The standing fish and wildlife committee would also oversee the implementation of the 

 adopted fish and wildlife program measures, including allocation of Bonneville and federally 

 appropriated funds. Research, monitoring and evaluation would be provided as under the 

 Council's current fish and wildlife program, including the assistance of the independent 

 scientific advisory board. In implementing the Council's program, the federal operating and 

 resource agencies would have to act consistent with the program or explain in writing before an 

 action is taken why it did not. The Council could then undertake mediation or non-binding arbitration 

 with the respective federal agency to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the Council and the federal 

 agency still could not resolve their differences, a single federal judge or special master would be 

 assigned to resolve such disputes on an ongoing basis. 



The membership of the Northwest Power Planning Council would be unchanged, and the 

 Council would continue to be guided by the substantive standards in the Northwest Power Act, 

 including Sections 4(h)(5) and (6). The purpose of the Council's program would remain the 

 protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin, but 

 would apply to all federal river, habitat (land and water), production and harvest management. 



Commentary : The group concluded that this approach is feasible in the near-term from a 

 technical, institutional and legislative standpoint, requiring only minimal amendments to the 

 Northwest Power Act, coupled with an Executive Order or some other administrative solution. 

 One concern expressed was how to address the Endangered Species Act and the obligations it 

 places on NMFS and USFWS vis-a-vis the Council program. The group concluded that since 

 the Council's program would consist of measures which are expected to be implemented by the 

 federal agencies, the Council's program would have to anticipate or take into account the major 

 federal laws that govern these agencies, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water 

 Act and other federal laws. Federal agencies would continue to implement these laws and 

 processes together with the Council's program, and thus NMFS would be required to explain to 

 the Council and the region in writing why a Biological Opinion for river operations or a salmon 

 recovery plan differed from the larger fish and wildlife program. 



Another question was raised in both the small and large group discussion concerning 

 state agency consistency with the Council's program. A suggestion was made that the four state 

 governors could issue similar executive orders to require state agency consistency with the 

 program. This issue was not resolved, as some felt that state consistency would not be needed 

 because the states would have no incentive to act inconsistently with the program. This would 

 be because the fish and wildlife program would be based on the recommendations of the fish and 

 wildlife agencies and Indian tribes, because the Council would defer largely to these 

 recommendations, and because the Council remains a state-appointed body. Also, some 

 expressed concern that a state consistency requirement could affect natural resources 

 management beyond fish and wildlife, such as water, mining, grazing, timber harvesting, etc. 



Another concern expressed in the large group was that non-govemmental entities and groups 

 interested in river management would not be adequately represented in the decision making process 

 in this approach. It was pointed out in response that the various river interests and groups would have 

 the same access to the fish and wildlife program decision making process as they do presently. That 



20 



