Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />discussion. An open process and putting the atlas + results on an interactive web site (that lets <br />them see model results for areas of interest) will greatly help the political process. <br /> <br />III Open Discussion: <br /> <br />Kevin: It's a lot more convincing to the public than a line on some base map. Builds public <br />confidence and "buy-in" credibility. <br /> <br />Alison: People gain confidence if they have access to information. If they can have some control <br />over it, then they can learn from playing with it. Then they can maybe trust it and use it to make <br />decisions for themselves. For example, many citizens in Eldorado have stated they don't believe <br />Eldorado Canyon will flood again. Ifwe take a reasonable event and let them run it, then they <br />can evaluate the results for their selves. <br /> <br />Pedro: stated a concern that the problem with people running models is they don't know how to <br />use the models. People with minimal technical knowledge might end up inputting the wrong <br />thing and getting the wrong results. Or perhaps some people (journalists, developers) might plug <br />in extreme factors to try to "max-out" the model for one political reason or another or just to try <br />to prove that the model is no good. If you design a model not to fail for extreme conditions then <br />the cost goes way up. So, what are reasonable parameter choices for the model need to be <br />clarified. Also, many random factors like load combinations for bridges, etc are another concern. <br />But, he likes the idea of the public having some access to the info and the contractors having <br />access to the model. <br /> <br />Alison: for the public, make the website one in which they could select from a reasonable range <br />of variables and design criteria --to run a "canned" version of the model--to begin to draw their <br />own conclusions. Metadata should also be available. <br /> <br />George: suggested that USGS (?) technical managers might be available to help. Minimizing <br />safety and damage becomes a policy issue as much as a technical one. <br /> <br />John: We should reevaluate the hydrology and hydraulics - not advocate a change of regulations. <br /> <br />~ Agreed, but with the atlas system we can throw in possible physical and proj ected land <br />use changes and they can see what happens. <br /> <br />Gilbert: said Lynn's presentation shows very careful and precise effort. But not sure how it gets <br />at the steps the community should/must be taking - this doesn't require special refinement of the <br />map. Citizens should be given adequate hydraulics/hydrology for their use in making decisions <br />(whether there is 6 inches of water or two feet) to warnings, flood-proofing property and other <br />self-help options. Public responses to warnings, etc, won't change unless we do this. What <br />information and suggestions can we give to citizens regarding what they can do at their own <br />expense? How does this apply to the cities master plan and any subsequent regulation changes <br />that people will need to live with? <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />