4. Identify dispute resolution processes . 



There may be no one-size-fits-all dispute resolution process for implemenuition 

 disputes. However, dispute resolution is necessary to ensure that implementation is not 

 paralyzed by disagreements. Processes that currently are working effectively should be 

 left intact. Where there are no such processes, processes should be established. 



There is considerable interest in processes using technical and policy panels to 

 resolve disagreements where possible, and an "action-forcing" mechanism such as an 

 Administrative Law Judge (as in the Mid-Columbia FERC model). Short of an action- 

 forcing mechanism, mediation or non-binding arbitration processes could be developed. With 

 non-binding arbitration, for example, a dispute could be submitted to a neutral arbitrator. A 

 well-coasidered arbitrator's opinion could have a significant influence on agency decisions. At 

 the very least, if an agency disagrees with the arbitrator, it would have a burden of justifying its 

 action. 



COMMENTORS: To what extent can action-forcing mechanisms be created 

 to resolve implementation disputes with no change in law? Would it be possible to 

 create such a mechanism judicially and would this prospect justify the risks 

 associated with litigation? Could the principals jointly create an Administrative 

 Law Judge with enough authority to resolve disputes? 



5. Work with the Independent Scientific Advisory Board . 



Workshop participants saw a clear need for an independent scientific advisory 

 entity to help design a monitoring and evaluation program, address scientific disputes, 

 provide scientific advice relevant to policy questions, and review research designs and 

 proposals. The current Independent Scientific Advisory Board established by the Council 

 and the National Marine Fisheries Service should perform these functions unless there is 

 agreement on modifications to the Board. 



6. Create an effective monitoring and evaluation program . 



Decisionmakers need to put a high priority on establishing an effective monitoring 

 and evaluation program. To ensure its integrity such a program should be insulated from 

 those with planning and implementation responsibilities, provide adequate funding and 

 commit all implementers to cooperate in the program. Locating the program with the 

 Independent Scientific Advisory Board may be advisable. The monitoring and evaluation 

 program must also have a clear and direct connection with decision makers. Decision 

 makers must learn the results of mitigation actions, and the monitoring and evaluation 

 program must be well aware of the expectations of decision makers. 



