Columbia River Basin: Additional Federal Actions Would Benefit Restoration Efforts

The Basin is one of the nation's largest watersheds and extends mainly through four Western states and into Canada. Activities such as power generation and agricultural practices have impaired water quality in some areas, so that human health is at risk and certain species, such as salmon, are threatened or extinct. In December 2016, Congress amended the Clean Water Act by adding Section 123, which requires EPA and OMB to take actions related to restoration efforts in the Basin.

GAO was asked to review restoration efforts in the Basin. This report examines (1) efforts to improve water quality in the Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016; (2) approaches to collaboration that entities have used for selected efforts; (3) sources of funding and federal funding expenditures; and (4) the extent to which EPA and OMB have implemented Clean Water Act Section 123. GAO reviewed documentation, including laws, policies, and budget information; surveyed federal, state, tribal, and nongovernmental entities that GAO determined had participated in restoration efforts; and conducted interviews with officials from most of these entities.

Various entities, including federal and state agencies and tribes, implemented restoration efforts to improve water quality in the Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, according to GAO survey results. Entities implemented a range of restoration efforts. Efforts included activities to improve surface water quality and restore and protect habitat. For example, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho implemented projects on the Kootenai River to restore and maintain conditions that support all life stages of native fish.

Entities used various collaborative approaches . Entities' approaches to collaboration for selected water quality-related efforts in the Basin varied. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sought various entities' voluntary involvement to coordinate toxics reduction efforts in the Basin.

Total federal expenditures could not be determined . Entities reported using a mix of federal and nonfederal funding sources for restoration efforts in the Basin, but total federal expenditures could not be determined, in part because there is no federal funding dedicated to restoring the Basin.

EPA and Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) have not yet implemented Section 123. According to EPA officials, the agency has not yet taken steps to establish the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, as required by the Clean Water Act Section 123. EPA officials told GAO they have not received dedicated funding appropriated for this purpose; however, EPA has not yet requested funding to implement the program or identified needed resources. By developing a program management plan that identifies actions and resources needed, EPA would have more reasonable assurance that it can establish the program in a timely manner. Also, an interagency crosscut budget has not been submitted. According to OMB officials, they have had internal conversations on the approach to develop the budget but have not requested information from agencies. A crosscut budget would help ensure Congress is better informed as it considers funding for Basin restoration efforts.

GAO is making three recommendations, including that EPA develop a program management plan for implementing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program and that OMB compile and submit an interagency crosscut budget. EPA agreed with its recommendation. OMB did not comment, and GAO maintains its recommendations are valid.

The Columbia River Basin (Basin) is one of North America’s largest  watersheds, covering approximately 259,000 square miles, of which  about 219,400 are in the United States and 39,500 in Canada. The Basin  extends predominantly through the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon,  and Washington and into the Canadian province of British Columbia; it  encompasses mountains, forests, rivers and tributaries, rangeland, and  Pacific Ocean coastline. The Basin has environmental, cultural, and  economic significance, and its health is critical to the survival of hundreds  of fish and wildlife species and to the well-being and livelihoods of the  approximately 8 million people who inhabit and work in the Basin.

Historically, the Basin has constituted the largest salmon-producing river  system in the world, with potentially up to 16 million salmon returning to  the Basin each year for spawning purposes. The Basin is also integral to  the region’s shipping network, with ports lining the Columbia River and its  tributaries as far upstream as Lewiston, Idaho, the furthest inland seaport  in the western United States. However, hydroelectric power generation,  agricultural practices, and other human activities have impaired water  quality in some areas of the Basin to the point where historic salmon and  steelhead stocks and human health are at risk. Many Columbia River  tributaries, as well as the Columbia River mainstem and its estuary, have  been deemed ‘impaired’ under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

Historically, restoration and monitoring efforts in the Basin have focused  predominantly on recovering fish species—such as salmon—listed as  threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. For  example, restoration efforts have included protecting riverside land  through acquisitions and conservation easements and adding material to  stream beds to create fish spawning and rearing habitat. Over time, these  efforts have increased in scope to include a focus on water quality-related  concerns—such as reducing river and stream temperatures—because  impairments to water quality negatively affect fish populations, among  other species.

More recently, public and scientific concern about the Basin has  broadened to include a focus on improving water quality by reducing the  presence of toxic contaminants—including mercury and the banned  manufacturing chemical polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)—and  contaminants of emerging concern found in the Basin’s fish, wildlife,  water, and sediment. Further, certain entities are increasingly  recognizing that their investments to restore and maintain fish and wildlife  habitat may not be fully realized if the water in those habitats remains  contaminated.

In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to establish the  National Estuary Program to, among other things, identify nationally  significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, development, or  overuse, and promote comprehensive management to restore them.  Since then, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has  designated 28 estuaries of national significance, including the lower  Columbia River and its related tributaries. In addition, in 2006, EPA  recognized the Columbia River Basin as one of the 10 key “large aquatic  ecosystems” in the nation.

Multiple entities are involved with water quality-related restoration efforts  in the Basin, including federal agencies—such as the Bonneville Power  Administration (BPA), EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service—states,  tribes, and nongovernmental entities. These entities may engage in  restoration efforts based on their specific mission or, for example,  requirements under federal laws such as the Clean Water Act and the  Endangered Species Act. They may also collaborate with other entities in  their efforts to restore various aspects of the Basin. For example, in 1995,  the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership was established under the  National Estuary Program to better coordinate restoration efforts  throughout the estuary of the Basin (approximately 7 percent of the  Basin’s overall area). In 2005, EPA established the Columbia River  Toxics Reduction Working Group to coordinate toxics reduction work and  share information among federal, state, tribal, local, and nongovernmental  entities throughout the Basin that are engaged in such efforts. In 2016,  Congress amended the Clean Water Act by adding Section 123, which  requires EPA to establish a Columbia River Basin Restoration Program.  Section 123 also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  to prepare an interagency crosscut budget related to federal agencies’  efforts to protect and restore the Columbia River Basin.

You asked us to review restoration efforts in the Columbia River Basin,  especially efforts intended to improve water quality. This report examines  (1) restoration efforts to improve water quality in the Columbia River  Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016; (2) approaches to  collaboration that entities have used for selected efforts, including factors  they identified that enabled or hindered collaboration in the Basin; (3) the  sources of funding and federal funding expenditures; and, (4) the extent  to which EPA and OMB have implemented Clean Water Act Section 123.

To examine water quality-related restoration efforts implemented in the  Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, we obtained documentation  from and conducted interviews with entities throughout the Basin,  including federal agencies, state agencies responsible for managing  water quality in their state, federally and non-federally recognized tribes,  tribal organizations, and nongovernmental entities. In May 2017, we  developed, pretested, and distributed a survey to 41 entities we  determined had implemented water quality-related efforts in the Basin  from fiscal years 2010 through 2016. We asked the entities to provide  information on each program’s primary and secondary purposes, one or  two key examples of the activities conducted as part of the program,  whether the entity was the only entity responsible for implementing the  program, whether they received any federal funding to support  implementation of the program, and the sources of the federal funding,  among other topics.

To examine the approaches to collaboration entities utilized for select  water quality-related restoration efforts, we selected five efforts for more  in-depth review. Based on the responses to our survey on efforts in the  Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, we selected a limited number  of efforts that were among the broadest in scope based on their  geographic coverage and the number and type of entities involved. In  addition, we selected efforts, in part, to highlight collaborative approaches  for efforts implemented by a variety of entity types and with different  primary purposes. We conducted interviews with officials and  representatives from these efforts on the collaborative approaches they  used to plan or implement their efforts and requested related  documentation for review. In addition, we separately emailed questions to  the 11 federal agencies with water quality-related restoration efforts in the  Basin and that responded to our initial survey; in those emails, we  solicited agency officials’ opinions on practices that may have enabled or  hindered collaboration on efforts their respective agencies planned or  implemented. We also asked officials and representatives from the five  selected efforts and officials from the 11 federal agencies for their  opinions about challenges they experienced with collaboration in  implementing restoration efforts in the Basin, as well as their suggestions  for increasing collaboration on such efforts. In addition, to determine  whether there was an existing mechanism for basin-wide collaboration on  water quality-related restoration efforts, we reviewed existing legislation  and interviewed agency officials.

