Laserfiche WebLink
an IBCC m eeting in A ugust. Can you get this document revised and back to IBCC right <br />away , so that you can reach out to Roundtables through July and August ? <br />Rick Brown : T his scope of work should answer every question you’ve ever wanted to <br />know about the Colorado R iver: a “ master ” scope of work. How much of it we can do is <br />another question – we can divide it into phases once w e’ve got the master together. I <br />prefer to work more closely with the IBCC until A ugust , and then take it out to the <br />R oundtables. I t hink we still need at least two months to have something that is really <br />meaningful for Roundtable input . <br />Melinda Kassen : We did a lot of this work at the last IBCC meeting – can you use that? <br />Rick Brown : If it looks like we’re on the right track as far as the broad categories, then <br />we will start to fill things in based on the minutes from the last meeting. <br /> <br />Stan Cazier : Regarding Task 2 – rather than having to review literature, could you sit <br />down with some of the experts that are available? Also, I heard w e had an Endangered <br />Species Act issue and Colorado R iver biological opinion that may raise other questions to <br />consider . Where does that fit into your tasks? <br />Rick Brown : W ould that be incorporated into task 6, or a separate task dealing with <br />regulatory issues? <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin: I sense frustration that this first - draft scoping document doesn’t capture <br />much substance. We need to capture the level of detail we discussed at the last meeting <br />in here quickly so that we can give you some substantive feedback. I’m hearing that you <br />want this to become the road map for the study, but right now there is only 2% in here, <br />and at the last meeting we talked about at least 25%. I’d like to strike a middle ground in <br />terms of participation in developing the document. Li ke it is now, it won’t mean much to <br />the Roundtables. It is a g ood idea for us to get this further along, then take it out to th e <br />R oundtables, give them one round of feedback and then get started – we need to get <br />going but must have a roadmap first. <br /> <br />Pete r B inney : The study should answer the questions of how much water is there and <br />wha t is it going to be used for? We n eed to have that platform so the right groups can <br />start debating the merits of what we’re going to be using this water for. This study <br />sho uld be the basis for that type of discussion. There s hould be enough integrity that <br />fro m a technical standpoint, you ‘ve captured institutional constraints and answered the <br />question of how much water is there. The issues have to be teed up for policy make rs at <br />state, Roundtable , and inter e st group level so they can have this discussion. We need to <br />s ee that clarity of process, thought, and definition within the scope of work for the study . <br />th <br />Can that be captured in the next several weeks i n time for review befor e the A ugust 6 <br />IBCC meeting? <br /> <br />Chris Moore : This discussion is touching on two things: process and content. It s ounds <br />like the group would like a section that defines the purpose and scope of the study, and <br />would like issues raised at last IBCC meet ing included in Task 4. About p rocess – is <br />there any way we co uld get a draft of Task 4 sent out, and get comments, so that by the <br />time we get to the meting in A ugust, you’ve got some additional input ? I w ould call this <br /> 7 <br />