weight to economic values and the needs of local communities. Because it neglects these 

 values the Act can generate its own opposition both from local interests and from some 

 federal agencies whose primary missions may be at odds with species protection 

 measures. Second, the Act's focus on listed species can divert attention from the broader 

 and possibly more important task of protecting biological diversity and ecosystem 

 functions. Interests that are important under the Northwest Power Act, such as unlisted 

 anadromous and resident fish and wildlife, cannot easily be accounted for in Endangered 

 Species Act processes. Third, some of the lack of political support for Endangered 

 Species Act programs can be traced to ostensibly technical and scientific decisions made 

 solely by the responsible federal agency without significant participation by nonfederal 

 parties, the Council, the tribes and state fish and wildlife agencies. 



This is the context in which Congress directed the Northwest Power Planning 

 Council to prepare a report "regarding the most appropriate governance structure to allow 

 more effective regional control over efforts to conserve and enhance anadromous and 

 resident fish and wildlife within the Federal Columbia River Power System." 



III. Process 



To respond to Congress's charge the Council adopted a process with the 

 following phases: 1) Seeking advice on alternative approaches that might be taken to fish 

 and wildlife governance reform; 2) conducting a facilitated workshop in which key 

 alternatives were probed, elaborated and evaluated; 3) Council consideration of a report 

 and the recommendations resulting from the workshop; 4) formulating a proposed 

 Council response; 5) inviting public comment and consultation on a Council alternative 

 formulated after reviewing the results of the workshop; and 6) preparation of a final 

 report. The schedule for accomplishing the work is as follows: 



November 30, 1995 to early January, 1996: Discussions with interested parties 

 on a range of approaches. 



February 1-2, 1996: Workshop on alternative approaches. 



February 9: Transmit workshop report to Council. 



February 20-22, 1996: Council draft proposal(s). 



February 23- April 4: Circulation of proposal and public comment and 

 consultations on Council proposal(s). 



April 5 - May 14-16: Preparation of final report to Congress. 



