would participate. On the other hand, these watershed and subregional forums would include the 

 other public and private interests that are affected. 



Other aspects of current fish and wildlife management are far broader than fish and 

 wildlife management, especially the issues concerning flows and reservoir levels. These are also 

 the areas where the fish and wildlife managers have historically had the most trouble translating 

 plans into implementation. In these instances the fish and wildlife managers would need to 

 coordinate and reconcile their views, resolving differences by dispute resolution mechanisms and 

 not by asserting primary authorities. The managers would then provide technical 

 recommendations to the sovereigns as to the needs of fish and wildlife. These recommendations 

 would go to a coordinated body of the state, tribal and federal sovereigns relevant to the resource 

 at issue. The sovereigns, acting as equals, would make the relevant decisions, using dispute 

 resolution processes to resolve differences. 



To reduce management layers, reduce administrative spending and time, and provide for 

 direct management and accountability by the fish and wildlife managers, Bonneville would 

 transfer the administration of its fish and wildlife funds and program to an entity or trust 

 composed of the sovereigns, with the expectation that the fish and wildlife managers would 

 primarily act for the sovereigns. To this entity or trust, Bonneville would transfer the agreed- 

 upon budget for fish and wildlife activities in the Basin. It would be used to meet specified 

 goals and objectives for fish and wildlife developed by the co-managers, including monitoring 

 and evaluation plans. The agencies and tribes would report annually to the region on progress 

 toward the goals and objectives, which would be refined by the knowledge gained in 

 implementation, and would provide for an annual independent audit of the use of the funds. 

 Included within this framework would be the process for funding local watershed activities tied 

 to goals and objectives and to progress in meeting those objectives. Budgeting and allocation 

 would function in a combined bottom-up/top-down, iterative process corresponding to the levels 

 of management integration. That is, a comprehensive group of the Basin's fish and wildlife 

 managers would make broad divisions in the allocation of the available funding among regions 

 and types of activities, and actively decide on the allocation of the amount of money slated for 

 systemwide mainstem operations and system configuration, etc. Local watershed and 

 subregional management groups, as part of local action plan development, would decide how to 

 prioritize activities and allocate the money available to those activities, while providing 

 information and evaluation back to the broader group of managers to be used in reviewing the 

 broader divisions of the available resources. 



Dispute resolution mechanisms would also vary with and be appropriate to the resource 

 and activity level managed. Using the existing U.S. v. Oregon and Mid-Columbia FERC 

 processes as models, federal courts and administrative law judges would be called upon to help 

 oversee and, if necessary, resolve the more fundamental and system-wide disputes the sovereign 

 parties could not resolve themselves. At local watershed and subregional levels, it may be more 

 appropriate to create advisory panels, non-binding or binding arbitration processes and similar 

 dispute mechanisms. Independent science review or peer review would be integrated into this 

 management approach as a part of dispute resolution. The managers could also, when 

 appropriate, ask the independent scientific group review and comment on more foundational 

 issues. 



29 



« 



