8196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

eventually, evaluation and recommendations. Steps included group design of groundrules, articulation of desired outcomes of the process and each meeting, and the design of timed agendas to achieve those outcomes. The process was designed to allow all stakeholders to participate fully in the transition from a somewhat adversarial model of interaction to a more problem-defining and solving model using collaborative and consensus-based decision-making. At critical junctures, the facilitation and consulting team also provided skill-building interventions in conflict management and collaborative problem solving. The process promoted success of the endeavor by providing an environment within which both substantive disagreements and communication issues could be addressed and resolved. Substance. An important early step in the group's progress was to identify and achieve consensus on the priority issues. The group organized substantive issues into four action categories: Category I - Critical; necessary to work on now, although ultimate resolution may or may not be within the purview of GURU II. Category II - Work on Next;, (although work may already be in progress by some GURU II members or other RIP parties). Category III - Work on Later; long-term issues not susceptible to immediate resolution Category IV - Non-issues ; at least at this time. The group then categorized the issues as follows: Category I - (a) Uncertainties in Flow Recommendations. (b) CWCB Discretion When No Direct Flow/Population Causal Linkage Can Be Demonstrated. (c) Interim Instream Flow Rights. (d) Impact of the Legal Protection of the Flows Needed for Recovery on Colorado's Ability to Develop its Compact Apportionments (e) "Sufficient Progress" As Possible Impediment to Protecting Flows. (f) Lack of Grassroots Constituency Support Within Agencies and Among Public. Category II - (a) Previous CWCB Decisions. (b) "Physically and Legally Available" Requirement.