A newfound regional momentum in both the fish and wildlife and power arenas needs to be encouraged and nurtured by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, says Bruce Measure, newly elected NPCC chair.

During a recent interview the Montanan discussed his views about the Council's role, past and future, and offered a "state of the Columbia-Snake River basin" perspective.

The Council was created by Congress, via the 1980's Northwest Power Act, to give the citizens of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington a stronger voice in determining the future of key resources common to all four states -- specifically, electricity generated by the Columbia River Basin hydropower dams and the fish and wildlife affected by those operations.

The Council was charged with developing and regularly updating a 20-year electric power plan that will ensure an adequate and reliable energy at the lowest economic and environmental cost to the Northwest. It must also regularly update its fish and wildlife program, which is intended to help protect and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the federal Columbia-Snake hydrosystem.

The latter task was completed last year with program amendments that included strategies stemming from a federal salmon and steelhead biological opinion for the hydro system and from so-called "Fish Accords" or memorandums of agreement between federal agencies and some Northwest states and tribes. The BiOp calls for fish and wildlife actions intended to improve the lot of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. The accords promise funding for state and tribal fish and wildlife projects.

The Policy Working Group was part of the 2 1/2-year collaborative effort that helped build NOAA Fisheries' 2008 hydro system BiOp. The collaboration was required by U.S. District Court Judge James A. Redden who in May 2005 declared the 2004 FCRPS BiOp illegal and ordered that it be reworked. It was replaced in May 2008.

The PWG process involved upper level representatives of at least four federal agencies, the four states and most of the Columbia basin tribes. It was also forum where discussions began that led to the Fish Accords.

Meanwhile, the production of a Sixth Northwest Power Plan is in the final stages. The Council is scheduled to make a final decision Wednesday on the new plan, which envisions that the Northwest can meet more than 80 percent of the additional electricity requirement over the next 20 years with energy efficiency. It says the region can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the region's power supply by not building as many new power plants that burn fossil fuels. However, the Council continues to work on the plan, and the decision may be put off until the March meeting.

Both the power and fish and wildlife processes were new and improved, says Measure, who was appointed to the Council by Gov. Brian Schweitzer January 2005, and was elected chairman at the Council's January, 2010 meeting.

Before serving on the Council, Measure was a practicing attorney in Kalispell since 1988. Prior to 1988 he was employed in the forest industry and served as vice president of the East Side Forest Practices Committee in 1984 and 1985.

Measure served in the Montana House of Representatives from 1991 to 1993. He was a member of the House Natural Resources, Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Judiciary committees.

Before joining the Council, Measure was president of the Flathead Electric Cooperative Board of Trustees. His undergraduate degree in political science and his law degree are from the University of Montana.

CBB: What do you see as the Council's major challenges or goals in the next couple of years?

MEASURE: There is significantly more collaborative, interactive work going on in the region in the areas that the Council operates than what I saw four or five years ago. Some of this is the result of the PWG process, which is the collaborative effort on the part of a number of sovereigns that resulted in the Fish Accords. The Council's power plan that is about to emerge in a month or two has been a much more collaborative effort than what I saw in the first power plan I was involved with, the Fifth Power Plan.

I'm really excited about this change in the region. And I think that my concern as chairman is that we make sure the Council is on board with that change and able to enhance this collaboration. We need to make sure Council projects and programs dovetail nicely with that collaborative spirit so we can accomplish as much as possible.

That's what I perceive as my job during the next year. So one of the major challenges, of course, is making sure that this power plan that emerges in the next month or two is useful to the region, well recognized and provides some background for the region to move forward.

CBB: How would you explain to Northwest residents the role and importance of the power plan when it comes to regional energy development, energy issues, and fish and wildlife restoration?

MEASURE: The plan is going to give the energy companies and various groups, individuals, businesses, and industries, an idea of how the region is proposing to move forward with energy development, and meet either load growth needs or meet our energy needs in ways that don't require load growth, as conservation potentially will do.

CBB: Have you sensed a buy-in in the region for the strategies outlined in the draft Sixth Power Plan?

MEASURE: I went to a number of the public meetings, at each level of input. My friends from the utility business had particular things that they wanted to talk about, that they strongly support and that they strongly disagree with. The same with my friends in the general public and small businesses.

