Included among the combined-sovereign forum's responsibilities would be habitat 

 conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act and administering Bonneville funds 

 consistent with the current Council program's emphasis on local, watershed-based habitat 

 restoration programs.. The forum would facilitate and coordinate the local watershed planning 

 process and integrate these local watershed planning processes with Endangered Species Act and 

 other requirements. 



All decision making and implementation oversight would occur in an open and public 

 process, designed to take advantage of the best processes developed in the region to date. 

 Decisions of the combined-sovereign forum would be by consensus, with resort to a dispute 

 resolution process when consensus cannot be reached. In the short-term this would likely take 

 the form of technical review panels and non-binding arbitration. Judicial review of decisions 

 would be available to those with legal standing. The sovereign entities represented in the forum 

 would not be precluded from filing legal challenges. 



Long-term/legislation. Efforts to integrate decision making to the degree 

 outlined here may turn out not to be fully successful. If so, legislation developed over the longer 

 term could create a federal/state/tribal Council and assign to it the powers and responsibilities 

 described here, including full planning and implementation responsibilities under the Northwest 

 Power Act and the Endangered Species Act. The composition of this Broad Council would be 

 negotiated in the legislative process. The legislation would assign to the Broad Council 

 responsibility for all federal fish and wildlife funding and develop methods for cost-sharing with 

 states, tribes and other parties. Legislation or other longer-term processes could also establish an 

 effective dispute resolution mechanism, such as by a Congressionally or judicially appointed 

 master or administrative law judge. 



Commentary : The attached figure graphically illustrates the approach outlined here. The 

 small group came to a consensus that better and more coordinated decision making is needed and 

 that it needs to encompass the current multi-jurisdictional situation. Many questions regarding 

 this approach were not settled upon, however. The group did not favor immediate legislation, 

 preferring instead the successive short- and then long-term approach. The group recommended 

 exploring the use of executive orders by the governors and the president as a non-legislative 

 means of ensuring that the appropriate state and federal entities will meaningfully defer to a 

 combined sovereign group. The benefit of this approach is that it would bring the decision 

 making under one umbrella, which could speed up implementation. Some were concerned, on 

 the other hand, that we would be creating another layer of bureaucracy, while others were 

 concerned that a single decision forum with real authority could not be created without 

 legislation. 



Discussion also centered around questions of membership and representation in the 

 forum and on the Broad Council. The group did not address legal issues regarding membership, 

 which would have to be faced as part of the long-term legislative package. Some in the group 

 believed membership should be limited to one participant from each of the sovereigns, and some 

 believed that the Broad Council should provide for the inclusion of non-sovereign groups such 

 as utility or environmental groups. 



23 