To examine the sources of funding and federal funding expenditures in  the Basin, we obtained budget documents, interviewed agency officials,  reviewed responses to funding questions included in our survey, and  requested expenditure data for five federal efforts for fiscal years 2014  through 2016. Initially, we intended to use a second survey to collect  comprehensive expenditures data for each water quality-related  restoration effort that entities identified in response to our initial survey.  However, in pretests with agency officials, we identified significant  concerns with the accuracy and completeness of the information that we  would gather through this approach, thereby limiting our ability to  compare expenditure data across agencies and efforts. Given the degree  of variability, uncertainty, and lack of detail in the information agencies  could provide on their water quality-related restoration expenditures, we  concluded that the data would not be reliable for the purpose of  estimating expenditures of federal funding for water-quality related  restoration efforts in the Basin. To provide some information on  expenditures, we distributed a second survey to 5 agencies—BPA,  Corps, EPA, Forest Service, and the United States Geological Survey  (USGS)—and requested expenditures information for a specified  restoration effort along with questions about the sources and processes  the agencies followed in compiling the information. Based on our review  of these responses, we determined that the expenditure information for  these specific restoration efforts were sufficiently reliable for purposes of  reporting on sources of funding and federal expenditures.

To examine the extent to which EPA and OMB have implemented Clean  Water Act Section 123, we reviewed the law and its legislative history. We  also requested documentation from, and conducted interviews with,  officials at EPA and OMB as the federal entities responsible for  implementing the law. We identified program management leading  practices in the Project Management Institute’s The Standard for Program  Management and as discussed in our prior reports. For additional  information about our objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix  I.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to August 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Columbia River Basin is the fourth largest river basin in the United  States and covers parts of seven states and British Columbia, Canada. It  provides drainage for hundreds of rivers, creeks, and streams. More than  6 million acres of the Basin are irrigated agricultural land, and the  Columbia River and its tributaries produce more hydroelectric power than  any other North American river. The Columbia has 12 major tributaries,  with the longest being the Snake River. The Columbia River itself flows  more than 1,200 miles from its source in the Canadian Rockies to the  Pacific Ocean, with the last 300 miles forming the border between the  states of Oregon and Washington. The Basin has myriad dams and  reservoirs—more than 250 reservoirs and approximately 150 other  hydroelectric projects, including more than 35 major federal and  nonfederal dams on the Columbia River and its major tributaries in the  United States. For more details, see figure 1.

The Basin provides environmental, economic, and social benefits to many  public and private interests and is vital to many industries in the Pacific  Northwest, including sport and commercial fisheries, agriculture, forestry,  transportation, recreation, and electrical power generation. However,  activities from these industries have affected the environment in the Basin  and, among other impacts, impaired water quality in some areas to the  point where human health is at risk and historic salmon and steelhead  stocks are at risk or extinct. Under the Clean Water Act, states have  identified many Columbia River tributaries, the Columbia River itself, and  its estuary as impaired. Major sources of impairment to water quality  include pollutant run-off from agricultural activities and storm-water on  impermeable surfaces (e.g., paved parking lots and roads); habitat  modification due to the hydroelectric dams and their associated  reservoirs; legacy toxic contaminants, such as mercury and PCBs; and  contaminants of emerging concern, such as discarded pharmaceuticals.  In addition, EPA Superfund sites are located throughout the Basin and  may have negatively impacted water quality in locations such as Portland  Harbor in Oregon, the Hanford Site in Washington, and the Upper  Columbia River at Lake Roosevelt in Washington. Figure 2 shows some  sources that may lead to impairment of the Basin, including point and  nonpoint sources of pollution.

In the early to mid-1990s, the states of Washington and Oregon  sponsored monitoring studies that identified dozens of sites in the lower  reaches of the Columbia River where contaminants exceeded water  quality standards for the presence of pesticides, toxic metals, and  cyanide, among other findings. Further, in 1992, an EPA survey of  contaminants in fish reported a potential health threat to tribal members  and other people who eat fish from the Basin. More recently, a 2009  EPA report summarized findings contained in studies by USGS and  NMFS (in conjunction with the University of California-Davis). The report  noted that significant levels of toxic chemicals were found in fish and the  waters they inhabit, including toxics banned from use since the 1970s,  such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (commonly known as DDT)   and PCBs, as well as emerging contaminants, such as chemicals used  for flame retardants. This has led states to periodically issue fish, and in  some cases shellfish, advisories throughout the Basin warning the public  not to consume more than specified quantities of contaminated aquatic  species or, in some cases, at all. In addition to potential human health  impacts, other studies have found that some contaminants have negative  impacts on fish and wildlife populations in the Basin. Since the 1990s,  fewer sites in the Basin have been monitored for water quality, and  investment in such monitoring has decreased, according to an EPA  official. For example, according to staff from the Lower Columbia Estuary  Partnership, monitoring sites on the mainstem lower Columbia River have  decreased over time and currently one site is being monitored for toxics.

Selected Legislation Related to Water Quality in the Columbia River Basin

The Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act are the primary  federal statutes driving many of the restoration efforts in the Columbia  River Basin. A range of other laws, treaties, court decisions, and  authorities also serve to create requirements for entities to implement  restoration efforts in the Basin.

Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to “restore  and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the  nation’s waters.” It establishes the basic structure for establishing  surface water quality standards, as well as regulating discharges of  pollutants into the waters of the United States, and provides various  regulatory and non-regulatory tools for doing so. Under the Clean Water  Act, EPA may allow states under certain circumstances to implement their  own clean water programs and to enforce their requirements. EPA  establishes by regulation the requirements for state enforcement  authority, such as the authority to seek injunctive relief and civil and  criminal penalties.

National Estuary Program: In 1987, amendments to the Clean Water  Act added Section 320, which established the National Estuary Program  to promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation and  management of, nationally significant estuaries, among other things. EPA  oversees the program and has designated 28 estuaries as being of  national significance, including the Lower Columbia Estuary. Based on  this designation, in 1995 EPA and the governors of Washington and  Oregon established the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. The  Partnership works with federal, state, tribal, local, and nongovernmental  entities to improve the lower Columbia River and its estuary by protecting  and restoring ecosystems and enhancing clean water for current and  future generations of fish, wildlife, and people. Under Clean Water Act  Section 320, as the management conference for the estuary, the Lower  Columbia Estuary Partnership is required to develop and implement a  comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP) to restore  and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the  estuary, including water quality. The CCMP for the lower Columbia  River estuary covers the lower 146 miles of the Columbia River and its  associated tributaries, or about 7 percent of the Basin overall, and is  intended to reflect a scientific characterization of, and stakeholder  concerns about, the estuary, including its water quality, habitats for  animal and plant life, and other resource challenges. Figure 3 shows the  area covered by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s CCMP.

Clean Water Act Section 123 on Columbia River Basin Restoration:  The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016  amended the Clean Water Act by adding Section 123 on Columbia River  Basin Restoration. The law requires EPA to establish the Columbia  River Basin Restoration Program, which is to be a collaborative  stakeholder-based program for environmental protection and restoration  activities through the Basin. Legislation calling for establishment of a  Columbia River Basin restoration program within EPA was introduced in  2010. According to a Congressional committee report accompanying  the bill, a main finding was that while EPA in 2006 recognized the  Columbia River Basin as one of the nation’s large aquatic ecosystems  and had in place an organizational structure to manage restoration efforts  being implemented in the lower Columbia River estuary, there was no  congressionally authorized program or dedicated appropriations to  support the water quality restoration and toxic reduction efforts throughout  the Basin. Section 123 directs EPA to assess trends in water quality in  the Basin, collect and assess data on potential causes of water quality  problems, develop a program to provide grants to various entities, and  establish a voluntary interagency Columbia River Basin Restoration  Working Group (Working Group). The law also requires the President’s  annual budget submission to include an interagency crosscut budget  prepared by OMB that displays, for each federal agency involved in the  protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin, funding amounts  obligated for those purposes in the preceding fiscal year, the estimated  budget for the current fiscal year, and the proposed budget for the next  fiscal year for related activities at each agency. Figure 4 shows the  requirements of Clean Water Act Section 123.

