Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead
Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions Gao ID: GAO-02-612 July 26, 2002Before 1850, an estimated 16 million salmon and steelhead returned to the Columbia River Basin annually to spawn. Over the past 25 years, the number of salmon and steelhead returning to the Columbia River Basin has averaged only 660,000 per year although annual population levels have varied widely. Factors such as over-harvesting, construction and operation of dams, degradation of spawning habitat, increased human population, and unfavorable weather and ocean conditions have contributed to the long-term decline. The population decline has resulted in the listing of 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the basin as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the act requires that efforts be taken to allow its recovery. Eleven federal agencies are involved with salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as the lead agency, is responsible for preparing a recovery plan and consulting with the other federal agencies on their planned actions. The 11 federal agencies estimate expenditures of $1.8 billion from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal year 1996 and $1.5 billion from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001 on efforts specifically designed to recover Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead. In addition to the $1.5 billion, the 11 federal agencies estimated that they expended $302 million in the last five fiscal years on modifications to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not specifically directed at, salmon and steelhead, such as erosion control to improve crop productivity and wildlife habitat, which also improves stream flows and reduces sedimentation in spawning habitat. Although federal agencies have undertaken many types of recovery actions, there is little conclusive evidence to quantify the extent of their efforts on returning fish populations. Recovery actions taken include projects, such as constructing fish passage facilities at dams; research studies, such as determining the presence or absence of toxic substances that cause diseases in fish; monitoring actions, such as surveying spawning grounds; and other activities, such as consultations required by the act.
GAO-02-612, Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-612
entitled 'Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies'
Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions' which was released
on August 26, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Water, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate:
July 2002:
Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead:
Federal Agencies‘ Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions:
GAO-02-612:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Multiple Agencies Participate in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Efforts:
Agencies Estimate Recovery Expenditures in the Billions:
Recovery Actions Are Many, but Data on Their Effects on Salmon and
Steelhead Populations Are Generally Not Available:
Agency Comments and GAO‘s Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Two Issues that May Affect the Recovery Effort:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Selected Laws Affecting Agency Operations:
Appendix IV: Groups involved in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery:
Appendix V: Agency Expenditures:
Appendix VI: Agency Actions Benefitting Salmon and Steelhead
Populations:
Appendix VII: Returning Aduly Salmon and Steelhead Counted at
Bonneville and Lower Granite Dams, 1977 through 2001:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Bonneville Power Administration:
Appendix X: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency:
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix XII: Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
Tables :
Table 1: Estimated Total Salmon-and Steelhead-Specific Expenditures, by
Agency and Fiscal Year:
Table 2: Federal Funds Provided to Nonfederal Entities, by Agency and
Fiscal Year:
Table 3: Nonfederal Recipients of Federal Funds, by Fiscal Year:
Table 4: Estimate of Nonspecific Salmon and Steelhead Expenditures, by
Agency and Fiscal Year:
Table 5: Selected Laws Affecting Agency Operations:
Table 6: Major Groups Involved in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery
Efforts:
Table 7: Other Groups That Federal Agencies Coordinate with on Salmon
and Steelhead Recovery:
Table 8: Army Corps of Engineers‘ Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 9: Bonneville Power Administration‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Table 10: Bureau of Indian Affairs‘ Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 11: Bureau of Land Management‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 12: Bureau of Reclamation‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 13: Environmental Protection Agency‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Table 14: Fish and Wildlife Service‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 15: Forest Service‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead Expenditures
in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 16: National Marine Fisheries Service‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Table 17: Natural Resources Conservation Service‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Table 18: U.S. Geological Survey‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 19: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Bonneville
and
Lower Granite Dams, 1977 through 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of the Columbia River Basin:
Figure 2: Life Cycle of Salmon and Steelhead:
Figure 3: Juvenile Fish Transport Truck:
Figure 4: Juvenile Fish Bypass System and Adult Fish Ladder:
Figure 5: Water Being Released at Bonneville Dam:
Figure 6: Fish Screen at John Day Dam:
Figure 7: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Bonneville
Dam, 1977 through 2001:
Figure 8: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Lower Granite
Dam, 1977 through 2001:
Figure 9: Returning Adult Snake River Sockeye Salmon Counted at Lower
Granite Dam, 1977 through 2001:
Abbreviations :
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
BOR: Bureau of Reclamation:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
ESA: Endangered Species Act:
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
FCRPS: Federal Columbia River Power System:
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
GPRA: Government Performance Results Act:
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
USGS: United States Geological Survey:
Letter July 26, 2002:
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Crapo:
Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead populations were once the
world‘s largest. Before 1850, an estimated 16 million salmon and
steelhead returned to the basin annually to spawn. Over the past 25
years, however, the number of salmon and steelhead returning to the
Columbia River Basin has averaged around 660,000 per year, although
annual population levels have varied widely. Various factors have
contributed to the long-term decline including over-harvesting, the
construction and operation of dams, the degradation of spawning
habitat, increased human population, and unfavorable weather and ocean
conditions. The population decline has resulted in the listing of 12
salmon and steelhead populations in the basin as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Once a species is
listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA requires that efforts be
taken to allow the species to recover.
The Department of Commerce‘s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
is the lead agency responsible for the recovery of the threatened or
endangered populations of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead.
The recovery of a species entails the development and implementation of
a plan for the species‘ conservation and survival. The ESA also
requires other federal agencies to consult with NMFS before they take
any action that may jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon
or steelhead populations in the Columbia River Basin.
