Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist Salmon in the
Columbia River Basin (Chapter Report, 04/27/1998, GAO/RCED-98-100).

Columbia River Basin salmon runs were once the world's largest. Before
1850, an estimated 16 million salmon returned to the basin each year. By
1996, however, returning adult salmon had been reduced to about 2.5
million fish, of which only about 500,000 were wild or naturally
spawning salmon. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has sought to improve
the passage of adult and juvenile salmon around the eight dams that it
operates on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. The Corps estimates
that it will spend $1.4 billion to implement its fish mitigation
program. About $908 million will be spent to build fish passage projects
and related studies through the program's completion in 2007. This
report discusses (1) the Corps' decision-making process for identifying,
setting priorities for, and funding actions to help the recovery of
salmon runs and (2) whether the Corps has been completing its fish
mitigation efforts on schedule and within budget. GAO also determines
why the Corps has not entered into a direct funding agreement with the
Bonneville Power Administration for the cost of running the Corps' dams
in the Columbia River Basin.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-100
     TITLE:  Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist
	     Salmon in the Columbia River Basin
      DATE:  04/27/1998
   SUBJECT:  Anadromous fishes
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Inland waterways
	     Funds management
	     Environmental policies
	     Endangered species
	     Dams
IDENTIFIER:  Columbia River Basin (WA)
	     Snake River (ID)
	     Army Corps of Engineers Columbia River Fish Mitigation
	     Program
	     Columbia River Power System

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/RCED-98-100

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1998

WATER RESOURCES - CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' ACTIONS TO ASSIST
SALMON IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

GAO/RCED-98-100

Corps of Engineers' Actions to Assist Salmon

(141060)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CRITFC - Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
  PIT - Passive Integrated Transponder
  USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-279309

April 27, 1998

The Honorable Max S.  Baucus
The Honorable Patty Murray
The Honorable Harry M.  Reid
United States Senate

As agreed with your offices, this report discusses the U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers' (1) decision-making 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.  In addition, the report discusses the
new direct funding agreement between the Corps and the Bonneville
Power Administration for operations and maintenance costs at the
Corps' hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will also make copies available to other
interested parties upon request. 

Any questions should be directed to me on (202) 512-9775.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Barry T.  Hill
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0

   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Columbia River Basin salmon runs were once the world's largest. 
Before 1850, an estimated 16 million salmon returned to the basin
annually.  By 1996, however, returning adult salmon had been reduced
to about 2.5 million fish, of which only about 500,000 were wild or
naturally spawning salmon.  The remainder were hatchery-raised fish
intended to supplement the declining wild stocks.  A number of
factors, including overharvesting, the degradation of spawning
habitat, unfavorable ocean conditions, and the construction and
operation of dams, have contributed to the decline of wild salmon
stocks.  Most of the decline, however, occurred before the completion
of the first federal dam in 1938.  Since 1949, federal agencies and
regional organizations responsible for efforts to help the salmon
recover in the Pacific Northwest have invested over $3 billion in
actions to improve salmon runs throughout the Columbia River Basin. 
Still, the salmon population continues to decline.  The U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates eight multipurpose dams on the
lower Columbia and Snake rivers as part of the Federal Columbia River
Power System.  The Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation\1 program
focuses on improving the passage of adult and juvenile salmon around
these dams.  The Corps estimates that it will spend $1.4 billion
implementing its fish mitigation program.  About $908 million of this
total will be spent on the construction of fish passage projects and
related studies from fiscal year 1999 through the scheduled
completion of the program in fiscal year 2007. 

Concerned with how well the Corps is implementing its Columbia River
Fish Mitigation program, Senators Max S.  Baucus, Patty Murray, and
Harry M.  Reid asked GAO to provide information on (1) the Corps'
decision-making process for identifying, setting priorities for, and
funding actions to help the recovery of salmon runs and (2) whether
the Corps has been completing its fish mitigation actions on schedule
and within budget.  In addition, GAO was asked to determine why the
Corps had not entered into a direct funding agreement with the
Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville
Power) for the cost of operating and maintaining the Corps' dams in
the Columbia River Basin.  During the course of GAO's audit, the
Corps completed such an agreement.  Details on how this agreement
will work are provided in appendix I of this report. 

--------------------
\1 In this report, "fish mitigation" refers to efforts to mitigate
the decline of salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin. 

   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The Federal Columbia River Power System includes all federally owned
hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin that are operated and
maintained by the Corps and the Department of the Interior's Bureau
of Reclamation.  Bonneville Power is responsible for transmitting and
marketing the hydroelectric power generated by these dams.  The
Corps' eight multipurpose dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers
are a major source of hydroelectric power in the region and also
provide flood control, navigation, recreation, irrigation, municipal
and industrial water supply, and fish and wildlife benefits. 
However, the dams impede juvenile and adult fish migrations to and
from the ocean by their physical presence and by creating reservoirs. 
For example, to migrate past the dams, juvenile fish must generally
go through the dams' turbines, through the juvenile fish bypass
systems, or over the dams' spillways.  Each passage alternative has
associated risks and contributes to the mortality of juvenile fish. 
Reservoirs formed behind the dams slow water velocities, alter river
temperatures, and improve the habitat of predators. 

In 1991, the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) listed the Snake River sockeye salmon as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act.  In 1992, NMFS listed the
Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook salmon as threatened.  In
accordance with the requirements of the act, beginning in 1992, NMFS
issued Biological Opinions on the operation of the Federal Columbia
River Power System.  In its March 1995 Biological Opinion, NMFS
concluded that the proposed operation of the hydropower system,
including the Corps' eight dams on the lower Columbia and Snake
rivers, jeopardized the continued existence of the listed Snake River
salmon.  NMFS recommended a "reasonable and prudent" alternative that
identified immediate, intermediate, and long-term actions concerning
the operation and configuration of the hydropower system.  The
reasonable and prudent alternative also includes time frames for
completing certain fish mitigation actions.  The Corps is responsible
for implementing the fish mitigation actions that affect its eight
dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

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.  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.  The Corps'
decision-making 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.  The Regional Forum is a
group with broad regional representation, including federal agencies,
states, and Native American tribes located in the Columbia River
Basin.  The Forum, which includes the Corps, tries to reach consensus
among its members in making decisions about fish mitigation actions. 
If consensus cannot be reached, the Corps is the decisionmaker on
actions that affect its eight dams.  Annually, the Corps, with input
from the Regional Forum, estimates the costs of its fish mitigation
actions and requests funding as part of its normal budget process. 
If the 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. 

As of October 31, 1997, the Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation
program consisted of 58 actions that included 29 studies and 29
projects, such as testing prototype fish passage facilities and
making structural modifications to dams.  The majority of these
actions are being completed on time and within budget.  However, the
Corps identified 19 actions, or about 40 percent of the 47 actions
the Corps has initiated, that were delayed, experienced cost
increases, or both. 

A variety of factors, mostly in combination, have contributed to the
Corps' problems.  For example, for at least three projects and one
study, high water flows and floods have had an adverse effect on the
completion of the projects.  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.  These
changes were often necessitated by such factors as limited funding,
the need for additional biological data, or the desire to test new
technology.  Finally, in about three projects, difficulties,
including problems with engineering designs, were the result of the
Corps' by-passing standard procedures for managing the project 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.  These impacts include delays in the collection
of data needed to make future decisions on salmon recovery,
continuing high fish mortality rates, the loss of power generation
and the related potential revenues, and increases in the Corps'
operations and maintenance expenses.  In addition, 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.  Independent evaluations have found a
number of deficiencies with the process followed by the Regional
Forum, and proposals for replacing the Forum are being considered. 

   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

      BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND THE
      REGIONAL FORUM GUIDE THE
      CORPS' FISH MITIGATION
      ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

While the Corps has been conducting salmon mitigation actions under
its Columbia River Fish Mitigation program since the mid-1980s,
currently, the primary focus of the program is the implementation of
the actions specified in the National Marine Fisheries Service's
March 1995 Biological Opinion.  Some operational actions called for
in the Biological Opinion, such as river flow augmentation and spill,
are implemented by the Corps but are not part of its fish mitigation
program.  That program includes projects related to the design and
construction of fish passage facilities as well as studies that
support the Federal Columbia River Power System's long-term decisions
on the system's configuration and operation. 

In response to the Biological Opinion, the Corps reiterated that it
would work cooperatively with all interested parties, including state
agencies and Native American tribes, in implementing its fish
mitigation actions.  The Corps' and other federal agencies'
commitment to a cooperative regional approach to the federally led
salmon recovery efforts evolved into the Regional Forum.  The
Regional Forum, working within the framework of the Biological
Opinion, coordinates policy, sets priorities for selecting and
funding projects, and reviews the designs for the salmon recovery
projects.  Two of the Corps' district offices are responsible for
implementing the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program.  They
develop specific proposals, including scope, costs, and schedules,
for the projects and studies in the program.  The Corps then obtains
the Regional Forum's review of and recommendations for these
proposals before they become part of the Corps' fish mitigation
program and budget request.  Since the Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation program is funded by annual congressional appropriations
and the program's projects and studies typically span more than one
fiscal year, the Corps must seek funding for many of these actions
during multiple appropriation cycles.  Consequently, ongoing actions
may be affected if the Corps receives a program appropriation that is
less than its budget request.  In these cases, the Corps seeks
recommendations from the Regional Forum to help the Corps decide
which projects are to be funded, and at what level, for the year. 

A June 1997 consultant report, done at the request of a congressional
conference committee, questioned the overall effectiveness of the
Regional Forum and found a number of deficiencies with the process. 
For example, the study found that the members of the Regional Forum
did not agree on how salmon recovery efforts should be achieved.  In
addition, the report stated that the Forum had difficulty obtaining
consensus to make decisions, lacked a clear process to resolve
disputes, and was often repetitive and contradictory in setting
priorities for fish passage projects and studies.  The report made a
number of recommendations to improve the Regional Forum's process. 
Subsequently, the governors of the four Northwest states proposed
replacing the federally led Forum with a process that would be
jointly led by federal agencies, states, and Native American tribes. 

      THE CORPS HAS EXPERIENCED
      PROBLEMS IMPLEMENTING SOME
      FISH MITIGATION ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

As of October 31, 1997, the Corps had started 47 of the 58 fish
mitigation actions contained in its fish mitigation program.  The
start of the remaining 11 actions had not yet been scheduled.  The
majority of these actions have been, or are expected to be, completed
on time and within budget.  However, the Corps identified 19 actions
(8 studies and 11 projects), or about 40 percent of the total actions
the Corps had initiated, that were delayed, had encountered cost
increases, or both.  The actions include most of the Corps' larger
fish mitigation projects as measured in terms of estimated costs to
complete. 

Of these 19 fish mitigation actions, 18 were delayed and 9
experienced cost increases (8 of the 9 actions incurred both delays
and cost increases).  Delays ranged from 3 weeks in starting a study
on the effectiveness of a prototype juvenile fish surface bypass and
collection system at the Lower Granite Dam to an indefinite delay for
installing a juvenile fish bypass system at The Dalles Dam.  Cost
increases on the nine actions averaged over $2 million, ranging from
$280,000 for the installation of extended-length submerged bar
screens at Little Goose Dam to over $7 million for the design and
construction of a new juvenile fish sampling and monitoring facility
at John Day Dam. 

A variety of factors has contributed to delays and cost increases in
the 19 fish mitigation actions.  Some of the factors, such as changes
in fish mitigation priorities, problems encountered in attempts to
streamline project management, and effects of adverse weather on
project implementation, were identified as the reasons for delays and
cost increases in more than one study or project.  Other factors,
such as contractors' performance problems, bid protests, and
revisions of projects' scope, were identified as reasons only in
individual actions.  For most actions, a combination of these factors
contributed to the Corps' not completing fish mitigation actions on
time and within budget. 

When fish mitigation actions encounter delays and cost increases, the
impacts on migrating juvenile fish can be significant.  For example,
at The Dalles Dam on the lower Columbia River, juvenile fish use the
dam's turbines, spillway, or ice and trash sluiceway--a waterway used
to pass ice and trash around the dam--to migrate past the dam. 
However, juvenile fish that go through the dam's turbines experience
mortality rates estimated to be as great as 15 percent.  In addition,
preliminary results of the Corps' ongoing study of spillway survival
indicate that the mortality rate for juvenile fish going over the
spillways--previously thought to be about 2 percent--may actually be
as high as 12 percent.  Furthermore, the Corps observed that
hydraulic conditions in the ice and trash sluiceway, as well as large
numbers of predator fish at the sluiceway's outfall, may make
utilizing the sluiceway to bypass juvenile fish unacceptable.  In
March 1994, the Corps proposed the construction of a new juvenile
fish bypass system that was to be fully operational by March 1998. 
However, the Regional Forum's decision to test new bypass technology
at the dam, combined with subsequent funding limitations, have
indefinitely delayed the decision on what type of bypass system to
construct.  Consequently, juvenile fish migrating down the river are
still exposed to some of the same hydraulic conditions, predator
densities, and mortality rates that the Corps found to be
unacceptable in the mid-1980s. 