Endangered Species Act: Enacted in 1973, the purpose of the  Endangered Species Act is to protect and recover imperiled species and  the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is jointly administered by  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS. Generally, the FWS  manages land and freshwater species, and NMFS manages marine  species and anadromous fish, such as salmon. Under the Endangered  Species Act, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened.  In the Basin, numerous species have been listed, including 13 species of  salmon and steelhead. Under Section 7 of the act, federal agencies are to  ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out, whether on  federal or private lands, do not jeopardize listed species. To fulfill this  responsibility, the agencies often must formally consult with FWS or  NMFS, which issues a biological opinion assessing whether the agency  action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or  result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For  example, three federal agencies—the Corps, BPA, and Bureau of  Reclamation—operate and manage federal dams and other hydroelectric  facilities that comprise the Federal Columbia River Power System under a  biological opinion NMFS issued in 2008.The biological opinion includes,  among other measures, performance standards for the survival rate of  fish migrating upstream or downstream past the associated dams and  reservoirs. Additional required mitigation actions include those related to  habitat restoration, predation management, and hatchery management to  mitigate for the adverse effects of the system, as well as numerous  research, monitoring, and evaluation actions to support and inform  adaptive management decisions.

Large Aquatic Ecosystems: EPA has designated specific areas around  the country as “large aquatic ecosystems.” Such ecosystems comprise  multiple small watersheds and water resources within a large geographic  area. Over the years, EPA has worked with other federal agencies, state  and local governments, tribes, and others to develop specific geographic- based programs to protect and restore these areas, including the  Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes. In 2006, EPA recognized the  Columbia River Basin as a large aquatic ecosystem to help promote the  development of new cooperative initiatives and efforts to improve water  quality, remove contaminated sediments, restore native fish species, and  preserve and restore aquatic habitat and ecosystems throughout the  Basin. In 2008, EPA’s Office of Water established a national Council of  Large Aquatic Ecosystems to work within the agency and better support  and promote efforts being implemented by the geographic-based  programs to protect these large aquatic ecosystems. EPA incorporated  strategic goals and objectives for most large aquatic ecosystems into its  strategic plan for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and into its national  water program guidance. Over time, for the majority of these large  aquatic ecosystems—such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long  Island Sound, and Puget Sound—EPA formally established dedicated  program offices and received congressional appropriations specifically for  restoration efforts in each large aquatic ecosystems geographic area.  See figure 5 for the large aquatic ecosystems designated by EPA  throughout the United States.

Entities Involved in Water Quality-Related Restoration Efforts in the Basin

Multiple entities conduct activities related to restoration efforts in the  Basin, including federal agencies, state agencies, federally and non- federally recognized tribes, tribal organizations, and nongovernmental  entities. Along with their primary water, power, resource, and other  management and regulatory responsibilities, federal, state, and tribal  entities are responsible under various laws, treaties, executive orders,  and court decisions for protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and  wildlife resources in the Basin, among other things.

Eleven federal agencies, within six departments, are involved with water  quality-related restoration efforts in the Basin. The departments and  agencies, and their respective roles, include:

Forest Service: Manages national forests and grasslands under  the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Assists  farmers, ranchers, and other landowners in developing and  carrying out voluntary efforts to protect the nation’s natural  resources.

NMFS: Conserves, protects, and manages living marine  resources to ensure their continuation as functioning components  of marine ecosystems and to afford economic opportunities;  implements the Endangered Species Act for marine and  anadromous species; and supports on-the-ground habitat  restoration projects with funding and technical assistance.

Corps: Designs, builds, and operates hydroelectric civil works  projects in the Basin to provide electric power, navigation, flood  control, and environmental protection.

U.S. Department of Energy: Addresses U.S. energy, environmental,  and nuclear challenges through science and technology solutions,  including clean-up of the former Hanford plutonium production site for  nuclear weapons in Washington.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA): BPA provides power  and transmission services and markets the electricity generated  by the Corps and Reclamation dams comprising the Federal  Columbia River Power System.

Bureau of Land Management: Administers public lands and  subsurface mineral resources under the principle of multiple use  and sustained yield.

FWS: Manages wildlife refuges; conserves, protects, and  enhances fish, wildlife, and plants; and implements the  Endangered Species Act for terrestrial species, migratory birds,  certain marine mammals, and certain fish.

Reclamation: Designs, constructs, and operates water projects  for multiple purposes, including irrigation, hydropower production,  municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, recreation,  and fish and wildlife.

USGS: Conducts objective scientific studies and provides  information to address problems dealing with natural resources,  geologic hazards, and the effects of environmental conditions on  human and wildlife health.

EPA: Protects human health and safeguards the natural environment  by protecting the air, water, and land, including administration of the  Clean Water Act.

Various Entities Implemented a Range of Restoration Efforts for Improving Water Quality in the Columbia River Basin from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

In response to our survey, various entities—federal and state agencies,  tribes and tribal organizations, and nongovernmental entities—identified a  range of restoration efforts they implemented related to improving water  quality in the Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016.  Although there have been some plans to guide certain restoration efforts  for parts of the Basin, there is no overall plan to guide water quality- related restoration efforts throughout the Columbia River Basin or a  requirement for a federal agency or others to develop such a plan.

We found that entities implemented their restoration efforts under a range  of authorities and programmatic missions. At the federal and state levels,  many of the restoration efforts were implemented as part of programs  with a broader geographic scope than the Basin. For example, many of  EPA’s efforts are part of programs that have a nationwide focus, such as  the Clean Water Act Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grant Program,  which provides grants to states, territories, interstate agencies, and  eligible tribes to establish and administer water pollution control programs  for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. Conversely,  other restoration efforts have been implemented exclusively in the  Columbia River Basin. For example, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe’s  Yankee Fork Restoration Program works to improve the floodplain and  riparian zones along dredged sections of the Yankee Fork Salmon  River. Appendix II provides a list of the restoration efforts implemented  in the Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, based  on entities’ responses to our survey. See table 1 for examples of a range  of restoration efforts implemented by various entities in the Basin from  fiscal years 2010 through 2016.

Based on responses to our survey, we found that entities implemented  restoration efforts in the Columbia River Basin for a variety of purposes,  such as improving surface water quality or reducing toxic pollutants.  Specifically, our survey listed five purposes and asked entities to identify  whether each was a primary purpose, secondary purpose, or not a  purpose of the respective restoration effort. Overall, the most common  primary purposes identified were improving surface water quality and  restoring and protecting habitat. For example, the Forest Service  identified monitoring surface water quality as the sole purpose for its  Pacific Northwest Region Aquatic Inventory and Monitoring effort, which  inventories and monitors watershed and stream habitat conditions to  provide information and feedback to improve resource protection and  restoration programs. Similarly, FWS identified restoring and protecting  habitat as the primary purpose of its National Fish Habitat Partnership  Pacific Region effort. This effort—part of a nationwide program—focuses  on restoring aquatic habitat important to fish species of regional  significance in the Columbia River Basin. See table 2 for the purposes  identified in our survey and examples of associated restoration efforts.

In addition, we found that restoration efforts implemented in the Columbia  River Basin can directly or indirectly support improving water quality. For  example, some restoration efforts directly support improving water quality,  such as efforts whose primary purpose included monitoring surface water  quality. Other restoration efforts indirectly support improving water quality.  For example, NRCS’ Conservation Stewardship Program’s primary  purpose is helping agricultural producers, ranchers, and forest  landowners expand their conservation activities to enhance natural  resources while simultaneously improving their operations. These efforts  do not directly focus on improving water quality, but activities  implemented through these efforts may indirectly improve water quality in  the Columbia River Basin.

Entities Used Various Collaborative Approaches for Selected Restoration Efforts

We found that entities’ approaches to collaboration for selected water  quality-related restoration efforts in the Basin from fiscal years 2010  through 2016 varied based on the specific circumstances of the given  effort. This was in part because there is no overall coordinating body to  guide water quality-related restoration efforts throughout the Columbia  River Basin or a requirement prior to the enactment of Section 123 for  federal agencies or others to develop such a body. For example, certain  efforts are required by law or regulation to use specific types of  collaborative approaches (e.g., stakeholder review of proposed program  plans), and other efforts that are voluntary in nature may use different  approaches to engaging and maintaining collaborative efforts among  relevant entities. For example, the Washington State Department of  Ecology and others developed the dissolved oxygen total maximum daily  load (TMDL) for the Spokane River and Lake Spokane through a  regulatory process that included public review and comment. In  contrast, entities such as the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership and  the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group sought the  voluntary involvement of other entities through their mutual interest in a  common outcome, in this case restoring the lower Columbia River estuary  and reducing toxics in the Basin, respectively.

