Four options for improving technical quality have been identified: 



Option A. Rely on the Implementation Planning Process to improve technical quality. 



This would require close cooperation between the Implementation Planning Process Scientific 

 Review Group and the Council's Monitoring and Evaluation Group. The two groups would be 

 responsible for 1) identifying opportunities for coordination among research and monitoring efforts; 2) 

 providing scientific review of project statements of work, statistical standards, and results; 3) 

 coordinating genetics monitoring and planning; and 4) implementing a program for monitoring and 

 evaluating the effectiveness of program actions basin-wide. 



Option B. Establish a cooperative integration and review group. This alternative would merge the 

 existing Monitoring and Evaluation Group with the Scientific Review Group. It could also include 

 representation from other responsible entities within the basin, e.g., the Corps of Engineers. With 

 policy-level direction, the group could integrate and evaluate systemwide efforts to double salmon and 

 steelhead runs. It could assist in identifying research and monitoring priorities, and in coordinating 

 various research and production programs. In addition, it could improve research quality by 

 establishing forums for scientific review and developing statistical standards. To accomplish these 

 tasks the group could form subcommittees as needed to address such topics as system planning, 

 genetics, system monitoring and evaluation, habitat classification, and scientific review of research 

 proposals. 



Option C. Incorporate a mechanism to increase independent scientific review by establishing 

 technical peer review panels composed of independent scientists working inside'and outside the 

 Columbia River Basin. These panels would be responsible for reviewing research proposals for 

 scientific merit and could submit their views to the entity established under Option A or B above. 



Option D. Establish an independent research planning foundation. The option would establish a 

 scientific institution to plan and fund salmon and steelhead research in the basin. The goal of the 

 foundation would be to provide independent planning and funding of program research. The 

 organization could be completely independent, with an advisory board made up of representatives 

 from the fisheries agencies and tribes. Alternately, it could be governed by a board of directors 

 representing the major interests in the basin. Funds for research activities coming from Bonneville and 

 other sources would be administered by the foundation. The foundation would be responsible for 

 research planning, proposal solicitation, proposal review and evaluation, monitoring, and making 

 available results concerning fish and wildlife related issues in the basin. 



4. What method should be used to measure fish and wildlife program progress toward the doubling 

 goal? 



The 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program stated that the Council's system monitoring and evaluation 

 program should include "[d]evelopment of alternative means to assess progress toward achieving the 

 goal of doubling the runs of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin consistent with the 

 policies stated in Section 204." The Monitoring and Evaluation Group has developed a set of 

 alternatives and provided a recommendation to the Council. The report of the Monitoring and 

 Evaluation Group is attached. 



-12- 