Other impacts that can occur when fish mitigation actions are not
completed on time and within budget include delays in the collection
of data needed to make future decisions on salmon recovery, the loss
of power generation and associated potential revenues, and increased
expenses for dams' operations and maintenance.  In addition, since
the fish mitigation program is funded by annual appropriations, when
one fish mitigation project or study incurs a cost increase, the
opportunity to use those funds on other projects is lost. 

   RECOMMENDATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO is making no recommendations in this report. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO provided the Department of the Army with a draft of this report
for its review and comment.  The U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers, in
commenting for the Department, stated that it agreed with the
statements contained in the draft report and had no comments.  (See
app.  II.)

INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The Columbia River Basin is North America's fourth largest, draining
about 258,000 square miles and extending predominantly through the
states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana and into Canada. 
There are over 250 reservoirs and about 150 hydroelectric projects in
the basin, including 18 mainstem dams on the Columbia and its primary
tributary, the Snake River.  One of the most prominent features of
the Columbia River Basin has been its production of salmon. 
Specifically, the Columbia River Basin provides habitat for five
species of anadromous\1 salmon:  chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and
pink.  Salmon spawn in fresh-water rivers and their tributaries. 
Juvenile salmon live in the fresh water for a year or two, migrate to
and mature in the ocean, and return in 2 to 5 years to their place of
birth as adults to spawn. 

About 150 years ago, the Columbia River Basin returned the largest
adult runs of wild salmon on earth--their annual populations were
estimated at up to 16 million salmon.  Since that time, however,
total annual salmon returns have declined to only about 2.5 million
in 1996.  It is estimated that only about 500,000 of these returning
adults are wild or naturally spawned fish.  The remainder are
hatchery-raised fish intended to supplement the declining wild runs. 

A number of factors have contributed to the decline of salmon stocks
in the Columbia and Snake rivers.  These include overharvesting in
the late 1800s and the early 1900s, as well as the adverse effects on
spawning habitat from farming, cattle grazing, mining, logging, road
construction, and industrial pollution.  A variety of ocean
conditions including currents, pollution, temperature changes, and
nutrient base, also affects the survival of salmon.  In addition,
dams have a significant impact on declining salmon stocks,
particularly those dams that limit access to spawning habitat and
those through which fish passage is provided but at reduced levels in
comparison with natural conditions.  However, most of the decline in
wild salmon stocks--from the estimated 16 million in the mid-1800s to
about 4 million in 1938--occurred before the first federal dam was
completed in the Columbia River Basin in 1938. 

--------------------
\1 Anadromous fish are those that hatch in fresh water, migrate to
the ocean where they mature, and then return to fresh water to spawn. 

   THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER
   POWER SYSTEM AND THE CORPS OF
   ENGINEERS' DAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

The Federal Columbia River Power System (the Columbia power system)
includes all federally owned hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River
Basin that are operated and maintained by the U.S.  Army Corps of
Engineers and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. 
These include 21 Corps dams and 8 Bureau dams.  The Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville Power) is responsible for transmitting and
marketing the hydroelectric power generated by this system.  Of the
21 dams operated and maintained by the Corps, eight are major,
multipurpose dams located on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers that
affect the habitat and migration of salmon.  These are Bonneville,
The Dalles, John Day, and McNary on the lower Columbia and Ice
Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite on the
Snake. 

   Figure 1.1:  Major Dams
   Affecting Salmon Migration in
   the Columbia River Basin

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 

These dams are a major source of hydroelectric power in the region
and also provide flood control, navigation, recreation, irrigation,
municipal and industrial water supply, and fish and wildlife
benefits.  However, the dams impede the migration of juvenile and
adult fish to and from the ocean by their physical presence and by
creating reservoirs.  Reservoirs formed behind the dams slow water
velocities, alter water temperatures, and improve the habitat of
predators. 

      DAM MODIFICATIONS HAVE
      IMPROVED FISH PASSAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.1

The Corps has adult fish ladders at all eight of its dams on the
lower Columbia and Snake rivers.  Adult fish ladders were integrated
into the design of the dams beginning with Bonneville in 1938.  These
ladders consist of a series of steps and water pools that provide a
gradual upward climb over the dams for returning adults.  To steer
the adults to the ladders, "attraction" flows at the downstream
ladder entrances simulate conditions that would be found at the base
of natural waterfalls.  The concept has proved effective for adult
fish passage. 

Generally, juvenile fish can migrate downstream past the dams by
several routes, including through the dams' turbines, through the
dams' juvenile fish bypass systems, or over the dams' spillways.  The
Corps has juvenile fish bypass systems in place at seven of its eight
dams.  At The Dalles Dam, juvenile fish are bypassed through the
dam's ice and trash sluiceway--a waterway used to pass ice and trash
around the dam.  While each alternative passage has associated risks
and contributes to fish mortality, passage through the bypass system
or over the spillway has a lower mortality rate than through the
turbines.  Many juvenile fish are also collected and transported past
the dams by barge and truck under the Corps' juvenile fish
transportation program. 

The conventional juvenile fish bypass systems at the Corps' dams
guide fish away from turbines by means of submerged screens
positioned in front of the turbines.  The juvenile fish are directed
up into a gatewell, where they pass through orifices into collection
channels that transport the fish around the dam.  The fish are then
routed back out to the river below the dam, which is called
"bypassing"; at the four dams with fish transport facilities, fish
can be routed to a holding area for loading on to specially equipped
barges and trucks for transport downriver to below the Bonneville
Dam--the last dam on the lower Columbia River before the Pacific
Ocean.  Three of the Corps' four Snake River dams and the McNary Dam
on the Columbia River have fish transportation facilities. 

   Figure 1.2:  Existing Fish
   Passage Systems at the Corps'
   Dams on the Lower Columbia and
   Snake Rivers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 

The percentage of fish approaching a turbine intake that are guided
by submerged screens into facilities that bypass the turbine is
called fish guidance efficiency.  This percentage varies from dam to
dam and by type of fish.  For example, according to the Corps, the
current bypass systems for juvenile fish guide 60 to 70 percent of
spring/summer chinook salmon away from the turbines and up through
the bypass channel.  However, the fish guidance efficiency for fall
chinook salmon is only about 30 percent because they are smaller,
swim deeper in the river, and migrate in different water conditions. 
Dams equipped with extended-length screens can guide up to 66 percent
of fall chinook into bypass systems. 

      RIVER OPERATIONS CAN IMPROVE
      ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1.2

Hydropower operations can be modified to improve in-river migration
conditions for fish.  During the juvenile fish migration season, from
April until fall, water can be spilled at the dams and flows in the
river can be augmented to aid juvenile fish migration. 

One operational measure designed to improve salmon passage at the
Corps' dams is to spill water and juvenile fish over the dams'
spillways, rather than putting the water through the powerhouses'
turbines to produce electricity.  However, spill has associated risks
because when the water plunges into the spillway basins, it traps
gases, such as nitrogen.  Water that is supersaturated with nitrogen
can be lethal to both adult and juvenile fish.  Spillway deflectors
have been installed at seven of the Corps' eight dams to limit the
plunge depth of spilled water, thereby reducing the amount of
supersaturated gases. 

   Figure 1.3:  Spill at Corps'
   Dam on the Lower Columbia River

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  General Accounting Office. 

Another operational method of improving in-river fish migration is
flow augmentation.  Upstream storage dams hold water for flood
control and other uses, interrupting the river's historical seasonal
flow patterns.  Seasonal releases of water from upstream storage
dams, called flow augmentation, can aid salmon migration.  The Corps
operates two upstream storage dams in the Columbia River Basin,
Dworshak Dam in Idaho and Libby Dam in Montana, from which water is
released to aid juvenile fish as they migrate downriver. 

   EFFORTS TO IMPROVE SALMON
   RECOVERY HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR
   DECADES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

Since 1949, federal and state agencies and regional organizations\2
responsible for efforts to enhance salmon have invested over $3
billion in actions to improve salmon runs throughout the Columbia
River Basin.  Despite the studies and actions taken to improve fish
passage, salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin have continued to
decline:  returning adult populations totaled about 4 million in
1938, 3 million in 1980, and 2.5 million in 1996. 

Over the past several decades, various federal and state agencies,
the courts, and other entities have shaped the development and
management of salmon policy in the Columbia River Basin.  During the
early period of the construction of the Corps' eight dams on the
lower Columbia and Snake rivers, the state fisheries agencies,
universities, and the U.S.  Bureau of Fisheries (later called the
U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service) conducted most fisheries research in
the Columbia River Basin.  In the early 1950s, the Corps' North
Pacific Division (currently the Northwestern Division) organized the
Fisheries Engineering Research Program, which--in coordination with
the directors of federal and state fisheries agencies--reviewed
research and discussed additional concerns and research opportunities
to improve fish passage.  Most early studies focused on adult
migrants.  By the late 1950s, the program's attention was drawn to
studying the survival of juvenile fish and their diversion away from
turbine intakes.  In 1968, the Corps funded an experiment by the
Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at
Ice Harbor Dam, using trucks to transport juvenile salmon around the
four completed lower Columbia River dams.  Encouraging results led to
the installation of juvenile fish bypass systems that enable fish
collection and transportation at some of the Corps' dams.  The
development of screens to divert juvenile fish from the turbine
intakes began in 1969, and further research provided the basis for
the modification of river flows and dam operations beginning in the
1980s. 

By the mid-1980s, the Corps developed its Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Project to reduce the mortality of juvenile salmon.  This
project is part of the Corps' larger Columbia River Salmon Program
that includes river operations, fish passage operations and
maintenance, fish transportation, research, hatchery operations
funded through the Corps' operations and maintenance appropriation,
and fish passage improvements.  The Corps' Columbia River Fish
Mitigation Project includes individual actions related to the design
and construction of improvements to fish passage facilities as well
as studies that support the Columbia power system's long-term
decisions on the system's configuration and operation.  Today, the
Corps refers to these fish mitigation actions collectively as the
Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project.  However, for purposes of
this report, we refer to the Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation
Project as a program and individual fish mitigation actions as
projects or studies. 

In 1980, the Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act, now called the Northwest Power Act,
which envisioned salmon as an equal partner with hydropower
operations for dams in the Columbia River Basin.  The act called for
elevating energy and fish planning to a regional level by
establishing greater involvement of state and local governments,
Native American tribes, and the public in power planning through an
interstate Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning
Council--now called the Northwest Power Planning Council.  The
Council, which consists of two members from each state appointed by
the governors of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, was formed
in 1981.  The act directed the Council to ensure an adequate
long-term supply of power for the Pacific Northwest and to develop a
basinwide comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Program to rebuild
resources that had been harmed by hydroelectric development.  While
the act gave the Council the authority to plan, the primary
implementors and funding source for the Fish and Wildlife Program are
federal agencies.  Under the act, federal agencies that manage,
operate, or regulate hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia River
Basin are required to take the program into account ".  .  .  at each
relevant stage of decisionmaking processes to the fullest extent
practicable."\3 These obligations are intended to help integrate
federal agencies' fish mitigation actions with a regionally supported
fish and wildlife program.  In 1982, the Council completed its first
Fish and Wildlife Program.  During 1982 through 1994, the program was
amended several times, calling for an integrated approach to fish
restoration efforts, designating "protected areas" for fish and
wildlife, adopting a mainstem-dam spill agreement, and concentrating
on improving the survival of juvenile salmon migrating downstream. 

Other key entities in salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific
Northwest are the Native American tribes.  Tensions between Native
Americans and other users of the Columbia River Basin have existed
since before the 19th century.  In the mid 1800s, the federal
government negotiated treaties with the Native Americans in the
Columbia River Basin which granted the Indians the right to take fish
at all the usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations in
common with all citizens of the Territory.  Although relations
improved in the 1980s, today, the Native Americans, with some
support, generally argue that salmon recovery can be accomplished
most efficiently by returning the Columbia and Snake rivers to
"natural" flow conditions and that interim expenditures that evaluate
other potential remedies are unnecessary and costly.  Specifically,
the Native American tribes call for the removal of a portion (breach)
of the Corps' four dams on the Snake River and support releases of
water to increase river flows to aid salmon migration.  The tribes
also support the use of hatcheries to rebuild salmon runs.  The
tribes are opposed, however, to the Corps' programs that transport
juvenile fish past the dams.  Transportation of fish, some tribes
argue, is unnatural. 

--------------------
\2 Agencies and organizations include U.S.  Corps of Engineers, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bonneville Power
Administration, the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service; the Northwest
Power Planning Council; state fish and wildlife agencies; public
utilities districts and private power companies; local organizations;
and nonprofit organizations. 

\3 16 U.S.  C.  839b(h)(11)(A)(ii). 