In addition, based on responses to our survey, the majority of restoration  efforts in the Basin involved multiple entities. Specifically, for restoration  efforts implemented in the Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016,  respondents reported that approximately 71 percent of the efforts  involved more than one entity and that approximately 29 percent were  implemented solely by a lead entity.

To highlight examples of collaborative approaches entities used for water  quality-related restoration efforts, we selected five efforts for review.  While these efforts are not generalizable to all restoration efforts in the  Basin, they highlight specific collaborative approaches entities used for  individual restoration efforts, as follows:

Effort 1: The Corps Northwestern Division Reservoir Control  Center Water Quality Program (2008-present) is a federally led  effort designed to implement the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power  System biological opinion, and collaboration is enabled through  coordination meetings, facilitated by a neutral third party, to manage  Corps project operations affecting water quality. For example,  according to Corps guidelines, day-to-day coordination of Corps  operations (e.g., voluntary water spill over dams) to meet the  biological opinion’s requirements and comply with water quality  standards occurs through biweekly or more frequent meetings of its  operational-level interagency Technical Management Team. The  team operates under institutionalized collaboration procedures that  provide guidance for, among other things, membership, member roles  and responsibilities, and procedures for meetings and decision  making. According to agency documentation, meetings of the  Technical Management Team are facilitated by an impartial  contracted facilitator whose position is designed to enable team  members the opportunity to fully participate in discussions and help  members resolve conflicts as they arise.

Effort 2: Washington State’s Spokane River & Lake Spokane  Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (2004-present) is a state-led effort,  regulatory in nature, and collaboration is enabled through an  associated Foundational Concepts guiding document. Under the  Clean Water Act, Washington State was required to develop a TMDL  and associated water quality improvement plan for the Spokane River  and Lake Spokane because the state identified several segments of  these water bodies as having impaired water quality. In a 2004 draft  TMDL, the state proposed phosphorus discharge requirements  necessary for the river to meet the state’s water quality standards.  However, not all responsible for point source pollution discharges  believed that well-established technology existed that could achieve  these requirements, according to the Foundational Concepts  document. The state developed the document specifically to enhance  and further enable a collaborative approach among the regulatory  agencies and the pollution dischargers involved in revising and  finalizing the TMDL, according to Washington State officials. The final  TMDL document, issued in 2010, noted that technology was available  that could bring current discharges much closer to the levels required  by water quality standards, and that Washington State could develop  a plan, approved by EPA, that would provide reasonable assurance  that the standards could be achieved within 10 years.

Effort 3: The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group  (2005-present) is an EPA-led effort, voluntary in nature, and  collaboration is enabled by a joint signed executive statement signed  in 2011. EPA developed the group—in conjunction with other  relevant federal, state, tribal, local, and nonprofit partners—to better  coordinate toxics reduction efforts in the Basin and to share related  information within the context of each organization’s own roles and  responsibilities. Executives from the partner agencies, tribes, and  organizations demonstrated their leadership commitment for the  Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group’s efforts by signing  the joint statement. The executive statement was designed to publicly  highlight their commitment to be partners involved with the Columbia  River Toxics Reduction Working Group toward the collaborative  efforts necessary to reduce toxics in the Basin.

Effort 4: The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (1995-present)  is an effort led by a nongovernmental organization, voluntary in  nature, and collaboration is enabled through a management plan.  The Partnership’s organizational purpose is to facilitate restoration  efforts in the lower Columbia River estuary portion of the Basin by  building on existing efforts, providing a regional framework for action,  and filling gaps in understanding and planning, among other things.  The Partnership’s CCMP guides the collaborative efforts of the  Partnership and its associated stakeholders and identifies what the  Partnership should be doing concerning regional coordination  activities, as well as how such coordination should be pursued.

Effort 5: The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian  Reservation Fisheries Habitat Sub-Program (1987-present) is a  tribal effort, sovereign in nature, and collaboration is enabled through  the sub-program’s Umatilla River Vision guiding document. This  fisheries habitat effort is designed to provide for sustainable harvest  opportunities of aquatic species traditionally consumed by the  Umatilla through protection, conservation, and restoration of related  aquatic habitats, according to Umatilla tribal officials. The vision  articulated by the tribe’s Fisheries Program is that the Umatilla Basin  includes a healthy Umatilla River capable of providing sufficient  quantities of the First Foods (i.e., water, salmon, deer, cous, and  huckleberry) necessary to sustain the continuity of the tribe’s  culture. The Umatilla tribes developed the Umatilla River Vision to  help identify existing gaps in knowledge and the work that must be  accomplished to reestablish a healthy watershed and restore fisheries  habitat on the Umatilla Reservation. Umatilla tribal officials we  interviewed stated that the document is applicable to all Umatilla  aboriginal lands and guides all their restoration efforts and  coordination with other entities, including federal and state officials  and funding partners.

In addition, we obtained the views of officials from 11 federal agencies on  factors that may enable and hinder collaboration in the Basin. In  identifying factors that enabled collaboration in their implementation of  specific restoration efforts, officials from the 11 federal agencies most  often identified the following: (1) having pre-existing relationships with  partners, such as through participation in interagency bodies; (2) having  clearly defined roles and responsibilities and common outcomes for  restoration efforts across partners; and (3) identifying resource needs and  the sources of resources to be used for such efforts. The officials also  identified potential actions that could enhance basin-wide collaboration for  restoration efforts beyond their individual efforts. For example, one official  responded that collaboration could be improved by involving senior- level  officials in discussing and establishing priorities for basin-wide restoration,  so that each entity could then implement efforts across the Basin in a  manner consistent with the priorities agreed to by the senior leaders.  Other officials noted that implementing this action would require individual  agencies and entities to provide staff time and needed resources to  enable collaboration on broader basin-wide priorities, consistent with  each agency’s individual missions and goals. An official also suggested,  to enhance collaboration on basin-wide restoration, proactively involving  relevant entities through presentations and document reviews to allow the  entities to offer their suggestions and identify any objections they may  have for a given effort. In addition, a different official suggested  implementing basin-wide restoration monitoring and evaluation to  determine which efforts are working well, which are not, and how any  given effort may need to change to more efficiently or effectively restore  the Basin.

The officials from the 11 federal agencies most often identified the  following factors that hindered collaboration in their implementation of  specific restoration efforts: (1) lack of sufficient resources, (2)  incompatibility of policies and procedures across agencies, and (3) lack of  clearly defined common outcomes for restoration efforts across  partners. The officials also identified challenges to collaboration for  basin-wide restoration beyond their individual efforts. Among other things,  one federal official identified as a challenge the variability of missions,  authorities, and priorities among various agencies and entities pursuing  restoration efforts in the Basin. According to officials, these factors make  it difficult to establish mutually agreeable end-goals and means for  restoration because various entities have potentially competing interests  based on each organization’s primary mission. Specifically, prioritizing  certain restoration efforts over others—as may occur through adoption of  a basin-wide restoration strategy or plan—may lead some entities to not  participate in basin-wide restoration activities. According to other officials,  this is because an entity is most likely to prioritize its own efforts, not the  efforts of other entities. Other challenges to basin-wide collaboration  officials cited included the litigation surrounding restoration efforts in the  Basin (e.g., lawsuits regarding salmon and steelhead recovery under the  Endangered Species Act) and the associated potentially adversarial  relationships among entities, as well as limited staff time and resources  for collaborating with other entities.

Entities Reported Using a Mix of Federal and Nonfederal Sources of Funding to Implement Restoration Efforts, but Total Federal Expenditures Could Not Be Determined

Entities responding to our survey reported that most of the restoration  efforts they implemented in the Basin were supported through a mix of  federal and nonfederal funding sources. For several reasons, we could  not determine total federal expenditures to implement the restoration  efforts identified through our survey. Instead, we collected data from five  federal agencies (BPA, Corps, EPA, Forest Service, and USGS) to  provide illustrative examples of federal water quality-related restoration  expenditures in the Basin.