The one thing that is resoundingly supported by all of those groups is the conservation goals that are in place as a part of the Council plan. That, I think, is very important.

This country has always prided itself on being innovative and being able to find ways to meet its needs. People in the Pacific Northwest are very optimistic about their ability to do that. I saw that over and over. So I think there is buy-in, at least in that area.

And I perceive the same type of buy-in with the fish and wildlife plan, the way we went about integrating the Accord process. Some were really skeptical about that. People were skeptical about whether or not the Council could or should integrate the Fish Accord process into the [the Council fish and wildlife] program.

When I first started going to those meetings one of the things that I foresaw as important was that the Council could be a great tool to implement any accords. Of course they weren't called the Accords at the time.

Whatever you do, in order to have public buy-in, to have the majority of the folks in the region support this, you need to allow the governance structure to be overseen by something that's perceived as a public process, available to all. And they were talking about how, maybe we should revive the Three Sovereigns, or maybe we should do this or that.

Of course everybody had their turf to protect and were very defensive about it. I said right from the beginning, why don't you let the Council do it, it's in a position to do that. It has Congress' blessing, most of the time it has the public's trust, and it has visibility, much more so than any of the agencies will ever have at that particular level of management, and certainly more than state government.

So I think the Council is a good vehicle for that.

Who did they choose when they finally came up with their plan? The Council certainly has to oversee those Accord projects and make sure that they meet scientific review.

I think that people understand that and are starting to accept it now that we've had a few Accord projects go through the process. I think people are pleased. Those who perceive themselves as paying for these projects see it as a great check on the system. People that are beneficiaries of the project dollars see it as an opportunity to gain credibility with both the region and others.

CBB: Has the Council's role changed because of its integration with these other groups and processes?

MEASURE: That's been my goal all along and I think we're moving closer toward that as we go along. Those that work with us are experiencing this integration. And I would bet that those groups who are feeling a little left out are going to see evidence of this new integration as they participate regionally, as well as individually.

But that's not to take away from local decision making. The idea of subbasin planning and other projects that the Council endorses under its program is to let people on the ground, in the particular areas they live, make decisions surrounding their fish recovery efforts and other efforts. The same is true of the suggestions that were made in the power plan regarding conservation goals. What fits for Seattle City Light or Puget Sound is not necessarily going to fit over in Browning, Mont., or at Glacier Electric. I think the Council has allowed for that type of diversity in the fish and wildlife plan, and has encouraged diversity, and hopefully the final language in the power plan will do the same.

And I think people will find that approach a good fit with the overall strategy the Council has undertaken.

CBB: You cite considerable momentum in collaboration in the world of Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife restoration. Are folks really learning to "just get along? And what are the prospects for success?

MEASURE: I'm not a biologist. But there are still a number of efforts that, depending on who you listen to, may be counterproductive to each other. You have the battles of wild fish vs. hatchery fish. You have the battles over barging vs. spill. These are still extant and they're going to remain that way.

I think there's a lot of things like that out there. There's still a lot of harmonization that has to take place to get everybody on the same page. Three years ago I was more skeptical of salmon recovery. I saw an awful lot of infighting for turf and funds and other things. But I've gotten to know a lot of these people a lot better. I am just not cynical enough to believe some of them would put their own programs ahead of the species. Most of these people are committed.

I've always been an optimist, a realistic optimistic, I guess. And given that, I see the potential. But, boy, are we going to have to change our ways. There are those who feel entitled to continued expansion and resource exploitation without boundaries. You can't have both. You can't exploit a resource that way and expect dependent species to remain constant or not disappear.

CBB: In the past there has been a perception, maybe even a reality, of an upriver/downriver split on the Council. Is that a thing of the past?

MEASURE: I think Montana has to be diligent -- any of the upriver interests have to be diligent because the demographics are against us. So we have to be pugnacious, but that doesn't mean we have to be unreasonable. And from Montana's perspective I don't think we have been.

What I see, at least from my state's perspective, is that we are going to remain vigilant about protecting what we have. But I don't think that's ever prevented us from assisting the other states and the other entities, the other sovereigns, in moving forward with the plans that were sound and well balanced and provided us protection as well.