   CERTAIN SALMON STOCKS ARE
   LISTED AS ENDANGERED OR
   THREATENED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

In March 1990, a regional Native American tribe, the
Shoshone-Bannock, petitioned NMFS to list the Snake River sockeye
salmon as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  Later in
1990, a coalition of environmental groups requested protection for
the spring/ summer and fall runs of the Snake River chinook salmon
and the lower Columbia River coho salmon.  In 1991, NMFS declared the
Snake River sockeye salmon as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act.  In 1992, NMFS declared the spring/summer and fall runs of the
Snake River chinook salmon as threatened.  This Endangered Species
Act listing required the Corps, Bonneville Power, and the Bureau of
Reclamation to consult with NMFS to determine whether river flow
improvements and planned fish mitigation measures associated with the
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System would further
jeopardize the existence of the listed species. 

Under the Biological Opinion, the Columbia power system encompasses
those dams and reservoirs owned and operated as a coordinated system
for the purpose of power production by the three action agencies (the
Corps, Bonneville Power, and the Bureau of Reclamation) on behalf of
the federal government.  For purposes of the Biological Opinion,
these dams and reservoirs are the Dworshak, Lower Granite, Little
Goose, Lower Monumental, and Ice Harbor in the Snake River Basin;
Hungry Horse, Libby, and Grand Coulee on the upper Columbia River;
and McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville on the lower
Columbia River.  The Biological Opinion takes into account the
operation of these dams as a unified hydropower system and as
individual projects.  For example, flow augmentation, the survival of
juvenile and adult salmon, and total dissolved gas issues can involve
both the hydropower system as a whole or just individual dams in any
given case. 

Previous Biological Opinions issued by NMFS in 1992, 1993, and 1994
(the 1994 Opinion addressed the operations of the hydropower system
through 1998) stated that the proposed operations of the Columbia
power system during those years would not jeopardize the continued
existence of Snake River salmon.  NMFS's 1993 Biological Opinion
finding of "no jeopardy" was challenged in U.S.  District Court by
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the State of Oregon, and four
Native American tribes.  On March 28, 1994, the court ruled that
NMFS' 1993 Biological Opinion was inadequate because it relied too
much on the status quo for improving listed stocks of salmon that
continued to dwindle in numbers.  The 1993 Biological Opinion dealt
with the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System in
1993, a system that had been completed by the time of the court's
decision.  Thus, the court permitted NMFS, the Corps, and the Bureau
of Reclamation to address the court's concerns by reconsidering the
March 16, 1994, Biological Opinion. 

In accordance with the court's decision, on March 2, 1995, NMFS
issued a Biological Opinion on the operation of the Columbia power
system for 1995 and future years.  The 1995 Biological Opinion
concluded that the proposed operation of the hydropower system, which
included planned fish mitigation actions, was likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the listed Snake River salmon protected
under the Endangered Species Act.  NMFS recommended a "reasonable and
prudent" alternative that included immediate, intermediate, and
long-term actions concerning the operation and configuration of the
Columbia power system to avoid jeopardizing the protected salmon. 
Subsequently, the Corps issued a Record of Decision\4 that stated its
intention to carry out the reasonable and prudent alternative
contained in the 1995 Biological Opinion. 

--------------------
\4 U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers' Record of Decision for Reservoir
Regulation and Project Operation, 1995 and Future Years (Mar.  1995). 

   THE CORPS' IMPLEMENTATION OF
   FISH MITIGATION ACTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

The Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation program was initiated in
the mid-1980s to focus efforts on finding ways to improve fish
passage at the Corps' eight dams on the lower Columbia and Snake
rivers.  The program has evolved into a regionally coordinated
direction for the Corps' actions in the furtherance of both regional
and NMFS fish mitigation efforts.  The fish mitigation program is the
largest construction program in the history of the Corps'
Northwestern Division.  The Corps' current estimates place the cost
to complete the program by the end of fiscal year 2007 at $1.4
billion. 

The fish passage structural improvements done under the fish
mitigation program are considered civil works projects and, as such,
would normally follow the Corps' standard procedures for project
management.  The life cycle of a civil works project passes through
two distinct phases--general investigations and construction.  The
general investigation phase of a project is intended to review and
evaluate alternatives to a project and to prepare the National
Environmental Policy Act documentation needed for a project to
proceed to construction.  The general investigation phase of a major
federal project can cost millions of dollars and take years to
complete. 

The construction phase of a project incorporates the traditional
engineer-construction activities.  There are three primary elements: 
the feature design memorandum, plans and specifications, and
construction.  The feature design memorandum evaluates the project's
individual elements, describes the detailed design alternatives, and
identifies the selected design for incorporation into the total
design package.  Plans and specifications are the engineering
drawings, calculations, standard documents, and engineers' estimates,
which, when assembled, are the documents used by the construction
contractor to build the project.  Finally, construction of a Corps
project usually involves many specialty subcontractors managed by a
general contractor who is responsible for the construction of the
overall project.  Generally, the Corps' fish mitigation projects on
the Columbia River have been multiyear projects. 

   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

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.  In addition, we were asked to
determine why the Corps had not entered into a direct funding
agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration for certain costs
of operating and maintaining the Corps' dams in the Columbia River
Basin.  During the course of our audit, the Corps did complete such
an agreement.  Appendix I of this report provides information on how
the direct funding agreement will work. 

To provide information on the Corps of Engineers' decision-making
process for identifying, setting priorities for, and funding fish
mitigation actions, we interviewed and obtained documents and data
from officials at the Corps' Northwestern Division and District
offices in Portland, Oregon, and Walla Walla, Washington; National
Marine Fisheries Service officials in Portland, Oregon; and
additional Regional Forum members, such as the Columbia River
Inter-tribal Fish Commission and staff of the Northwest Power
Planning Council.  We reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement between
the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior concerning
funding of fish mitigation actions and the Regional Forum's
procedures and minutes of meetings.  We also reviewed a June 13,
1997, report prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation and HDR Engineering, Inc., for the Department of the
Army, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, entitled Independent
Review and Evaluation of Processes Utilized to Implement Structural
Improvements at Columbia and Snake Rivers Fish Passage Projects. 

To determine whether the Corps of Engineers completed its fish
mitigation actions on schedule and within budget, we initially relied
on officials at the Corps' Northwestern Division in Portland, Oregon,
and its Portland and Walla Walla District offices to identify fish
mitigation actions that were delayed and/or had incurred cost
increases as of October 31, 1997.  To determine the actual length of
any delay and the amount of any cost increase, we reviewed individual
project and study contracts, contract modifications, and reports and
interviewed project managers, program managers, and Corps
construction personnel to obtain planned completion dates and cost
estimates.  We then compared the planned completion dates and cost
estimates to the scheduled completion dates and cost estimates as of
October 31, 1997.  We also reviewed NMFS' March 1995 Biological
Opinion, attended meetings of the Regional Forum, and reviewed the
minutes and documentation of various Regional Forum meetings
discussing fish mitigation implementation actions. 

The Corps officials at the Northwestern Division and District offices
identified 58 fish mitigation actions as of October 31, 1997.  Of
these 58 actions, Corps officials identified 19 projects and studies
that experienced delays, cost increases, or both.  To determine why
these actions had encountered delays and/or cost increases, we
reviewed documentation, including feature design memorandums,
construction contracts, contract modifications, correspondence
between the Corps and its contractors, funding and priority
schedules, and other relevant reports.  To obtain additional
information on the reasons for cost increases and/or delays and to
determine the impacts of the delays and/or cost increases on fish
mitigation actions, we discussed the status of each activity with
Corps personnel, such as project managers, contract and construction
personnel, and fisheries biologists. 

To determine how the Corps' recent direct funding agreement with the
Bonneville Power Administration for the power costs of operating and
maintaining the Corps' dams will work, we interviewed and obtained
documents from officials at the Bonneville Power Administration in
Portland, Oregon; the Corps of Engineers headquarters in Washington,
D.C.; and the Corps' Northwestern Division and District office in
Portland, Oregon.  We reviewed the Corps' current budget process,
operations and maintenance budget needs, and prior direct funding
agreements with Bonneville Power.  We also reviewed Bonneville
Power's funding requirements for reimbursing the Corps for
power-related operations and maintenance costs.  Finally, we
interviewed officials of the Northwest Power Planning Council in
Portland, Oregon, and Bureau of Reclamation officials in Boise,
Idaho, for their views on direct funding for power-related operations
and maintenance costs. 

We performed our audit work from July 1997 though March 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
GAO provided the Department of the Army with a draft of this report
for its review and comment.  The U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers, in
commenting for the Department, stated that it agreed with the
statements contained in the draft report and had no comments.  (See
app.  II.)

NMFS' 1995 BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND
THE REGIONAL FORUM GUIDE THE
CORPS' FISH MITIGATION ACTIONS
============================================================ Chapter 2

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.  However, if consensus
cannot be reached, the Corps, as the action agency responsible for
implementing its fish mitigation program, makes the decisions. 
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. 

   NMFS' BIOLOGICAL OPINION GUIDES
   THE CORPS' FISH MITIGATION
   PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

In March of 1995, NMFS issued its Biological Opinion on the operation
of the Federal Columbia River Power System proposed by the Corps,
Bonneville Power, and the Bureau of Reclamation for 1995 and future
years.  The Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed operation,
which included planned mitigation activities, was likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the three species of Snake
River salmon protected under the Endangered Species Act.  Pursuant to
the act's requirements, the Biological Opinion recommended a
"reasonable and prudent" alternative to the proposed hydropower
system's operation.  NMFS concluded that implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative would not jeopardize the survival of the
listed salmon.  The reasonable and prudent alternative includes time
frames for completing certain fish mitigation projects and studies
and identifies the Corps as one of three action agencies responsible
for implementing the fish mitigation activities identified in the
Biological Opinion.  Bonneville Power and the Bureau of Reclamation
are the other action agencies.\1 In response to the Biological
Opinion, in March 1995, the Corps issued its Record of Decision for
Reservoir Regulation and Project Operation, 1995 and Future Years. 
In the Record of Decision, the Corps stated its intention to carry
out the requirements of the Biological Opinion.  The Corps carries
out many of the measures it is responsible for under the Biological
Opinion through its Columbia River Fish Mitigation program.  While
the Corps has been conducting salmon mitigation efforts under its
fish mitigation program since the mid-1980s, currently, the primary
focus of the program is the implementation of the actions specified
in the Biological Opinion.  Some operational measures called for in
the Biological Opinion, such as river flow augmentation, spill, and
juvenile fish transportation, are implemented by the Corps, but not
as part of the Columbia River Fish Mitigation program.  The fish
mitigation program includes projects related to the design and
construction of fish passage facilities, as well as studies that
support long-term configuration and operational decisions for the
hydropower system. 

The Biological Opinion identifies immediate, intermediate and
long-term actions designed to improve the operation and configuration
of the hydropower system for the benefit of salmon.  It employs an
approach that calls for taking immediate and intermediate actions to
increase salmon survival while conducting other activities to
determine the benefits of, need for, and feasibility of long-term
structural modifications to the hydropower system.  In keeping with
this strategy, the Biological Opinion required the Corps to take a
variety of actions.  Some of these consist of designing and
constructing facilities to improve salmon passage at the Corps' dams. 
Other actions are operational in nature, such as augmenting river
flows to aid the migration of juvenile salmon.  Finally, some actions
consist of conducting studies and collecting the information needed
for decisions on the hydropower system's long-term configuration.  It
should be noted that the Biological Opinion is a mitigation plan
whose required actions are designed to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of listed species.  Although the required actions
will generally benefit many anadromous fish in the Columbia River
Basin, the Biological Opinion is not a salmon recovery plan.  A
recovery plan has a goal of returning the listed species to a point
where protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer
necessary. 

The following are specific examples of the immediate and intermediate
actions the Biological Opinion required of the Corps: 

--------------------
\1 They are responsible, in part, for improving water flows in the
Columbia and Snake Rivers to optimize juvenile fish survival and for
monitoring the survival of juvenile fish as they migrate to the
ocean. 

      IMMEDIATE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1

  -- Augmenting Columbia and Snake river flows to help juvenile
     salmon migrate downstream, which requires releasing water from
     upstream storage reservoirs during the spring and summer
     juvenile salmon migration. 

  -- Spilling river flows at the Corps' dams rather than passing them
     through hydropower turbines where juvenile salmon experience
     higher mortality rates. 

  -- Collecting juvenile salmon at certain of the Corps' dams and
     transporting them downstream by barge or truck, past remaining
     dams, where they are released back into the Columbia River. 

  -- Evaluating the feasibility, costs, and benefits of drawing down
     certain reservoirs behind the Corps' dams to levels
     significantly below normal operating range. 

  -- Designing and testing surface collection facilities at certain
     dams, a relatively new technology that may more efficiently and
     effectively bypass juvenile salmon at the dams. 

  -- Conducting studies and making facility improvements that will
     achieve an 80-percent fish passage efficiency (the percentage of
     fish that pass dams without going through turbines) and an
     overall 95-percent passage survival rate at each dam. 

