥.S. Fok. 1968. Hydraulic geometry of Illinois streams.
University of Illinois Water Resources Center, Research Report No. 15,
a7 p.
Gersectep, MoL., et al: In preparation, 1981. Low flows of Illinois stréams
for tmpounding reservoir design. Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin
51A.
UMRCBS.1970. Upper Misstsstppt River Comprehensive Basin Study. Prepared
by different agencies for the UMRCBS Coordinating Committee.
Yang, C.T. 1971. Formation of riffles and pools. Water Resources Research,
Volemn, = No..6. p. 1567-1574.
% rs
. 7 lacus tant
fi af asl Sees
5 nat ~~) 7 7
‘liets 6064, Ohuntan -<
» dal To antadey 400) hem 7
= 4%
; a a
Rall. i «fh? - And # joan o ‘ ‘
, years oi 1s Loe re van -
se rial a ae _ =
wi
0112 113049511