To explore the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches, the Council invited 

 40-50 representatives of federal, state, tribal, industrial, agricultural, environmental and 

 other sectors to meet in Portland, Oregon on February 1 and 2. The full hst of workshop 

 attendees is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The Council provided attendees with 

 background on the task assigned by Congress, the fish and wildlife governance problem, 

 the alternative approaches outlined above, and a proposed list of criteria with which to 

 evaluate these alematives. 



At the workshop, a point-counterpoint presentation and critique of each 

 alternative was conducted. Next, the group developed a list of criteria with which to 

 evaluate the alternatives presented to the group as well as any other approach to regional 

 governance of fish and wildlife (see section IV, below). Following this, small groups 

 were formed to consider each alternative extensively. The small groups discussed 

 strengths and weaknesses of the altematives and determined what changes should be 

 made in the alternative to make it better fit the criteria and to respond to the region's 

 needs. The five alternative approaches as they were revised by workshop participants are 

 found in Appendix 2. Following the small group sessions, the full group of participants 

 reviewed the work of the small groups and discussed the merits of the revised alematives. 

 Finally, the workshop identified several themes that pervaded the conclusions of the 

 small groups and recurred throughout the workshop. These common themes should be 

 considered along with the criteria in the following section as the workshop participants' 

 advice to the Council. Based on this advice, the work of the small groups and the 

 workshop discussions, I have summarized several short and long-term strategies in 

 Section VI. 



IV. Criteria for evaluating altematives 



The workshop participants first developed a list of criteria by which any approach 

 being considered should be evaluated: 



1 . The long view: Does the govemance stmcture facilitate a long-term 

 sustainable vision, not just for the current generation, but for generations far into the 

 future? 



2. Holistic: Does the process address the needs of all species and the whole 

 Columbia River Basin ecosystem? 



3. Cooperation: Does the govemance stmcture encourage cooperative action 

 and avoid unnecessarily divisive processes? 



4. Clear goals: Is it clear who is in charge and what goals are being pursued? 



5. Appropriate representation: Do the bodies exercising authority have 

 appropriate membership drawn from sovereigns in the basin? Is there an appropriate 

 connection with interest groups and Canada? 



