Long Range Plan For The Klamath River Basin ... - KrisWeb

from:Identification of issues and expressions of concern were solicited and gathered1. The general public -- through public "scoping" meetings conducted in Eurekaand Yreka during fall, 1989. These meetings attracted nearly 200 interestedpersons who provided a great deal of information and a lengthy list of legitimateconcerns. Forty letters were received from people interested in the RestorationProgram.2. The Task Force -- each member was interviewed by the consulting teamduring the start-up of the planning effort. In addition, the planning team combedthe Task Force's meeting minutes, from the beginning, for indications of longrangeplanning direction.3. Fishery scientists and managers -- from State and Federal agencies, Indiantribes, and research institutions, actively engaged in Klamath River fisheriesresearch and management, responded to interviews, questionnaires andrequests for both published and unpublished data.4. The Klamath Fishery Management Council -- whose meetings the planningteam attended, minutes we reviewed and, in several cases, whose members theteam interviewed.5. Congress -- the Klamath Act and its accompanying House Report werestudied closely to ensure that the intent of Congress is pursued carefully by theTask Force in developing directions for the Restoration Program.6. The 1985 Plan -- was reviewed thoroughly as a point of departure fordeveloping this Plan (see Table 1-3 for a comparison of how this Plan's structure,the structure used by the Task Force since 1987 to organize project proposalsand funding decisions, and the 1985 Plan structure all compare).Categorizing and Consolidating the IssuesIn order to better manage the lengthy list of issues, those that appeared to berelated were put into the natural categories that appear in the left-hand column in Table1-3.Reaching the FindingsWorking from the list of issues (the public sessions, interviews, reviews of theminutes, the Klamath Act, the House Report, and the rest yielded nearly 700expressions of concern, need, etc.) the planning team asked the Task Force and thefishery specialists "What do we know about these issues? Is this a real problem or just aperceived problem? Is there information enough to compel an action, or is moreinformation needed?" The planning team tried to keep the findings short and to the point-- and used tables and figures wherever possible, so that the findings would not becomelost in a thicket of information. The major issues addressed in the Plan have been listedat the beginning of each chapter.