Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--Fred Walker: The hope is that time line can be changed; interested parties would <br />change the culture. <br />--Eric Wilkenson: RE: SWSI target date of 30 years: first one done in history of <br />state; priority must be credible; go much farther than 30 years, credibility can be <br />an issue. Thus, adaptive management approach is important. Legislature will <br />decide what CWBC will do with the data of SWSI. $3 million effort here. Thus, <br />fi-equency of how these studies are done must be pmdent. Thus, five year horizon <br />is useful. Update and go forward. <br />--Steve Spann: process is invented; let's keep tool we have developed going. <br />--John Metli: main purpose will be educational; what we establish here should be <br />hopefully an engine and vehicle to set state cooperation for future generations; <br />--McVicker: IBCC committee-how to make sure Eric and Mike are our <br />representatives and understand our concerns; <br />--Jerke: How do we go forward, exactly how much we will put into this process. <br />Must have action points to sustain interest: for example, when we talk about <br />shared values, what do we mean? How to report back on our assessments and <br />processes to the roundtable and our IBCC reps? What do we want from SWSI, <br />etc. <br />--Harold Evans: Funding is a challenge; we have no funding; thus, we will utilize <br />the bulk ofSWSI data; invite SWSI back to briefus on Phase II. How do we <br />extract the data we need? <br />--Bill Jerke: Are we comfortable with SWSI data? <br />--Eric Hecox: In some basins, there is no overlap with SWSI among members. <br />How many of us know the details ofSWSI report? Part ofDNR role is to help us <br />become familiar with it. <br />--Harold: Complete SWSI repOlt on disk; executive summary is useful. <br />--Eric: DNR will make this available; <br />--Bill: Is SWSI a good shared resource? <br />--Ken H.: Is SWSI sufficiently robust to cover environmental and recreational <br />needs, in-stream flow needs? Platte River recovery? <br />--Eric: Phase II is looking at these exact topics. One of the technical roundtables <br />is environmental and recreational flows. SWSI Phase II will be finished up late <br />spring and will strengthen Phase I. For example, more info on Ag transfers. <br />There may be areas in SWSI in which we would like to go deeper; resources <br />available to strengthen that data. <br />--Ken: Must also tackle issues that Phase I has not considered. <br />--Eric: Contact Tom Eiseman. <br />--Harold: Even taking Denver Metro out of mix, this is not homogeneous mix; <br />SWSI may speak to all of us differently. Would be useful to figure out if we do, <br />indeed, have shared values? What do Fairplay and Julesberg want, for example? <br />--Bmce: When dealing with people of another basin, important that our reps at <br />this roundtable have an understanding of the entire river. <br />--Kim Kilin: It would be appreciative to those of us who have not had a part in <br />SWSI to have an overview of the study. <br />--Steve Simms: All other roundtables will be relying on info and reports fi-om the <br />other roundtables; but there is a suspicion that some of other basins have grossly <br /> <br />3 <br />