COOPERATIVE
INSTREAM FLOW
SERVICE GROUP
INSTREAM
FLOW
INFORMATION
PAPER: NO. 6
FWS/OBS-78/34
JUNE 1978
Methods of
Assessing
Instream Flows
for Recreation
Cooperating Agencies:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Bureau of Reclamation
-------
COOPERATIVE
INSTREAM FLOW SERVICE
GROUP
The Cooperative Instream Flow Service
Group was. formed in 1976 under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Primary funding was provided by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The group operates as a satellite
of the Western Energy and Land Use
Team. It is a part of the Western Water Al.
location Project, Office of Biological
Services.
Cooperative Instream Flow
Service Group
333 West Drake Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 493.4275 FTS 323.5231
While the Fish and Wildlife Service is
providing the Initiative and leadership,
the IFG Is conceived as a multi-agency,
multi.disciplinary program which is to be.
come a “center of activity,” providing a
focus for the increasing importance olin.
stream flow assessments.
The multi.agency, multi-disciplinary
nature of the group is provided through
the intergovernmental Personnel Act
transfer of state personnel, and details
from other Federal agencies.
Interagency Energy-Environment
Research and Development Program
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental PTotectlon Agency
D S7 4 .
4 L
-------
FWS/OBS-78/34
June 1978
METHODS OF ASSESSING INSTREAM
FLOWS FOR RECREATION
Instream Flow Information Paper No. 6
by
Ronald Hyra1
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group
Creekside Building
2625 Redwing Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
This study was financed in
part through the Water
Resources Council under
provisions of the Federal Non-Nuclear
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group
Western Energy and Land Use Team
Office of Biological Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Detailed to the Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group from the Herit-
age Conservation and Recreation Service.
-------
DISCLAIMER
The opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recon nendations expressed in this report/
product are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
Office of Biological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, nor does mention of trade names
or comercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use by the
Federal Government.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-600071
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
INTRODUCTION 1
SINGLE CROSS SECTION METHOD 3
THE INCREMENTAL METHOD 4
RECREATION CRITERIA FOR THE INCREMENTAL METHOD 8
Minimum and Maximum Criteria 8
Optimum Criteria 9
Recreation Activities 10
Definitions 10
PROBABILITY-OF-USE CURVES 10
APPLICATION 12
LIMITATIONS 14
REFERENCES 15
INSTREAM FLOW INFORMATION PAPERS ISSUED 16
APPENDIX A CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT A-i
APPENDIX B PROBABILITY-OF-USE CURVES B-i
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Probability-of-use curve for stream fishing
(boat non-power) in relation to depth and
velocity. 7
Figure 2. Desirability of stream depth graph for a
hypothetical recreation activity. 11
Iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Required stream width and depth for various
recreation craft as determined by single
cross section method. 3
Table 2. Total surface area of stream showing depth
and velocity matrix. 5
Table 3. Total surface area of stream and (weighted
usable surface area) for a hypothetical
recreation activity. 8
V
-------
ABSTRACT
The Enstream Flow Group (IFG) has conducted research into methods
of quantifying instream flow needs for fish, wildlife, and recreation.
This paper describes two techniques developed by IFG for performing
recreational instream flow studies. The single cross section method is
relatively simple and provides a base flow figure which will provide for
the boating activities which make use of the of river. The incremental
method is more sophisticated and may be used to develop recommendations
regarding streamfiows required for various types of recreation, or to
provide a recreation analysis of any streamfiow. Streamfiow suitability
criteria for recreation are presented for both methods.
INTRODUCTION
It has been long recognized that there are many competing demands
for the use of stream water. Diverting stream water for irrigation,
water supply, and energy developments can deplete streamflows to the
point where opportunities for recreation and the associated environ-
mental values of the stream are seriously impaired. Numerous water
planning studies, both basin-wide and project oriented, have emphasized
the need to quantify the amount of water required to support recreation,
fish and wildlife resources, and to maintain aesthetic conditions.
The tools and techniques for estimating streamflows required for
recreation and aesthetics, and for insuring reasonable consideration of
recreation and aesthetics in the allocation of stream water, are cur-
rently undergoing study. Instream flow requirements and values for
recreation, in the past, have often been based only upon the amount
required to maintain a fishery. However, several studies have indicated
that recreation and aesthetic requirements, at times, may not be the
same as for a fishery.
This paper presents the techniques of assessing instream flows for
recreation. These techniques were developed by the Cooperative Instream
Flow Service Group and closely parallel techniques used to assess
instream flows for fisheries. The data collection procedures, the
physical and hydraulic simulation of the stream, and the computer models
which analyze the data are the same for both fisheries and recreation.
The major difference between the two techniques is the response of the
individual fish or recreationist. to various physical parameters of
1
-------
stream flow. These responses to stream flow by different user groups
are the criteria which are basic to the methods introduced here.
The first method is called the single cross section approach. This
method is useful primarily for identifying flows below which a recrea-
tion activity is not feasible and results in a so called “minimum” flow
recommendation.
The second method is called the incremental method. With this
method the recreation planner is able to analyze various flows and
determine the recreation potential of a stream at different flows.
This paper is being distributed with four objectives in mind.
These are:
1. To bring the problem of preserving instream flows to the
attention of recreation agencies and the research community in
order to encourage more research in this vital and neglected
area.
2. To discuss the development of the recreation probability-of-
use curves and of recreation criteria in general, which are
necessary for quantifying instream water requirements for
recreati on.
