charged the Monitoring and Evaluation Group to "aid in development and implementation of a 

 systemwide monitoring and evaluation program. . . ." Presently, the Council provides approximately 

 $100,000 annually to fund the Monitoring and Evaluation Group. Further development and 

 implementation of a monitoring program can be expected to require an expansion of the present group 

 and its activities. This could increase costs significantly. 



Option B. Bonneville funding. This option would call for Bonneville funding of a cooperative 

 technical group that could represent all entities, including the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife 

 Authority, Bonneville, the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, the Corps, the Council and 

 others. The group could be charged with conducting a system monitoring and evaluation program that 

 built on the work to date of the Monitoring and Evaluation Group and included the elements listed in the 

 Council's 1987 program. The group could report periodically to the Council and the region on 

 progress of the program and identify areas of the program requiring particular management attention 

 or possible modification of the program. Should a cooperative technical group be formed to address 

 other aspects of research and monitoring (Issue 3 above), it might be the logical group to fulfill this 

 function. 



6- How can communication of research and monitoring results to resource managers and the 

 interested public be improved? 



It appears that existing mechanisms to communicate research and monitoring results are 

 inadequate. The availability of policy guidance to articulate management needs could help solve this 

 problem, because research and monitoring results that respond to clear management needs will very 

 likely be communicated more effectively.' It is also important that research results be synthesized into a 

 form that managers and others can use, and that an appropriate forum be developed for 

 communicating results to all interested parties. 



The following three options include a range of solutions, from implementing actions already 

 planned (the coordinated information system) to establishing several mechanisms to institutionalize 

 communication of results. 



Option A. Take no additional action beyond existing mechanisms and the establishment of a 

 coordinated information system. The 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program calls for the establishment of a 

 coordinated information system as part of its system monitoring and evaluation program. The 

 coordinated information system has been initiated. It is intended to facilitate effective exchange and 

 dissemination of fisheries data, including coordination of systemwide data collection programs, 

 identification of data collection needs, and coordination of system monitoring and evaluation program 

 data with other data collection efforts. 



Qp^'O" B. In addition to the coordinated information system, establish an annual research and 

 monitoring seminar to promote interaction among scientists and decision makers, and to inform 

 decision makers of research and monitoring results. This seminar could: 1) provide opportunities for 

 scientists to discuss research and monitoring issues with others within and outside the basin; 2) inform 

 decision makers and managers of research and monitoring results; and 3) provide opportunities for 

 decision makers and managers to make scientists aware of management concerns and needs. The 

 seminar could be held in two segments to accommodate both exchange among scientists and 

 interaction between scientists and decision makers. 



-15- 



