My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12864
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSPC12864
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 1:47:11 PM
Creation date
4/15/2008 1:32:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8062
Description
Federal Water Rigjts, National Forest ISF Claims
State
CO
Author
CWCB/Varied
Title
Confidential Attorney Work Product - Master Outline of Trial Preparation Tasks
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. What parameters do you consider to be the most important for dividing <br />streams into different classifications? How many classifications should <br />there be and why? <br /> <br />5. One argument made by all the consultants is that the Forest Service <br />method depends primarily on data from sand-bed streams and does not apply <br />to the gravel-bed streams of Colorado. Please comment on the literature <br />available on gravel-bed streams and/or specifically on Colorado streams. <br />Is there sufficient information available to critique the Forest Service <br />method, or are the results of field work essential? <br /> <br />6. Encroachment by vegetation was given as the justification for a year- <br />round base flow. On streams where vegetation may be a concern, is a base <br />flow sufficient to prevent such encroachment? Is a base flow necessary <br />on these grounds, if a high flow of short duration occurs annually? <br /> <br />7. Is the channel-forming discharge necessarily the channel-maintenance <br />discharge? Have there been studies on this topic? <br /> <br />8. In response to arguments concerning the balance between sediment <br />supply and sediment transport capacity, how will you determine the <br />sediment supply? Is it sufficient to look at the balance at particular <br />sites within the stream, or is it necessary to examine the sources of <br />sediment within the drainage basin? <br /> <br />ofhJyiJ <br /> <br />9. The Forest Service hydrology calculations use elevation and drainage <br />basin area to determine bankfull flow. For sites on ungaged streams, how <br />do you propose to develop the necessary hydrology to 1) test the Forest <br />Service claims, and 2) test alternative methodologies? <br /> <br />Field Work <br /> <br />1. The field work for this project could range from a few sites studied <br />in depth to field measurements on all streams on which flows are being <br />claimed. What was the reasoning behind selecting the particular program <br />of fieldwork you have proposed? <br /> <br />2. How important is it to collect data for each site under both high and <br />low flow conditions? How do you propose to deal with the need for <br />preliminary investigation in the office versus the immediacy of the 1986 <br />snowmelt season? <br /> <br />3. What changes would you make to your scope of work if the study period <br />were extended to include the 1987 runoff season? <br /> <br /> <br />4. Since stream channels are not uniform, how will you select the exact <br />site to be studied? How will you document your selection? <br /> <br />5. What a~e the pros and cons of studying several sites on the same <br />stream? If you recommend this approach, how close should the sites be? <br /> <br />6. To what extent is it necessary to look at land use within the basin, <br />both present and historical? <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.