My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Meeting Minutes Nov 19, 2007
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
Meeting Minutes Nov 19, 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 12:21:30 PM
Creation date
11/11/2015 10:08:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
documents related to River Pretoection Workgroup (RPW) Steering Committee
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
11/19/2007
Author
RPW
Title
Meeting Minutes Nov 19, 2007
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.
/
4
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
River Protection Workgroup <br /> Steering Committee Minutes <br /> November 19, 2007 <br /> In attendance were: Linda Bassi (by phone for budget discussion), Scott Brinton, Steve Fearn, <br /> Chuck Lawler, Janice Sheftel, Mark Stiles, John Taylor, Chuck Wanner, Bruce Whitehead, Jeff <br /> Widen, and Facilitator Marsha Porter-Norton. <br /> A. The Committee suggested inviting Ellen Roberts, Jim Isgar, Ann McCoy Herald and John <br /> Whitney to the December 3 meeting. <br /> B. Stream Segment Priority Selection: Numerous diverse views expressed. <br /> Three choices of where to begin: Stream with 1) highest chance action; 2) middle range <br /> of issues and 3) most stakeholders/most controversy <br /> 1. If failure to have first stream community process work well, inaccurately reflects <br /> nature of process - could injure work on future segments <br /> 2. Easiest stream- may not reflect process. If first stream is a slam dunk, not <br /> develop process and W&SR alternatives <br /> 3. Start with segments which most need attention,but if first stream too hard, haven't <br /> had chance to refine process. <br /> 4. First stream needs to garner enough community interest <br /> 5. Long range considerations in choosing first stream vs no urgency at this time. <br /> 6. Animas - may be too big a bite. Has already received major attention via other <br /> issues such as RICD <br /> 7. Do an entire stream drainage together for public meetings even if Committee <br /> swept it in parts. People probably not want to come to two sets of meetings for one stream <br /> 8. Four issues be considered in making stream priority choice <br /> (a) get resolved relatively smoothly <br /> (b) if there is a less complex set of stakeholders, easier for all to deal with; <br /> learn where Committee has misconceptions <br /> (c) generate interest - all viewpoints <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.