Laserfiche WebLink
d. For each stream, community process may come up with two-three(three- <br /> four)realistic alternatives/options. If no consensus is reached, difficult to implement any <br /> protection. <br /> e. If community group cannot reach a consensus, this outcome needs to be <br /> explained. <br /> f. Community process can push to closure if Community has appropriate <br /> information. <br /> g. What needs to be accommodated? <br /> h. Will alternatives go to USFS even if no support for a W&SR outcome? <br /> Community process to send several alternatives to USFS. <br /> i. What happens afterwards is not known now. <br /> j. Go to Congress? What consensus needed? <br /> k. Alternatives could include No Action; Simple Action; or more extensive <br /> action. Keep USFS in loop. Input to USFS even after Plan finalized. USFS may not like <br /> what group does. <br /> 1. Chuck Wanner described the Poudre W&SR process which was reduced <br /> to two negotiators - one each for water development and environmental interests. 95% supported <br /> the decision. Alternatives could include No Action; Simple Action; or more extensive action. <br /> Keep USFS in loop. Input to USFS even after Plan finalized. USFS may not like what group <br /> does. <br /> 13. Success may depend on amount of time dedicated to process. Choose one or two <br /> streams to start with-perhaps one with most potential. Process could get bogged down if <br /> tackling all streams at once. <br /> 14. Process would eventually cover all streams Committee has swept. Committee <br /> decide order and balance. First one- demonstrate process. John Taylor- need consensus of <br /> ideas. <br /> H:\WATER\SWCD\River Protection\Steering Committee Minutes-100107.rtfl2/2/07 <br /> 7 <br />