Laserfiche WebLink
support the process.) If a good community process is developed, additional funding sources may <br /> include USFS, DOI, and State of Colorado. <br /> 8. Community Sweep Process to be conducted generally in a standardized format. <br /> Format to be developed for first community stream sweep and improved and adapted from <br /> experience for streams to be reviewed later in the process. <br /> 9. Questions re: community process: <br /> a. Number of meetings/stream? <br /> b. How make meetings known to public? <br /> c. What is to happen at meetings? Agenda? <br /> d. In an easy to understand form, Committee to present what Steering <br /> Committee has learned so Community can add what Committee has missed. <br /> 10. Ideas re: Committee Recommendations to Community. <br /> a. Committee not initially make recommendation so community has active <br /> role. Committee may present some options--but community may develop new tools, <br /> additional options. <br /> b. Committee needs to make sensible recommendations and dissenters and <br /> their interests need to be defined. <br /> c. Committee may champion an idea or mediate among conflicting interests. <br /> d. Committee may pull back to seek coalescence of ideas,but keep process <br /> open. Put ideas to basin community- cogent, cohesive alternatives. <br /> 11. Avoid voting at community meetings. Present this concept at first meeting. <br /> 12. How will final community recommendations come to fruition? <br /> a. Not return to Steering Committee for decision making. This detracts from <br /> community process. <br /> b. What is to be the product of community meetings? <br /> c. Community walk away or develop coalesced set of consensus ideas -upon <br /> which not all necessarily agree. <br /> 6 <br />