defined procedure for referring research-related disputes to the policy level for resolution. This has 

 caused many problems in implementing the program's research planning process in the past year and 

 a half. 



The major problems occurred in mainstem research areas, where policy conflicts have been most 

 intense. For example, the lack of policy guidance contributed to the development of substantial and 

 unresolved controversy in planning Bonneville-funded research on reservoir mortality and water budget 

 effectiveness. Without a forum for resolution of these disputes, interested parties developed two 

 competing research work plans for research in this area. 



There have also been problems in achieving a coordinated program of Bonneville-funded and 

 Corps-funded mainstem research, because a policy forum has not been available to develop overall 

 mainstem management needs. As a result, some important research areas may be omitted, and there 

 may not be adequate coordination of mainstem research funded by the two agencies. In short, the 

 interested parties have not agreed on what needs to be learned and how it should be studied. 



In addition, some are concerned that the Council's efforts to focus research through the areas of 

 emphasis may exclude some important research topics such as evaluation of habitat improvements 

 and survival of fish in the estuary and ocean. Some research spans two or more technical work groups 

 and is not easily developed in the current planning framework. In the absence of a mechanism for 

 policy guidance, work on some important topics that overlap areas of emphasis might not be pursued. 

 For example, the role of hatchery practices in effects of supplementation is not clearly the purview of 

 either the hatchery effectiveness or supplementation work groups. Research that addresses system- 

 wide problems also may not be addressed by any one technical work group. Each of these 

 deficiencies might be corrected with effective and continuing policy guidance. 



2. Cooperation and coordination in planning Corps-funded research need to be improved. 



In addition to the need to coordinate Bonneville-funded and Corps-funded research, disputes 

 have arisen within the Corps research process because the fisheries agencies and tribes believe that 

 their views have not been adequately represented or taken into account in the Corps decision-making 

 structure. Some means to improve cooperation in Corps research planning may be needed. 



3. Technical quality of research and monitorinq needs to be improved. 



Some have argued that existing mechanisms may be inadequate to assure technical quality of 

 research activities and products, including coordination of effort, development of statistical standards, 

 and scientific review. 



Coordination. Coordination should help avoid duplication of past and ongoing efforts, should 

 enable researchers and resource managers to take advantage of opportunities to share resources, 

 should provide for study designs that are complementary as appropriate, and should help assure that a 

 systemwide research perspective is maintained. 



As an example, coordination of projects within and between the six areas of research emphasis, 

 and with hatchery production and supplementation programs, needs to occur. Currently, coordination 

 does occur in an ad hoc fashion, but these efforts are limited by staffing and time limitations. 