      INTERMEDIATE ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2

  -- Developing a gas abatement program, including appropriate
     structural modifications, to reduce gas supersaturation. 

  -- Prototype testing and installation of extended-length screens to
     direct juvenile salmon away from turbines. 

  -- Planning and implementing improvements to the juvenile bypass
     facility at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River. 

  -- Designing and constructing facilities at John Day and Bonneville
     dams to improve sampling and monitoring of juvenile salmon as
     they migrate past these dams. 

  -- Relocating the outfall structure from which juvenile salmon exit
     the bypass facility at Bonneville Dam to reduce mortality caused
     by predator fish. 

  -- Designing and installing a juvenile bypass system at The Dalles
     Dam. 

  -- Determining the appropriate number and size of additional
     transportation barges to provide direct loading of juvenile
     salmon, a measure designed to avoid the stress associated with
     keeping juvenile salmon in holding areas until barges are
     available. 

In addition to these immediate and intermediate actions, the
Biological Opinion also called for decisions on the long-term
operation and configuration of the hydroelectric power system.  For
example, the Corps is currently studying three alternatives for the
long-term operation of its four dams on the lower Snake River.  Two
of these alternatives would require major system configuration
changes.  The alternatives under consideration are (1) maintaining
current structures and operations as prescribed in the Biological
Opinion, including juvenile fish transportation and improvements to
existing bypass facilities; (2) permanently drawing down the
reservoirs behind the four dams to natural river levels by removing a
section of each dam; and (3) making major system improvements other
than drawdown, such as construction of new surface bypass facilities,
structural measures to reduce gas supersaturation, and improvements
to turbines to reduce salmon mortality.  The Biological Opinion
provides for the Corps to make a recommendation in 1999 on which of
the alternatives is preferred. 

The Corps is also considering long-term options for fish passage at
dams on the lower Columbia River.  These options include installing
surface bypass collection facilities at the Corps' dams and drawing
down the reservoir behind John Day Dam to the level of the spillway
or to the natural river level.  These decisions are not part of the
1999 scheduled recommendation for the operation of the lower Snake
River dams. 

   THE CORPS COORDINATES ITS FISH
   MITIGATION ACTIONS THROUGH THE
   REGIONAL FORUM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

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 the Regional Forum.  In
1995, NMFS, noting the disjointed nature of previous efforts to help
the salmon recover, stated that institutional, jurisdictional, state,
and federal boundaries make timely fisheries management decisions
difficult and that the differing objectives of each organization lead
to conflicts in interpretation, lengthy arguments, and decision
paralysis.  Regional salmon recovery experts recognized that an
organization was needed to efficiently manage the salmon recovery
program throughout the Columbia power system, and considering its
role for listed salmon stocks under the Endangered Species Act, NMFS
led this regional effort.  As a result, the Corps, NMFS, and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a joint policy that provided for
participation by appropriate regional agencies and affected interests
in the review and implementation of fish mitigation actions. 

Historically, the Corps has coordinated with regional interests its
research, design, and construction activities related to improving
fish passage at its dams.  The Corps reiterated that it would work in
a cooperative regional approach in its Record of Decision issued in
response to NMFS' 1995 Biological Opinion and in a Memorandum of
Agreement among the Department of the Army, the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the
Interior.  The agreement sets forth Bonneville Power's
responsibilities for funding fish and wildlife actions and reinforced
the roles and responsibilities of regional interests in setting
priorities and budgeting for these actions.  The Corps' and other
federal agencies' (NMFS, Bonneville Power, Reclamation, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service) commitment to a cooperative regional approach
in the federally led salmon recovery efforts has evolved into the
Regional Forum. 

The Regional Forum develops policy guidelines, sets priorities for
selecting and funding projects, and reviews project proposals for the
salmon mitigation efforts in the Columbia River Basin related to the
operation and configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power
System.  Membership in the Regional Forum is open to five federal
agencies, including the Corps, five states, the Northwest Power
Planning Council, Columbia River Basin Native American tribes, a
private utility, and public utilities.  The Regional Forum tries to
reach a 100-percent consensus among its members in making decisions
concerning fish mitigation actions.  However, if consensus cannot be
reached, the Corps makes the decisions on actions contained in its
fish mitigation program.  Details on the Regional Forum's membership,
goals, and organizational structure are provided in appendix III of
this report. 

The Corps coordinates its fish mitigation actions through the
Regional Forum.  Specifically, the Corps' Walla Walla and Portland
District offices are responsible for implementing the Columbia River
Fish Mitigation program.  These offices develop the proposals,
including the scope, costs, and schedules, for the projects in the
fish mitigation program.  They do this by initially making proposals
to the technical committees that provide support to the Regional
Forum.  For example, the Fish Facilities Design Review Work Group
reviews proposals for fish passage projects.  The District offices
can propose projects and suggest changes in funding levels at any
time during the year.  Other members of the Regional Forum are also
free to propose projects; however, this is not very common.  After
the proposals have been discussed and reviewed by the technical
committees, they are evaluated by the Regional Forum's System
Configuration Team.  The configuration team is a technical group
responsible for planning and overseeing the fish passage structural
improvements and related studies called for in the Biological
Opinion.  During the spring of each year, the configuration team
begins discussing and refining a list of projects to be undertaken in
the fiscal year beginning in about 18 months.  After the
configuration team completes its review and develops its
recommendations on which projects and studies to fund, the
appropriate Corps district offices make formal cost estimates for the
actions and provide them to the Corps' Northwestern Division as part
of the district's overall operating budget.  The division then
compiles the budgets from each district and packages them into a
division budget request that is submitted to Corps headquarters by
the end of June.  This is the basis for the fish mitigation program
actions and budget request for the fiscal year beginning in about 15
months. 

   THE CORPS' FISH MITIGATION
   PROGRAM IS FUNDED BY ANNUAL
   APPROPRIATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

The Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation program is funded by annual
appropriations from the Congress.  Specifically, funding for the fish
mitigation program is provided through the Corps' "construction,
general" appropriation.  The Corps receives additional funding for
the operations and maintenance of fish passage facilities and for the
transportation of juvenile salmon through the Corps' "operations and
maintenance, general" appropriation.  For fiscal year 1998, the Corps
requested $127 million for its fish mitigation program but received
an appropriation of $95 million.  Also, the Corps received an
additional $14 million in fiscal year 1998 to fund operations and
maintenance of its fish passage facilities and juvenile fish
transportation operations.  The Corps has estimated that the funding
required to implement the fish mitigation program through the end of
fiscal year 2007 will total about $1.4 billion.\2 About $908 million
of this total will be spent in fiscal year 1999 through the scheduled
completion of the program in fiscal year 2007.  The $908 million is
for future construction of fish passage projects and related studies
and does not include operations and maintenance costs for fish
passage facilities. 

Since fish mitigation projects typically span more than one fiscal
year, the Corps must seek funding for many projects during multiple
appropriation cycles.  Consequently, ongoing projects may be affected
if the Corps receives a fish mitigation appropriation that is less
than its budget request.  In these cases, the Corps seeks
recommendations from the Regional Forum to help the Corps make its
decisions about which projects are funded, and at what level, for the
year. 

--------------------
\2 This amount represents total expenditures for the fish mitigation
program that began in fiscal year 1988 and are projected through
fiscal year 2007.  Funding for the fish mitigation program for fiscal
years 1988 through 1998 totaled about $468 million.  The Corps
estimates it will require about $908 million in additional funds for
this program through fiscal year 2007.  The allocation of about $500
million of this amount depends on long-term decisions for
configuration and operation of the hydropower system. 

      BONNEVILLE POWER'S
      REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR
      FISH MITIGATION ACTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1

Although the Corps initially receives funding for its fish mitigation
activities through the congressional appropriation process, the
Bonneville Power Administration is responsible for reimbursing the
U.S.  Treasury for the majority of these expenditures.  Specifically,
Bonneville Power repays the Treasury for the Corps' fish mitigation
expenditures at its dams in proportion to the hydropower share of
each dam's purposes, which also include navigation, irrigation, and
flood control.  While the hydropower share varies by dam, it averages
about 80 percent.  Bonneville Power collects the revenues necessary
to repay these costs through its electricity rate structure. 

Concerns about Bonneville Power's ability to continue funding rising
fish and wildlife costs, including those associated with the Corps'
fish mitigation actions, led the agencies responsible for operating
the Columbia power system (the Corps under the Department of the
Army, Bonneville Power under the Department of Energy, and the Bureau
of Reclamation under the Department of the Interior), as well as NMFS
and the Fish and Wildlife Service, to negotiate a Memorandum of
Agreement that limits Bonneville Power's fish and wildlife funding
responsibilities each year.  This limit is independent of the amount
the Corps will receive through annual congressional appropriations. 
According to Corps officials, the agency has yet to receive an
appropriation that is as high as the amount established as Bonneville
Power's maximum contribution under the Memorandum of Agreement. 

Specifically, the agreement states that Bonneville Power will provide
an average of $252 million annually for direct, reimbursable, and
capital fish- and wildlife-related costs during fiscal years
1996-2001.  The agreement allocates the $252 million as follows: 

  -- $100 million for noncapital fish and wildlife program activities
     that Bonneville funds directly, such as research, predator
     control, hatcheries, and habitat restoration.  These activities
     are called for in NMFS' 1995 Biological Opinion and the
     Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. 

  -- About $40 million for reimbursement payments to the Treasury for
     the operations and maintenance of fish passage and hatchery
     facilities and other noncapital expenditures. 

  -- $112 million for capital investment repayments to the Treasury
     for such projects as constructing fish passage facilities at
     federal dams, including the Corps' dams, and hatcheries. 

During these fiscal years, Bonneville Power also estimates forgone
annual hydropower revenues of approximately $183 million that are
associated with providing water for flow augmentation and spill.  As
such, under the agreement, Bonneville Power will provide an average
of $435 million annually for fish- and wildlife-related costs during
fiscal years 1996-2001. 

The agreement also recognized the Unites States' trust obligation to
Columbia River Basin Native American tribes and committed the federal
signatory agencies to consult and cooperate with the tribes when
planning and conducting fish and wildlife mitigation actions.  It
also recognized the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and
Wildlife Program and required the parties to discuss planned
mitigation actions with the Council in an attempt to reach a common
viewpoint. 

THE CORPS HAS EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS
IMPLEMENTING SOME OF ITS FISH
MITIGATION ACTIONS
============================================================ Chapter 3

As of October 31, 1997, the Corps' Columbia River Fish Mitigation
program consisted of 58 actions, including those required by NMFS'
1995 Biological Opinion.  While the majority of the Corps' fish
mitigation actions have been or are expected to be completed on
schedule and within budget, the Corps has encountered difficulties
implementing many of its fish mitigation actions.  About 40 percent
of the 47 fish mitigation actions the Corps has initiated, including
most of its larger projects, have experienced delays, cost increases,
or both.  A variety of factors, mostly in combination, have
contributed to the Corps' problems.  Some of these factors, such as
high water flows and floods, had an adverse effect on completing
projects.  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. 
Differing goals are not conducive to implementing actions, especially
when consensus is sought to make decisions. 

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.  These include
delaying the collection of data needed to make future decisions on
salmon recovery, continued high fish mortality rates, the loss of
power generation and related potential revenue, and increased
operations and maintenance costs. 

   MANY FISH MITIGATION ACTIONS
   ARE BEHIND SCHEDULE AND
   INCURRING COST INCREASES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

The 1995 Biological Opinion identified various actions the Corps must
implement to improve fish passage at its eight dams on the lower
Columbia and Snake rivers.  The Corps expanded its existing fish
mitigation program to include these requirements.  As of October 31,
1997, the fish mitigation program consisted of 58 fish mitigation
actions that included 29 studies and 29 projects.  The Corps'
evaluation and monitoring studies are designed to give the region
better biological information and insights related to fish passage
and survival at hydropower dams.  Specific studies include, among
other things, the effectiveness of fish guidance devices and surface
collection prototypes and the feasibility of abating dissolved gas
supersaturation.  The 29 projects include such actions as designing
and constructing extended-length submerged screens in front of
turbine intakes to increase fish guidance efficiency, constructing
additional barges for the juvenile fish transport program,
constructing spillway flow deflectors to reduce gas supersaturation,
and constructing new outfalls to reduce predation of juvenile fish at
bypass system discharge points.  (See app.  IV of this report for a
list of the Corps' fish mitigation projects and studies and their
status as of Oct.  31, 1997.)

As of October 31, 1997, the Corps had started 47 of the 58 fish
mitigation actions contained in its fish mitigation program.  The
remaining 11 actions had not yet been scheduled to start.  The
majority of the 47 actions have been, or are expected to be,
completed on time and within budget.  However, the Corps identified
19 actions (8 studies and 11 projects), or about 40 percent of the
total actions the Corps has initiated, that were delayed, had
encountered cost increases, or both.  The actions include most of the
Corps' larger fish mitigation projects as measured in terms of
estimated costs to complete. 

