Congress passed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (the Act) in October 1986 to assist in restoring the Klamath River’s fish resources. The Act authorized $21 million to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior, and it charged the Secretary of the Interior with implementing a 20-year program to designate and restore a conservation area within the Klamath River Basin. The Secretary, in turn, delegated responsibility for implementing the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program (Restoration Program) to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a bureau-level unit within the Department of the Interior. To facilitate implementation and management of the Restoration Program, FWS established under its Portland, Oregon, Regional Office a new field office in Yreka, California. The Act also established the Klamath Fishery Management Council (Management Council) to monitor the fish population and recommend annual fish harvest limits, and the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) to advise and assist the Secretary regarding implementation of the Restoration Program. To implement these provisions in the Act, the Secretary chartered the Management Council and the Task Force as federal advisory committees. Neither the Management Council nor the Task Force receives or spends funds. Since their inception, the Fish and Wildlife Office (FWO) at Yreka, California, has provided the financial resources to cover the Management Council’s and the Task Force’s operational expenses. In addition, staff from the Yreka FWO, along with staff from the State of California’s Department of Fish and Game, have provided technical and administrative support to the Management Council and the Task Force as required by the Act. In accordance with its charter, the Klamath Fishery Management Council functions only in an advisory capacity and reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The Management Council is responsible for making recommendations to various federal, state, local, and Indian tribal authorities regarding fish-harvesting regulations. In addition, the Management Council was assigned responsibility to establish a comprehensive long-term plan and policy for the management of the in- river and ocean harvesting that affects or may affect Klamath and Trinity River Basin anadromous fish populations. The Management Council’s long-term plan, published in 1992, lays out goals and objectives for fish populations in the Conservation Area and strategic plans for meeting the goals and objectives. As prescribed by the Act, the Management Council is composed of 11 members, including representatives appointed by the Governors of California and Oregon, Hoopa Valley Business Council, non-Hoopa Indians, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce. The term of a member is 4 years. The Management Council usually meets three or four times a year (usually in February, March, April, and October) at various locations in California and Oregon. The Management Council publishes notices of meetings in the Federal Register, posts its meeting agenda on the Yreka FWO Internet Web page 2 to 3 weeks before each meeting, and invites the public to attend its meetings. From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 2004, the Management Council held 73 meetings. Each meeting lasts from 3 to 5 days. The members discuss ongoing fish population monitoring activities. They also discuss and make recommendations on the regulation of ocean harvesting, recreational harvesting, and harvesting in the Conservation Area by the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe and by non-Hoopa Indians. The Management Council’s recommendations must be consistent with its long-term plan and policy and must pass the Management Council by unanimous vote. The public is invited to attend all Management Council meetings, and public comment periods are scheduled on the agenda throughout the meetings. Sometimes speakers are invited to the meetings to make presentations on fish population studies. The Management Council is provided with biological and statistical expertise by the Technical Advisory Team, a subgroup created by the Management Council, whose membership consists of individuals from entities represented on the Management Council. The Technical Advisory Team advises the Management Council on the status of anadromous fish stocks and the impacts of fishery management options. This includes the development of annual projections of fish stock size and development of fishery models for use in the management of fish populations. The Act provides for a 16-member Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force to advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in the development and implementation of the Restoration Program. The Task Force consists of members who represent a broad range of stakeholder interests from throughout the Klamath River area. Members are appointed by, and represent, the Governors of California and Oregon; the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Agriculture; the California counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity; Klamath County, Oregon; the Hoopa Valley, Karuk, Yurok, and Klamath Tribes; in- river sport anglers; and commercial salmon fishermen. According to its charter, the Task Force also functions only in an advisory capacity and reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The charter states that the Task Force has four objectives: (1) to assist the Secretary of the Interior in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of the Restoration Program; (2) to assist and coordinate its activities with federal, state, local government, and private anadromous fish restoration projects; (3) to conduct any other activity necessary to accomplish the objectives of the Restoration Program; and (4) to act as advisor to the Management Council. The Task Force works by consensus to coordinate restoration planning, recommend restoration project proposals for funding, and express opinions on issues affecting the Klamath River Basin. In 1991, in conjunction with an independent contractor, the Task Force developed the Long Range Plan for the Restoration Program. The Task Force usually meets three times per year (in February, June, and October) at various locations in California and Oregon. Like the Management Council, the Task Force publishes notices of meetings in the Federal Register, posts its meeting agenda at the Yreka FWO Internet Web page 2 to 3 weeks before each meeting, and invites the public to attend its meetings. Each meeting session lasts from 2 to 3 days. The members discuss needs for managing Klamath River fish, ongoing and proposed Klamath River Basin restoration projects, and the technical information needs of the Management Council. They also discuss and make recommendations regarding the funding of restoration projects. Each spring the Task Force, in conjunction with FWS, issues a Request for Proposals for restoration projects to be funded in the following fiscal year with Restoration Program funds. When the project proposals are received, they are evaluated for technical merit and scored by the Task Force’s Technical Work Group, using criteria published in the Request for Proposals. Then, using the amount of expected funding for the following year as a guide for determining how many new restoration projects can be funded, the Technical Work Group presents its analysis to the entire Task Force. At its June meeting, the Task Force considers the Technical Work Group’s analysis, and by unanimous vote, selects the project proposals it will recommend to the Secretary of the Interior for funding in the next fiscal year. Approximately 25 projects were funded annually for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Yreka FWO was established in fiscal year 1987 to facilitate implementation and management of the Restoration Program. The Yreka FWO is involved in administering several other FWS programs and activities, but the Restoration Program comprises about one-half of the office’s annual funding. The Yreka FWO has 1 full-time contract employee who performs administrative functions and 15 employees: a field supervisor, an assistant field supervisor, 2 supervisory biologists, 6 staff biologists, 1 administrative supervisor, 2 administrative staff, and 2 part- time staff biologists. Eight of these individuals provide technical and administrative services to the Management Council and the Task Force, perform restoration project management functions, or have Restoration Program administration duties. Two of the employees (a supervisory biologist and one part-time staff biologist) spend almost all of their time on Restoration Program activities. The Field Supervisor, three administrative employees, one staff biologist, and the contract employee spend part of their time on Restoration Program activities. The assistant field supervisor, a supervisory biologist, five staff biologists, and one part-time staff biologist do not spend any of their time on Restoration Program activities. Until fiscal year 2004, Yreka FWO was supervised by FWS’s Portland Regional Office, but it is now supervised by FWS’s California-Nevada Operations Office. There are a number of uncertainties in determining the amount of funds received by the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. First, FWS’s appropriations do not contain a discrete line item for the Restoration Program. This prevented us from doing any independent verification of the appropriated amounts. Second, FWS’s restoration project database does not distinguish between cash and noncash contributions provided to the restoration project by project participants. The restoration project database shows a single amount, called the cost- share amount, which is the sum of all contributions made by the project participant to the project. For some projects, we could determine the amount of cost share that consisted of cash and the amount that consisted of noncash by looking in the contract file at the project agreement, or at supporting documents, or even at the final report if the project had been completed. However, for some restoration projects, even those documents did not contain adequate information for us to make a distinction between cash and noncash contributions. As a result, we were unable to determine how much of contributions made by project participants was cash and how much was noncash. Third, Restoration Program officials did not routinely perform independent analysis to determine the value that should be assigned to noncash contributions as called for by good financial management practices.