3. To obtain review and comment on the recreation criteria and
probability-of-use curves, and to request data which may be
used to test or improve the criteria or curves.
4. To describe the two approaches for assessing stream flows and
discuss how various recreation planning processes can be
served by their application.
Both methods of instream flow analysis discussed in this paper
utilize computer modeling techniques. Both approaches also require that
streamfiow data be collected. The single cross section approach, as its
name implies, requires that information be collected at only one loca-
tion on the stream. The incremental method requires that data be col—
lected at multiple locations on the stream. In addition to cross
sectional data, data relating the streamfiow parameters to recreation
potential are necessary. These data are termed recreation criteria.
Recreation criteria for instream flow methodologies are the rec-
reation activity information bases necessary to describe a relationship
between the quantity of water flowing in a stream, and the quantity and
2
-------
quality of a particular recreation activity which takes place in the
stream.
SINGLE CROSS SECTION METHOD
This method requires that only a single cross sectional measurement
be taken across a stream. The product of such an approach is a deter-
mination of the lowest flow acceptable for recreation. The approach is
based on the assumption that a single cross section, properly located,
can define a minimum flow requirement. Such a cross section is located
at an area displaying the least depth across the entire stream. When
this area provides minimum depths for boat passage, the flow at this
level may be defined as a minimum acceptable flow. It is assumed that
when sufficient water to support boating is available in these critical
areas, other areas will have sufficient water to support most of the
other instream recreation activities. This approach is best applied to
those streams in which flows are expected to be higher than the minimum
most of the time.
Criteria for this approach are set forth in Table 1. Criteria have
been developed for boating activities only, but for various types of
boating craft. Only minimum criteria are presented because this
approach provides information on “minimum flows.” Criteria are measured
in terms of stream depth and width. Velocity is not considered because
a minimum velocity is not considered necessary for this approach.
Table 1. Required stream width and depth for
various recreation craft as determined
by single cross section method.
Recreation Required Required
Craft depth (ft) width (ft)
Canoe-kayak 0.5 4
Drift boat, row boat-raft 1.0 6
Tube 1.0 4
Power boat 3.0 6
Sail boat 3.0 25
The criteria of Table 1 are minimal and would not provide a satis-
factory experience if the entire river was at this level. However, the
cross section measured for this method is the shallowest in the stream
reach. Therefore, these minimum conditions will only be encountered for
3
-------
a short time during a boating trip, and the remainder of the trip will
be over water of greater depths and widths. An important assumption is
that all water greater than the minimum is equally useful for the activ-
ity (i.e. , more is better until bank-full stage).
A computer program (lEG-i) has been developed which predicts width
and depth across the transect of any stage (water surface elevation).
The output shows discharge and the width with depth equal to or greater
than a specific depth. Different water surface elevations may be put
into the computer model which are translated into flow in cubic feet per
second. When a flow provides the minimum width and depth necessary for
an activity, discharge may be considered minimum. Such a minimum indi-
cates that significant losses, if not elimination of this activity, will
occur if minimum flow is not equaled or exceeded.
THE INCREMENTAL METHOD
This method, more sophisticated than the single cross section
method, describes a relationship between the amount of water in a reach
of stream and the associated recreation potential. The incremental
method can describe the potential for any recreation activity at any
streamfiow. A major difference between the methods is that the single
cross section method can only be used to identify low flow and cannot be
used to assess the recreation potential at any other flow; the incre-
mental method can be used to assess the potential at other flows or to
calculate the change in receation potential caused by a change in stream
flow.
The incremental method involves a modeling procedure whereby the
surface area of a stretch of stream is calculated. In addition to the
total surface area of the reach of stream, the area which has certain
depths and velocities is calculated. The usable surface area for each
activity is then calculated by use of depth and velocity requirements.
It is necessary to make three assumptions regarding the relation-
ship between the quantity of water and the recreation uses of the water:
(1) water depth and water velocity are the two streamf low components
which are most important in determining whether or not a certain recre-
ation activity may be safely and pleasurably engaged in’; (2) there are
‘Other parameters such as water quality and temperature are also very
important in determining the amount of instream recreation use but in
many cases are not significantly influenced by flow. Width is also
important but is considered outside of the computer model (i.e., width
is not a part of the calculation of usable surface area).
4
-------
certain measures of water depth and water velocity which may be con-
sidered minimum, maximum, and optimum for an activity; and (3) the
measurement of water surface area which meets certain requirements of
depth and velocity is a viable method of describing recreation potential
for instream recreation uses.
This method is comprised of four components: (1) computer simula-
tion of a stream reach, (2) determination of the combinations of stream
depth and velocity, (3) determination of a composite probability-of—use
for each combination of depth and velocity, and (4) calculation of a
weighted usable surface area.
1. Simulation of the Stream. The stream reach simulation model
utilized in this approach uses several cross sectional tran-
sects, each of which is subdivided into subsections. For any
stage (water surface elevation) the mean depth and velocity of
each subsection is calculated. Typically, a transect would be
established across a pool, a riffle, and an intermediate area.
Together these cross sectional measurements would represent a
stream reach which may extend several miles. In Table 2 a 100
foot length of stream is represented.
Table 2. Depth velocity matrix showing total
surface area of stream in square feet.