You asked us to (1) identify the roles and responsibilities of the
federal agencies involved with the recovery of Columbia River Basin
salmon and steelhead, (2) determine how much they have spent
collectively on recovery efforts, and (3) determine what recovery
actions they have undertaken and what they have accomplished. In
conducting our work, agency officials and others brought to our
attention two issues that may affect the recovery effort: the
development of a strategic recovery plan to direct overall recovery
efforts along with annual performance plans to implement the strategic
plan, and the development of a system to track ESA consultations to
ensure that recovery projects are not unnecessarily delayed by the
consultation process. A discussion of these issues is presented in
appendix I. Appendix II provides details on the scope and methodology
we employed in this review.
Results in Brief:
Eleven federal agencies are involved with salmon and steelhead recovery
efforts in the Columbia River Basin. NMFS, as the lead agency, is
responsible for preparing a recovery plan and consulting with other
federal agencies to determine whether the agencies‘ planned actions
will jeopardize listed salmon and steelhead populations. In addition to
NMFS, the federal agencies involved in the recovery effort include the
following:
* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, which
operate the Columbia River Basin dams that salmon and steelhead must
pass, and the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets the
electric power created by water flowing through the dams‘ turbines.
* The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service manage natural resources, which include habitat for
salmon and steelhead, for multiple purposes, such as timber, grazing,
fish, wildlife, and recreation.
* The Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, which
carry out various actions, such as setting water quality standards,
performing research, working with landowners, and protecting tribal
fishing rights, all of which, directly affect salmon and steelhead
populations.
At least 65 groups, such as committees and task forces, have been
formed to coordinate recovery efforts between the federal agencies, as
well as with states, tribes, local governments, and other interested
entities.
The 11 federal agencies estimate they expended almost $1.8 billion
(unadjusted for inflation) from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996
and about $1.5 billion (in 2001 dollars) from fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal 2001 on efforts specifically designed to recover Columbia River
Basin:
salmon and steelhead.[Footnote 1] The $1.5 billion expended in the last
5 fiscal years consists of $968 million that federal agencies spent
directly and $537 million that the federal agencies received and then
provided to nonfederal entities, such as states and Indian tribes. Four
federal agencies accounted for about 88 percent of the $968 million
that the federal agencies expended in the last 5 fiscal years.
* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expended about $590 million
primarily on projects such as improving the passage of juvenile salmon
and steelhead at the dams.
* The U.S. Forest Service expended about $106 million primarily on ESA
consultations and projects, such as habitat improvement, land
acquisition, watershed restoration, in-stream habitat improvement, and
improving passage at culverts and small dams that block salmon and
steelhead passage.
* The Fish and Wildlife Service expended about $97 million primarily on
salmon and steelhead hatcheries.
* The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation expended about $62 million primarily
on recovery projects such as water acquisition, augmenting existing
water sources, and habitat acquisition.
In addition to the $1.5 billion, the 11 federal agencies estimated that
they expended $302 million (in 2001 dollars) in the last 5 fiscal years
on modifications to mission-related projects that benefited, but were
not specifically directed at, salmon and steelhead, such as erosion
control to improve crop productivity and wildlife habitat, which also
improves stream flows and reduces sedimentation in spawning habitat.
Federal agencies have undertaken many types of recovery actions and,
although these actions are generally viewed as resulting in higher
numbers of returning adult salmon and steelhead, there is little
conclusive evidence to quantify the extent of their effects on
returning fish populations. Recovery actions that have been taken
include projects such as constructing fish passage facilities at dams;
research studies, such as determining the presence or absence of toxic
substances that cause diseases in fish; monitoring actions, such as
surveying spawning grounds; and others, such as ESA-required
consultations. The data to quantify the effects of these actions on
fish populations are generally not available because of a number of
factors, including large yearly natural fluctuations in returning adult
salmon and steelhead, changing weather and ocean conditions, and the
length of time it takes for project benefits to materialize. However,
federal agency officials are confident that their recovery actions are
having positive effects and have resulted in higher numbers of
returning adult salmon and steelhead than would have occurred
otherwise.
We provided the agencies involved in salmon and steelhead recovery
efforts with a draft of this report. The agencies, with the exception
of Bonneville, generally agreed with the information in the report.
Bonneville raised concerns about the completeness of our report
asserting that it did not discuss the source of funds used to cover
salmon and steelhead recovery efforts. We revised our report to reflect
Bonneville‘s concerns.
Background:
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. (See
fig. 1.) It contains over 250 reservoirs and about 150 hydroelectric
projects, including 18 dams on the Columbia River and its primary
tributary, the Snake River. The Columbia River Basin provides habitat
for many species including steelhead and four species of salmon:
Chinook, Chum, Coho, and Sockeye.
Figure 1: Map of the Columbia River Basin:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of Figure)
One of the most prominent features of the Columbia River Basin is its
population of anadromous fish, such as salmon and steelhead, which are
born in freshwater streams, live there for 1 to 2 years, migrate to the
ocean to mature for 2 to 5 years, and then return to the freshwater
streams to spawn. (See fig. 2.):
Figure 2: Life Cycle of Salmon and Steelhead:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Bonneville Power Administration.
