3. Establish a clear, integrated implementation process . 



The workshop report puts special emphasis on problems of implementation: 



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 salmon recovery is to be 

 effective. For this to occur, the objectives of plans must be simplified. Those 

 charged with carrying out plans should be accountable for doing so promptly and 

 effectively. 



Accordingly, the bulk of the principals' attention should focus on devising efficient 

 implementation arrangements and formalizing them in an interagency agreement. While the 

 details of an agreement necessarily would be determined by the principals, the following is 

 a suggested list of subjects to be addressed: 



• Creating a management group assigned to integrate and coordinate future critical 

 decisions about fish and wildlife activities, including a rolling, multi-year workplan to 

 guide decisions and responsibility for "directing traffic," ensuring that issues are being 

 addressed and not bogged down in an unproductive process; 



• 



Establishing a process for integrated budget management and setting funding 

 priorities. Currently, federal agencies are formalizing a process for accounting for all 

 Bonneville fish and wildlife funding. Principals should seek to bring other funding 

 sources, state, federal and otherwise, into a similar arrangement so that funds for 

 related fish and wildlife activities can be managed together. Similarly, the principals 

 should implement a process by which fish and wildlife funding priorities can be 

 determined. 



• Assuring that habitat and production planning and implementation occur in a 

 coordinated watershed-based process; 



• Consulting with an independent scientific advisory board to review scientific questions; 



• Allowing for appropriate public input, consultation with Canada and interest groups; 



• Ensuring accountability for results (see number 6, below). 



COMMENTORS: Given implementation difflcuities in the past, how 

 realistic is it to assume that implementation activities can be effectively coordinated 

 with no changes in law? Can disparate implenienters reasonably be expected to 

 agree, or are they more likely to be pulled in different directions by their own 

 missions? 