Entities Reported Most of their Restoration Efforts in the Basin Were Implemented with a Mix of Federal and Nonfederal Funding Sources

Entities responding to our survey reported that most of their restoration  efforts in the Basin were supported through a mix of federal and  nonfederal funding sources. With respect to federal funding, responses to  our survey indicated that nearly all of the restoration efforts identified  through our survey received some level of federal funding. This includes  funding appropriated to federal agencies for mission-driven activities that  may have a primary purpose other than improving water quality and  restoring the Basin. For example, according to agency officials, while  improving water quality is not a primary mission of the Corps’ and  Reclamation’s hydropower projects, maintaining compliance with water  quality standards is a component of the operation and maintenance of  these projects. Similarly, multiple federal agencies are involved in efforts  to recover species protected under the Endangered Species Act and  restore habitats that have been affected by operations of the Federal  Columbia River Power System, particularly eliminating barriers to fish  passage, operating fish hatcheries, and monitoring water temperatures to  promote fish survival rates; those efforts indirectly benefit water quality.

Several of the federal efforts we identified in our review do not directly  implement restoration activities but provide financial and technical  assistance to support other entities’ implementation of restoration efforts.  These efforts include:

EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Implementation  Grants Program, under which EPA provides grants to states to  implement programs and fund programs that address nonpoint source  pollution;

NRCS’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which provides  financial incentives and technical assistance for eligible partners, such  as agricultural producers, to implement voluntary conservation  measures that address a range of natural resource management  concerns, including water quality degradation and loss of fish and  wildlife habitat;

NMFS’s Community-Based Restoration Program, which awards funds  and provides technical assistance to national and regional partners  and local grassroots organizations to restore habitat; and

FWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides  financial and technical assistance to private landowners to protect or  restore wetlands, uplands, and riparian and instream habitats.

For example, in fiscal year 2016, NMFS’s Community-Based Restoration  Program awarded about $900,000 in grant funds to The Nature  Conservancy to support its restoration of 330 acres of floodplain habitat at  the confluence of two forks of the Willamette River. This effort provides a  range of benefits, including improved water quality, improved fish  passage, and increased hydrologic connectivity.

In addition, more than half of the restoration efforts identified through our  survey were implemented with a mix of federal and nonfederal funding  sources, including most of the state efforts. These sources include  support through direct financial awards or indirect support through in-kind  services. For example, Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Water Quality  Program provided cost-reimbursable services and technical support to  stakeholders, such as state agencies and watershed councils, in the  design and implementation of water quality improvement plans. Similarly,  the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s 2017 annual report noted that  for each $1 in federal funding the partnership received from EPA, the  partnership raised an additional $9 in funding solicited from other federal,  state, and private sources. In 2017, the partnership brought in $7.6  million in direct funding, most of which supported projects implemented by  local organizations and businesses to restore habitat, monitor restoration  work, and support outdoor education initiatives. The partnership also  estimated that in 2017, it received in-kind services from a range of  contributors, such as scientists, technical experts, and community  members who volunteered more than 18,000 hours of their time to  implement various partnership activities. The partnership valued these in- kind services at nearly $430,000.

Some programs, such as the Corps’ Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration  program, do not provide funding to other entities but include specific cost- sharing requirements for project sponsors to secure contributions of  nonfederal funding. For example, nonfederal project sponsors are  required to provide 35 percent of the construction costs for projects  implemented through the Corps’ program, which can include land  easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations. Other programs,  such as NRCS’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program, do not  include matching requirements for nonfederal funding but work with  partners to identify other funding sources to supplement federal funding  awards.

Total Federal Expenditures for Basin Restoration Efforts Could Not Be Determined

While we were able to collect information about the general sources of  funding that supported implementation of the restoration efforts in the  Basin respondents identified in our survey, we could not determine the  total amounts of federal expenditures for these efforts for several  reasons. First, unlike efforts to restore other large aquatic ecosystems,  there was no congressionally authorized program to protect and restore  the Basin prior to 2016 or federal funding dedicated specifically for this  purpose, according to EPA officials. In the absence of dedicated federal  funding or a congressionally authorized program focused on restoring the  Basin, agency data on water quality-related restoration expenditures in  the Basin is not readily available. Second, because some of the efforts  are supported with funding from national and statewide programs that  have a broader geographic scope than the Basin, it can be difficult to  identify the portion of program expenditures that were for activities  located within the Basin. This includes national-level programs, such as the Forest Service’s National Best Management Practices Program and  EPA’s Clean Water Act grant programs, as well as statewide water quality  permit programs. For instance, officials we interviewed from the  Washington State Department of Ecology explained that, because the  state typically do not track expenditures by region or location, it would be  difficult to provide consistent and comparable estimates of expenditures  for their statewide programs because of the various methodologies they  use to compile the information. Third, it can be difficult to determine how  much of a program’s expenditures were for water quality-related  restoration when the effort was implemented primarily for a different  purpose or multiple purposes that may indirectly contribute to improving  water quality. Several entities that responded to our survey indicated that  they do not track expenditures by activity and that it would be difficult to  estimate the portion of spending on restoration-related efforts. For  example, Forest Service officials told us that for its Integrated Resource  Restoration program, it is difficult to track expenditures for specific  restoration activities in which the funding goes towards multiple  objectives, such as vegetation management and wildlife species, in  addition to water quality and aquatic resources.

While data on total federal expenditures for restoring the Basin could not  be determined, we collected expenditures from five federal agencies to  provide illustrative examples of their spending on the restoration efforts  they conducted across the Basin. Using responses to our initial survey,  we selected efforts that respondents identified as being implemented for a  variety of restoration purposes and for which information on expenditures  would be available. As shown in table 3, we collected data on  expenditures for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 for specific efforts  implemented by the Corps, BPA, EPA, Forest Service, and USGS.

The following examples provide more detailed information about each  effort for which we collected information on federal expenditures:

Corps’ Ecosystem Restoration Programs. The Corps implements  several ecosystem restoration programs under various authorities for  the purposes of restoring and protecting aquatic habitats and  environmental quality throughout the Basin. Through the Aquatic  Ecosystem Restoration Program and the Project Modifications for  Improvement of the Environment program, the Corps is authorized to  carry out cost-effective restoration projects at facilities it operates  throughout the Basin. Under the Lower Columbia River Basin  Restoration Program, the Corps conducts studies and ecosystem  restoration projects to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife  habitat in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. Collectively, for fiscal  years 2014 through 2016, the Corps reported expending  approximately $15.6 million in federal funding to conduct 25 aquatic  ecosystem restoration projects across the Basin; this amount included  costs for program coordination. For example, the Corps partnered  with the City of Portland on the Westmoreland Park Ecosystem  Restoration project to remove barriers to fish passage for endangered  salmon swimming in Crystal Springs Creek on their way to the  Willamette River (see figure 6). For fiscal years 2014 through 2016,  the Corps reported about $1.4 million in total expenditures for the  project, which included activities such as restoring a stream channel  and surrounding wetland vegetative zone along with replacing three  small culverts with wider, natural bottom fish-friendly culverts to  improve water quality and restore fish passage upstream.

BPA’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

According to BPA, this is one of the largest fish and wildlife protection  programs in the country, annually funding hundreds of projects  implemented in the Columbia River Basin by a wide range of federal,  state, local, tribal, academic, and nongovernmental entities across  four states. The program is implemented in partnership with the  Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which makes  recommendations on projects that should be funded and reviews the  program at least every 5 years to develop updates as needed. BPA  reported that from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, it provided an  average of about $90 million per year in funding for projects that  directly or indirectly benefitted water quality-related restoration efforts  in the Basin, including projects to restore damaged fish habitat,  improve hatchery practices, research, monitoring and evaluation, and  water rights acquisitions. For example, in 2015, the program awarded  $180,000 to fund habitat restoration actions to improve ecological  functions, including water quality, as part of the Buckmire Slough  Phase #1 project located near Vancouver Lake in southwest  Washington (see figure 7). This restoration project reconnected  about 65 acres of shallow water salmon habitat by removing two  earthen berms and collapsed culverts and installed a channel- spanning pedestrian bridge to maintain trail access. According to BPA  officials, the removal of the barriers helped improve fish passage and  water flow through Buckmire Slough to the larger watershed that  includes Vancouver Lake, the Lake River, and the Columbia River.

