2. How can cooperation in planning Corps-funded research be improved while recognizing the 

 Corps' authority and responsibility for its research progrann? 



The Corps of Engineers established a research planning process in the early 1950s. This 

 process, the Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, is composed of representatives from 

 the Corps, fisheries agencies and tribes. The Corps believes it has the authority and responsibility to 

 conduct project-specific research, not to address regionwide research needs. The Corps has stated an 

 unwillingness to give up its discretion in managing and overseeing research. 



The fisheries agencies and tribes have felt that their views have not been represented adequately 

 or taken into account in Corps decisions on research. Agency, tribal and Corps representatives on the 

 Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program Technical Coordinating Committee have 

 discussed ways to improve cooperation at the technical level, which could result in better 

 representation of agency and tribal views to the Corps policy level. However, the fishery agency and 

 tribal policy makers have felt that pursuing these discussions is not very useful. They feel that the 

 overriding problem is that Corps policy decisions do not adequately take their views into account. 



The following options describe potential solutions to this problem: 



Option A. Implement a research planning process that recognizes the Corps' authority and 

 responsibility but improves cooperation with the fisheries agencies and tribes. The following elements 

 are based on the four-stage research planning process which may be developed as part of the long- 

 term spill negotiations, and could include: 



.1. A policy-level group could work with all affected parties to develop a mainstem research 

 plan including objectives, criteria and guidelines for selection of mainstem research 

 projects; and identification of priorities for mainstem research. 



2. The Corps could agree not to implement projects inconsistent with the mainstem research 

 plan unless it provides written justification that the proposal is consistent with the 

 Northwest Power Act or is necessary to satisfy the Corps' authority and responsibility for 

 its research program. 



Qpt'on B. The Council could call on the Corps to work with other affected entities to review the 

 current research process and develop a more cooperative approach. 



3- How might the technical quality of research and monitoring be improved? 



There may exist a number of mechanisms that could improve technical quality of research and 

 monitoring. These include: better coordination of the many research, monitoring, and planning 

 activities within and outside the basin; improved use of statistical techniques and experimental designs; 

 and additional scientific review. Neither the research technical work groups nor the Monitoring and 

 Evaluation Group is presently assigned to undertake these activities. The Scientific Review Group of 

 the Implementation Planning Process, if implemented, could help provide the additional scientific 

 review. 



-11- 