[End of figure]
Salmon and steelhead face numerous obstacles in their efforts to
complete their life cycle. For example, to migrate past dams, juvenile
fish must either go through the dams‘ turbines, go over the dams‘
spillways, use the installed juvenile bypass systems, or be transported
around the dams in trucks and barges. Each passage alternative has
associated risks and contributes to the mortality of juvenile fish.
Figure 3 shows one of the trucks used to transport juvenile fish around
the dams.
Figure 3: Juvenile Fish Transport Truck:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of Figure]
To return upstream to spawn, adults must locate and use the fish
ladders provided at the dams. Once adults make it past the dams, they
often have to spawn in habitat adversely affected by farming, mining,
cattle grazing, logging, road construction, and industrial pollution.
Figure 4 shows a bypass system for juvenile fish migrating downstream
and a fish ladder for adult fish returning upstream.
Figure 4: Juvenile Fish Bypass System and Adult Fish Ladder:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of Figure]
Reservoirs formed behind the dams cause problems for both juvenile and
adult passage because they slow water flows, alter river temperatures,
and provide habitat for predators, all of which may result in increased
mortality. Other impacts, such as ocean conditions and snow pack
levels, also affect both juvenile and adult mortality. For example, an
abundant snow pack aids juvenile passage to the ocean by increasing
water flows as it melts.
Given the geographic range and historical importance of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin, local governments, industries,
and private citizens are concerned about the species‘ recovery. For
example, some Indian tribes living in the basin consider salmon to be
part of their spiritual and cultural identity, and fishing is still the
preferred livelihood of many tribal members. Treaties between
individual tribes and the federal government acknowledge the importance
of salmon and steelhead to the tribes and guarantee tribes certain
fishing rights.
Efforts to increase salmon and steelhead stocks in the Columbia River
Basin began as early as 1877 with the construction of the first fish
hatchery. Now, states, tribes, and the federal government operate a
series of fish hatcheries located in the Columbia River Basin.
Historically, hatcheries were operated to mitigate the impacts of
hydropower and other development and had a primary goal of producing
fish for commercial, recreational, and tribal harvest. However,
hatcheries are now adjusting their operations to ensure that they
support recovery or at least do not impede the recovery of listed
species.
As dams were built in the 1900s, attempts were made to minimize their
impacts by installing fish ladders and bypass systems to help salmon
and steelhead migrate up and down the rivers. In the 1980s, several
other actions were taken to increase salmon and steelhead populations,
including: (1) a treaty between the United States and Canada limiting
the ocean harvesting of salmon; (2) the passage of the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (P.L. 96-501),
which called for the creation of an interstate compact to develop a
program to protect, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by
hydropower development in the Columbia River Basin and mitigate the
effects of development; and (3) the beginning of major state, local,
and tribal efforts to address habitat restoration through watershed
plans. None of these efforts proved to be enough, however, and in the
1990s, 12 salmon and steelhead populations were listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA, resulting in the advent of intensified
recovery actions. The 12 listed populations are:
* Snake River Fall-run Chinook salmon,
* Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook salmon,
* Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon,
* Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon,
* Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon,
* Snake River Sockeye salmon,
* Middle Columbia River steelhead,
* Upper Willamette River steelhead;
* Upper Columbia River steelhead:
* Snake River steelhead,
* Lower Columbia River steelhead, and:
* Columbia River Chum salmon.
Multiple Agencies Participate in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Efforts:
Eleven federal agencies are involved in the recovery of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. The federal agencies must comply
with the missions and responsibilities set out in their authorizing
legislation while also protecting salmon and steelhead under the ESA.
Other entities, such as states, tribes, local governments, and private
interest groups are also involved in the recovery effort. To facilitate
communication and coordination between the federal agencies and other
entities, a network of over 65 groups has been formed.
Federal Agency Responsibilities:
NMFS is responsible for leading the recovery effort for salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. NMFS, among other things, is
responsible for (1) identifying and listing threatened and endangered
salmon and steelhead populations, (2) preparing recovery plans for
listed salmon and steelhead populations, and (3) consulting with other
agencies to ensure that their planned actions do not further jeopardize
the listed populations of salmon and steelhead.
The other 10 agencies involved in the recovery are the 3 that are
responsible for operating the dams and selling the electric power they
produce (action agencies), the 3 that manage natural resources in the
Columbia River Basin (natural resource agencies), and the 4 that carry
out various other actions that affect the resources of the basin (other
agencies).
The U.S. Army‘s Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the
Interior‘s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the Department of Energy‘s
Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) are the 3 action agencies
involved in recovery efforts.
* The Corps is responsible for designing, building, and operating civil
works projects to provide electric power, navigation, flood control,
and environmental protection. The Corps operates 12 major dams on the
Columbia and Snake Rivers that have direct relevance to salmon and
steelhead (Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower
Monumental, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Chief Joseph, Dworshak, Albeni
Falls, and Libby).
* BOR is responsible for designing, constructing, and operating water
projects in the 17 western states for multiple purposes, including
irrigation, hydropower production, municipal and industrial water
supplies, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. BOR
operates two major dams (Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse), as well as
over 50 smaller dams in the Columbia River Basin and is responsible for
reducing any detrimental effects that such operations may have on the
survival of salmon and steelhead. For example, BOR dams store water for
irrigation, and BOR installs screens over irrigation canal entrances to
prevent salmon and steelhead from entering and later dying when the
water is used and the canals dry up.