EPA’s Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. EPA reported that the  Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership had total expenditures of about  $37 million in federal funding from fiscal years 2014 through 2016.  The funding supported a range of efforts and restoration objectives for  the lower portion of the Columbia River Basin, including habitat  restoration; long-term monitoring strategy for sediment, fish tissue,  and water quality; outdoor education programs; and citizen and  professional involvement. According to EPA officials, the Lower  Columbia Estuary Partnership has received about $600,000 annually  in funding through Clean Water Act Section 320, which primarily  supports the administrative and management functions of the  partnership, including work to solicit funding from other federal and  nonfederal sources to implement restoration projects throughout the  estuary.

Additionally, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, the Lower Columbia  Estuary Partnership received approximately $3.4 million in funding  from BPA and other federal partners to support implementation of a  long-term monitoring strategy for sediment, fish tissue, and water  quality in the lower Columbia River and estuary. The funding helped  support the Partnership’s scientific and coordination staff as well as  support sub-awards to outside experts in project design, data  acquisition, and data analysis. The Partnership also received about  $10 million in funding from BPA and other federal entities to fund  multi-year projects, implemented by the Partnership and other local  governments and nonprofit organizations, that contributed to the goal  of restoring and protecting 25,000 acres of habitat to help the  recovery of threatened and endangered salmon in the lower Columbia  River and estuary.

Forest Service’s Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) Watershed and  Aquatic Restoration Program. According to Forest Service officials,  this program includes all required inventory, assessment, planning  and design, and permitting needed to implement watershed protection  and restoration projects in the agency’s Pacific Northwest Region.  Examples of the types of projects implemented through this program  include: restoring fish passage and hydrologic connectivity at road- stream crossings; upgrading roads that are needed and  decommissioning roads that are no longer needed; and protecting and  restoring riparian areas to protect and restore stream temperatures.  Forest Service reported expenditures of about $92 million in fiscal  years 2014 through 2016 for these types of aquatic restoration  projects implemented in national forests that contribute water flow to  the Columbia River Basin. This includes about $4.6 million in funding  received from other federal agencies, such as BPA, the Corps,  Reclamation, FWS, Bureau of Land Management, and the Federal  Highway Administration. It also includes approximately $19 million in  funding provided to other federal, state, tribal, nongovernmental, and  local entities to support implementation of their restoration-related  projects in the Basin.

USGS’s National Water Quality Programs. USGS reported total  expenditures of about $40 million from fiscal years 2014 through 2016  for Columbia River Basin water quality-related restoration efforts. This  includes funding through appropriations, matching funds, and cost- reimbursable activities for projects and studies implemented through  its national programs and Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming- Montana regional Water Science Centers. This includes around $12  million in expenditures for National Water Quality Program activities,  which provide an understanding of whether water quality conditions  are improving or worsening over time, and how natural features and  human activities affect those conditions. One of the efforts  implemented through this program during this time frame was a  regional study, the Pacific Northwest Stream Quality Assessment;  USGS expenditures for this effort were about $3.3 million. The  objectives of the regional study included determining the status of  stream quality across the region by assessing various water quality  factors that are stressors on aquatic life—such as contaminants,  toxicity, and streamflow—and evaluating their relative influence on  biological communities.

EPA and OMB Have Not Yet Implemented Clean Water Act Section 123

EPA and OMB have not yet implemented actions required under Clean  Water Act Section 123, which was enacted in 2016. Specifically, EPA has  not yet established the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program,  including its associated Working Group. In addition, OMB has not yet  prepared and submitted as part of the President’s annual budget request  an interagency crosscut budget on federal agencies’ budgets for and  spending on environmental protection and restoration efforts in the Basin.

EPA Has Not Yet Established the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program

According to EPA officials we interviewed, the agency has not yet taken  steps to establish the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program,  including the Columbia River Basin Restoration Working Group, as  directed by Clean Water Act Section 123. In addition, agency officials  told us that they were not currently planning to do so, as the agency has  not received dedicated funding appropriated for this purpose. These  officials acknowledged, however, that the agency has not yet requested  funding to implement the program nor initiated any studies or  assessments to identify what resources it may need to establish the  program.

We have previously reported that the Project Management Institute’s The  Standard for Program Management provides generally recognized  leading practices for program management. It provides an overview of a  program’s three life cycle phases and associated actions with each  phase. The primary purpose of the first phase—program definition—is  to progressively elaborate the goals and objectives to be addressed by  the program, define the expected program outcomes and benefits, and  seek approval for the program. This phase has two distinct but  overlapping sub-phases:

Program formulation: involves development of the business case for  the program, including initiating studies and estimates of scope,  resources, and cost.

Program planning: commences upon formal approval of the program  and leads to the formation of a program team to develop the program  management plan.

Upon completion of this first phase, an entity is to prepare a program  management plan and, with final approval, the program commences.

Consistent with the practices established in The Standard for Program  Management, a program management plan would include, among other  components, a schedule of the actions an entity is to take, as well as the  resources and funding needed to establish a program. By developing a  program management plan that includes a schedule of the actions the  entity will take and the resources and funding needed to establish and  implement the program and submitting this plan to the appropriate  congressional authorizing committees as part of the fiscal year 2020  budget process, EPA will have more reasonable assurance that it can  establish the program in a timely manner. Further, in establishing the  program under Section 123, EPA will need to also establish the Working  Group, which is to recommend and prioritize projects and actions and  review the progress and effectiveness of restoration projects and actions  implemented throughout the Basin.

OMB Has Not Yet Submitted an Interagency Crosscut Budget on Federal Agencies’ Spending for Environmental Protection and Restoration Efforts in the Columbia River Basin

According to OMB officials we interviewed, the agency has not yet  submitted an interagency crosscut budget or requested that federal  agencies provide information on their budgets and spending for Columbia  River Basin environmental protection and restoration efforts as directed  by Clean Water Act Section 123. Specifically, the President’s budget is  to include an interagency crosscut budget displaying amounts budgeted  and obligated by each federal agency involved with environmental  protection and restoration projects, programs, and studies relating to the  Basin. While OMB officials acknowledged the agency is responsible for  preparing the interagency crosscut budget for the Basin, they told us that  the agency has only had preliminary internal discussions about the best  approach for implementing the requirement, including whether to develop  guidance that would define key terms and the processes agencies should  follow in compiling the requested information. The officials, however,  could not identify a time frame for when the agency anticipated finalizing  any guidance or when it would begin requesting federal agencies provide  OMB the information it needs to include in the interagency crosscut  budget submission to Congress. Federal standards for internal control  calls for an agency to design control activities to achieve objectives and  respond to risks, such as by clearly documenting internal controls in a  manner that allows the documentation to be readily available for  examination (e.g., the documentation may appear in management  directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals). By developing  and providing guidance on the types of projects and activities that  agencies should include in their reports, as well as what processes they  should follow in compiling the related budget and spending information,  OMB would have more reasonable assurance that the agencies provide  comparable information about their restoration efforts.

According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report, an  interagency crosscut budget is often used to present budget information  from two or more agencies whose activities are targeted at a common  policy goal or related policy goals. As outlined in a 2015 federal report,  an interagency crosscut budget can help facilitate federal agency  coordination and collaboration for restoration activities that can benefit  from an integrated approach, and it can help increase cost  effectiveness. That report also noted that collecting budget information  from the agencies involved can help identify high-level trends in  restoration-related funding over time. We recognize that agencies will  differ in their budget and account management practices as well as the  complexities of the federal budget process. However, as the 2011  Congressional Research Service report concluded, by providing agencies  guidance and criteria that they can use to determine which projects and  programs will be tracked across agencies, the process for developing an  interagency crosscut budget can account for the differences in how  agencies fund and implement their restoration-related efforts. The report  also noted that crosscut budgets can help make data from multiple  agencies more understandable and could be used to inform  congressional oversight committees, participating agencies, and other  entities implementing an ecosystem initiative. By directing each federal  agency involved in the protection and restoration of the Basin to collect  the information needed for the interagency crosscut budget and to submit  this information to OMB for inclusion in the President’s budget request for  fiscal year 2020, OMB can better inform Congress as it considers funding  for restoration efforts in the Basin as part of the annual budget process.