Depth (ft)
<
0.5
Velocity in
0.5-1.0 1
feet
.0-1.
per
5
second
>1.5
Total
<1
500
400
100
0
1,000
1-2
600
700
800
300
2,400
2-3
100
300
500
100
1,000
>3
0
0
100
0
100
Total
1,
200
1,400
1
,500
400
4,500
2. Distribution of Combinations of Depth and Velocity. The
output of the stream reach simulation model is in the form of
a matrix showing the surface area of a stream having different
combinations of depth and velocity. Table 2 illustrates a
depth velocity matrix. The outlined number in the upper left
matrix cell refers to 500 square feet per 100 feet of stream
having a combination of depth less than 1.0 foot and velocity
less than 0.5 foot per second. This figure is the sum of the
areas within the stream reach with this combination of depth
and velocity.
5
-------
In order to evaluate the effect of these physical changes upon
a streams desirability for recreation, it is necessary to
develop an information base for each recreation activity.
Such an information base should identify a relationship
between depth and velocity of the water, and the desirability
of such water for each recreation activity. The information
base, called recreation criteria, has been developed and is
set forth in the following pages.
3. Composite Probabilities-of-Use. Determination of the proba-
bility-of-use for an activity on a certain area of water
requires multiplying the probability-of-use for the depth by
the probability-of-use for the velocity. For example, from
Figure 1 the probability-of-use for the depth of 2.6 feet is
0.9. The probability-of-use for the velocity of 6 feet per
second is 0.24. The composite probability-of-use for a depth
of 2.6 feet and a velocity of 6 feet per second, is 0.216 (0.9
x 0.24). The probability-of-use is also the weighting factor
for calculation of the weighted usable surface area.
4. Weighted Usable Surface Area. The weighted usable surface
area equates an area of low desirability to an equivalent area
of optimal desirability. For example, if 1,000 square feet of
surface area had a composite probability-of-use of 0.216 (see
above) it would have a weighted usable surface area of 216
square feet (total surface area times composite probability-
of-use). These 1,000 square feet of surface area would be
considered to have the same recreation potential as 216 square
feet of surface area having optimum depths and velocities.
An example of a matrix is shown in Table 3. In each cell of the
matrix, the upper number refers to the surface area of a stream having a
depth velocity combination as indicated. The numbers in parentheses
refer to the weighted usable surface area.
6
-------
I.-
-J
Figure 1.
2 4 6 8 10
iiii 1111111 I I III ‘‘‘‘T’ 11 1’’’’!’’’’I’ liii hII
. 111111 11.11 i i i t 1. 111 11111 lilIlIllul 11111 liii
DEPTH
2 4 6 8 10
09
08
07
06
05
04
0.3
02
ot
09
08
0.7
0.6
0.5
Probability-of-use curve for stream fishing
(boat non-power) in relation to depth and
velocity.
VELOCITY
7
-------
Table 3. Total surface area of stream and (weighted
usable surface area) for a hypothetical
recreation activity in square feet.
Depth (ft)
and
(Probability-
of-use)
Velocity in feet per
second and
(probability-of-use)
<0.5
(1.0)
0.5-1.0
(0.8)
1.0-1.5
(0.4)
>1.5
(0)
Total
<1
(0)
500
(0)
400
(0)
100
(0)
0
(0)
1,000
(0)
1-2
(0.3)
600
(180)
700
(168)
800
(96)
300
(0)
2,400
(444)
2-3
(0.8)
100
(80)
300
(192)
500
(160)
100
(0)
1,000
(432)
>3
(1.0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
100
(40)
0
(0)
100
(40)
i t i
o a s
1,200
(260)
1,400
(360)
1,500
(296)
400
(0)
4,500
(916)
A separate matrix is required for each recreation activity being
considered. A separate matrix is also developed for each of a number of
different flows and a different weighted usable surface area is calcu-
lated for each flow. Comparison of the matrices provides information on
the “best flow” or shows the change in weighted usable surface area due
to a change in flow.
RECREATION CRITERIA FOR THE INCREMENTAL METHOD
Recreation activity definitions and a discussion of criteria are
presented below.
Minimum and Maximum Criteria
Criteria, as discussed in this section, refer to the parameters of
depth and velocity, and deal with the minimum and maximum values. The
assumption is made that the recreation activity in question cannot be
engaged in outside of the range described by the minimum and maximum
values. Optimum values are determined in a somewhat different manner
and will be discussed later. Minimum and maximum criteria are of two
major types: (1) physical criteria and (2) safety criteria. Regarding
8
-------
physical criteria, recreation activities have certain physical or
absolute limits or requirements which must be met (i.e. , a boat requires
a certain minimum depth of water to float). In the case of safety
criteria there are no absolutes; however, it can generally be stated
that certain depths or velocities may be unsafe for the average parti-
cipant. Safety criteria may also be considered a preferred physical
limitation.
Optimum Criteria
Minimum and maximum criteria are used to establish the range of
depths and velocities which provide a usable surface area for river
recreationists. It is also possible to identify a preferred depth or
velocity or range of preferred depths and velocities which could be
called optimum. Obviously, optimum will not be agreed upon by all
recreationists since they represent such a heterogeneous group. How-
ever, the total range can be narrowed and a preferred range established.
An optimum value of depth or velocity or a preferred range of depths and
velocities will be that value or range of values which is usable to the
largest number of potential participants.
There are “psychological” criteria that also might be used for
selecting optimum depths or velocities. Psychological criteria relate
to the quality of the experience. However, in order to evaluate the
quality of the experience, one must determine what experience is sought.