* Bonneville is responsible for providing transmission services and
marketing the electric power generated by the Corps and BOR dams in the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). In doing so, it is also
obligated by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) of 1980 to provide equitable
treatment to fish and wildlife along with the other purposes for which
FCRPS is operated.
The Department of the Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of
Agriculture‘s U.S. Forest Service are the natural resource agencies
involved in recovery efforts. The overall mission of the natural
resource agencies is to manage their lands for multiple purposes, such
as grazing, timber, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation.
* BLM administers 262 million acres of public lands, primarily in 12
western states, and about 300 million additional acres of subsurface
mineral resources. Its mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present
and future generations. BLM manages a wide variety of resources,
including energy and minerals, timber and forage, wild horse and burro
populations, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and
archaeological and other natural heritage values. While conducting its
activities, BLM is required by the ESA to avoid actions that would
jeopardize the continued existence of listed salmon and steelhead or
adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Consequently, projects
are designed and operated to comply with the ESA. An example is
planting trees and vegetation to reduce erosion and to provide shade to
cool streams.
* FWS works with other entities to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, and plants. It is chiefly responsible for implementing the
ESA for terrestrial species, migratory birds, certain marine mammals,
and certain fish. FWS operates or funds 37 hatchery facilities in the
basin which, along with other purposes, assist in the recovery of
listed populations of salmon and steelhead. It also operates three fish
health centers and one fish technology center in the basin, which
provide the hatcheries with technical support and health screenings of
fish. Other conservation efforts include habitat protection and
restoration, harvest management, and recommending hydropower
operations that will benefit salmon and steelhead.
* The Forest Service manages 191 million acres of national forests and
grasslands nationwide under the principles of multiple use and
sustained yield, ensuring that lands will be available for future
generations. The multiple uses include outdoor recreation, rangeland,
timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife. Like BLM, under the ESA, the
Forest Service must ensure that its actions, such as timber harvesting
and road construction, are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species or degrade their critical habitat.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of
Agriculture‘s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the
Department of the Interior‘s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) are the four other agencies involved in
recovery efforts. Collectively, these agencies are responsible for a
variety of actions and endeavors to incorporate the needs of salmon and
steelhead into the requirements of their primary missions.
* EPA protects human health and safeguards the natural environment by
protecting the air, water, and land. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA,
among other things, works with the states to develop water quality
standards that accommodate the needs of salmon and steelhead.
* NRCS is responsible for helping farmers, ranchers, and other
landowners develop and carry out voluntary efforts to protect the
nation‘s natural resources. NRCS works with landowners to promote
better land use management and resource conservation, which helps
improve water quality and habitat for salmon and steelhead.
* USGS is responsible for conducting objective scientific studies and
providing information to address problems dealing with natural
resources, geologic hazards, and the effects of environmental
conditions on human and wildlife health. It provides research on
various issues, such as fish diseases and fish passage, which benefit
salmon and steelhead.
* BIA‘s principal responsibilities are to encourage and assist Native
Americans to manage their own affairs under the trust relationship with
the federal government. Conserving fish and wildlife and maintaining
traditional fishing rights are among the trust responsibilities that
BIA has with the Indian tribes.
In addition, all agencies are responsible for furthering the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out programs for the conservation of listed
species. Selected major laws affecting the operations of the 11
agencies are listed in appendix III.
In fulfilling their responsibilities, agencies sometimes encounter
competing priorities that involve making trade-offs. For example, the
Northwest Power Act requires the protection, mitigation, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife while ensuring an adequate, efficient,
economical, and reliable power supply for the Pacific Northwest. During
the drought of 2001, Bonneville found it difficult to meet its
responsibilities under both the ESA and the Northwest Power Act. As a
result, Bonneville, in consultation with other federal agencies,
determined that in order to maintain an adequate and reliable power
supply during the declared power emergencies, available water had to be
sent through the turbines to generate electricity and as such could not
be spilled (released) over the dams to aid juvenile fish passage.
Significantly reducing the amount of water spilled over the dams may
affect the survival rates of some juvenile populations, which may in
turn ultimately affect the number of adult salmon and steelhead
returning to spawn in the future. Figure 5 shows water being released
at Bonneville Dam to aid fish passage.
Figure 5: Water Being Released at Bonneville Dam:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of Figure]
Nonfederal Entities Are Involved in Recovery Effort:
In addition to federal agencies, many state and local governments,
Indian tribes, private interest groups, and private citizens are
involved in the recovery effort. For example, to guide state recovery
efforts, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington have jointly prepared a
salmon and steelhead recovery plan referred to as the Governors‘ Plan.
Other participants in the recovery efforts include local governments,
such as the cities of Portland, Oregon, and Yakima, Washington; and
local conservation districts like the Asotin County Conservation
District in Washington. Tribal entities--the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of
the Warm Springs Reservation, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and
Yakama Indian Nation--and private interest groups/organizations like
American Rivers, Columbia River Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, and Save Our
Wild Salmon, also participate in recovery efforts.
Over 65 groups have been formed to help facilitate communication and
coordination between the various entities involved in salmon and
steelhead recovery. The size and purpose of the groups range from large
groups that deal with basinwide concerns to smaller, more narrowly
focused ones that deal with local issues. For example, the Federal
Caucus,[Footnote 2] comprising 10 federal agencies having natural
resource responsibilities under the ESA, meets to discuss issues and
make policy decisions on the implementation of the basinwide strategy
that it developed to help recover salmon and steelhead populations.
