Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Concerned about how well the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was implementing its Columbia River Fish Mitigation program at its dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers in the Pacific Northwest, Senators Max S. Baucus, Patty Murray, and Harry M. Reid asked that we provide information on (1) the Corps’ decision-making process for identifying, setting priorities for, and funding fish mitigation actions and (2) whether the Corps has completed its fish mitigation actions on schedule and within budget. Of these 58 actions, Corps officials identified 19 projects and studies that experienced delays, cost increases, or both. NMFS’ 1995 Biological Opinion and the Regional Forum Guide the Corps’ Fish Mitigation Actions

Since 1995, the Corps’ efforts to mitigate the decline of salmon stocks on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers have been guided by NMFS’ 1995 Biological Opinion. Many of the monitoring, evaluation, research, design, and construction projects and studies identified in the Biological Opinion are included in the Corps’ Columbia River Fish Mitigation program. The Corps’ decision-making process for selecting, setting priorities for, and funding specific fish mitigation projects and studies is a cooperative effort between the Corps and regional interests and is known as the Regional Forum process. The Regional Forum is a group with broad regional representation, including federal agencies, states, and Native American tribes from the Columbia River Basin. The Forum, which includes the Corps, tries to reach consensus among its members in making decisions on fish mitigation actions. Annually, the Corps, with input from the Regional Forum, estimates the costs of its fish mitigation actions and requests funding for their implementation as part of its normal budget process. If the Congress appropriates less money than the Corps requests, the Corps seeks recommendations from the Regional Forum to help the Corps make its decisions on which projects and studies should be funded, at what levels, and in which years. However, if consensus cannot be reached, the Corps makes the decisions on actions contained in its fish mitigation program. In other cases, delays and cost increases have resulted from decisions by the Regional Forum that changed fish mitigation priorities. These changes were often necessitated by such factors as funding limitations, the need for additional biological data, or the desire to test new technology. While the Corps coordinates its fish mitigation actions with the Regional Forum, the overall effectiveness of the Forum has been questioned because, among other things, members do not agree on how to pursue salmon recovery efforts and do not uniformly support the actions required by the Biological Opinion. In addition, other difficulties, such as problems with engineering designs, were the result of the Corps’ by-passing standard procedures for project management in an effort to implement required actions in the time frames established by the Biological Opinion. In some cases, the problems the Corps has experienced in implementing its fish mitigation actions have had significant impacts.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the: (1) Army Corps of Engineers' decisionmaking process for identifying, setting priorities for, and funding actions to help the recovery of salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin; and (2) difficulties in implementing these actions.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) since 1995, the Corps' efforts to mitigate the decline of salmon stocks on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers have been guided by the National Marine Fisheries Service's 1995 Biological Opinion; (2) many of the monitoring, evaluation, research, design, and construction projects identified in the Biological Opinion are included in the Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation program; (3) the Corps' decisionmaking process for selecting, setting priorities for, and funding specific projects and studies in its fish mitigation program is a cooperative effort between the Corps and regional interests and is known as the Regional Forum process; (4) the Regional Forum is a group with a broad regional representation, including federal agencies, states, and Native American Tribes located in the Columbia River Basin; (5) the Forum, which includes the Corps, tries to reach consensus among its members in making decisions about fish mitigation actions; (6) if consensus cannot be reached, the Corps is the decisionmaker on actions that affect its eight dams; (7) annually, the Corps, with input from the Regional Forum, estimates the costs of its fish mitigation actions and requests funding as a part of its normal budget process; (8) if Congress appropriates less funding than the Corps requests, the Corps seeks recommendations from the Regional Forum to help it decide on which actions should be funded; (9) the majority of Corps fish mitigation actions are being completed on time and within budget; however the Corps identified 19 actions that were delayed, experienced cost increases, or both; (10) in at least four projects and three studies, delays and cost increases were the result of decisions by the Regional Forum that changed fish mitigation priorities; (11) these changes were often necessitated by such factors as limited funding, the need for additional biological data, or the desire to test new technology; (12) in three projects, difficulties, including problems with engineering designs, were the result of the Corps' bypassing standard procedures for managing the project in an effort to implement required actions in the timeframes established by the Biological Opinion; (13) the problems the Corps has experienced in implementing its fish mitigation actions have had significant impacts; and (14) there are ongoing concerns about the overall effectiveness of the Regional Forum because, among other things, its members do not agree on how to pursue salmon recovery efforts.