My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Governance Committee Negotiating Team Meeting
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Governance Committee Negotiating Team Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:40:06 PM
Creation date
7/9/2009 10:17:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.750
Description
Governance Committee Meeting
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Author
Governance Committee
Title
Governance Committee Negotiating Team Meeting
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FWCA report was prepared but the state agencies wanted to wait until the preferred alternative <br />was identified before completing their review and comments. In working with the state agencies <br />the EIS Team would like GC representatives from the respective states to participate. A draft of <br />the FWCA report will be made available to the state representatives prior to these meetings. All <br />states said that they could participate. <br />Choke Point <br />Jim Cook provided a draft report to Mike Purcell for use in drafting the Choke Point RFP for the <br />Cooperative Agreement. It was noted that there may be a need for some additional mapping <br />work, but this will not be known until a complete review of the draft report was completed. If <br />additional cross sections are needed the Nebraska DNR will provide them. <br />Instream Flow Recommendation Document <br />John Lawson reported that he will send the Instream Flow Recommendations document to the <br />WMC for comments and recominendations. <br />AMP <br />Dale Strickland reviewed points made in the memo prepared by the AM Advisors. The main <br />point of the memo was to encourage the use of good science in making policy decisions. <br />Concern was raised by the group that the memo appears to be disconnected from reality or takes <br />an "ivory-tower" approach. <br />Dale asked the group to review current appointments to the AMWG to make certain they can <br />operate within the proposed ground rules for completing the AMP. Dale pointed out that the <br />memo recommended an independent AMWG and that at some point the GC also needs to decide <br />whether or not they continue with the Program TAC, use an independent AMWG, or some <br />combination. There will need to be a minimum of four AMWG meetings before October to <br />complete the AMP for printing of the Program. Dale was asked to Chair these meetings. If there <br />are problems with individuals at the meetings not focusing on solving issues, Dale was asked to <br />address the issue with the person's GC representative. <br />Dale noted that the original $40,000 budget approved for the AM Advisors has been exhausted. <br />It is estimated that an additional $46,000 will be needed to complete the SOW for developing the <br />AMP. The GC asked that this be included on the next GC agenda for approval. <br />Brian Barels distributed a set of Downstream Water Users hypotheses identified as a starting <br />point. Brian noted that these have not prioritized and is just what the water users have identified <br />to date. The list does not include input from states or other water users. Brian noted that his <br />group expressed concern at having to do this outside of the AMP development process as they <br />felt that the hypotheses should be derived as part of developing the CEMs. <br />Incentives <br />Colorado reported that they have not changed their mind regarding incentives. The issue was <br />dropped from further consideration.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.