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. 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. 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture 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. U.S. Department of Commerce 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. U.S. Department of Defense 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. U.S. Department of the Interior 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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.