research data are reflected in the calculation, the change in projected surplus production could be 

 used as a measure of program progress. 



This approach offers the opportunity to isolate the effects of the program within a computer 

 model. The model can also be used to generate testable hypotheses about the program. As these are 

 tested with specific program actions, important knowledge could be gained for refinement of the 

 program. On the other hand, the modeling approach is focused on long-term change and accordingly 

 would not provide real-time monitoring of changes in important parameters such as harvest or passage 

 rates. 



The cost of development, refinement, and operation of the model to generate an index of program 

 progress is estimated at $150,000 annually. 



Option P. Recommendation of the Monitoring and Evaluation Group. One of the principal 

 conclusions of the group was that there was no single measure of program progress. Each of the 

 above methods has certain features that are needed for a full expression of program effects. Smolt 

 counts provide an early indication of program effects and adult counts measure the "bottom-line" of 

 progress in restoring the fish runs. Analysis of the projected surplus production can increase our 

 knowledge, and should aid in refinement of the program. For this reason, the Monitoring and 

 Evaluation Group recommended that all three measures be used to evaluate the program. 



The cost of using all three approaches is estimated at $200,000 annually. 



5. Who should fund the effort to monitor and evaluate the progress of the fish and wildlife program? 



While the 1987 program stated that ". . . the Council will develop a system monitoring and 

 evaluation program ... to measure progress toward the doubling goal as well as consistency with 

 program policies.", it did not specify how a monitoring program would be implemented or who should 

 fund its implementation. A wide variety of groups in the region have an interest in monitoring the 

 success of the fish and wildlife program. The Council has a fundamental interest in monitoring the 

 program so that it can be refined to achieve the goals of the program. Bonneville and the utilities have 

 an interest in determining the efficacy of investments of ratepayer funds. The fishery agencies and 

 tribes want to ensure that the program is biologically sound and successful in achieving management 

 goals. Many public interest and environmental groups are concerned that the implementation of the 

 program adequately addresses their concerns as well. 



Because of the many diverse groups that are interested in following the progress of the fish and 

 wildlife program, it is clear that a monitoring program needs to be developed and implemented in a 

 cooperative fashion. Two avenues appear to be available to accomplish this goal. 



Option A. Council funding. Under this option, the Council would fund the further development 

 and implementation of a program to monitor and evaluate the fish and wildlife program. This could be 

 done through the existing Monitoring and Evaluation Group or an expanded group. As noted above, 

 this group has spent considerable effort in developing alternative means to measure program progress 

 and to develop the components of a monitoring program. The group currently utilizes expertise from 

 the fish agencies, tribes. Council, the utilities, and consultants in a group that reports to the Council. 

 This group could be charged to develop and implement a monitoring program and report periodically 

 to the Council and the region regarding progress of the program and issues requiring particular 

 management attention or possible modification of the program. The 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program 



-14- 



