of requiring a watershed approach to be in place before access is allowed to Bonneville or 

 federally appropriated funds for habitat restoration activities in the watershed. However, the 

 systemwide body should focus on system issues; it should not address watershed-specific issues 

 or be directly involved in implementation. Implementation needs to be centered in the 

 watersheds. 



Some in the group worried that without good coordination this approach could result in 

 gridlock, failing to build necessary trust and promoting divisiveness, and that it may prove 

 impossible to coordinate watersheds, resulting in dueling processes. Others were concerned that 

 the sovereigns will find it difficult to agree on systemwide goals and policies, as the sovereigns 

 currently do not agree on the proper approach to goals and policies for watersheds. 



With regard to the interaction of the watershed approach and the Endangered Species 

 Act, the group believed that assurances need to be given that once watershed approaches are 

 endorsed by a systemwide body. Endangered Species Act considerations will not subsequently 

 require more. The need is for people to have reasonable assurances (a guarantee may be 

 infeasible) that goals will not change and that what will be done will be sufficient. Goals should 

 change through a coUective, not unilateral, process that incorporates an adaptive management 

 process. The group also agreed that it may be advisable and even desirable to coordinate 

 watershed processes with habitat conservation plans under the ESA, which could allow for a 

 degree of stability and certainty under the ESA before watershed activities are initiated. At the 

 same time, members of the group expressed a concern that subbasins not be excluded from being 

 recognized as legitimate watershed approaches simply because they do not meet requirements of 

 an HCP. HCP processes can be too prescriptive; more flexible approaches are needed for 

 specific situations. The group also supported state approaches that address weak populations 

 before listing occurs. 



The group disagreed as to what degree of watershed restoration is sufficient. The group 

 recognized the need for agreed-upon goals in this regard, whether it be historical levels of 

 populations or some other level. The watershed approach will need to establish how to 

 determine this level and who makes this decision. 



Some in the group felt that participation in local watershed groups should occur at two 

 levels. The first level would be those on the watershed council as voting members, limited to 

 citizens in the watershed who are not paid to attend meetings. The other level would include 

 government employees who are paid to attend meetings, who would be limited to observing and 

 providing technical/policy advice. A government employee could sit on the council only if they 

 were not representing their employer in that position. It was believed that this would protect 

 sovereign and property rights. 



Others in the group noted that the tribes want to be intimately involved in the watershed 

 groups and not be out- numbered. The tribal goal at a minimum will be to protect treaty and trust 

 responsibilities and ensure that cultural resource issues are addressed in plans. Others in the 

 group noted that utilities and other industry groups will want to be part of the groups, not just 

 funding the activities, and that representation by non-river users in the watersheds is also needed. 

 Activities in upland areas are important to this approach. 



27 