A number of the recreation activities included in this report have
expectations that appear to be unrelated to flow. Therefore, for such
activities only the physical and safety criteria need to be considered.
Other activities have flow-related expectations and it appears that the
experience desired and expected should be a part of the criteria.
According to Schreyer and Nelson (1978) the “white water” activities,
have an “action-excitement” expectation, and certain types of water are
necessary to realize that expectation. Stream depths and/or velocities
which produce action-excitement are not easily identified because of the
differing skill levels and experience of recreationists. Consequently,
psychological criteria, in terms of depth or velocity, are not listed at
this time.
The activities which have action and excitement as an expectation
are the last four activities listed under boating (below). However, not
all of the persons who engage in these activities seek action and
excitement. Therefore, a wide range of optimum velocity values is
necessary to include the action excitement expectation as well as the
other expectations. Each of these four activities may be viewed as two
separate activities, one which occurs on tranquil water and one which
occurs on non-tranquil water.
9
-------
Recreation Activities
The stream-oriented recreation activities considered in this report
are shown below:
Fishing
Wading
Boat, power
Boat, nonpower
Water Contact
Swimming
Wading
Water skiing
Boating
Sailing
Low power
High power
Canoei ng-Kayaki ng
Rowing-rafting-drifting
Tubing-floating
Water Contact
Swimming:
Development of recreation probability-of-use curves builds upon the
recreation criteria discussed in the previous section. Minimum, maxi-
mum, and optimum criteria are translated into probablities-of-use and
recreation probability curves are developed.
Definitions
Fishing
Wading: fishing while walking in the stream.
Boat power: fishing from a power boat.
Boat nonpower: fishing from a nonpower boat.
propelling oneself through the water with no,
or only occasional, contact with the bottom.
Wading: walking in the water, including water play.
Water skiing: being towed behind a boat on skiis.
Boating
Sailing: wind powered boating.
Low power: power boating, motor less than 50 horsepower.
High power: power boating, motor greater than 50 horsepower.
Canoeing-kayaking: using a canoe or kayak in a river.
Rowing-rafting-drifting: using a row boat, raft, or drift
boat in a river.
Tubing-floating: floating on a device which is not a
full-sized boat or raft. May include
inner tubes, small rafts, air mattresses,
etc. This activity is also a water contact
activity. It is placed here for its simi-
larity to rowing-rafting-drifting.
PROBABILITY-OF-USE CURVES
10
-------
The recreation criteria may be graphed with depth (or velocity) on
the X axis and the desirability of certain depths for the recreation
activity in question along the V axis (Figure 2).
>-
-J
‘-I
‘-I
(#1
U i
Most
Least
FEASIBLE DEPTH
Figure 2. Desirability of stream depth graph for a
hypothetical recreation activity.
The physical minimum is shown on the graph as “A” and is the least
desirable depth at which the activity is possible. Preferred low flows
are the least depth at which the activity can be participated in safely
is shown as “B” on the graph. Safety values are somewhat arbitrary
because they depend upon experience and skill of the recreationist. In
this context, it is assumed that it is an average figure, and that up to
50 percent of the potential participants will find depths between “A”
and “B” usable. Point “C” on the graph indicates the most desirable or
optimum depth and it is assumed that 100 percent of the potential parti-
2 4 6 8
10
11
-------
cipants would find such a depth usable. Point “D” indicates the pre-
ferred or safety maximum and “E” indicates the physical maximum.
If the Y axis is changed from a desirability scale to a probability
scale, with 1.0 on top and 0 on the bottom, the “probability-of-use” may
be read off the V axis.
If Figure 2 represents a probability-of—use curve for an activity
in a region where the resource is experiencing capacity use, then the
following assumptions can be stated:
1. Areas having depths less than “A 11 or greater than 11 E will
have no use.
2. Areas having depths equal to “C” will be experiencing capacity
use.
3. Areas having depths equal to “B” and “D” will be experiencing
50 percent of the use of area “C.”
Appendix A sets forth the depth and velocity criteria in tabular
and graphic forms and defines depths and velocities in terms of desir-
ability as follows:
Optimum Depth or velocity usable by all; probability-of-
use or weighting factor 1.0
Acceptable Depth or velocity between safety limit and optimum;
probability-of-use or weighting factor 0.5-0.99
Marginal Depth or velocity between physical and safety
limits; probability-of-use or weighting factor
0. 01-0. 49
Unacceptable Depth or velocity unusable; probability-of-
use or weighting factor 0.0
Appendix B shows the probability-of-use curves which are developed
from the depth and velocity criteria.
APPLICATION
There are situations where the single cross section method or the
incremental method is best suited to do instream flow studies.
The single cross section approach is best suited to situations
where:
12
-------
1. A minimum of time is available.
2. A low flow recommendation is all that is necessary.
3. The low flow recommendation will be exceeded for most of the
recreation season.
The incremental method is best suited to situations where:
1. Increments of flow need to be analyzed.
2. The change in streamfiow needs to be related to change in
recreation potential.
3. The most “exact” answer, available with today’s state-of-the-
art, is desired.
Opportunities for preserving instream flows for recreation may
occur within several programs and processes. Planners did not always
take advantage of these opportunities in the past because no method
existed by which to quantify the instream flow need.
Opportunities exist within the State water adjudication procedures
wherein all water rights will be adjudicated including the Federal
reserved rights. When the purpose of the Federal reservation of land
includes recreation, the quantity of water necessary to accomplish the
purpose must be quantified, and this includes the instream flow
requi red.