Local groups, such as the Asotin County Conservation District, meet to
develop watershed plans and to secure funding for landowners to make
water quality and habitat improvements on their property. (See appendix
IV for the names, purpose, and meeting frequency of the various groups
involved in the recovery effort.):
Agencies Estimate Recovery Expenditures in the Billions:
The 11 federal agencies estimate that they expended almost $1.8 billion
(unadjusted for inflation) from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996
and about $1.5 billion (in 2001 dollars) from fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal 2001 on efforts specifically designed to recover Columbia River
Basin salmon and steelhead. The $1.5 billion expended in the last 5
fiscal years consisted of $968.0 million that federal agencies expended
directly and $537.2 million that the federal agencies received and then
provided to nonfederal entities, such as states and Indian tribes. The
four agencies listed below accounted for $854.0 million (about 88
percent) of the $968.0 million spent by the federal agencies in the
last 5 fiscal years.
* The Corps expended about $589.7 million primarily on projects such as
improving juvenile bypass systems and adult fish ladders at the dams.
* The Forest Service expended about $105.7 million primarily on ESA
consultations and projects such as habitat improvement, land
acquisition, watershed restoration, in-stream habitat improvement, and
improving passage at culverts and small dams that block salmon and
steelhead passage.
* FWS expended about $96.7 million primarily on salmon and steelhead
hatcheries.
* BOR expended about $61.9 million, primarily on Columbia and Snake
River salmon and steelhead recovery projects on several segments of the
Yakima River Basin water enhancement project--including its tributary,
water acquisition, water augmentation, and habitat acquisition
programs.
The other seven agencies expended the remaining $114 million. Table 1
shows each agencies‘ total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures
for each fiscal year from 1997 through fiscal 2001. (Detailed
expenditure data for each agency are provided in appendix V.):
Table 1: Estimated Total Salmon-and Steelhead-Specific Expenditures, by
Agency and Fiscal Year:
Dollars in thousands.
Agency[A]: 1997: 1998: 1999: 2000: 2001: Total.
Corps; 1997: $114,616; 1998: $131,469; 1999: $109,818; 2000: $104,370;
2001: $129,434; $589,707.
Forest Service; 1997: 25,219; 1998: 20,025; 1999: 18,498; 2000: 19,844;
2001: 22,100; 105,686.
FWS; 1997: 18,525; 1998: 18,058; 1999: 18,481; 2000: 19,074; 2001:
22,593; 96,731.
BOR; 1997: 15,482; 1998: 12,787; 1999: 10,577; 2000: 14,574; 2001:
8,465; 61,885.
NMFS; 1997: 5,803; 1998: 8,698; 1999: 9,236; 2000: 11,656; 2001:
13,150; 48,543.
Bonneville; 1997: 5,533; 1998: 4,913; 1999: 5,608; 2000: 4,507; 2001:
5,444; 26,005.
USGS; 1997: 4,577; 1998: 4,298; 1999: 3,558; 2000: 3,359; 2001: 3,713;
19,505.
BLM; 1997: 2,009; 1998: 2,261; 1999: 2,315; 2000: 2,321; 2001: 2,850;
11,756.
NRCS; 1997: 1,912; 1998: 1,119; 1999: 1,359; 2000: 1,653; 2001: 1,697;
7,740.
BIA; 1997: 59; 1998: 70; 1999: 68; 2000: 66; 2001: 99; 362.
EPA; 1997: 10; 1998: 15; 1999: 14; 2000: 14; 2001: 14; 67.
Total; 1997: $193,745; 1998: $203,713; 1999: $179,532; 2000: $181,438;
2001: $209,559; $967,987.
Note: Dollars are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] To avoid double counting, all costs are included in the totals of
the agency that actually expended them and not by the agency that
provided the funding. For example, although Bonneville uses funds
derived from power generation revenues to reimburse the U.S. Treasury
for the hydroelectric share of operation and maintenance and capital
project costs incurred for salmon and steelhead at Corps and BOR dams
in the Columbia River Basin and for operation and maintenance costs at
FWS Lower Snake River Compensation Plan hatcheries, these costs are
included in the totals for the Corps, BOR, and FWS, and not Bonneville.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-provided data.:
[End of table]
In addition to the $968.0 million in specific federal expenditures,
five federal agencies provided nonfederal entities with about $537.2
million for specific salmon and steelhead recovery efforts. These funds
were either federally appropriated or, in the case of Bonneville, came
from revenues received from the sale of electricity. For example, as
shown in table 2, Bonneville provided nonfederal entities with over
$378 million in power receipts during the 5-year period. Federal funds
provided to nonfederal entities may contain certain requirements or
restrictions. For example, federal funds provided by NMFS under the
Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund require a 25 percent state or local
matching contribution.
Table 2: Federal Funds Provided to Nonfederal Entities, by Agency and
Fiscal Year:
Dollars in thousands.
Bonneville; Dollars in thousands: 1997: $62,228; Dollars in thousands:
1998: $81,814; Dollars in thousands: 1999: $78,668; Dollars in
thousands: 2000: $68,419; Dollars in thousands: 2001: $87,563; Dollars
in thousands: Total: $378,692.
NMFS; Dollars in thousands: 1997: 14,715; Dollars in thousands: 1998:
19,390; Dollars in thousands: 1999: 17,068; Dollars in thousands: 2000:
14,208; Dollars in thousands: 2001: 15,929; Dollars in thousands:
Total: 81,310.
