resources may be needed. But plans do need to be integrated so that they are compatible 

 with one another and provide a single blueprint for implementation efforts. 



2. Establish clear responsibility for implementing plans . The greatest failing in 

 regional governance of fish and wildlife, expressed repeatedly by workshop participants, 

 has been the failure to implement plans. It was generally agreed that actions must be 

 taken if sahnon recovery is to be effective. For this to occur, the objectives of plans must 

 be simplified. Implementation responsibilities should be spelled out. Those charged with 

 carrying out plans should be accountable for doing so promptly and effectively. 



3. Establish dispute resolution mechanisms . While common ground is 

 frequently found among scientists, sovereigns and other interests, there are ample 

 opportunities for disagreement. There are also conflicts where technical issues and policy 

 intersect. Fair and efficient means of dispute resolution are necessary to avoid paralyzing 

 t'lsh and wildlife mitigation planning and implementation. 



4. Support watershed processes and integrate them into basinwide 

 decisionmaking . Not all planning and implementation should be directed from a basinwide 

 level. Particularly for habitat restoration efforts, local watershed plans are likely to be 

 effective in ways that top-down plans cannot be. These watershed efforts must be 

 supported and accorded flexibility in achieving restoration objectives. At the same time, 

 watershed efforts must be compatible both with other watersheds and with the Basin's 

 overall strategies. Incentives and funding should promote the coordinated efforts of local 

 planning to achieve basin- wide goals. 



5. Establish monitoring and evaluation programs that measure results and 

 ensure accountability . One of the frustrations with current governance is the lack of 

 accountability for results. Policy planners lack authority to implement plans. 

 Implementers are not responsible for policy planning. As a result, neither planners nor 

 implementers can be held accountable for results. High priority should be given to the 

 development of an effective program to monitor and evaluate mitigation efforts and tell 

 the region what is working and what is not. 



6. Ensure credible scientific foundations for planning and implementation . 

 Independent scientific advice should be available to help develop monitoring and 

 evaluation mechanisms, address scientific disputes, provide scientific advice relevant to 

 policy questions, and review research designs and proposals. 



7. Secure and allocate a reliable budget . Stable and predictable funding not 

 only makes fish and wildhfe efforts more efficient but provides funders with certainty. The 

 region must also continue the development of a coordinated process for prioritizing and 

 allocating that budget to fish and wildlife needs. Because there are multiple funding 

 sources involved in fish and wildlife mitigation, it is essential that funding be coordinated 

 to ensure that funds are strategically and efficiently invested. 