Both Federal and State wild and scenic riyer programs contain
language that may be used to preserve instream flows for recreational or
aesthetic purposes. The licensing and relicensing procedures of the
hydroelectric utility companies call for exhibits to be prepared which
describe the recreation resource and the benefits to the public from
such a license or project.
Whenever a water project is proposed the impact of the project on
recreation is studied. The incremental method will permit the stream
portion of such analysis to take its place alongside the reservoir
portion.
Use of the incremental method will permit full consideration of
recreation by water management agencies as they make decisions about
water allocation, conduct hearings for diversion permit requests, or
determine low flows.
13
-------
In general, whenever proposals are made which will change an
existing streamfiow or flow regime, the impact upon recreation can be
determined and be considered in the planning process.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of the methods discussed in this paper should be
understood prior to field testing.
The single cross section is limited to making minimum flow recom-
mendations to accommodate the boating recreation activities. It is less
exact than the incremental method and the location of the cross sec-
tional measurement is critical.
The incremental method may be used to describe the impact of a
change in flow or used to identify an optimum flow. However, there is
no such thing as an optimum flow or flow regime for recreation. Each
recreation activity has its own unique flow requirement and frequently
flow requirements conflict among activities. For example, a greater
flow resulting in higher velocities may benefit the white water boaters,
but would all but eliminate fishing while wading. Usually a flow recom-
mendation would be provided in terms of a flow regime. The recommend-
ation of a flow regime would recognize the variable supply of water
throughout the year as well as the periods of greatest demand for
instream water. A flow regime for recreation would take into account
the greater recreation demand during the recreation season, during the
weekends, and perhaps even during the daylight hours.
Use of the incremental method can provide only a measure of recre-
ation potential and cannot provide adequate information for developing
a recommended flow regime based on the demand for recreation. If such a
recommendation is necessary, or if knowledge of a change in recreation
use or benefits, due to a change in flow, is desired, a demand-supply
study should be undertaken. A demand-supply study would use the output
from the incremental method as the supply component.
14
-------
REFERENCES
1. Schreyer, Richard and Martin L. Nelson. 1978. Westwater and
Desolation Canyons: Whitewater River Recreation Study. Institute
for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Utah State Univ.
Logan, UT. 164 pp.
15
-------
INSTREAM FLOW INFORMATION PAPERS ISSUED
1. Lamb, Berton Lee, Editor. Guidelines for Preparin Expert Testi-
mony in Water Management Decisions Related to Instream Flow
Issues . Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative Instream Flow Service
Group, July 1977, 30 pages. (NTIS Accession Number: PB 268 597;
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 77-83281).
2. Lamb, Berton Lee, Editor. Protecting Instream Flows Under Western
Water Law: Selected Papers . Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative
Instream Flow Service Group, September 1977, 60 pages. (NTIS
Accession Number: PB 272 993; Library of Congress Catalog Card No.
77-15286).
3. Bovee, Ken D. , and Cochnauer, Tim. Development and Evaluation of
Weighted Criteria , Probability-of-Use Curves for Instream Flow
Assessments; Fisheries . Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative
Instream Flow Service Group, December 1977, 49 pages. (NTIS Acces-
sion Number: PB ; Library of Congress Catalog Card No. -
).
4. Bovee, Ken D. Probability-of-Use Criteria for the Family Salmon-
idae . Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative Instream Flow Service
Group, January 1978, 88 pages. (NTIS Accession Number: PB
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. - ).
5. Milhous, Robert R. and Ken D. Bovee. Hydraulic Simulation in
Instream Flow Studies: Theory and Techniques . Fort Collins,
Colorado, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, May 1978,
pages. (NTIS Accession Number: PB ; Library of Congress
Catalog Card No. - ).
6. Hyra, Ronald. Methods of Assessing Instream Flows for Recreation .
Fort Collins, Colorado, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group,
May 1978, 49 pages. (NTIS Accession Number: PB ; Library
of Congress Catalog Card No. - ).
16
-------
APPENDIX A
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
A-i
-------
Sources of Information Used to Develop the Criteria of Appendix A:
1. Christiansen, M.L. 1975. Development of Resource Requirements
Determinants for Selected Activities. Watershed Recreation
Research Report.
2. Scott, J. and R. Hyra. 1977. Methods for Determining Instream
Flow Requirements for Selected Recreational Activities in Small and
Medium Sized Streams. Paper presented at AWRA Conference, Tucson,
Arizona.
3. Thompson, J. and R. Fletcher. 1972. A Model and Computer Program
for Appraising Recreational Water Bodies. Department Forest Sci.
Utah State Univ. , Logan, Utah, pp. 48.
4. U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1977. Recreation and Instream
Flow. Volumes 1 and 2, Jasen M. Cortell and Associates, Waltham,
Massachusetts. pp. 252.
5. U.S Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 1977. Resource Requirements for
Water Related Recreation. S.E. Regional Office. Draft Report.
pp. 15.
6. U.S. Corps of Engineers. 1963. Channel Improvement for Navigation
Snake River Downstream From Weiser, Idaho. Detailed Project
Report. pp. 77.
A-2
-------
FISHING WADING
CRITE RIA
Depth in ft multiplied by
should equal 10 or less.
upon height and weight of
well as substrate type.
• . • •
• • p
F—I
H
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
• maximum
0.5 ft
4.0 ft
0.75 ft
3.50 ft
1.0-2.5 ft
VELOCITY
minimum
- maximum
0.0 fps
3.0 ‘fos_..
