relationships between flow fluctuations and redd dewatering and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

USFWS, SFWO, Energy Planning and Instream Flow Branch Yuba River Redd Dewatering and Juvenile Stranding Report September 15, 2010 Stranding Site SZF 41 90.1 42 94.1 43 94.0 44 95.3 45 96.7 47 94.6 48 89.9 49A 93.9 50 92.3 55 95.7 57 94.1 58 93.6 59 90.1 61 87.7 62 92.6 63 93.5 64 93.5 65 92.8 66 90.7 67 90.0 68 86.1 35
BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) 16 Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,021 cfs 3,154 cfs 5,786 cfs 1,021 cfs 3,154 cfs 5,786 cfs 2 4.66 4.0 2.4 6.2 3.6 0.04 0.11 0.08 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,018 cfs 3,154 cfs 1,018 cfs 3,154 cfs 10 3.26 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 11 4.17 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,018 cfs 3,154 cfs 5,574 cfs 1,018 cfs 3,154 cfs 5,574 cfs 12 3.49 1.9 1.0 2.9 1.8 0.01 0.04 0.04 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,018 cfs 3,150 cfs 5,559 cfs 1,018 cfs 3,150 cfs 5,559 cfs 16 2.07 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.00 0.01 0.01 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,151 cfs 1,898 cfs 1,151 cfs 1,898 cfs 18 1.74 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 20 2.69 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 1,898 cfs 3,150 cfs 1,898 cfs 3,150 cfs 19 1.35 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Disch. (%) Difference (measured vs. pred. WSELs) SITE COEFF. ERROR 991 cfs 1,898 cfs 3,768 cfs 991 cfs 1,898 cfs 3,768 cfs 21 3.21 4.2 2.8 6.0 3.5 0.03 0.09 0.06 16 For Calculated versus Given Discharge and Difference, the direction of deviation is omitted. USFWS, SFWO, Energy Planning and Instream Flow Branch Yuba River Redd Dewatering and Juvenile Stranding Report September 15, 2010 36
Page 1 and 2: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FLOW FLUCTUAT
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Field work for this
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) DISCU
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Study tasks
Page 9 and 10: Table 1. Study tasks and associated
Page 11 and 12: Figure 1. Yuba River stream segment
Page 13 and 14: Hydraulic and Structural Data Colle
Page 15 and 16: were those which bracketed the stra
Page 17 and 18: Water surface elevations were measu
Page 19 and 20: Table 7. Calibration flows for stra
Page 21 and 22: Figure 2. Tailspill and redd depth
Page 23 and 24: Table 9. Redd dewatering Habitat Su
Page 25 and 26: Figure 6. Stranding areas of juveni
Page 27 and 28: Figure 8. Predicted dewatering of f
Page 29 and 30: Figure 10. Predicted dewatering of
Page 31 and 32: Figure 12. Predicted dewatering of
Page 33 and 34: Habitat Suitability Criteria (HSC)
Page 35 and 36: Figure 13. Yuba River flows below D
Page 37 and 38: APPENDIX A STRANDING SITE LOCATIONS
Page 39 and 40: Stranding Site # MHU # USFWS, SFWO,
Page 41: USFWS, SFWO, Energy Planning and In
Page 45 and 46: BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Dis
Page 47 and 48: BETA %MEAN Calculated vs. Given Dis
Page 49 and 50: Stranding flow (cfs) USFWS, SFWO, E
Page 51 and 52: Stranding flow (cfs) USFWS, SFWO, E
Page 53 and 54: USFWS, SFWO, Energy Planning and In
Page 55 and 56: Dewatering flow (cfs) USFWS, SFWO,
Page 59 and 60: Dewatering flow (cfs) Percentage of
Page 61 and 62: Dewatering flow (cfs) Percentage of
Page 67: LIST OF ACRONYMS 2-D Two dimensiona

relationships between flow fluctuations and redd dewatering and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?