Coordination also needs to occur with other research programs in the basin, such as those 

 associated with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan hatcheries, Mitchell Act hatcheries, other 

 hatchery programs, universities, utilities, and other research efforts. Opportunities may also exist for 

 coordination with research efforts outside the basin, such as western Oregon and Washington, Alaska, 

 Canada, and perhaps even farther afield. 



Statistical standards. An important aspect of technical quality in research and monitoring is the 

 use of sound statistical standards and experimental designs. Statistical standards provide a measure 

 of objectivity in hypothesis testing, while a sound experimental design ensures that the research or 

 monitoring program will adequately address the issue at hand. Flaws in the experimental design or 

 failure to adopt adequate statistical standards can result in wasted effort and research that creates 

 additional controversy instead of helping answer important questions. There is a need to provide 

 guidance to researchers regarding the level of statistical precision required for different types of 

 research and a process to review proposals for adequacy of experimental design. 



Scientific review. The need also exists for peer review of research proposals and reports. Inviting 

 unbiased scrutiny by recognized experts could improve the quality of research projects and the 

 interpretation of results. It could help ensure that proposed research actually is needed and will 

 contribute to answering major management questions. It could also decrease the appearance of 

 conflict of interest that has been raised by some who are concerned when research planning is done 

 by those whose organizations stand to obtain contracts as a result of the research plans. 



"^^ It has not y et been determined how progress of the fish and wildlife program in achieving 

 program goals should be measured. 



The Council's fish and wildlife program represents a considerable investment on the part of the 

 Council, fisheries managers, the implementing agencies, the region's ratepayers, and other interested 

 parties. To date, there has been no systematic method available to determine the progress of the 

 program to "protect, mitigate, and enhance" the fish and wildlife resource. The 1987 Fish and Wildlife 

 Program provided the foundation for establishing a system monitoring and evaluation program to fill 

 this gap. The system monitoring and evaluation program was intended to bring together research and 

 monitoring results into a measure of progress toward the salmon and steelhead doubling goal. The 

 units by which such progress should be measured-whether using smolts, adult fish, production 

 surplus to spawning needs, or other method-need to be determined. The Monitoring and Evaluation 

 Group has developed a series of recommendations for this effort. 



^- There is a n eed to Identify who should fund the effort to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of 

 the fish and wildlife program. ' " ~ "~ 



As noted above, the 1987 Fish and Wildlife Program called for the development of proposed 

 alternatives for a system monitoring and evaluation program. However, the program did not specify 

 who should fund that effort and who should be involved in it. This issue needs to be addressed before 

 the system monitoring and evaluation program can be fully implemented. 



6- Communication of research and monitoring results needs to be improved. 



There is no specific mechanism for summarizing and communicating research and monitoring 

 results to decision makers and interested parties so that results can be used to improve management, 

 mform policy decisions, and guide the adjustment of current actions and goals. Because 