FWS; Dollars in thousands: 1997: 375; Dollars in thousands: 1998:
1,244; Dollars in thousands: 1999: 22,944; Dollars in thousands: 2000:
9,679; Dollars in thousands: 2001: 13,167; Dollars in thousands: Total:
47,409.
BIA; Dollars in thousands: 1997: 5,744; Dollars in thousands: 1998:
5,674; Dollars in thousands: 1999: 6,053; Dollars in thousands: 2000:
5,918; Dollars in thousands: 2001: 6,263; Dollars in thousands: Total:
29,652.
BLM; Dollars in thousands: 1997: 34; Dollars in thousands: 1998: 0;
Dollars in thousands: 1999: 52; Dollars in thousands: 2000: 0; Dollars
in thousands: 2001: 50; Dollars in thousands: Total: 136.
Total; Dollars in thousands: 1997: $83,096; Dollars in thousands: 1998:
$108,122; Dollars in thousands: 1999: $124,785; Dollars in thousands:
2000: $98,224; Dollars in thousands: 2001: $122,972; Dollars in
thousands: Total: $537,199.
Note: Dollars are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-provided data.
[End of table]
The nonfederal entities receiving the federally provided funds include
the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington; tribes, such as
the Nez Perce and Yakama; government consortium groups, such as the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and the Northwest Power
Planning Council (an interstate compact with two representatives from
each of the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington); and fish
conservation organizations, such as Long Live the Kings. About two-
thirds or $353.7 million of the $537.2 million, was provided to the
states and tribes. (See table 3.):
Table 3: Nonfederal Recipients of Federal Funds, by Fiscal Year:
Dollars in thousands.
Recipient: States; 1997: $30,964; 1998: $42,427; 1999: $58,752; 2000:
$39,077;
2001: $45,423; Total: $216,643.
Recipient: Tribes; 1997: 27,796; 1998: 27,139; 1999: 25,581; 2000:
25,226; 2001:
31,302; Total: 137,044.
Recipient: Other; 1997: 14,018; 1998: 27,560; 1999: 27,425; 2000:
23,070; 2001:
33,178; Total: 125,251.
Recipient: Government consortium; 1997: 10,318; 1998: 10,996; 1999:
13,027; 2000:
10,851; 2001: 13,069; Total: 58,261.
Total; 1997: $83,096; 1998: $108,122; 1999: $124,785; 2000: $98,224;
2001: $122,972; Total: $537,199.
Note: Dollars are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-provided data. :
[End of table]
In addition to the almost $1.5 billion that federal agencies expended
or provided nonfederal entities with for specific salmon and steelhead
recovery actions, federal agencies estimated that they expended $302
million (in 2001 dollars) in the last 5 fiscal years on actions that
benefited, but were not specifically directed at, salmon and steelhead-
-that is, nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures. For example,
NRCS provides technical assistance and funding for private land
conservation. Collectively, these actions improve stream flows,
habitat, and water quality, which has a positive effect on fish. Also,
USGS performs research that evaluates the effect of diet, growth
regime, and environment on the development of salmon. This research,
however, is for all salmon species, not just those in the Columbia
River Basin. Agencies‘ estimates of nonspecific salmon and steelhead
expenditures are included in table 4.
Table 4: Estimate of Nonspecific Salmon and Steelhead Expenditures, by
Agency and Fiscal Year:
Dollars in thousands.
Forest Service; 1997: $27,855; 1998: $24,132; 1999: $19,829; 2000:
$26,020; 2001: $33,500; Total: $131,336.
NRCS; 1997: 24,916; 1998: 28,006; 1999: 21,975; 2000: 26,503; 2001:
22,197; Total: 123,597.
BLM; 1997: 2,576; 1998: 2,930; 1999: 2,804; 2000: 2,717; 2001: 3,330;
Total: 14,357.
BOR; 1997: 955; 1998: 2,137; 1999: 2,411; 2000: 2,165; 2001: 2,551;
Total: 10,219.
Corps; 1997: 1,072; 1998: 1,086; 1999: 2,721; 2000: 2,206; 2001: 1,500;
Total: 8,585.
NMFS; 1997: 894; 1998: 995; 1999: 2,279; 2000: 1,089; 2001: 1,142;
Total: 6,399.
FWS; 1997: 485; 1998: 958; 1999: 753; 2000: 1,010; 2001: 1,239; Total:
4,445.
USGS; 1997: 432; 1998: 604; 1999: 608; 2000: 724; 2001: 904; Total:
3,272.
BIA; 1997: 5; 1998: 5; 1999: 5; 2000: 5; 2001: 5; Total: 25.
Bonneville; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
EPA; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Total; 1997: $59,190; 1998: $60,853; 1999: $53,385; 2000: $62,439;
2001: $66,368; Total: $302,235.
Note: Dollars are adjusted to 2001 dollars.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-provided data. :
[End of table]
Recovery Actions Are Many, but Data on Their Effects on Salmon and
Steelhead Populations Are Generally Not Available:
Federal agencies have taken many actions to recover salmon and
steelhead. Although agency officials generally view these actions as
resulting in higher numbers of returning adult populations and
improving the conditions for recovery, the precise extent of their
effects on salmon and steelhead are not well understood. A number of
factors make it difficult to isolate and quantify the effects of these
actions, including large natural yearly fluctuations in the salmon and
steelhead populations, weather and ocean conditions, and the length of
time it takes for some project benefits to materialize. However,
federal agencies are confident that recovery actions are having
positive effects and have resulted in higher numbers of returning adult
salmon and steelhead than would have occurred otherwise.