As of October 31, 1997, 18 of the 19 fish mitigation actions have
been delayed.  The delays ranged from 3 weeks in starting a study on
the effectiveness of a prototype surface bypass and collection system
at the Lower Granite Dam to an indefinite delay for installing a
juvenile fish bypass system at The Dalles Dam.  In addition to
delays, 9 of the Corps' 19 fish mitigation actions experienced cost
increases (8 of the 9 actions incurred both delays and cost
increases).  As of October 31, 1997, cost increases on the 9 actions
averaged over $2 million, ranging from $280,000 for the installation
of extended-length submerged bar screens at Little Goose Dam to over
$7 million for the design and construction of a new juvenile fish
sampling and monitoring facility at John Day Dam. 

   REASONS FOR DELAYS AND COST
   INCREASES VARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

A variety of factors has contributed to delays and cost increases in
19 of the Corps' fish mitigation actions.  Some of the factors, such
as changes in fish mitigation priorities, problems encountered in
attempting to streamline project management, and the effects of
adverse weather on project implementation, were identified as the
reasons for delays and cost increases in more than one study or
project.  Other factors, such as problems with contractors'
performance, a contract bid protest, and revisions to project scope,
were identified as reasons only in individual actions.  In most
actions, a combination of these factors were the reason for the
Corps' inability to complete fish mitigation actions on time and
within budget. 

      PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CHANGING
      FISH MITIGATION PRIORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

For at least four projects and three studies, the revision of fish
mitigation priorities by the Regional Forum resulted in delays and/or
cost increases.  Most of these actions involved changing project
priorities--changes that were necessitated by funding limitations,
the need for additional biological information, or the desire to test
new technology. 

An example of the Regional Forum's changing project priorities
because of funding limitations occurred at the Corps' Bonneville Dam
located on the lower Columbia River.  The Biological Opinion
specified that improvements to the existing juvenile fish bypass
system at the dam's second powerhouse should be completed by the
spring of 1999.  Survival studies conducted by the Corps in the late
1980s showed high juvenile fish mortality rates in the existing
bypass system as well as downstream at the location of the system's
juvenile fish transportation release site.  Improvements to be made
to the existing bypass system included (1) a variety of measures to
reduce juvenile fish delay and mortality in the fish collection
channel; (2) relocation of the transportation flume to an area
located approximately two miles downstream from the second
powerhouse, which is a habitat less conducive to predators; and (3)
construction of a monitoring facility near the relocated
transportation flume outfall so that juvenile fish using the bypass
system can be sampled and evaluated in order to gain information on
the Columbia River system's fish survival rate.  According to Corps
officials, completion of the juvenile fish monitoring facility will
be delayed 1 year because of a shortage of funds.  The Regional Forum
reviewed the funding shortage and decided that the Corps should
relocate the transportation flume and make improvements to the
juvenile fish collection channel by March 1999 because these changes
would have the most impact on improving juvenile fish survival at the
second powerhouse.  The Regional Forum also decided that the
monitoring facility should be completed in the year 2000.  According
to Corps officials, the Corps constructed a temporary facility in
1997 to evaluate tracking tags placed in the migrating juvenile fish. 
However, the temporary facility will not provide as comprehensive a
sample or evaluation of the juvenile fish as will occur once the
permanent facility is in operation.  Corps officials also noted that
while funding limitations may adversely affect individual projects
and studies, the region is attempting to provide its limited funds to
those projects and studies that have the potential to provide the
greatest benefit. 

An example of a delay that occurred because the Regional Forum
decided to wait for additional biological information occurred at the
Corps' Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River.  This dam has a juvenile
fish bypass system and a juvenile fish holding and loading facility
that were included when the dam was completed in 1975.  The
Biological Opinion stated that the Corps should improve this facility
by widening the collection channel, replacing the existing 1,000-foot
pipe that connects the collection channel with the downstream holding
and loading facility and bypass outfall, improving the system's
capability to separate juvenile fish by size, and updating features
at the holding and loading facility.  In June 1996, the Corps' Walla
Walla District issued a feature design memorandum on the project that
included descriptive criteria for modifying the existing facility. 
The project's total cost, including design and construction, was
estimated at almost $19 million.  Work was to begin in 1997, and the
upgraded facilities were scheduled to be fully operational by March
1999.  However, after about $450,000 had been spent on this project,
principally to prepare and publish the feature design memorandum, the
Regional Forum recommended that no fiscal year 1998 funds should be
committed to this project and that all work should be deferred,
possibly until fiscal year 2000.  According to the Corps, the
decision to defer work was based on the pending 1999 decision on
whether or not to draw down or breach the dams on the lower Snake
River.  Specifically, the expenditure of up to $19 million on the
improvements could be negated if the drawdown option is selected for
the Snake River dams.  According to Corps biologists, delays in
implementing the modifications to the Lower Granite juvenile fish
bypass modifications forestall some interim benefits from new
state-of-the-art design features; however, the existing bypass system
has a less-than-1-percent direct mortality measure, and improvements
over that rate are hard to quantify. 

An example of a project delay caused by the Regional Forum's desire
to test new technology occurred at The Dalles Dam located on the
lower Columbia River.  In appropriation legislation (Public Law
100-371) for fiscal year 1989, the Congress directed the Corps to
design, test, and construct a juvenile fish bypass system for
improving the efficiency of juvenile fish passage at The Dalles Dam. 
A juvenile fish bypass system was not originally installed when The
Dalles Dam was completed in 1957.  The dam's turbines, spillway, and
ice and trash sluiceway--a waterway used to pass ice and trash around
the dam--have been used to bypass juvenile fish around the dam.  The
lack of an efficient bypass system resulted in significant mortality
rates in juvenile fish.  Specifically, juvenile fish that go through
the turbines experience mortality rates estimated to be as great as
15 percent.  In addition, preliminary results of the Corps' ongoing
spillway survival study indicate that the mortality rate for juvenile
fish using the spillway--a rate the Corps had earlier assumed to be
approximately 2 percent--may actually be as high as 12 percent. 
Likewise, observed hydraulic conditions in the ice and trash
sluiceway and observed predator densities--such as excessive numbers
of squawfish--at the sluiceway outfall have led the Corps to conclude
that utilizing the existing ice and trash sluiceway to bypass
juvenile fish may be unacceptable.  In March 1994, the Corps issued a
feature design memorandum providing for the design, construction, and
operations and maintenance of a juvenile fish bypass system
consisting of an extended-length submerged bar screen at The Dalles
Dam.  Construction was to have begun in October 1995, and the bypass
system was to have been fully operational by March 1998 at a cost of
more than $123 million.  However, in November 1994, with
approximately $20 million already invested, the Corps indefinitely
deferred the project.  The new bypass system was deferred because of
intense congressional and Regional Forum interest in the feasibility
and benefits of a new technology--a surface collection bypass system
for juvenile fish.  In addition, according to the Corps, it was
assumed that in the interim, spilling juvenile fish over the dam's
spillway would be a suitable and effective means of fish passage when
used in conjunction with the ice and trash sluiceway. 

The Corps, in response to the Regional Forum, was to start testing
this new technology at The Dalles Dam either in conjunction with, or
in place of, the bypass system consisting of an extended-length
submerged bar screen.  However, a lack of funding for studies of the
effectiveness of the surface collection bypass prototype has delayed
the decision on whether or not to construct the extended-length
submerged bar screen system.  The current plan is for the Corps to
test surface collection bypass prototypes at The Dalles Dam in 2001
and 2002.  However, the prototype tests have already been delayed 2
years because of the low priority assigned by the Regional Forum for
funding the project, and no funds have been allocated for surface
collection studies at the dam in 1998.  As a result of the decision
to indefinitely defer construction of an extended-length submerged
bar screen system pending results of the Corps' evaluation of the
effectiveness of a prototype surface collection bypass system at The
Dalles Dam, juvenile fish now attempting to pass the dam must still
either go through the turbines, go over the spillway, or utilize the
existing ice and trash sluiceway.  Consequently, juvenile fish
migrating down the river are still exposed to some of the same
hydraulic conditions, predator densities, and mortality rates that
the Corps found to be unacceptable in the mid-1980s.  According to
Corps officials, interim juvenile bypass measures, such as reducing
the volume of water released over the spillway by more than 50
percent so that the mortality rate of juvenile fish going over the
spillway may be reduced, are being considered for The Dalles Dam
until a new bypass system is installed. 

         CONCERNS ABOUT THE
         REGIONAL FORUM
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.1.1

There have been ongoing concerns about the effectiveness of the
Regional Forum's process.  For example, the fiscal year 1996
Congressional Conference Committee for Energy and Water Resource
Appropriations called for an independent evaluation of the management
practices of the Corps, Bonneville Power, NMFS, and other federal and
sovereign entities and their various programs for restoring salmon
runs on the Columbia and Snake River systems in the western United
States.  The Corps' Seattle District contracted with Science
Applications International Corporation with support from HDR
Engineering, Inc., to conduct this study.  In a June 13, 1997,
report,\1 the study found a number of deficiencies with the Regional
Forum's process. 

First, the study found that the members of the Regional Forum do not
share a common vision or goal for salmon recovery efforts.  As a
result, the actions required by the Biological Opinion are not
uniformly supported.  For example, through the Biological Opinion,
NMFS has directed the implementation of structural and operational
actions that may benefit listed salmon without removing dams.  These
actions are not uniformly supported by Regional Forum members as the
most effective means of increasing fish survival.  Several members of
the Forum, primarily the Native American tribes with some concurrence
by states, support drawdown to the natural river level as the most
effective technique for listed species survival and recovery.  The
report states that differing goals are not conducive to implementing
actions, especially when consensus is sought to make decisions.  The
study recommended that the Forum develop a single strategic recovery
plan based on a consensus of its members.  Second, the study found
that the Regional Forum does not have a clearly defined process for
making decisions on the implementation of fish passage projects when
consensus is not possible.  The report states that the net result is
that minority views sometimes prevail and technical and policy
decisions are not always made at the appropriate level within the
Regional Forum.  The study states that decisions should still be made
by consensus, but not defined as a vote of 100 percent of the
participants.  The report recommends that consensus be defined as
agreement that the parties can "all live with the decision and will
not actively work to undermine it." The study further pointed out
that although a new definition of consensus and the development of a
common vision through a strategic plan will assist in reaching
agreements, it will not always ensure the agreement of all parties. 
The study further recommended the establishment of a clear process to
resolve disputes. 

Finally, the study found that setting priorities for projects,
studies, and other fish passage activities has been repetitive and
often contradictory.  Fish mitigation activities, particularly those
with multiple-year schedules, are brought before the appropriate
Regional Forum subcommittee each year when appropriations are sought. 
Each time, the opponent(s) of a project has an opportunity to delay
or cancel it, even if several years' investment has already occurred. 
The study recommended that project priorities and funding decisions
be made at a specifically designated level in the Regional Forum. 
Furthermore, the report states that the priorities for projects
should not be re-set unless new science would substantively alter an
approach.  The study team believes that these actions would reduce
costs because projects that have started will not as likely be halted
and/or have to be re-initiated. 

Responding to the criticisms directed at the overall effectiveness of
the Regional Forum by many regional interests, in mid-1997, the
Governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana called for the
replacement of the federally led Regional Forum with one that would
be jointly led by federal agencies, states, and Native American
tribes.  The proposed new panel has been referred to as the Three
Sovereigns Forum.  As of February 1998, a draft plan for the
establishment of the new Forum was being developed by the three
sovereign entities in anticipation of circulating it to the public
for review. 

--------------------
\1 Independent Review and Evaluation of Processes Utilized to
Implement Structural Improvements at Columbia and Snake Rivers Fish
Passage Projects.  Prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation and HDR Engineering, Inc., for the Department of the
Army, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, June 13, 1997. 

      PROBLEMS CAUSED BY ATTEMPTS
      TO STREAMLINE PROJECT
      MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

We found that problems the Corps has experienced during attempts to
streamline its project management process resulted in delays and/or
cost increases in two projects and one study.  For example, when the
Corps' John Day Dam on the lower Columbia River was originally
completed in 1971, it did not contain facilities for sampling and
monitoring migrating juvenile fish.  A sampling and monitoring
facility was added to the dam in 1986.  However, the Biological
Opinion called for the installation of a new facility to improve the
Corps' ability to monitor juvenile salmon migrating downstream.  The
Biological Opinion directed that the project be completed no later
than 1997.  In 1992, an NMFS contractor had completed a report
addressing the feasibility and basic design of an updated facility. 
In August 1994, a Corps architect-engineer contractor began detailed
design of the project using the concept presented in the NMFS
feasibility report.  In October 1994, the Corps, its
architect-engineer, and NMFS determined that the design developed in
the NMFS feasibility report was not workable because resulting
hydraulic conditions could be harmful to juvenile fish.  The Corps
then directed its contractor to develop alternative designs for a new
facility.  In September 1995, the contractor completed the feature
design memorandum for the alternative chosen by the Corps. 

