seek ways in which the [Endangered Species] Act's mandates can be satisfied consistent 

 with the region's need for collaborative decisionmaking." 



A Council fish and wildlife committee. Alternatively, the Council could 

 establish a subcommittee of all the region's fish and wildlife managers (state, federal and 

 tribal) to develop coordinated planning recommendations for the Council. The Council 

 could use this process to develop a reconciled program responsive not just to the 

 standards of the Northwest Power Act but also to the other relevant statutes. This is 

 because the Council's program must consist of measures "which can be expected to be 

 implemented" by the federal agencies, and so the fish and wildlife committee's 

 recommendations could not conflict with the major federal laws that govern federal 

 agencies: the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and other federal laws. And 

 because the Council must give "due consideration" to the authorities and expertise of the 

 region's fish and wildlife agencies and Indian tribes in resolving differences between fish 

 and wildlife recommendations, the Council would give significant weight to the 

 committee's recommendations. 



COMMENTORS: Is one of these approaches to convening the principals 

 likely to be more productive than the other? Is another approach more promising? 



2. Resolve differences among plans . 



Once convened by either method, decision makers would appoint technical panels 

 to review current fish and wildlife plans, identify points on which there is agreement or 

 disagreement, and develop a process aimed at agreement on a single, coordinated plan. A 

 major task for decision makers would be to establish effective dispute resolution 

 procedures. Substantial differences involving policy might be referred to a policy- level 

 panel. Important scientific disagreements could be referred to an independent scientific 

 group convened by the Council/NMFS Independent Scienufic Advisory Board. To 

 address disputes that cannot be resolved by these bodies, decision makers should create a 

 dispute resolution mechanism that is as legally binding as possible. 



The reconciled plan should make special provision for watershed efforts, including 

 financial incentives with local cost sharing. The plan must envision both bottom-up and 

 top-down processes: watershed groups must have flexibility to find their own ways to 

 achieve restoration objectives as long as compatible with the Basin's strategies. The plan 

 should include watershed planning guidelines to ensure that watershed and basinwide 

 efforts are compatible. 



COMMENTORS: Given the different standards and processes of the 

 Northwest Power Act, the Endangered Species Act and other laws, how realistic is it 

 to think that differences among plans can be resolved with no changes in law? How 

 important is it to do so? What approaches can be taken to dispute resolution that 

 are likely to be effective but do not compromise legal responsibilities? Would the 

 Council's subbasin plans serve as a vehicle for watershed management? 



