I. Introduction 



In the energy and water appropriations legislation for 1996, adopted November 

 13, 1995, Congress directed the Northwest Power Planning Council to report to Congress 

 within 180 days "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." The Council 

 convened a workshop in early February and asked diverse interests to analyze alternative 

 approaches to the governance of fish and wildlife in the basin. This is a report on that 

 workshop. 



II. Background 



One of the most frequently heard criticisms of Columbia River fish and wildlife 

 policy is that no one is "in charge." No single entity has comprehensive power to act, 

 knowledge to act sensibly and the ability, over time, to perceive the consequences of 

 action. Almost as frequently heard is the criticism that the federal government dominates 

 decision making to the exclusion of other interests and other levels of government. The 

 fact that these criticisms seem to point in opposite directions hints at the complex 

 governance of fish and wildlife in the basin. Over the past several decades a 

 constellation of agencies, courts and other entities have been "in charge" to one degree or 

 another, and authority has shifted among them with the passage and interpretation of 

 various laws and treaties. 



Federal dominance. Since the 1930s, one of the largest influences on the river 

 has been the construction and operation of dams owned or licensed by the federal 

 government. During the dam-building era, impacts to fish and wildlife were considered 

 primarily in determining to what extent the dams' impacts should be mitigated. 

 Mitigation came in the form of adult fish ladders and fish hatcheries. Federal agencies 

 such as the U. S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management also managed a large 

 share of the fish and wildlife habitat in the basin. 



Others also played significant roles. The states regulated fish and wildlife 

 harvest, hatcheries, and water use. Private dams were also built and landowners modified 

 habitat and water quality. Fish harvesters depleted stocks. 



During the late 1960s and 70s, sahnon policy in the Northwest was strongly 

 shaped by a series of federal court decisions interpreting the United States' treaties with 

 four Columbia River tribal groups, the Yakama, Nez Perce, Warm Springs and Umatilla. 

 This litigation aimed primarily at identifying an equitable balance between Indian and 

 non-Indian harvesters. Salmon harvest management in the river remains rooted in 

 processes developed by the ongoing federal court litigation. United States v. Oregon. In 

 the late 1980s, the federal court approved a negotiated settlement in the litigation, called 

 the Columbia River Fish Management Plan, addressing harvest allocation and production 

 strategies. Environmental conditions affecting salmon populations have been at issue in 

 this litigation, and federal hydropower and other activities have been a concern insofar as 