Federal agencies and other entities have undertaken a wide range of  water quality-related restoration efforts in the Columbia River Basin for  many years. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of  2016 amended the Clean Water Act by adding Section 123 on Columbia  River Basin Restoration, which requires the EPA Administrator to  establish the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, including its  associated Working Group. This collaborative stakeholder-based program  is to oversee and help coordinate environmental protection and  restoration activities implemented throughout the Columbia River Basin.  However, because EPA has not yet established the Program and  Working Group, entities do not currently use a basin-wide collaborative  approach to coordinate water quality-related restoration efforts being  implemented throughout the Basin. Furthermore, EPA does not have a  program management plan for this effort. By developing a program  management plan for the effort, consistent with The Standard for Program  Management, EPA will have more reasonable assurance that it can  implement Clean Water Act Section 123 in a timely and effective manner.  Furthermore, by establishing the Columbia River Basin Restoration  Program, including the associated Working Group, EPA will be better  positioned to carry out its responsibilities, which include prioritizing and  evaluating the progress and effectiveness of environmental protection  and restoration projects and actions implemented throughout the  Columbia River Basin as required by law.

In addition, Clean Water Act Section 123 requires the President’s budget  to include an interagency crosscut budget displaying amounts budgeted  and obligated by each federal agency involved with environmental  protection and restoration projects, programs, and studies relating to the  Columbia River Basin. Such a crosscut budget would include amounts  obligated for the preceding fiscal year; an estimated budget for the  current fiscal year; and a proposed budget for the next fiscal year for the  Basin. Given the difficulties we identified in determining federal  expenditures for water quality-related restoration efforts implemented in  the Columbia River Basin, by developing definitions and guidance on the  types of projects, programs, and studies federal agencies should include  in their reports and processes to follow in compiling their budgets, OMB  could help ensure that they provide consistent and comparable  information that OMB needs for the crosscut budget submission to  Congress. Having consistent and comparable information on federal  agency expenditures and budgets is critical to helping ensure that  Congress and the relevant appropriating committees can make informed  decisions about funding Columbia River Basin restoration efforts in their  annual budget deliberations.

We are making a total of three recommendations, one to EPA and two to  OMB. Specifically:  The Administrator of the EPA should develop a program management  plan that includes a schedule of the actions EPA will take and the  resources and funding it needs to establish and implement the Columbia  River Basin Restoration Program, including formation of the associated  Columbia River Basin Restoration Working Group, and submit this plan to  the appropriate congressional authorizing committees as part of the fiscal  year 2020 budget process. (Recommendation 1).

The Director of OMB should develop and provide guidance on the types  of projects and activities that agencies involved in the protection and  restoration of the Columbia River Basin should include in their reports, as  well as the processes they should follow in compiling the related budget  and spending information. (Recommendation 2).

The Director of OMB should direct each federal agency involved in the  protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin to collect the  information OMB needs for the interagency crosscut budget and to submit  this information to OMB for inclusion in the interagency crosscut as part of  the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2020. (Recommendation 3).

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to EPA, OMB,  and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the  Interior. We also provided a draft of the report to the Idaho Department of  Environmental Quality, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,  Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Washington State  Department of Ecology. EPA provided written comments, which are  reproduced in appendix IV, and stated that it agreed with the conclusions  and recommendation in our report. The Department of Agriculture also  provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix V. The  departments of Defense and the Interior and the Washington State  Department of Ecology responded by email that they did not have  comments on the draft report. The departments of Commerce and Energy  and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. OMB, the Montana  Department of Environmental Quality, and the Oregon Department of  Environmental Quality did not provide any comments.

In its written comments, EPA stated that it agrees with our  recommendation to develop a program management plan that includes  schedule of the action it will take and the resources and funding needed  to establish and implement the Columbia River Basin Restoration  Program and associated Working Group as required under Clean Water  Act Section 123. EPA stated that it will work with its partners within the  existing governance structures to begin discussions on the development  of a program management plan. As an initial step, the agency will  reconvene the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to initiate  discussion for how to approach implementation of Section 123. Further,  EPA stated it stands ready to work with OMB on an interagency cross cut  budget after OMB provides guidance on the types of projects and  activities necessary to develop the budget.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,  and the Interior; the Administrator of EPA; the Director of OMB; and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) restoration efforts to improve water quality in the  Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016; (2)  approaches to collaboration that entities have used for selected efforts,  including factors they identified that enabled or hindered collaboration in  the Basin; (3) the sources of funding and federal funding expenditures;  and, (4) the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have implemented  Clean Water Act Section 123.

For all four objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, including the Clean  Water Act. We also conducted interviews and reviewed documentation  from entities around the Basin, including federal agencies, state agencies  responsible for managing water quality in their state, federally and non- federally recognized tribes and tribal organizations, and nongovernmental  organizations. We also conducted a site visit to Portland, Oregon to meet  with officials from federal agencies, a tribal organization, and a  nongovernmental entity regarding their activities related to restoration  efforts in the Columbia River Basin. We limited the scope of our review to  the United States, specifically to the four states with the largest square  mileage in the Columbia River Basin: Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and  Washington.

To examine restoration efforts to improve water quality in the Columbia  River Basin implemented from fiscal years 2010 through 2016, we  administered a survey to entities that implement restoration efforts in the  Basin (see app. III for a blank copy of the survey). The survey asked  each entity to individually list any water quality-related programs they  implemented in the Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016. The  survey included maps of the Columbia River Basin to provide  respondents a common point of reference. For each program, we asked  respondents to identify:  the program’s primary and secondary purposes; one or two key examples of the activities conducted as part of the whether the entity was the only entity responsible for implementing whether the entity was the lead entity responsible for implementing what other entities, if any, were involved with implementing the  the primary authorities under which the entity implemented the  program;  the state(s) and area(s) within the Basin in which the program was  implemented; a website containing primary source documents and other relevant  information on the program; whether the entity received any federal funding to support  implementation of the program;  the sources of the federal funding, if any; whether the entity tracks expenditures of federal funding specifically  for which fiscal years, if any, from fiscal years 2010 through 2016 the  entity would be able to provide information on the annual amount of  federal funding expended for this program; whether the entity would be able to provide actual expenditures,  estimated expenditures, or neither for the annual amount of federal  funding the entity expended on the program; how the entity collected expenditure data; any nonfederal sources of funding that supported the entity’s  implementation of the program; and a primary point of contact for any follow-up questions on the program.

We conducted telephone pretests of the survey with 4 entities and revised  it in response to their comments. During this process, we sought to  ensure that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) we used  terminology correctly, (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on  respondents, and (4) respondents had sufficient information to answer the  questions.

We identified and sent the survey to 41 entities based on the following  criteria: federal agencies whose missions relate to restoration efforts in  the Basin, state agencies responsible for water quality issues for the four  states within our scope, federally and non-federally recognized tribes,  tribal organizations, and nongovernmental entities involved with  restoration efforts within the Basin. We emailed the survey in an attached  pdf form that respondents could return electronically after marking  checkboxes or entering responses into open-answer boxes. We sent the  survey with a cover letter on May 31, 2017. After 2 weeks, we sent a  reminder email, attaching an additional copy of the survey, to entities who  had not responded. After 4 weeks, we telephoned all respondents who  had not returned the survey and asked them to participate.

We received responses from the entities listed in Table 4. We received 32  completed surveys from all of the 16 federal and state agencies that we  contacted and we received responses from 16 of the 25 federally and  non-federally recognized tribes, tribal organizations, and  nongovernmental entities that we contacted. Because we did not survey  every entity implementing restoration efforts in the Basin, the results from  our analysis may not include all restoration efforts implemented in the  Columbia River Basin from fiscal years 2010 through 2016.

To assess the accuracy and completeness of the responses, we reviewed  and analyzed each completed survey. In particular, we contacted each  respondent at least once to follow-up on their responses and allowed  respondents to review, correct, and edit their responses if necessary.  During this follow-up, we asked questions to ensure that the responses to  each survey were complete, comparable, and accurate and to clarify  ambiguous responses. After we completed this follow-up, we analyzed  the list of compiled restoration efforts to assess whether each listed  restoration effort met general criteria. For example, we assessed the  responses to make sure the efforts represented a similar level of  aggregation, specifically at a program level. As part of our assessment,  we reviewed prior interviews and agency’s or entity’s documents and  websites. For example, in some instances the name of a restoration effort  listed in the survey did not match the name of the effort on the agency’s  website. We recognize that despite implementation of our criteria, some  ambiguity may remain about the programs included in the catalog. Based  on our assessment, we further refined the list of restoration efforts and  developed the final list as presented in Appendix II.

