WSPC12864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, r e e I do not go along with their idea of keeping the contract vague as a defence against discovery. They have already defined their approach sufficiently clearly in their proposal that this would offer us no protection against the Forest Service. My feeling is that any vagueness in the contract, no matter what firm we select, may come back to haunt us at a later date. I have the same advice concerning the monthly progress reports and the final reports. We need to have all the work that is done documented as clearly as possible; any vagueness as to methodology or results is likely to hurt us far more than an explicit report would help the opposition. I agree that we need to have someone in the State keeping close tabs on the technical studies. This is basically the role that Gene and I will play. However, this is not in lieu of another expert to oversee the project. We are not looking for a project manager, but rather a technical adviser who can add additional insight into the direction the studies should take. ~riiigyg-Qf_EQrg~1_~grYifg_tlgibQgQ1Qgy While field work is an important aspect of critiquing the Forest Service methodology, Gene Jencsok made an important point that they should put more effort into attacking the theoretical basis of the methodology. Their ideas that many of the streams are armored and are not energy-limited when it comes to sediment transport are important, and should be incorporated as an integral part of their critique. I have a few concerns with their field work technique. What happens if on some streams the bankfull discharge and the I.S-year discharge are roughly equal, and above the level of the Forest Service claim? Our results could then be taken as evidence the the flow being claimed errs on the side of being too small. This is also a relatively unsophisticated means of attacking the Forest Service claims. The Forest Set"vice has already seen this strategy in Wyoming, and may be better prepared to counter it. Also, the Forest Service methodology uses USGS gage data wherever available, and is weakest when applied to ungaged areas. By limiting the field work to gaged streams, we may be missing those streams where the Forest Service claims are weakest. I approve of their plan to look at several sites on the same stream. One problem with any study based on a stream cross-section is that the channel is not uniform, and an analysis based on a Ct"oss-section 100 feet away might yield rather different results. We should have several cross-sections in the same vicinity, together with photographic documentation, Steve Abt mentioned that they would collect as much sediment transport data as possible in order to analyze the sediment balance on selected streams. If the Forest Service has no sediment transport data to support its claims (we should find this out through discovery), then could form a strong basis for attacking their methodology.