The feature design memorandum, which presented a significant redesign
of the project, estimated that the new facility would be fully
operational by April 1997.  However, the Corps encountered additional
difficulties during the construction phase of the project.  For
example, after the construction of the project foundations was under
way, the contractor encountered subsurface conditions different from
those specified in the contract drawings.  The different subsurface
conditions resulted in the Corps' making changes in foundation
designs, drilling procedures, and construction materials.  The
problems the Corps encountered during the design and construction of
the new facility contributed to significant cost increases and
project delays.  The cost of the design contract increased from an
initial award amount of about $755,000 to over $2.8 million.  Work
related to the redesign of the project after October 1994 accounted
for about $407,000 of this increase.  The cost of the construction
contract increased from an initial award of about $16 million to a
completion cost of over $21 million.  The additional work the
construction contractor performed because of differing site
conditions accounts for the largest portion of the increase--about
$3.8 million.  This work also delayed the contract completion date by
almost 4 months.  Reasons for the remaining cost increases include
design deficiencies, project features that were changed or added
after construction started, and additional services the contractors
were required to perform, such as planning and performing on-site
facility testing. 

In an effort to meet the March 1997 operational date, the Corps
completed the design phase for the new facility on an expedited
basis.  However, according to Corps officials, the Corps' efforts to
accelerate the normal design process contributed to cost increases
and delays.  For example, the Corps did not perform a formal
technical review of the original NMFS feasibility report, as it would
under normal procedures.  Moreover, the Corps relied on geotechnical
data collected in 1983 that did not accurately reflect subsurface
structures and soil conditions in the project area.  Finally, because
the facility was not operational during the 1997 fish migration
season, the Corps lost the ability to collect improved data on the
juvenile fish migrating that year. 

According to Corps officials, the two projects and one study that
encountered problems during unsuccessful attempts to streamline
standard project management procedures were technically complex
actions.  They noted that problems can occur when accelerating the
design of cutting-edge technology and that the main reason that
procedures were bypassed or accelerated was to meet the time frames
set forth in the Biological Opinion.  The Corps also cited two
examples of projects in which accelerating the design process was
successful.  Specifically, in these two projects--one involving the
installation of flow deflectors at Ice Harbor Dam and the other the
design of a surface bypass prototype at Lower Granite Dam--the Corps
was able to complete the design phase on an expedited basis, thus
saving substantial time.  However, both of these projects were
subsequently delayed for reasons unrelated to accelerating project
design. 

      PROBLEMS CAUSED BY ADVERSE
      WEATHER
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Weather played a significant role in delaying and/or increasing the
cost of at least three projects and one study.  The Corps' project to
install flow deflectors at Ice Harbor Dam illustrates the impact that
adverse weather can have on a project.  In order to improve juvenile
salmon passage, the Biological Opinion required the Corps to spill
additional water over its eight dams during the fish migration season
rather than passing those flows through turbines.  The Corps also
spills water on an involuntary basis when flows are high and exceed
the powerhouse flow capacity at the dams.  However, spilling river
flows can cause the water below and downstream of the dams to become
supersaturated with gases, such as nitrogen, normally found in the
air.  High levels of total dissolved gases can damage or kill salmon
and are harmful to other aquatic organisms.  Therefore, the
Biological Opinion stated that the Corps should implement a gas
abatement program at its dams.  The program was to include structural
modifications, such as the installation of flow deflectors\2 at Ice
Harbor Dam. 

The Corps awarded a construction contract for the Ice Harbor flow
deflector project in July 1996 at a cost of over $2.7 million.  It
provided for the installation of deflectors on the dam's eight center
spill bays by March 1997.  On December 30, 1996, the control room
operator at Ice Harbor Dam advised the contractor that, because of
unusually high river flows, the Corps would begin releasing water
over the spillway.  Accordingly, the contractor was advised to remove
construction equipment from the spill basin.  The Corps began
spilling river flows the next day at a rate of about 20,000 cubic
feet per second.  Discharge over the spillway reached 100,000 cubic
feet per second early in the morning of January 1, 1997. 

On February 6, 1997, after having installed four deflectors, the
Corps and the contractor agreed that because of high river flows, the
need to continue spilling at the dam, and the upcoming juvenile fish
migration season, construction activities would be discontinued until
September 1997.  From September to November 1997, the contractor
completed the remaining four deflectors and removed equipment from
the construction site.  However, the delay in project completion of
about 7-1/2 months led to a significant cost increase.  Specifically,
the Corps agreed to pay the construction contractor about $895,000
for costs associated with the delay, including the cost of one
additional construction mobilization and demobilization to complete
the remaining flow deflectors and standby costs associated with
keeping equipment available until construction could resume. 
According to Corps officials, they recognized and were concerned
about the risks associated with performing this work in such a tight
time frame in the winter.  Therefore, they asked the Regional Forum
for permission to begin this work in early August.  However, the
Regional Forum denied this request on the basis of their need to
continue spill during the entire month of August, as provided for in
the Biological Opinion. 

Because the contractor installed only four instead of the eight flow
deflectors planned before demobilizing because of high river flows,
the Corps did not achieve the full reduction on total dissolved gas
in time for the 1997 juvenile salmon migration.  The Corps projected
that the installation of the remaining four deflectors would provide
a further reduction in total dissolved gas levels of 3 percent to 5
percent.  However, the Corps did not have sufficiently refined data
to determine the survival gain that will result from this increment
in total dissolved gas reduction.  Even so, the additional reduction
was expected to be biologically beneficial. 

--------------------
\2 Flow deflectors are concrete structures attached to the face of
spill bays.  They deflect river flows passing over the spillway in a
more horizontal direction so that the water does not plunge deeply
into the spill basin below the dam and cause total dissolved gas
levels in the water to increase. 

   THE IMPACTS OF PROJECT DELAYS
   AND COST INCREASES CAN BE
   SIGNIFICANT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

When fish mitigation projects encounter delays and cost increases,
the impacts can be significant.  Specifically, the collection of data
needed to make future decisions on salmon recovery can be delayed,
high fish mortality rates can continue, there can be a loss of power
generation and related potential revenues, and dam operations and
maintenance costs can increase.  In addition, with a fixed annual
program budget, when one fish mitigation action incurs a cost
increase, the opportunity to use those funds on other projects or
studies is lost. 

      DELAYS IN COLLECTING DATA
      CAN HINDER FUTURE DECISIONS
      ON FISH MITIGATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

Project delays can result in lost opportunities to collect biological
data needed to make more informed regional decisions on such issues
as what are the most effective ways to bypass juvenile fish.  For
example, in the 1980s, the Corps installed a juvenile fish bypass
system consisting of submerged screens, collection channels, and
outfall flumes\3 on the Bonneville Dam.  Subsequently, numerous Corps
and NMFS fish passage studies identified significant problems with
the bypass system.  Among other things, the studies showed that the
juvenile fish were using the bypass system less than 50 percent of
the time.  A goal of the Biological Opinion is to have at least 80
percent of the downriver migrating juvenile fish pass around each
dam, including Bonneville Dam, either through a bypass system or over
a spillway, and at least 95 percent of these bypassed juvenile fish
are to survive.  Recognizing that the existing Bonneville Dam bypass
system could not meet this standard, Corps and NMFS fish biologists
and engineers determined that the installation of a surface
collection bypass system at Bonneville Dam could potentially assist
in meeting the efficiency goals of juvenile fish guidance as
specified in the Biological Opinion. 

In August 1995, the Corps' prototype development program for surface
collection bypass systems specified that installation of the
prototypes at Bonneville Dam's two powerhouses and spillway was to
start in 1996.  However, the start of the prototype installations at
the first and second powerhouses has been delayed until 1998 and
2000, respectively, and the installation of the prototype at the
spillway has been deferred indefinitely.  According to the Corps,
these delays and deferral occurred for a variety of reasons. 
Specifically: 

  -- Installation of the bypass system prototype at the first
     powerhouse was delayed because (1) model testing had not been
     performed to assess the hydraulic conditions within the area,
     (2) a detailed biological study plan for testing the prototype
     had not been completed, (3) the potential location of the
     prototype in relationship to the turbines had not been modeled
     and completed, and (4) there was a lack of regional support
     because hydraulic conditions within the prototype had not been
     completely modeled. 

  -- Installation of the bypass system at the second powerhouse was
     delayed because the Regional Forum made the recommendation to
     limit funds at Bonneville Dam in order to implement juvenile
     fish bypass projects at the Corps' seven other dams on the lower
     Columbia and Snake rivers. 

  -- After coordinating with the Regional Forum, the Corps deferred
     indefinitely the bypass system prototype at the Bonneville Dam
     spillway because the results of recent biological tests
     suggested that juvenile fish approaching the spillway pass the
     dam with minimal delay or injury. 

Furthermore, according to the Corps, the Regional Forum's low funding
priority for surface collection bypass studies in 1998 has already
delayed the completion of surface collection prototype studies at the
dam's first powerhouse until 2001.  As a result, a major decision on
which bypass concept to pursue at the first powerhouse may be based,
in part, on the results of limited studies of surface collection
prototypes.  According to the Corps, the amount of information
available on surface bypass efficiency, balanced by the cost of
additional prototypes and the likelihood of success, as well as the
improved guidance efficiency obtained from the extended-length screen
tests, will be considered before implementation decisions are
reached.  In the interim, juvenile fish attempting to pass Bonneville
Dam must rely on existing juvenile bypass systems that are successful
less than 50 percent of the time. 

--------------------
\3 A channel or pipe that transports fish to a place of discharge in
the river. 

      DELAYS CAN RESULT IN
      CONTINUED HIGH FISH
      MORTALITY RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

The Corps' fish passage efficiency studies showed that Ice Harbor
Dam's bypass system, utilizing the dam's ice and trash sluiceway,
provided for the passage of only about 35 to 50 percent of the
juvenile fish migrating downriver.  In an effort to improve fish
passage efficiency, in December 1990, the Corps proposed to construct
a high-flow juvenile fish bypass system at Ice Harbor Dam that would
include submerged screens to guide juvenile fish away from the dam's
turbines, a fish collection channel, and a transportation channel to
pass fish around the dam and release them back into the Snake River. 
The proposed bypass system was approved by federal and state fish
agencies (the Regional Forum did not exist yet), including NMFS, as
well as by affected Native American tribes.  The system was to be
completed by February 1994.  In June 1992, the fish agencies and
tribes expressed two major concerns about the approved high-flow
system.  First, there was a significant area of shallow water--prime
predator habitat-- downstream from the juvenile fish bypass release
site.  Second, the speed of the water in the high-flow bypass flume
would not allow for the sampling of all juvenile fish bypassing the
dam.  As a result of these concerns, the Corps redesigned the bypass
system from a high-flow to a low-flow system and extended the length
of the bypass flume to the downriver side of the shallow water area. 
According to Corps officials, the need to redesign the bypass system
resulted in a 2-year delay in the planned construction completion
date.  In addition, according to the Corps, the 2-year delay could
have had a significant negative impact on the juvenile fish that
attempted to bypass Ice Harbor Dam because they may have gone either
through the dam's turbines or over the dam's spillway, where they
could have experienced mortality rates of 15 percent and 2 percent,
respectively.  However, another Corps official pointed out that
impacts associated with the delay were at least partially offset by
the installation of submerged traveling screens in 1993 under a
separate contract.  In addition, this official said the delay
resulted in a better outfall flume in terms of design and discharge
location, providing juvenile fish with survival benefits that
exceeded the impacts associated with the 2-year delay. 

      DELAYS CAN RESULT IN LOST
      POWER GENERATION AND RELATED
      POTENTIAL REVENUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.3

Problems with completing fish mitigation projects can also lead to a
loss of potential power generation and the associated potential
revenues.  Early evaluation of the juvenile fish bypass system at the
Corps' dams, including the McNary Dam on the lower Columbia River,
revealed the need for refinements to improve fish guidance
efficiency.  For example, the McNary Dam studies indicated that the
existing 20-foot bar screen guidance system in front of the turbines
directed only about 40 percent of the fall chinook salmon away from
the dam's turbines and into the bypass collection channel.  As a
result, in March 1994, after years of study and testing, the Corps
recommended the installation of new extended-length (40-foot) screens
to optimize fish guidance.  The Corps planned to install the new
screens by December 1996.  In addition, the Biological Opinion called
for the completion of this project in time for the spring 1997
juvenile chinook salmon migration.  In response to the Biological
Opinion, the Corps accelerated its design and contracting process to
meet the implementation date.  In March 1995, the Corps entered into
a contract for the construction and installation of 42
extended-length submerged bar screens (one for each of the three
gatewells over each of the dam's 14 turbines); all screens were to be
in place and fully operational by December 27, 1996.  However,
shortly after the installation of the first batch of new screens, dam
operations personnel found frequent problems with the brush arm
control--the device used to control the extent of movement by the
brush arm as it removes debris from the screen.  Fixing the problem
required the operators to take the turbine off line and raise the
screen in the gatewell to reset the control limit switch--a half-day
operation.  In response to the problems and increased maintenance
costs, the installation of the remaining screens was delayed until
the design problem was fixed.  In May 1996, a new design utilizing
different technology was adopted for controlling the sweep arm. 
Project personnel replaced the original control devices, began
installing the remaining 30 screens, and completed the installation
of the screens in March 1997--3 months later than originally planned. 

