WSP06180 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~'" ~ W N . . "-- . 3 In all instances, the average annual runoff figures in column 5 l'lere derived b" averaging the discharges of streams in the Subclass selected, as defined in the footnotes. In each class within which subclasses exist- ed, the discharges averaged were those which indicated the least depletion as coopared to those which in- dicated moderate to heavy depletion. This was done on the premise that the assessment would be concerned prin- cipally with those streams where water was most avail- able (physically if not legally). That assumption may not be valid in all cases. The point is that the suggested reaches and the selected reaches both serve to represent subclasses (unless there is only one stream in the class) which are predicated upon the higher flows in each class. If an emerging technology should involve streams in a subclass having a lower average discharge, the selected reach for that class might not serve as a basis for estimating impact. 3. Suggested representative stream reaches. These were picked on the basis of how closely the watershed area and average annual discharge of the suggested reach matched the median watershed area of the class and the average annual flow of the subclass being represented. Obviously, there are other valid considerations which may influence the selection of a particular stream reach to represent a particulor Group, Class, or subclass. 44.~tream reaches designated by the Steering Committee. These reaches include the ones identified in your memo- randum dated February 1, 1978, augmented by the three additional reaches covered by your memorandum dated April 14. There is no serious incompatibility between the suggested re~ches and the selected renches which would raise any concern for the coverage prOvided, within the scope of the subclasses represented. Sincerely yours, , ,- J 'f : /.. I vr:!-i tl./t. C(. - C/ v yr/.I-Gv I Ralph ^. ~chm1dt 0_- ____~ _"0_____