Actions Taken to Recover Salmon and Steelhead:
Federal agencies have taken many actions aimed at salmon and steelhead
recovery. For example, NMFS listed 12 populations of salmon and
steelhead under the ESA and issued numerous final biological opinions
covering the operation of FCRPS and forest and land management; sport,
commercial, and tribal harvest; hatchery operations; and irrigation
operations in the Yakima, Umatilla, and Snake River basins. In
conjunction with the Federal Caucus, NMFS helped develop the All-H
Strategy (hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, habitat) for the recovery of
salmon and steelhead. NMFS has also engaged in extensive public
outreach efforts, conducted salmon and steelhead studies, and discussed
management strategies with other agencies on factors affecting salmon
and steelhead mortality.
The action agencies‘ (the Corps, BOR, and Bonneville) recovery efforts
have been primarily focused on the dams and water projects. For
example, the Corps constructed a new bypass system at Bonneville Dam‘s
second powerhouse that Corps officials expect will increase juvenile
survival by 6 to 13 percent. The Corps has also installed fish screens
to guide juvenile fish to the bypass systems and away from the
turbines. Figure 6 shows a fish screen at John Day Dam in Oregon.
Figure 6: Fish Screen at John Day Dam:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO
[End of figure]
BOR officials stated that it has begun implementing and will implement
all of those actions that apply to it in the FCRPS biological opinion.
For example, among other things, it has designed and constructed fish
screens and fish passage facilities for irrigation diversions on its
projects.
Bonneville contracts directly with federal, state, tribal and other
entities to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the
Columbia River Basin in addition to managing FCRPS for fish as well as
power. For example, Bonneville has provided the Yakama Indian Nation
with funding to construct and operate a tribal hatchery and has
provided federal, state, tribal, and nonfederal entities with funding
to monitor juvenile fish populations; and to improve and acquire
additional salmon and steelhead habitat.
The natural resource agencies‘ (Forest Service, FWS and BLM) recovery
actions have been primarily aimed at implementing an aquatic
conservation strategy that consists of aquatic and riparian habitat
protection; fish distribution; watershed restoration; land
acquisition; coordination with other agencies, tribal governments, and
so forth; and monitoring and evaluation. For example, in the past 5
years, the Forest Service improved over 2,000 miles of stream banks and
9,000 acres of riparian area using various methods, such as plantings
to reduce erosion and placing logs in streams to provide deeper pools.
FWS, in conjunction with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, transferred
350,000 salmon from a hatchery to the Umatilla River to increase local
returns. BLM habitat improvement projects include riparian plantings,
such as 50 acres in the Grande Ronde River Basin, and erosion control
activity, such as the Hayden Creek road sediment reduction project.
The other agencies (EPA, NRCS, USGS and BIA) have initiated a wide
range of recovery actions. For example, EPA developed a temperature
model for the Columbia and Snake rivers that provides a foundation for
making decisions on hydroelectric operations. During the last 5 years,
NRCS worked with over 23,000 individual landowners to develop resource
management plans for 4.8 million acres of land and to restore over
10,000 acres of wetlands. USGS prepared an annual report quantifying
juvenile salmon and steelhead predation by the Northern Pikeminnow. BIA
provided tribal fish commissions, including the Columbia River Inter-
Tribal Fish Commission, with funding to address certain provisions of
the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Additional examples of salmon and steelhead
recovery actions taken by NMFS, the action agencies, the natural
resource agencies, and the other agencies are listed in appendix VI.
Data Generally Not Available to Quantify Effects of Recovery Actions:
The data to isolate and quantify the effects of recovery efforts on
returning fish populations are generally not available because of
numerous factors. These factors include large natural yearly
fluctuations in salmon and steelhead populations, changing weather and
ocean conditions, the length of time it takes for project benefits to
materialize, and the multiyear life cycles of the fish.
Returning salmon and steelhead populations have fluctuated widely from
year to year. For example, over the past 25 years, annual adult returns
for all ESA listed and unlisted salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam, the first dam on the Columbia River, averaged 660,000,
but counts for individual years varied widely. As shown in figure 7,
the number of returning adults went from 638,000 in 1991, down to
411,000 in 1995, and up to 1,877,000 in 2001.[Footnote 3]
Figure 7: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Bonneville
Dam, 1977 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fish Passage Center.
[End of Figure]
During the same time period, total ESA listed and unlisted adult salmon
and steelhead returns counted at Lower Granite Dam, the last dam that
adult fish encounter on the Snake River before entering Idaho, averaged
about 116,000. But like counts at Bonneville, the counts at Lower
Granite for all salmon and steelhead fluctuated widely, as shown in
figure 8.
Figure 8: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Lower Granite
Dam, 1977 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fish Passage Center.
[End of Figure]
Similar fluctuations occurred for individual ESA--listed salmon and
steelhead populations. For example, at Lower Granite Dam, an average of
72--ESA listed Snake River Sockeye salmon have returned annually for
the past 25 years, but actual counts varied from 8 returning in 1991,
down to
3 returning in 1995, up to 299 returning in 2000, and down to 36
returning in 2001. Figure 9 shows the counts of returning adult Snake
River Sockeye salmon at Lower Granite Dam.
