Laserfiche WebLink
2) Because of all pla~-ers involved, transparent in its formulation. <br />3) Results of shared vision effort, mitigation for permitting; when EIS wines out, less <br />problematic. <br />4) Template for state. <br />~) Could change course of permitting process. National test case; Secretan- of Army for <br />Civil Review interested in process; Corps thinks it is worth~~-hile. <br />Questions: <br />Bert Weaver: Move to approve $2~,~35 from basin account and move for approval for <br />$76,30 from State Wide Account. Opines that this project is an example of the kind of <br />collaborative ~~-ork with which we are charged. <br />Bill Jerke: Seconds. Agrees that this is indeed the collaborative work that Roundtable <br />works to«-ard. <br />Les Williams: What happens if y°ou don't come to some kind of agreement? <br />Harold Evans: Right where w e are today ; hopefizll~-, ~~ i11 have an EIS; if there are <br />environmental or rec interests opposed, we «i11 end up in court. This process runs <br />parallel with the EIS process; thus, if we can come to shared vision, with operational <br />scenarios of how we ~~-ould work these two reservoirs in tandem and ~~-ork with river and <br />other reservoirs to enhance stream quality, ~~-e ~~ ould be ahead of the game. We are ti-_~ ing <br />to deal with some of these problems ahead of time. <br />Les Williams: Fear was that this was going on without EIS process. <br />Chandler: We wanted to make sure that these processes were married together; so that <br />what comes out of the model, the Corps can accept these recommendations so that the <br />permitting and EIS process ah-eadv embraced some of these. Even if Corps w-ere not to <br />approve, the process could be used in other places. <br />Sasha Charnev: Hoy would the lessons learned be summarized and how would this <br />model be eitended? It would be useful to know how this will move foi-~yard after this <br />process. <br />Harold Evans: There will be a summai~- process; but key_ is that it must be voluntary-. <br />Charnel-: For example, manners iii which this would be disseminated to greater public. <br />Heather I~iight: One of the things that the Nature Conservancy has tallced about is how to <br />bring this to other communities. CSU involvement in this project, for example, has <br />resulted in presentations in the scientific community and this w-ill be continued. <br />Ralf Topper: Wondering about South Platte Decision Support S~-stem which has a model <br />in works; if there were a model developed, ~~-ould be an appropriate contribution. <br />Harold Evans: Yes, part of the objective is to incorporate with the other models. <br />Bob Streeter: Being involved in the process is exciting, but it does take time, and there is <br />little time left for fishing0 This is an exciting opportunity-. <br />Shimmi<i: Disclosure: Law firm represents City- of Ft Collins; but as I understand the <br />conflict of interest rules, Ft Collins nor our law firm will be receiving any money from <br />this, therefore, I believe that I do not have a reason for abstaining from the vote. <br />Web Jones: Similar disclosure; representi<ig client with Ft Collins; but like Shimmins, no <br />direct benefit from project; thus, no need to abstain. <br />Harold Evans: Similar disclosure. <br />Bert Weaver: Do ~Tou see an~~ conflict that this could present to the water court process in <br />any w av? <br />Web Jones: Through out the process we have been careful to avoid any conflicts with the <br />water court process. <br />Shimmin: This is really what this process was set up to do; get stakeholders together to <br />do joint planning together. <br />11 <br />