Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c). Prdlllcality. We may wish to make a 4Ilnt about the <br />impracticality of administering these claims. However, this would <br />be a point to be made by a division engineer or water commissioner <br />rather than by our experts. <br /> <br />3). Alternative Methods <br /> <br />a). Modifications to the Forest Service Method. Our experts may <br />recommend that certain changes be made to the Forest Service <br />method, either in redefining the flow regime necessary for <br />maintaining the channel, or else changing the methodology whereby <br />the instream flow is quantified for a given stream. These <br />modifications will not necessarily result in reduced flows. <br /> <br />b). Effects of Depletions: a Field Check. Our experts might <br />examine streams with a history of substantial depletions, and <br />compare the streambed below the diversion point with that above it <br />and with similar streams that are unregulated. During the spring <br />runoff season, we may wish to have them make sediment transport <br />measurements above and below the diversions, and to estimate the <br />long-term effects. We should probably have them differentiate <br />between the effects of a high diversion taken mainly during the <br />runoff season (e.g., transbasin diversions), and lower levels of <br />diversions taken yearround, perhaps for a resort development. <br /> <br />c). Mitigation Measures. Based on the above studies, we should <br />have our experts design mitigation measures for specific streams, <br />to see if the effects of the diversions on sediment transport can <br />be counteracted. From these specific examples, it may be possible <br />to propose a general method of mitigation which would protect the <br />watershed while allowing water diversion. <br /> <br />