1. What mechanism should be employed to provide policy guidance on research and monitoring, 

 such as management needs and priorities, overall levels of research effort, and dispute 

 resolution? 



Recent problems in research and monitoring have pointed to a need for early policy guidance so 

 that resource managers can clearly identify the research questions they need to have answered and 

 indicate the priority they place on the questions. Policy guidance also is needed to help deal with 

 research-related disputes that arise. 



There are several senior level policy groups currently working on different aspects of the fish and 

 wildlife program. The System Planning Oversight Committee and the System Planning Forum were 

 formed by the Council to address policy issues arising in system planning. The Mainstem Executive 

 Committee was formed by the Council, the fishery agencies and tribes, Bonneville, the Pacific 

 Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, and the Corps to address policy issues encountered in 

 managing spill, water budget, and other aspects of mainstem passage. Under the Implementation 

 Planning Process, a Program Policy Review Group would be formed. It would be a senior staff working 

 group and would include somewhat fewer than the number of entities represented on the Mainstem 

 Executive Committee and System Planning Oversight Committee. For example, as currently 

 structured, its membership would not include representatives of fishing or conservation groups, or land 

 and water managers. 



Two options have been identified to respond to the need for policy guidance and dispute 

 resolution on research issues: 



Option A. Rely on the Implementation Planning Process to improve the current situation. This 

 process creates a Program Policy Review Group, composed of Bonneville, the fisheries agencies and 

 tribes, the Corps of Engineers and the Council. The Program Policy Review Group is slated to provide 

 policy direction and an arena for resolving program implementation disputes. The group will assist 

 Bonneville in developing an annual implementation work plan. The fish and wildlife program provides 

 for Council review of the annual work plan once it is submitted by Bonneville. 



Option B. Establish a single cooperative research and monitoring policy group. A policy group 

 composed of senior-level staff could be formed to deal with Bonneville-funded and Corps-funded 

 implementation. The group could augment the membership of the Implementation Planning Process 

 Program Policy Review Group with some members of the System Planning Oversight Committee. The 

 System Planning Oversight Committee has a membership that is somewhat broader than the Program 

 Policy Review Group in that its membership includes sport fishing interests and land and water 

 managers. The group could establish subcommittees to carry out specific functions now assigned to 

 the individual policy groups. The group could reflect the interests of all entities involved and would 

 follow the fish and wildlife program. With respect to research and monitoring the group could: 1) 

 identify and prioritize systemwide management needs; 2) determine priorities based on identified 

 management needs; 3) resolve disputes or provide mechanisms for doing so; and 4) oversee research 

 and monitoring actions. The policy group could be supplemented by a senior policy appellate body as 

 needed to resolve major disputes. 



-10- 