0.0 fps
2.5 fts
0.25-2.0 fps
COMMENTS:
velocity in fps
Safety depends
individual as
I
LU
4
3
2
1
0
1 I • I • I I I ‘ ‘ I
I I I I I I I
LEGEND
optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
0 1
2 3
VELOCITY
4
A- 3
-------
FISHING BOAT POWER
CRITE AlA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
2.5 ft
NA
3.0 ft
NA
3.5 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
5 fps
0 fps
4 fps
0.5-2.0 fps
COMMENTS: Size of boat and motor important. Generally
includes boats of low power.
r •• . ‘•.• .• .‘ ‘
:::::::: ________ __________ LEG EN D
___ IHH I optimum
acceptable
_________________ ____
_____ marginal
2
I unacceptable
1
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VELOCITY
A-4
-------
FISHING BOAT NON-POWER
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
0.5 ft
NA
1.0 ft
NA
2.0 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
4 fps
0 fps
3 fps
0.5-1.5 fps
COMMENTS: Type boat important.
5 ,,v
liii! • •ss•s .s .s ____________
S...
S.. liii ! SSSSSSSSSSS
....
:::: Hit l::::::::::: . LEGEND
••• H4H •• • ••••_ _______
11111 _______
4 . : •: :.: • • ..:..:.__________ 11111111 optimum
55. 11111 SSSSS•StSSS
5 5•S IlIlIlSI SI
S.. 11111 StSSS
S... iiij,............___________ _______
PS •• 111115
. 555 l—l—l—l-4SSS 5SSS
•SS ____________ 5• 5•.
: ::: : I f _________ accept a b I e
11111 1S 1 ___________ 555
.., r... ii .......___________
I— i—jr
55•• llllI...........— _______
I I ________________ I I
______________ — I _ I margin a I
liii
2 ::: ________ :::::::::::::::::::::::________________ __________
p...
S..... ________
. . S
•S.....•
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __________ u n accept a b I e
I 5• SI
S 515 5
• S S S S S
5 S ____________
S S S S S S • S •
S S S 555
• S 55
S S S
• . . . S S 55 5 S S S •
0 1 A L ‘- _ .
0 1 2 4 5
VELOCITY
A-5
-------
WATER CONTACT WADING
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
0.25 ft
4.0 ft
0.5 ft
3.0 ft
0.75-2.5 ft
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
3.0 fps
0 fps
2.5 fps
0.25-2.0 fps
COMMENTS: Depth in feet multiplied by velocity in fps
should equal 10 or less. Saftey depends
upon height and weight of individual as well
as substrate type.
I I I I 1 4 ! I
•1 . . . . ______
• S I. •
I —
. . . __________
____1__ -_ I I I I i I
0 1 2 3 4 5
I
L. .
r. . .
• . .
I . • •
p • • •
I ... .
I
11
LEGEND
Optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
VELOCITY
I
a.
w
5
4
3
2
1
0
. . ______
A-6
-------
WATER CONTACT SWIMMING
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
2.5 ft
NA
3.0 ft
NA
4 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
3.0 fps
0 fps
2.0 fps
0.25-0.75 fps
COMMENTS Water quality, temperature, slope of beach,
visibility and underwater slope important.
Depth safety criteria does not permit diving.
ic _________ U I
___________ LEGEND
:• _________ __________
8 ________ ______________ _________ opt i mu m
7 ::: :::::::::: ________________
____ ________ L. ..:1 acceptable
6 _________—:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:• ________________ .
:::::::::::::: ______ ____
5 _____________ ________ marginal
u.I ... ___________
. :___ ______ ____
3 _____________________________________ . I I unacceptable
2
1.
0 I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5
VELOCITY
A-7
-------
WATER CONTACT WATER SKIING
CRITE RI A
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
5 ft
NA
7 ft
NA
9 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
3.0 fps
0 fps
2.5 fps
0.25-1.5 fps
VELOCITY
A-8
LEGEND
ilitlill optimum
S..
I. • S S
acceptable
S ’S
I —I marginal
unacceptable
COMMENTS: Width is critical also.
I
I-
0.
w
0
—.—...,...-.-.I— —
S. S5S•SS•
13 : : ___________________ ________
12 ________
11 _______
•SS•.I .•
SSSSSSS _____
Sc
10 :: _______
Sr
S. S...... _____
9 •S,C •.5.S.SS•••.S.S
.5 5_S ______
S. •••5 •SS 5SSS _____
.............
........... _____
8 _________
SS..a..•.SS....S...
SSSI 555555 ______
•7 S sss •s ss ______
I P•sS••5 5S•55 5S•55S5
6 _____________
5-
4 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
-------
BOATINt SAILING
CRITE RIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
3 ft
NA
4 ft
NA
5 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
1.5 fps
0 fps
1.25 fps
0.25-0.75 fps
COMMENTS: Keel or centerboard depth is critical.
I
I-
a-
uJ
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
• • . ________
. ..
...H f fIf—I-I+—14,..,. •• •
s...1111111tttt..... •:•:•:•_
• . • I—f-f-f-I-4—H—1—4-4 • • • .
•
:.e.D !Itl1tt...1.1 .•. • .
b......I_I4_J_ 4J l 44.... ... ..s.
• • • •I4 .I.J_i_L_i_I_.I_I_L, • • . •
•.. I.. •
-. ._._.•. . . . . . .