According to Corps officials, problems with the sweep control device
were experienced during prototype testing and a new, untested design
was proposed for the contract.  However, the pressure to meet the
Biological Opinion's completion date required expedited contracting
procedures to finalize design drawings for the contract solicitation
package which left no time for additional testing.  A major impact
stemming from the failure of the sweep control device was the loss of
power generating capacity during the spring 1996 salmon migration
season.  Project personnel reported that there were 2,422 hours of
forced turbine outage at McNary in 1996 directly attributable to
problems with the sweep control devices.  At the Bonneville Power
Administration's estimated revenue of $2,000 per generating hour, the
outage equates to about $5 million in potential lost power revenue in
1996.  A Corps official noted, however, that this amount of potential
lost revenue would only be realized if the powerhouse was operating
at capacity--which seldom occurs.  As such, the official believed the
potential lost revenue was likely to be much less than $5 million. 

      PROBLEMS IMPLEMENTING FISH
      MITIGATION ACTIONS CAN
      INCREASE OPERATIONS AND
      MAINTENANCE COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.4

The inability to complete fish mitigation projects can also result in
an increase in dams' operations and maintenance costs.  For example,
in 1995, the Corps awarded a contract for the construction and
installation of extended-length submerged bar screens at the Little
Goose Dam located on the lower Snake River.  As was the case at
McNary Dam, the Corps encountered numerous problems with the new
screens, and completion of the project was delayed about 11 months. 
One of the major problems with the Little Goose extended-length
screens was that steel plates, perforated with holes to ensure
uniform water flow through each screen, failed because of broken
high-tension bolts.  The broken bolts, which allowed perforated
plates to fall off some of the screens, forced the Corps to remove
each of the 18 screens from the river for repair.  Consequently, the
Corps' operations and maintenance costs were increased by about
$24,000.  In addition, according to Bonneville Power, hydroelectric
power production at Little Goose Dam was reduced because the turbines
behind the removed screens had to be taken out of operation until the
screens were repaired and replaced.  This resulted in lost power
revenues of about $745,000 to Bonneville Power.  The extended-length
screen bolt problem is being investigated by the Corps, and the
results of the analysis should be available by December 1998.  In the
interim, the Corps is monitoring the screens and periodically
removing them from the river to ensure that the perforated plates
remain in place and to replace bolts that break.  This monitoring
effort, however, continues to reduce hydroelectric power production
and power revenues at the dam and increases the Corps' operations and
maintenance costs. 

      COST INCREASES CAN RESULT IN
      PROJECT CHANGES AND LOST
      OPPORTUNITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.5

Of the 19 fish mitigation actions we reviewed, 9 had cost increases
that totaled over $20 million.  Since the Corps' fish mitigation
program receives an annual appropriation, when one fish mitigation
action incurs a cost increase, the opportunity to use those funds on
other projects may be lost.  In addition, the Corps may have to
revise the scope or implementation schedules for certain projects or
studies.  For example, the Biological Opinion requires the Corps to
conduct a feasibility study of ways to improve the migration of
juvenile salmon through its lower Snake River dams.  The study
focuses on three alternatives:  existing condition, drawdown of the
dams, and system improvements that could be accomplished without a
drawdown.  Because of changes in the scope of this study, primarily
expanding the analysis of the social and economic impacts of the
alternatives being considered, the Corps incurred a cost increase of
about $4 million.  As a result, the Corps reduced the scope of other
study components such as water quality analyses.  Moreover, since the
overall study will now consume a larger portion of the total funding
available to the fish mitigation program, the Corps, in conjunction
with the Regional Forum, made adjustments in the funding of other
lower priority fish mitigation actions.  For example, funding for the
Corps' study of potential improvements to auxiliary water supply
systems for adult fish ladders at Snake River dams was reduced. 

   OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

While the majority of the Corps' fish mitigation actions have been or
are expected to be on schedule and within budget, the Corps has
encountered difficulties implementing many of its fish mitigation
projects.  Projects have encountered delays and cost increases
because of adverse weather conditions, such as high river flows and
flooding.  Furthermore, the Corps' agreement to work cooperatively
with regional interests through the Regional Forum has, on occasion,
subjected it to changing fish mitigation priorities, including which
projects or studies are to be funded, when they are to be funded, and
at what funding level.  However, the effectiveness of the Regional
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.  Differing
goals are not conducive to implementing fish mitigation actions,
especially when consensus is sought to make decisions. 

In addition, some delays and cost increases have been caused by the
Corps' unsuccessful attempts to streamline its project management
process in order to meet deadlines imposed by the Biological Opinion. 
In these cases, there appears to be a trade-off.  According to the
Corps, by accelerating the design phase of some projects, it
completed this phase expeditiously.  However, efforts to streamline
the management of other projects cost the Corps both time and money
and negatively affected the Corps' ability to safely bypass juvenile
fish around its eight dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers. 

THE CORPS' DIRECT FUNDING
AGREEMENT WITH BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION FOR OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS AT HYDROPOWER
DAMS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
=========================================================== Appendix I

The U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers' operations and maintenance
activities at its dams have historically been funded by congressional
appropriations.  However, in 1992, the Congress enacted the National
Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorizing the Secretaries of the Army and
of the Interior to accept funds provided directly from the Bonneville
Power Administration for hydropower activities in the Pacific
Northwest.  Since that time, Bonneville Power has entered into
agreements with the Corps to fund a substantial portion of the Corps'
power operations and maintenance costs at the Corps' dams.  These
agreements, when fully implemented, should provide the Corps with
greater assurance of an appropriate level of funding for maintenance
of power facilities, thereby reducing the frequency of costly
overhauls and increasing the reliability of Bonneville Power's power
supply to its electric rate payers. 

   BACKGROUND
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Corps' hydropower system in the Pacific Northwest includes 21
dams in the Columbia River Basin whose operations and maintenance
activities have been funded historically by congressional
appropriations.  Specifically, repairs and maintenance of the
hydropower dams are funded from either the Corps' "construction,
general" appropriation or "operations and maintenance, general"
appropriation, depending on the scope of the work. 

Funds from the "construction, general" account are used for
nonroutine\1 and other major rehabilitation projects that exceed $5
million, including work pertaining to the designs, plans, and
specifications for such projects.  Major rehabilitation projects are
identified at the Corps' dam sites, and the ensuing budget proposals
are justified, examined, and ranked by the Corps' field offices and
headquarters.  The Department of the Army's Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works decides whether or not to include the projects in the
Corps' budget request,which is then forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget for inclusion in the President's Budget. 

Funds from the "operations and maintenance, general" appropriation
are used for nonroutine and routine repairs, replacements, and
maintenance and for emergency repairs of hydroelectric and other
facilities at the dams.  The nonroutine work is generally less than
$5 million.  While the annual budgets are tight, the Corps has
reprogramming authority that allows for some flexibility.  The Corps'
budget is included in the President's Budget to the Congress, and
subsequently, funds are appropriated by the Congress.  In fiscal year
1997, the Corps' Northwestern Division, responsible for its Columbia
River Basin dams' operations, received appropriations for operations
and maintenance activities and major rehabilitation projects totaling
about $135 million. 

The appropriated funds from these two accounts that are expended on
repairs and maintenance for hydropower activities and the power
portion of the joint-use cost\2 at the Corps' dams are repaid to the
U.S.  Treasury by the Bonneville Power Administration.  Bonneville
Power markets the electric power produced at the Corps' dams in the
Pacific Northwest.  Bonneville Power collects the revenues necessary
to repay these costs through its electricity rate structure and has a
vested interest in reliable and continuous power generation at the
Corps' dams. 

--------------------
\1 Nonroutine activities include repair and replacement maintenance
items that are not on a repetitive schedule. 

\2 Joint-use costs are costs for labor, materials, and expenses
incurred in the operations and maintenance, repair, replacement,
additions, and efficiency improvements to the dams' structures,
reservoir, buildings, grounds and utilities, and appurtenant
equipment and accessories that are shared among the multipurpose
users of the dam.  Dams' purposes include hydropower, navigation, and
irrigation.  The Corps has a cost allocation study that is used to
allocate these costs to the authorized purposes.  On average, 80
percent of all joint costs are allocated to hydropower. 

   NEW FUNDING PROCEDURE PROVIDED
   IN 1992
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Section 2406 of the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.  L. 
102-486, 16 U.S.C.  839d-1) authorizes the Secretaries of the Army
and of the Interior to accept funds provided directly by Bonneville
Power for hydropower activities in the Pacific Northwest.  Under this
authority, in December 1994, the Department of the Army and
Bonneville Power signed a Memorandum of Agreement giving the Corps
responsibility for identifying nonroutine hydropower maintenance
projects that need additions, improvements, and replacements at the
Corps' 21 hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest.  Under the
agreement, Bonneville Power may choose to directly fund these
nonroutine maintenance projects, which would then no longer be funded
through the annual appropriation process.  The Corps and Bonneville
Power signed subagreements allowing Bonneville Power to directly fund
nearly $37 million for specific activities, including generator
repair, studies, turbine improvements, and repairs under an
electrical system reliability improvements program.  The reliability
improvements program was in response to the July 2-3 and August 10,
1996, West Coast electrical system disturbances.  However, other
nonroutine and routine operations and maintenance hydropower costs as
well as major rehabilitation costs were still funded by congressional
appropriations. 

   FACTORS LEADING TO A BROADER
   DIRECT FUNDING AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

In the fall of 1996, Bonneville Power and the Corps began pursuing a
broader agreement to directly fund all operations and maintenance
hydropower costs including routine,\3

other nonroutine, and major rehabilitation, and the portion of the
joint-use costs that are allocated to power at the Corps' dams. 
Specifically, both Bonneville Power and the Corps were concerned that
insufficient funds were available under the current budget and
congressional appropriation process to meet the minimum requirement
to maintain power projects at a justifiable level of service.  The
Corps stated that without sufficient maintenance funds, it was
reasonable to expect increases in forced outages and higher costs to
the power customer in the very near future.  Also, the Corps was
concerned about the estimated $190 million in accumulated deferred
maintenance requirements for hydropower and joint-cost work items for
the 21 dams.  Bonneville Power stated that it has a vested interest
in reliable and continuous power generation and that a direct funding
agreement would provide more stability and certainty to the outlay of
funds over a period of years and thus provide a stable basis for
customer rates. 

Furthermore, in July 1997, a report by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations strongly urged the Corps to consider the potential
benefits and savings of entering into a direct funding agreement with
Bonneville Power for operations and maintenance costs.  Specifically,
such an agreement would provide greater assurance to the Corps of an
appropriate level of funding for the maintenance of power facilities,
thereby reducing the frequency of costly overhauls and increasing the
reliability of Bonneville Power's power supply to the rate payers of
the Federal Columbia River Power System's electricity. 

However, prior to entering into a broader direct funding agreement,
several issues had to be resolved between Bonneville Power and the
Corps.  First, and most important to the Corps and Bonneville Power,
was the disagreement over the level of direct funding:  Bonneville
Power wanted full funding for both routine and nonroutine work; the
Corps wanted to expand the existing 1994 Memorandum of Agreement to
cover all nonroutine work only.  The Corps' concern was the need to
ensure that it would maintain control of the decision-making process
for the Corps' multiple-purpose dams.  The Corps ultimately agreed to
Bonneville Power's directly funding its routine work after both
parties agreed that the Corps has the responsibility (1) to operate
the dams to serve multiple purposes and (2) for the technical
integrity and public safety associated with the dams and their
facilities.  In addition, both agencies agreed to collaborate for
planning, designing, and constructing operations and maintenance
activities at the dams. 

Two other issues needed to be resolved:  the use of binding
arbitration in the event of any unresolved disagreement between the
two agencies and the use of monetary performance incentives to
measure the Corps' ability to meet operations and maintenance
standards.  To resolve the arbitration issue, the agencies mutually
agreed that in the event that good faith efforts failed to resolve a
dispute relating to hydropower costs, the matter would be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget for resolution.  In matters related
to interpreting relevant statutes, the agencies agreed to send issues
of interpretation to the Department of Justice for resolution.  To
resolve the issue of monetary performance incentives, both agencies
agreed that performance goals would be part of the agreement but that
the Corps would use its existing personnel incentives program for
monetary awards. 

--------------------
\3 Routine costs include personnel costs, small supplies and
materials, custodial contracts, and costs associated with the
routine, day-to-day operations and maintenance of the reservoir
systems. 

   NEW DIRECT FUNDING MEMORANDUM
   OF AGREEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

In December 1997, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
and the Acting Administrator and Chief Executive Officer for
Bonneville Power Administration signed a new agreement for direct
funding of both routine and nonroutine power operations and
maintenance costs at the Corps' dams.  The agreement calls for
funding to start in fiscal year 1999 for the Corps' hydroelectric
facilities in the Pacific Northwest.  Under this agreement, the Corps
and Bonneville Power have agreed to a first-year funding level of
$106 million.  Over a 5-year period, fiscal years 1999 through 2003,
Bonneville Power will provide $553 million in direct funding to the
Corps.  The operations and maintenance cost directly funded by
Bonneville Power will no longer be part of the Corps' budget
submission and will enable the Corps to realize discretionary
appropriations savings in its "operations and maintenance, general"
appropriation beginning in fiscal year 1999. 

      PROVISIONS OF FINAL
      AGREEMENT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

The Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, under
the authority of section 2406 of the National Energy Policy Act of
1992, agreed to the following general principles in the direct
funding agreement: 

  -- Bonneville Power Administration has a business interest in
     formulating, setting priorities for, and efficiently executing
     the hydropower operations and maintenance program, and the Corps
     has a business interest in the impacts of Bonneville Power's
     market decisions. 

  -- The Corps is responsible for operating dams to serve their
     authorized multiple purposes, including the generation of power,
     and for the technical integrity and public safety associated
     with the dams and associated facilities. 

  -- The Corps and Bonneville Power will collaborate in the planning,
     design, construction, operation, and maintenance activities; the
     Corps will retain the responsibility to ensure the integrity of
     the power generation facilities. 

  -- The Corps' and Bonneville Power's strategic visions shall serve
     as a basis for establishing an effective partnership while
     serving the general public interests inherent in the dam
     authorities. 

The agreement

  -- will be in effect through September 30, 2008, with provisions
     for termination and 5-year term extensions;

  -- covers all operations and maintenance power costs for activities
     performed at the Corps' dams, including (1) power expense costs
     incurred by the Corps, which include hydropower specific costs
     and the power portion of joint-use costs, and (2) power capital
     items funded under the annual power budget;

  -- establishes 5-year budget cycles, which identify the amount of
     the annual power budget for 5 consecutive fiscal years beginning
     on October 1, 1998, and an annual power budget that specifies
     total operations and maintenance costs categorized by major line
     items for each dam;

  -- creates a Joint Operating Committee with representation by both
     agencies to establish performance objectives, develop and review
     budgets, and approve funding levels;

  -- contains provisions for the transfer of funds to meet the Corps'
     expenditure requirements; and

  -- provides for the resolution of disputes and audit rights for
     both agencies. 

Also, the agreement provides for the Joint Operating Committee to
review the practices and procedures of each agency to identify areas
in which changes could improve the overall efficiency of the
hydropower program in the region by incorporating more businesslike
processes and decision-making. 

The 1997 agreement does not cover all operations and maintenance
costs.  Specifically, the nonpower portion of joint costs (the
President's Budget includes $20.3 million for fiscal year 1999) will
continue to be funded through the annual appropriation process
because Bonneville Power can only fund power costs.  In addition, two
ongoing major rehabilitation projects at Bonneville Dam and The
Dalles Dam (the President's Budget includes $8.9 million for fiscal
year 1999) will continue to be funded through the appropriation
process.  According to a Corps official, for fiscal years 2000-2005,
an estimated $58 million will be needed to complete the Bonneville
Dam project.  In addition, for fiscal years 2000-2007, an estimated
$88 million will be needed to complete The Dalles Dam project.  When
asked, Bonneville Power stated that if appropriated funds were no
longer received for these two projects, it would consider directly
funding them.  However, the Corps questioned Bonneville Power's
ability to fund the projects with its existing borrowing authority
limits and stated that the option exists for future major
rehabilitation work to be financed by direct funding. 

Finally, the existing 1994 Memorandum of Agreement discussed earlier
will remain in effect as the mechanism to directly fund the larger
capital investments in the future.  This would include the funds
associated with any subagreements that are currently in effect. 

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
AGENCY COMMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

THE REGIONAL FORUM
========================================================= Appendix III

Membership in the Regional Forum is open to five federal agencies
(the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Corps of Engineers, the
U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
Bonneville Power Administration); five states (Alaska, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington); the Northwest Power Planning
Council; Columbia River Basin Native American tribes, including the
Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Coeur d' Alene
Tribe of Idaho, Kalispel Tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Nez Perce
Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
of Duck Valley Reservation, Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Yakama
Indian Nation; the Idaho Power Company; and the Mid-Columbia River
public utility districts.  The Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish
Commission (CRITFC) attends Regional Forum meetings as a
representative of the Yakama Indian Nation, Nez Perce Tribe,
Confederated Tribes of Umatilla and the Confederated Tribes of Warm
Springs.  In May 1997, the state of Montana and the four tribes
represented by the inter-tribal fish commission formally withdrew
from participation in the Regional Forum.  The state of Montana
withdrew because it did not believe that releasing water from federal
dams for improving downstream juvenile fish migration would benefit
the state.  The tribes withdrew because they believed the Regional
Forum was unable to (1) address the federal government's trust
responsibilities to the tribes, (2) protect treaty-reserved
resources, and (3) implement the tribal salmon restoration plan. 
According to a Corps official, although CRITFC members have formally
withdrawn from the Forum, they continue to attend meetings, enter
into discussions, make recommendations, and provide written materials
to other Forum members. 

The focus of the Regional Forum is on the implementation of the
National Marine Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion and related
funding matters.  Specific Regional Forum goals include ensuring
broad technical and policy input in planning, funding, and
implementation decisions; developing agreement and resolving disputes
on actions to be taken by the federal agencies on the Federal
Columbia River Power System; ensuring that the basis for federal
decisions is fully explained when agreement is not reached; and
promoting coordination in the implementation of the Biological
Opinion and actions taken under other related regional plans and
forums to restore fish in the Columbia River Basin. 

The Regional Forum organization is hierarchical and consists of four
levels (see fig.  III.1).  Three technical teams, including the Fish
Passage Operation and Maintenance Coordination Team, the Fish
Facility Design Review Work Group, and the Anadromous Fish Evaluation
Program group, comprise the bottom level and report to the System
Configuration Team.  The System Configuration Team, the Technical
Management Team, and the Dissolved Gas Team make up the next
technical level.  The System Configuration Team is responsible for
planning and oversight of structural improvements to fish passage
facilities and related studies called for in the Biological Opinion. 
Each fiscal year, the System Configuration Team goes through a
process of selecting, setting priorities for, and budgeting fish
passage projects and related research.  Since the Corps is
responsible for carrying out these projects, it typically provides
the configuration team with project proposals, schedules, and costs. 
The System Configuration Team then produces a list that documents
decisions on projects and provides the basis for the Corps' fish
mitigation program and budget. 

The Technical Management Team is responsible for coordinating dam and
reservoir operations to comply with NMFS' Biological Opinion.  It
meets weekly during the fish passage season to adjust spill and flow
levels at Federal Columbia River Power System dams.  The Technical
Management Team also develops an annual water management plan that
addresses runoff forecasts and flood control operations, as well as
Biological Opinion requirements. 

The Dissolved Gas Team develops research projects and abatement
measures to address the impacts of gas supersaturation on salmon and
other aquatic wildlife.  Finally, the Process for Testing and
Analyzing Hypotheses group, which reports to the Implementation Team,
provides a forum for coordinating analyses and developing hypotheses
about how juvenile and adult salmon will respond to the various
alternatives under consideration for the long-term operation and
configuration of the hydropower system. 

The Implementation Team makes up the next level of the Forum.  Its
members are senior program managers from federal, state, and tribal
agencies.  The Implementation Team directs the work of the technical
teams, resolves disputes elevated from the Technical Management Team
and System Configuration Team involving hydropower system operations
and selection/implementation of fish passage projects, and provides
general policy direction to the technical teams.  The Executive
Committee occupies the top level of the Forum.  It is comprised of
senior regional policymakers from five federal agencies, four states,
Columbia River tribal associations, and the Northwest Power Planning
Council who consider issues relating to the implementation of
hydropower system-related actions required in the Biological Opinion. 
It also provides guidance to, and resolves disputes elevated from,
the Implementation Team.  Both the Implementation Team and Executive
Committee are chaired by representatives from the National Marine
Fisheries Service.  Additional technical/advisory groups provides
support to the Regional Forum on an as-needed basis. 

   Figure III.1:  Organization of
   the Regional Forum

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers. 

STATUS OF U.S.  ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' COLUMBIA RIVER FISH
MITIGATION ACTIONS AS OF OCTOBER
31, 1997
========================================================== Appendix IV

           Action type              Status\a               Delay/cost increase
           ------------  ------------------------------  -----------------------
                                         Canceled  Not         Cost
Action by  Projec  Stud  Comple  Ongoin  /         star  Dela  increa  Primary
dam        t       y     te      g       deferred  ted   y     se      reasons\b
---------  ------  ----  ------  ------  --------  ----  ----  ------  ---------
Lower Granite
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended-               \1
length
screens

Juvenile                                \2                          P, PB, PC
bypass
facility

Picketed                
lead
fences

Surface                                                            W, O
bypass
program

Fish                                              
ladder
temperatu
re
control

Little Goose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended-               \1                                         O
length
screens

Outfall                 
pipe

Picketed                
lead
fences

Fish                                              
ladder
temperatu
re
control

Lower Monumental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barge                   
loading
facilitie
s
modificat
ion

Gate                            
raise
modificat
ions

Gantry                          
crane

Fish                                              
ladder
temperatu
re
control

Ice Harbor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juvenile                \1                                         O
bypass
facility

Flow                                                               W
deflector
s

Surface                                 \3
collectio
n

Fish                                              
ladder
temperatu
re
control

McNary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended-               \1                                         S, O
length
screens

Maintenan                               \3
ce
facility

Juvenile                
fish
facility
completio
n

Fish                                    \2
ladder
exit
modificat
ions

Gate                            
raise
modificat
ions

John Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juvenile                                                           S, O
fish
monitorin
g
facility

Flow                                                               W, O
deflector
s

Surface                         
bypass

Drawdown                                          
study

Mitigatio                       
n
relocatio
n
evaluatio
n
(Ringold)

Extended-                                                           O
length
screens
tests

Extended-                                         
length
screens
implement
ation

The Dalles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency                       
auxiliary
water
supply
study

Adult                           
channel
dewaterin
g

Spillway                        
and
sluiceway
survival
study

Surface                                 \2                          P, PA
bypass

Juvenile                                \2                          P, PA, PC
bypass

Bonneville
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power                           
distribut
ion

Powerhous                                                           P, PA
e 2
juvenile
bypass
improveme
nts

Powerhous                                                           P, O, PA,
e 1                                                                    PB
juvenile
bypass
improveme
nts

Surface                                                             S, P
bypass

Powerhous                       
e 1 fish
guidance
efficienc
y

Flat                            
plate
PIT\c tag
detector

Powerhous                                         
e 2 fish
guidance
efficienc
y

Adult                                             
fallback

System Projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas                                                                 P, PA
abatement
study

Turbine                                                             P, PA, PB
passage
survival

Acoustic                                \2
technolog
y

Adult                           
passage
improveme
nts

Lower                                                               O
Snake
feasibili
ty study

Turbine                         
model
study

Auxiliary                                                           P, O, PA
water
supply in
fish
ladders/
Lower
Snake
River
projects

Lower                                             
Snake
fish
ladder
entrance
modificat
ions

Fish                            
ladder
temperatu
re
control
evaluatio
ns

Separator                       
evaluatio
n

Barge                   
exit
modificat
ions

Additiona                                                          W, O
l barges

Dispersed                                         
release
(short
haul
barging)

Implement               
ation
independe
nt review

Test                                    \2
flume at
John Day

Fish                                              
guidance
efficienc
y -
Little
Goose

================================================================================
Total      29      29    11      28      8         11    18    9       Not
                                                                       applicabl
                                                                       e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Status Legend: 

\1 Project is operational and providing intended benefits;
construction and completion are scheduled for fiscal year 1999. 

\2 Project was started but is now deferred. 

\3 Project has been canceled. 

\b Primary Reasons Legend: 

\P - Regional Forum's decision to lower priority--
 PA - funding limitations
 PB - need additional biological data
 PC - desire to test new technology

S - Problems relating to streamlining action

W - Adverse weather and high flows

O - Other--contractor performance problem, contract bid protest,
revisions in project/study scope, design deficiencies, lack of
resources, lack of contractor materials, addition of features or
services not included in original contract, upward revision in
estimated study costs. 

\c PIT - Passive Integrated Transponder

MAJORS CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

   RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

      WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.1

Ned Smith
Jim Yeager

      PORTLAND, OREGON
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.2

Bob Arthur
Will Garber

      SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1.3

Sterling Leibenguth

*** End of document. ***