Laserfiche WebLink
hand to these premises as: "Happy fish and happy people." <br />A formal analysis was also conducted to delineate those factors that would assist in <br />achieving the underlying premises for the RIP and those that would make it difficult. This allowed <br />the group to articulate the challenges and to gain some confidence that there were sufficient forces <br />working in their favor to succeed. <br />2.3.2. Later Developments. The balance of the process, which to some extent is t~~e~e-~sk~ <br />detailed in the following section of this report, entailed the following steps. <br />(a) Inventory a "preliminary list of potential impediments to appropriation, lease, <br />acquisition and/or protection of instream flows for endangered species." <br />(b) Sort and classify the above list into four categories (see section 3.2.1 of <br />Chapter 3): <br />Category I Those that are critical and can be addressed. <br />Category II : Those that are important and should be addressed next (or <br /> are already in progress in some other dialogue or venue). <br />Category III: Those that are long-term problems that will be tackled later. <br />Category IV: Non-issues that can be disposed of immediately. <br />The Category I issues were then divided into sub-categories and issues were translated into <br />solvable problems, i.e., conflict statements were re-formulated into "how to" questions. This then <br />allowed the group to make the transition from participants in a conflict into collaborators in a <br />problem solving project. <br />Once the Category I issues were translated into problem descriptions, the group was able to <br />employ a typical problem solving model that began with the generation of options and the <br />enumeration of evaluation criteria through to application of criteria and agreement on recommended <br />solutions. <br />Observations on the process employed in this project are contained in Chapter 4 of this <br />report. <br />2-4 <br />