Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. e <br /> <br />Qualifications <br />The experts that we hire to perform our technical studies should have an <br />established reputation in geology, with emphasis on sediment transport <br />and fluvial processes. They should either have experience as expert <br />witnesses, or else be well-published in the field. We should look for a <br />team with at least two strong people on it, so we are not completely <br />dependent on the work of one person. Our experts may come either from an <br />academic background or else work for a consulting firm with strong <br />credentials in geology and environmental engineering. <br /> <br />Components of Study <br />1). Literature Review. <br />Our experts should already be familiar with the literature of the field. <br />They should compile a bibliography including general references on <br />sediment transport and streambed morphology. There should also be an <br />annotated list of studies relating changes in streamflow to changes in <br />streambed morphology. <br /> <br />2). Critique of Forest Service Methodology <br />a). Theory. Our experts should examine the validity of the Forest <br />Service channel maintenance theory, and it applicability to streams <br />in Colorado. One critical part of the Forest Service methodology <br />is the reasoning relating the desired annual hydrograph to bankfull <br />discharge. The shape and magnitude of this hydrograph are based on <br />the flow level determined to be responsible for the major portion <br />of sediment transport capacity. Our experts should determine <br />whether the same effects could be achieved with a different flow <br />regime, and how sensitive the streambed may be to relatively minor <br />changes in flow. By claiming approximately 78% of the flow rather <br />than its entirety, the Forest Service is already acknowledging that <br />minor changes in the hydrologic regime are acceptable. We should <br />be careful that whatever arguments we make cannot be turned against <br />us to support a claim for an even greater percentage of the flow. <br /> <br />b). Application. The bulk of the Forest Service handbook is <br />devoted to the description of different methods whereby the <br />parameters defining the hydrograph can be quantified for a specific <br />stream. Much of the methodology is concerned with means of <br />estimating parameters on the basis of mapwork rather than <br />fieldwork. As a result, a field check of a particular stream may <br />show that the estimated parameters are in substantial error. <br /> <br /> <br />We do not have the time or funds to field check all the streams on <br />which claims are being made. However, we will want to have <br />evidence showing that any specific claim may be in error, and as <br />such should be subject to modification at a later date. This error <br />could be in the estimate of the channel width or in terms of water <br />availability. (As a matter of practicality, it does not make sense <br />for either side to field check all streams at this point, many of <br />which are relatively inaccessible and may never be subject to a <br />water diversion application.) <br />