Laserfiche WebLink
The consumptive work group is still being formed and they are planning to kick it off <br />Aug. 1, and will look for participation from the roundtables as well as some of the people <br />involved in SWSI -2. <br />The nonconsumptive work group deals largely with recreational/environmental values, <br />attributes and concerns. One of the conclusions from SWSI-1 was that more work needs <br />to be done in the environment/recreational needs. Steve Harris asked how much did the <br />IBCC discuss the process. His concern is that this is a top-down process. Another major <br />concern is the time required to participate on a state-wide workgroup---looking at the <br />nonconsumptive steering committee, most are NGO's (non-governmental organizations) <br />who have the ability to pay people to participate in the roundtable process to promote <br />their own positions. Eric said that was not discussed. Steve reiterated that the amount of <br />time required is a major concern for most members. Eric reminded the members that the <br />statewide water iiutiative put together attributes or environmental/recreational values and <br />mapped those values. One of the teclulical committees that were put together focused on <br />environmental/recreational issues. SWSI-2 did the mapping, but they wanted the <br />important decisions to be left to the roundtables. These are just tools. The roundtables <br />need to: <br />1. Look at SWSI-2 information and deternune if all attributes are identified. <br />Determine if additional mapping is needed. <br />2. Establish priorities based on what is important in our local area. <br />3. What does it take to protect that prioritized resource? What's the most <br />appropriate way to quantify? <br />Steve opened the meeting for discussion and feedback for Eric. <br />Jim Siscoe asked if this was being built as a geo-database. Eric believes that was true. <br />He added that the group that put SWSI-2 together spent a lot of time on meta-data (sic) <br />which quantifies the data quality. That is also in a port that you can pull off online. Jim <br />asked, "Given the current issue of jurisdictional versus non-jurisdictional wetlands, are <br />you going to in any way try to give a jurisdictional or non jurisdictional report or <br />determination or are we going to leave that to the private land owners?" Eric indicated he <br />was not as familiar with the issue and thought that IBCC would wait for a request from a <br />roundtable for additional information on wetlands. Jim tallced about the Dolores River <br />Dialogue, and their having used high resolution photography, GIS work, to identify <br />exactly the issues Eric had tallced about. What is the IBCC's position on whether to <br />reinvent the wheel or use data that already exists? Eric said that the Dolores Dialogue <br />was good and that's the type of thing the IBCC is trying to foster to meet different needs <br />and values within a particular area. <br />Q&As: <br />Q: Who is the workgroup? Where did they come from? <br />A: It was made up originally of the environmental/recreational people from the <br />roundtables and anyone else that wanted to be involved. It is an open process and the <br />roundtable may add additional reps. <br />Q: What is the role of the workgroup? <br />