•..•... ..._
.... .
•••... .
•... _______
....... ... ______
::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::
..
•.•.•.•.S.S.S.e. .S. .. .. ....S .•. • •_
.. .... _
..
... . —
C
- I I I I
F
I. • • •
• . . S
•5s•S
• . S
I. • SI
• . . S
.5S
• S S I
II
Ii
LEGEND
optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
0
.5
1.0 1.5
VELOCITY
2.0
2.5
A-9
-------
BOATING LOW POWER
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
2.5 ft
3.0 ft
3.5 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
7 fps
0 fps
6 fps
0.5-3.0 fps
COMMENTS: Low power boats are less than 50 hp.
5
:::::.:::::::::________
LEGEND
EE. .. :.._______ ________ OPt i mu m
_________________________________ _______ acceptable
i marginal
U i I
° 2 __
1 1 unacceptable
1.
O p & I I
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VELOCITY
A-1O
-------
BOATING HIGH POWER
CRITE RIA
VELOCITY
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
3.0 ft
NA
3.5 ft
NA
4.0 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
12.0 fps
0 fps
10.0 fps
0.5-8.0 fps
COMMENTS:
6
High power is greater than 50 hp. Jet boats
or sleds require only 1.0 ft + water depth.
Higher velocities safe only under certain
conditions.
I
I.-
a.
‘ I i
5
4
3
2
1
f __________
•ISS• _________
.4.1.11 .....
I’
________
.
I . . . . .
k I L I I I I
3 6 9 12
ftuj
I. . . .
• . .
I.. • •
r. . .
• . .
I • . .
a p p .
LI
11
LEGEND
Optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
0
15
A-li
-------
BOATING CANOEING-KAYAKING
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
0.5 ft
NA
1.0 ft
NA
2.5 ft +
VELOCITY
minimum
maximum
0 fps
10.0 fps
0 fps
9.0 fps
0.5-7.0 fps
COMMENTS: Higher velocities exclude open canoes. Higher
velocities safe only under certain conditions.
• 5 5 J s • S —
SSS S S• _____
•..555.
5•ss 5 S 5_____
S.
a
..
S..
• 5 5ISs• _____
• . . _________
________
•55••s5
555••55I
S......
as...... _____
• 5SS5 55
05S• •5
S...... _____
4 ) ___________
a I.. U
.......
...
5S• •SS
I —S..... _____
....... _______
I 5SS• 5S
S 5 5 5 5 5I _____
. 4 4 ••SS ••S S _____
455 •S•S _______
•.S..
S• •5• _____
I. . .... I S
. . S 555
..........S. • 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 _____
P.... •.I .sI ............
5 5•SSS S •S••SSS•S• 5S5
S.. S•S
•.... .ss.s.SS
S5S •S IS• sS5.S S5sSSISI
5•S••SS .
I S S I _____
S..... •5IS5S•S
55 S SI
S.. I . _____
I •SS5 5•I 55
I S S •I5•I
...5.5..... ...
IS...
I I & & I I L I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VELOCITY
5
4
I
I-.
0.
II iHHI
•. S S
p . 5
S S •
I.. . .
• . S S
I I
11
LEGEND
optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
2
1
0
A- 12
-------
BOATING ROWING-RAFTING-DRIFTING
CRITE RIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
DEPTH
minimum
maximum
1.0 ft
NA
2.0 ft
NA
3.0 ft +
VELOCITy
minimum
maximum
0 fps
14.0 fps
0 fps
12.0 fps
1.0-10.0 fps
COMMENTS: Higher
a type
water.
certain
5
4
3
0
3
velocities require boats/rafts of
specifically designed for white
Higher velocities safe only under
conditions.
6 9
VELOCITY
12
15
Inh1I
r. . .
• . .
.. . p.
• p p
•. . p.
I p S •
• p p p
Li
I ’
LEGEND
Optimum
acceptable
marginal
u n acceptable
I
I -
a.
LU
• S —. S
S.. p 55 ________
•5 S
5 55P5SS••SS 5•SS5•• .5
S..... S. 5 5 5p 5 S
S.. S • Sp.p .
S S •SSSSS S.
S S S I •.. .
S 5 • SSSS.PSSSSSPPSSS••ssa________
• 1
• S S
S S I 5...
5S 5S• SIS S•S SSIPI5•555 S________
S.
S S S•
S S S S ________
2
1
0
I I I I I I _ a I
A-13
-------
BOATING TUBING-FLOATING
CRITERIA
PHYSICAL
SAFETY
OPTIMUM
minimum 1.0 ft
maximum NA
1.5 ft
NA
2.0 ft +
minimum 0 fps
maximum 8.0 fps
0 fps
7.0 fps
1.0-5.0 fps
COMMENTS:
Higher velocities safe only under certain
conditions.
_____________
•. I S I
• 5 I I
U. I • I
• I U I
______ U. • I I
• . S I
•. I •
________ • I I •
_ II
__ I I
I
I-
‘U
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
I
III — - I I I
•• I. •I U ______
I.Ilr -1- sI
• I S
I I
II. ... .. _____
• I I •E _______
II .L - c......
• 5 I c i - I I I I I I I • ________
II., as......
1
I..
• I I
• . .. .
..• Is......
5•I I ______
•UIS
III ________
SIll I..
555. II ______
JII•s•
U U I II
I
Is.. 5 5I
. ______
II .• •. .IIII.
III
I S
I I I I I I I
LEGEND
optimum
acceptable
marginal
unacceptable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VELOCITY
A- 14
-------
APPENDIX B
PROBABILITY-OF-USE CURVES
B-i
-------
PISHING NADING
700000
78/06/26.
0
I -
-J
0
a-
DEPTH IrTI
8-2
-------
F’I5HING BOAT
700100
78/06/25.
0
C
I
\
(
\
0
0
0
0
2 3 i
VCLOCITY (FT/Sill
5 5
PUN ER
w
I-.
o —
I- .
-J
0
a-
DEPTH (FT)
B- 3
-------
FISHING BOAT NON PONER
700200
78/06/26.
0
0
I -
-J
C
C
0
a -
VELOCITY IrT/SECI
OEPTII irti
8 -4
-------
NATER CONTACT NADING
710100
78/06/26.
:__
I.
\
( 1
a
0
0
OCPTH (rT
0
I-
-J
a
0
-J
a —
VELOCITY IFT/SECI
B-5
-------
NATER CONTACT SNIMMING
710000
78/05/26.
I - .
-J
0
a -
I-.
-J
0
a-
XPTH (FT)
B-6
-------
NATER CONTACT NATER
SKI ING
78/06/26.
710200
a
a
VELOCITY (FT/SECJ
OEPTH FTJ
8-7
-------
BOATING SAILING
720000
78/08/26.
0
4-.
-j
0
C
0
0
VELOCITY IrT/SECI
OEPTH muJ
8-8
-------
BOATING LON
720100
78/05/28.
PONER
I - .
-J
0
C
0
0
a -
VELOCITY I rT /SEC ) DEPTH (rTI
B -?
-------
BOATING HIGH PONER
720200
78/06/26.
NOTE: Velocity plots have a maximum of 10 fps.
the velocity for this activity reaches a
0.0 at 12 fps.
The curves for
probability of
I -.
-I
0
VELOCITT (FT/SEC
B-1O
-------
BOATING CANOEING KAYAKING
720300
78/05/25.
1
\
I—
-j
o-
a-
\
(d
6 10
0
0
0
2 I 6
VELOCITY IFT/5EC)
0
0
DEPTH (n i
B-li
-------
BOATING RONING RAFTING DRIFTING
720400
78/06/26
NOTE: Velocity plots have a maximum of 10 fps. The curve for the
velocity for this activity is at a probability of 1.0 at
10 fps, a 0.5 probability at 12 fps, and a 0.0 probability
at 14 fps.
I - .
-I
.-p
Li
-------
BOATING TUBING L0ATING
720500
B- 13
78/06/28.
I -
-J
D
0
I-
-J
D
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2.
SHEET FWS/OBS-78/34
3. Recipient’s Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Methods of Assessing Instream Flows for Recreation
5. Report Date
.1iin 1g7g
6.
7. Author(s) -
Ronald Hyra
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No. IFIP-6
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, Western Energy
and Land Use Team; Office of Biological Services;
Creekside Building, 2625 Redwing Road, Fort Collins,
Colorado__80526
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This information paper describes two techniques for performing recreational instrearn
flow studies. The Single Cross Section Method is discussed briefly. The majority of
the paper deals with the Incremental Method of assessing instream flows. Stream flow
suitability criteria for recreation are presented for both methods.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 7a. Descriptors
Instream Recreation
River Recreation Criteria
River Recreation Potential
Instream Recreation Methodology
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group
lie. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
FORM NTIS.35 (REV. 10-73 1 ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO
r U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1978—778-6801422
-------
The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to supply scientific information and methodologies on
key environmental issues which have an impact fish and wildlife resources
and their supporting ecosystems The mission of the Program is as follows
1. To strengthen the Fish and Wildlife Service in its role as a primary
source of information on natural fish and wildlife resources, par-
ticularly with respect to environmental impact assessment
2. To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decision-
makers in the identification and resolution of problems associated
with major land and water use changes
3. To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Depart-
ment of the Interior development programs, such as those relating
to energy development.
Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended
for use in the planning and decisionmaking process, to prevent or minimize
the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Biological Services research
activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the
issues, the decisionmakers involved and their information needs, and an
evaluation of the state-of-the-art to identify information gaps and determine
priorities This is a strategy to assure that the products produced and dis-
seminated will be timely and useful
Biological Services projects have been initiated in the following areas:
Coal extraction and conversion
Power plants
Geothermal, mineral, and oil shale development
Water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western
water allocation
Coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf development.
Systems and inventory, including National Wetlands Inventory, habi-
tat classification and analysis, and information transfer
The Program consists of the Office of Biological Services in Washington,
D.C, which is responsible for overall planning and management, National
Teams which provide the Program’s central, scientific and technical expertise,
and which arrange for contracting of Biological Services studies with States,
universities, consulting firms, and others, Regional staff who provide a link
to problems at the operating level; and staff at certain Fish and Wildlife
Service research facilities who conduct inhouse research studies.
-------
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
As the Nation’s principal conservation
agency, the Department of the Interior has re-
sponsibility for most of our nationally owned pub-
lic lands and natural resources. This includes
fostering the wisest use of our land and water re-
sources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserv-
ing the environmental and cultural values of our
national parks and historical places, and provid-
ing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor rec-
reation The Department assesses our energy
and mineral resources and works to assure that
their development is in the best interests of all
our people The Department also has a major re-
sponsibil ity for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in island
territories under U.S. administration
9F
------- |