Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ol .. >.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 13 <br />November 25-26, 2002 Board Meeting <br />Page 3 of3 <br /> <br />Rick Anderson of CDOW was one of the peer reviewers for the draft report. He rejected the <br />draft report with numerous criticisms of the two studies. In the channel-maintenance flow study, he <br />had concerns that the Scope of Work (SOW) was not followed and whether the methodology used <br />was appropriate. The SOW stated that there would be several study sites with 20 transects each, but <br />only one study site near Watson, Utah, was used with 11 transects on one field trip and 14 on <br />another. There was also no analysis done to extrapolate the Watson results over the remainder of the <br />river. Since the study found that the river was supply-limited for sediment, Anderson commented <br />that a lower flow regime than that proposed would probably be capable of transporting the current <br />sediment load without channel aggrading or degrading. <br />Regarding the base flow analysis, Anderson questioned whether the 150 cfs flow <br />recommendation was adequate for protecting the Colorado pikeminnow in the White River. He <br />commented that the conclusions were not supported well by the data and that there was no attempt to <br />identify flow needs on a seasonal basis. Anderson cited other methods for determining instream <br />flows that disagreed with the ISO cfs result, which he felt was basically a no-action recommendation. <br />He also commented that the results of the two studies contradicted each other in that the channel- <br />maintenance study recommends a very high recurrence but the base flow study recommends a very <br />low recurrence of the historic flow record. <br />Doug Osmundson of the USFWS, also a peer reviewer, had similar criticisms of the two <br />studies. He commented that the channel-maintenance flow study design was too limited, with one <br />0.6-mile reach used to develop recommendations for a 104-mile reach of the White River, and that it <br />was difficult to determine what was actually being concluded or recommended. Regarding the base <br />flow study, Osmundson commented that the conclusions were not supported by reliable data and that <br />the current pikeminnow habitat in the White River would not. be protected by the base flow <br />recommended. <br />Because of the major problems identified in the peer review process, the USFWS has sent the <br />studies back to the authors for extensive revisions. The next draft report is expected by the end of <br />February 2003, after which it will undergo a second peer review process. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />;.1 <br /> <br />!,: <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />We believe that the base flow recommendation, from a hydrologic standpoint, is likely <br />acceptable. However, the science on which it is based is questionable, as noted by Rick Anderson <br />and Doug Osmundson. The peak analysis is unacceptable and attempts to claim all flows above a <br />certain level. The Board ultimately rejected this approach when we made filings on the Yampa and <br />the IS-Mile Reach. Therefore, we believe the draft flow recommendations are unacceptable in their <br />current form and concur with the peer reviews and the actions taken by the USFWS for revisions. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />