For the February 1-2 workshop, the Council invited representatives of federal, 

 state, tribal, industrial, agricultural, environmental and other sectors to meet in Portland, 

 Oregon, on February 1 and 2. The workshop participants explored the strengths and 

 weaknesses of alternative approaches to governance. Small groups discussed criteria by 

 which any approach to governance should be evaluated (see next section), the strengths 

 and weaknesses of five specified alternatives and what changes should be made in each. 

 The alternative approaches as they were revised by workshop participants are found in 

 Appendix 2 of the workshop report. The workshop participants also identified several 

 themes that recurred throughout the workshop. Finally, the workshop facilitator, David 

 Getches, summarized several short and long-term strategies, which are in Section VI of 

 the workshop report. 



III. Criteria for evaluating governance proposals 



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

 considered should be evaluated: 



1. Appropriate authority: Do the entities with responsibility for fish and wildlife 

 decisions have authority that is appropriate to their responsibility? Can legal commitments 

 and requirements be met while pursuing planning and effective management? 



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



3. Comprehensive: Does the process address the needs of all species and the 

 whole Columbia River Basin ecosystem? 



4. 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? 



5. Cooperation: Does the governance structure encourage cooperative action and 

 avoid unnecessarily divisive processes? 



6. Dispute resolution: Is there an effective means of resolving disputes? 



7. Accountability: Are there ways to ensure that actions and program plans are 

 implemented effectively? Is responsibihty for implementation clearly defined'^ Is there 

 appropriate accountability for results? 



8. Adaptability: If a strategy for recovery and management of multiple species 

 does not deliver what it promised, is there a way to adjust it in light of new information'^ 



9. Scientific foundation and management: Are appropriate scientific standards 

 built into policy planning and implementation? Are research, monitoring and evaluation 