To examine approaches to collaboration that entities—including federal  agencies, states, tribes, and nongovernmental entities—have used for  select efforts, we selected five case examples for in depth review. We  used selection criteria to yield a limited number of efforts in the Columbia  River Basin that were among the broadest in scope with regards to their  geographic coverage and/or the number and type of entities involved  (e.g., interstate vs. intrastate programs, entities from multiple levels of  government) based on the survey responses we received. In addition, we  selected these efforts, in part, to highlight collaborative practices for  efforts implemented by a variety of entity types and with different primary  purposes (i.e., improving or monitoring surface water quality, reducing  toxic pollutants, recovering threatened or endangered species, or  restoring and protecting habitat). We conducted interviews with officials  from these five case example efforts on the collaborative practices they  used to plan and implement their programs and requested related  documentation for review. We derived the questions we used for the case  interviews from our prior reports on practices that may enable  collaboration. For example, we asked interviewees about mechanisms  they used for their given effort to define intended outcomes and roles and  responsibilities, identify resource needs (e.g., funding, staff) and their  sources, and ensure the compatibility of policies and procedures across  entities. Our prior reporting served as the conceptual framework for  understanding the collaborative practices used by officials leading these  case example efforts. We highlight in our report a single illustrative  collaborative practice used for each effort.

In addition, we separately emailed four questions to each of the 11  federal agencies with water quality-related restoration efforts and that  responded to our survey, to solicit agency officials’ opinions on practices  that may have enabled or hindered collaboration for efforts planned and  implemented by their respective agency. We sent these emails to the  same agency points of contact to which we sent the first survey designed  to identify restoration efforts in the Basin or to other officials the agency  identified as the relevant point of contact. We derived questions we  emailed from our prior reporting on factors that may enable collaboration.  We asked interviewees to consider efforts for which their agency had their  most and least successful experiences in collaborating with other  organizations on water quality-related restoration activities and to  systematically rank factors, from a list we provided, that enabled or  hindered their collaboration with the other organizations. We received  written responses from all 11 agencies. Our prior reports served as the  conceptual framework for developing the list of factors that we provided to  the respondents and from which they selected those that applied to their  agency’s experience. We highlight the most commonly identified  collaboration enablers and hindrances.

We systematically asked officials from the five case efforts and the 11  federal agencies that received the four questions we emailed for their  perspectives on the most significant challenges, if any, to enhancing  collaboration among entities involved in restoration efforts to improve  water quality in the Basin. We also systematically asked the same  officials for their suggestions, if any, for steps that could be taken to  enhance collaboration among entities involved in restoration efforts to  improve water quality in the Basin. We highlight some of the challenges  and suggestions respondents offered. Last, to determine whether a  mechanism exists for basin-wide collaboration on water quality-related  restoration programs, we reviewed existing legislation and interviewed  agency officials.

To examine the sources of funding and federal funding expenditures in  the Columbia River Basin, we interviewed agency officials, reviewed  budget documents, analyzed responses to funding questions included in  our initial survey, and analyzed expenditure data for selected federal  efforts for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Initially, we intended to use a  second survey to collect comprehensive data on expenditures for each  restoration effort that entities identified in response to our initial survey.  However, in pretests with agency officials, we identified significant  concerns with respect to the accuracy and completeness of information  that we would gather through this approach that would limit our ability to  compare expenditure data across agencies and efforts. Given the degree  of variability, uncertainty, and lack of detail in the information agencies  could provide, we concluded that the data would not be reliable for the  purposes of estimating their expenditures of federal funding for their  water-quality related restoration expenditures throughout the Columbia  River Basin.

To provide some information on expenditures, we decided to modify our  comprehensive approach by shortening the time frame to fiscal years  2014 through 2016 and limiting the request to one restoration effort for  each of the 11 federal agencies. We selected the 11 restoration efforts  based on our review of the agencies’ responses to questions in our initial  survey relating to the primary purpose(s) of the program and availability of  expenditure data. We then conducted interviews with agency officials to  learn more about the selected efforts and the availability and reliability of  expenditure data. Based on these interviews, we determined that for 6 of  the 11 programs, the efforts had limited activities in the Basin during this  time frame or the agencies would only be able to provide limited  information or would not be able to provide sufficiently reliable  expenditure data for the selected effort.

We then distributed a second survey to 5 agencies— Bonneville Power  Administration (BPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Forest  Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. In this survey, we requested  expenditures information for a specified restoration effort and asked about  the sources and processes the agencies followed in compiling the  information. Based on our review of these responses, we determined that  the expenditure information for these specific restoration efforts was  sufficiently reliable for purposes of our reporting objective.

To examine the extent to which EPA and OMB have implemented Clean  Water Act Section 123, we reviewed the law and legislative history. We  also requested documentation from and conducted interviews with  knowledgeable officials at EPA and OMB. We also identified program  management leading practices reported by the Project Management  Institute’s The Standard for Program Management and discussed in our  prior reports. For example, we considered the applicable leading  practices for schedule and cost estimates, as well as other practices such  as the development of program management plans.

Appendix II: Catalog of Columbia River Basin Water Restoration Efforts, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Table 5 provides a list of 188 Columbia River Basin water quality-related  restoration efforts identified by 11 federal agencies, 4 state agencies, 4  nongovernmental organizations, and 11 tribes and tribal entities in their  responses to our May 2017 survey, along with a brief description of each  effort and the restoration purpose(s) it supported. This list is primarily  based on the survey responses. The survey included definitions of key  terms including program, implement, and purposes of the programs. After  we received survey responses, we conducted multiple reviews of the  information, including asking the entities to review and edit the  information they provided. In some cases we supplemented their  responses with additional information available through other sources,  such as interviews with officials and reviews of agency documents, as  appropriate.

Given the size of the Basin and number of entities involved, for our survey  we specifically requested respondents report the restoration efforts at a  programmatic level. In some instances, we decided to consolidate certain  efforts that appeared to be part of the same overall program and exclude  other efforts that appeared to be project-level efforts. Although we made  every attempt to gather a comprehensive list of restoration efforts  implemented by the entities listed below, including verifying the  information with the respective entities, this list may not capture all of the  relevant restoration efforts they implemented in the timeframe covered by  our review. Further, entities may have not have listed all of their relevant  efforts. We also acknowledge that the list does not reflect restoration  efforts in the Columbia River Basin that were implemented by other  entities not included within the scope of our review.

Appendix III: Survey Distributed to Entities in the Columbia River Basin

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Barbara Patterson (Assistant  Director), Heather Dowey (Analyst in Charge), Stephen Betsock, Mark  Braza, John Delicath, Carol Henn, Karen Howard, Vondalee Hunt, David  Lysy, Jeff Malcolm, Michael Meleady, Dan C. Royer, Kiki  Theodoropoulos, and Sarah Veale made key contributions to this report.

Puget Sound Restoration: Additional Actions Could Improve Assessments  of Progress. GAO-18-453. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2018.

Long Island Sound Restoration: Improved Reporting and Cost Estimates  Could Help Guide Future Efforts. GAO-18-410. Washington, D.C.: July  12, 2018.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and  Reporting Would Enhance Oversight. GAO-15-526. Washington, D.C.:  July 21, 2015.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More  Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress.  GAO-13-797. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2013.

Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State  Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.:  September 15, 2011.

Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps  Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional  Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.

South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing  Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising  Costs.GAO-07-520. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2007.

Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better  Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.

Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to  Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress. GAO-04-1024.  Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2004.

Columbia River Basin: A Multilayered Collection of Directives and Plans  Guides Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities. GAO-04-602. Washington,  D.C.: June 4, 2004.

Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress  Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO-03-515.  Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003.

Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies’  Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions. GAO-02-612.  Washington, D.C.: July, 26, 2002.

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Substantial Progress Made in  Developing a Strategic Plan, but Actions Still Needed. GAO-01-361.  Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2001.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Additional Water Quality  Projects May be Needed and Could Increase Costs. GAO/RCED-00-235.  Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2000.

Activities, such as hydropower and agricultural practices, have impaired water quality in parts of the Columbia River Basin. This has put human health at risk and threatened the existence of some species, such as salmon.

Federal and state agencies, tribes and others have taken steps to improve Basin water quality. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget have yet to take actions required under a 2016 amendment to the Clean Water Act. EPA, for example, has not begun a program to oversee and help coordinate restoration efforts.

We recommended these agencies take actions specified in the law.

This page was updated to include a link to the recommendations in this report.