WSPC12864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . e e Critique of the Forest Service Methodology Their critique would be based on an analysis of the basic assumptions, their applicability to Colorado streams, and a sensitivity analysis of the degree of impact that aggradaton might have on flooding. Simons noted that one major flaw is that the theory assumes that all streams not altered by man are stable. Field Work They will take advantage of previously collected field data to for a data base (they have already done a fair amount of work in Division 3). Simons has also analysed extensive data from the Denver Water Board in Divisions 1 and 5, and has already developed an alternative methodology which has gotten a write-off from sedimentation experts. Thus they will not be starting at base one with their field work, and already have a good idea of the types of results they will find. They will need a month to six weeks of lead time prior to going into the field in order to form their stream classification system and to select the streams to study. I suggest that we may want to limit them to 30 streams in Divisions 1 and 3 only for this field season. That way, there will be money left for additional field work in Divisions 2 and 7 once claims have been filed in those divisions. Alternative Methodology Simons & 1i have budgeted 40% of their time to be spent developing alternative methodologies. I think that it is important that we have some alternatives to offer in court, but we should not have to develop an exhaustive methodology. I agree with 1i that it would be nice to develop a methodology that could replace the FS' Chapter 30, but I do not think that we can justify using State funds to accomplish an obligation of the Forest Service. (If our outline of an alternative methodology was accepted in court, would we permit Simons & 1i to finish developing it either on their own or under the aegis of the Forest Service?) -