My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00961
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00961
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:56:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:47:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/2003
Description
Flood Section - Probable Maximum Precipitation Site-Specific Study for the Cherry Creek Reservoir-Study Findings and Recommendations
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
<br />SECTIO.THREE <br /> <br />Steering Committee Process <br /> <br />this process asks the group to work toward a consensus level of agreement on decisions before <br />them. The meta-decision-making process allows that if there are still unresolved questions once <br />the consensus discussion has run its course, the Steering Committee members could agree to <br />acknowledge any areas of consensus reached and provide additional time to address unresolved <br />Issues. <br /> <br />To achieve a consensus in the Steering Committee recommendations, an iterative discussion <br />process was needed, as many issues had to be addressed and re-addressed to build understanding <br />of the complexity of the operational and financial aspects of stormwater management. Each <br />meeting provided a new layer of information with which the Steering Committee needed to <br />become familiar. In each meeting, the Steering Committee worked either in small group <br />discussion or in plenary discussion to build their comfort and understanding of the components <br />of the problem. From these conversations, the Steering Committee was able to both identify a <br />set of guiding criteria to use to help evaluate acceptable alternatives and work with the <br />consultants to build a set of viable alternatives for further investigation. During the seven <br />months of conversation, these alternatives were challenged, evaluated, and winnowed down to <br />the fmal recommended alternative. <br /> <br />The process is illustrated in Figure 2. The conclusions and recommendations that resulted from <br />this process are discussed in the sections below. <br /> <br />vas <br /> <br />T:\PROJECTS\22236022_GRAND_VALlEYlSUB_OQ\6.0_PROJ_DELIV\FINAl REPORT\FINAL REPT REV 4,QOC\9-JUL-03\1 3-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.