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