communication mechanisms are inadequate, there is the potential for duplication of past and ongoing 

 research efforts. Many research and monitoring programs exist, but results are reported in varying 

 formats at various times of the year. Often information is kept in files or Is reported In the "grey" 

 literature that receives limited circulation. There is no central process for synthesizing the results of 

 research into a form that is readily available to decision makers and interested parties. Existing 

 communication mechanisms are not always effective for all relevant parties. As a result, Information 

 gained from research and monitoring may not be contributing as effectively as it might to the 

 achievement of program goals. 



NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH AND MONITORING 



During the past year, three major developments that could affect planning and Implementation of 

 research and monitoring have occurred. These are- ongoing negotiation of a modified research 

 planning process for mainstem passage research; agreement between Bonneville and the Columbia 

 Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority on a process for implementing fish and wildlife program measures; 

 and development by the Monitoring and Evaluation Group of alternative methods for measuring 

 program progress. Each Is discussed briefly below. 



"■ • Mainstem pa ssage research planning process. As this issue paper goes to press, a long-term 

 spill agreement Is being negotiated by the fisheries agencies and tribes, Bonneville, and the 

 Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee and others. This agreement may Include a 

 research planning process for mainstem research. A four-stage process has been discussed. It 

 includes the identification of research problems at the policy level, and scientific review by a panel 

 of technical experts. The process is intended to address all research having to do with mainstem 

 passage and hydroelectric project operations in the Columbia River Basin. It Includes the 

 identification of major management research needs and the approval of an annual research plan. 

 Until this process is put in place, a variety of ad hoc efforts have kept mainstem research and 

 monitoring moving forward. If the process Is ultimately not incorporated in the long-term spill 

 agreement, it is likely to be recommended as a modification of the Council's current research 

 planning process. 



2. Implementation Planning Process. Bonneville and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority 

 are in final stages of lengthy negotiations on a process designed to formalize implementation of 

 the fish and wildlife program. The goal of the process is to ensure close collaboration on 

 program implementation between Bonneville, the fisheries agencies and tribes, the Council, and 

 other parties. As is the case with the research planning process being negotiated under the spill 

 agreement, the Implementation Planning Process provides for the formation of a policy group 

 (Program Policy Review Group) to help set implementation priorities and Identify funding levels 

 for major categories of expenditures. It creates a Scientific Review Group to review research 

 proposals, evaluate Individual projects, and monitor the effectiveness of the fish and wildlife 

 program. The Implementation Planning Process also creates several technical working groups to 

 aid in project development and proposal review. The Scientific Review Group and technical 

 working groups will review technical quality, schedules and long-term costs of proposed projects 

 and will make recommendations to the Policy Review Group. The text of the Implementation 

 Planning Process will be available in the near future. 



