the Council's program. This finding could create a presumption in any litigation that 

 might be brought to review an agency's consistency with the Council program. 



COMMENTORS: Would this amendment accomplish the objectives in 

 section IV? Would the potential benefits of legislation limited to this subject justify 

 the effort required to obtain it? Would even this limited legislative initiative open 

 up the Northwest Power Act more broadly and if so, would the region risk losing 

 more than it would gain? 



Require federally appropriated funds to be managed with Bonneville fish and 

 wildlife funds in an integrated manner. As noted above, without legislation it may not be 

 possible to completely integrate Congressionally appropriated or state funds into a single 

 budget account that can be managed in an integrated way. Integrated management of 

 funding for mitigation efforts could lead to substantial efficiencies in the mitigation 

 program. 



COMMENTORS: Is there precedent for integrating Congressionally 

 appropriated funds with other funds? Would the potential benefits of such 

 legislation outweigh the risks inherent in the federal (and possibly state) legislative 

 process? 



C. Broad legislation . It may be that limited legislation would not be sufficient to 

 achieve the objectives stated in section IV. If that is the case, significant changes in 

 governing structures and authorities could be considered. A broad legislative proposal 

 was discussed at the February 1-2 workshop that would: 



• Create a council with voting representatives of federal, state and tribal 

 governments and consultation with Canada. 



• Vest this broad council with full responsibility for planning, implementation 

 (including management of all funds), monitoring and evaluation of all fish and 

 wildlife decisions associated with the Columbia River hydropower system, 

 including decisions under the Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power 

 Act. 



• Make the broad council subject to appropriate public involvement procedures and 

 judicial review. 



This idea is discussed in more in the appendix to the Report of the Workshop on Fish and 

 Wildlife Governance, Approach Number 3. 



Other broad changes have been discussed. To take a single example, in 1995, 

 some members of Congress discussed a proposal that, among other things, would have 

 created a regional fish and wildlife council with state, tribal, utility and fishing interests. 

 This Council would have prepared a "resource plan" for fish and wildlife in the Columbia 



12 