Figure 9: Returning Adult Snake River Sockeye Salmon Counted at Lower
Granite Dam, 1977 through 2001:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fish Passage Center.
[End of Figure]
The 25-year averages for Bonneville, Lower Granite, and Snake River
Sockeye were greatly influenced by the relatively higher numbers of
adults returning to the basin in 2000 and 2001. For example, adult
returns in 2000 and 2001 represented 17 percent of all returning adults
counted at Bonneville Dam over the past 25 years and 21 percent of
returning adults counted at Lower Granite Dam in the same time period.
Similarly, adult returns in 2000 and 2001 represented 18 percent of
returning adult Snake River Sockeye. (Actual counts for listed and
unlisted salmon and steelhead at Bonneville and lower Granite and
listed Snake River Sockeye at Lower Granite are displayed in appendix
VII.):
Although the precise reasons for the large number of adult returns in
2000 and 2001 are unknown, federal officials stated that the relatively
high returns might be largely attributable to favorable ocean
conditions, which mask the benefit of actions they have taken.
Additionally, they believe the above-average snow pack in 1996, 1997,
1998 and 1999, may have contributed to higher juvenile survival rates
in the freshwater during those years because the runoff increased water
flows in tributaries and the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers.
Depending on the species, many of these juveniles would have returned
as adults in 2000 and 2001.
Cyclical changes in ocean temperatures also affect salmon and steelhead
survival. For example, cooler ocean temperatures off the West Coast
from 1999 through 2001 increased the number of small fish that salmon
feed upon and have likely increased salmon and steelhead survival and
contributed to higher returns. The length of the ocean temperature
cycle and its relationship to salmon and steelhead survival, however,
is not clear.
Finally, salmon and steelhead generally have a 3-to 5-year spawning,
rearing, and maturation cycle, so it takes years before the benefits of
some actions materialize. For example, improving bypass facilities at
the dams reduces juvenile salmon and steelhead mortality, but their
ultimate ability to return to spawn depends on many other factors, such
as the availability of food in the ocean to allow them to mature; the
avoidance of predators such as birds, marine mammals, other fish,
fishermen; and favorable passage conditions when they return upriver to
spawn.
However, actions that increase reproduction, improve passage and
habitat conditions, reduce erosion and pollution, use hatcheries for
recovery, ensure careful harvest management, and educate the public all
improve salmon and steelhead survival rates. While they cannot quantify
or isolate the benefits of individual actions, agencies‘ officials are
confident that the composite recovery actions taken to date are having
positive effects, generally improving the conditions for freshwater
survival and ultimately resulting in higher numbers of returning adult
salmon and steelhead than would have occurred otherwise. For example,
NMFS estimates that juvenile survival rates for Snake River spring/
summer Chinook salmon increased from 10 to 13 percent during the 1970s
to 31 to 59 percent after fish passage improvements were made at the
dams during the 1990s. These are estimates, however, with no
quantification of the actual number of returning adult salmon and
steelhead. The number of returning adults is important because other
studies have shown that even after successfully passing the dams, using
bypass facilities increases fish mortality downstream.
Agency Comments and GAO‘s Evaluation:
We provided the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service and NRCS),
the Department of Commerce (NMFS), the Department of Defense (Corps),
the Department of the Interior (BIA, BOR, BLM, FWS, and USGS),
Bonneville, and EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment.
We received written comments from all agencies except the Corps and
EPA, and are including these comments in appendies VIII through XI in
this report. The Corps provided oral comments chiefly of an editorial
nature, which we have incorporated into the report as appropriate. EPA
reviewed the report and had no comments.
The responding agencies, with the exception of Bonneville, commented
that the report accurately portrayed the roles of the agencies, their
expenditures, and recovery actions. These agencies also provided
clarifications on several technical points that have been included in
the report as appropriate.
Bonneville took issue with three points regarding our report. First,
Bonneville commented that the report does not fully reflect its role in
funding salmon and steelhead recovery efforts. For example, Bonneville
stated that the report does not explain that it reimburses the U.S.
Treasury for most of the expenditures for capital improvements at the
Corps‘ and BOR‘s hydroelectric projects as well as operation and
maintenance costs at these projects and at FWS‘s Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan hatcheries. We agree that Bonneville is a major
supplier of salmon and steelhead recovery moneys and clarifications
were made in the report to reflect its role. However, we were not asked
to provide information on the source of funds for salmon and steelhead
recovery efforts but rather how much the agencies expended on such
efforts. Therefore, the report reflects the funds Bonneville is
referring to as expenditures by other federal agencies, such as, the
Corps, BOR, and FWS.
Second, Bonneville commented that the report does not fully describe
that the funds it provides other agencies with are from ratepayer
receipts and, as a result, much of the salmon and steelhead recovery
expenditures shown in the report are paid for by those that buy the
electric power the dams generate. While the report notes that ratepayer
receipts fund these expenditures, we have added additional details on
the source of the funds that Bonneville uses to cover agencies‘
expenditures and how Bonneville reimburses the U.S. Treasury for
agencies‘ expenditures for capital and operation and maintenance costs.
Finally, Bonneville expressed concern that we did not include the cost
of replacement power and lost power revenues in our expenditure totals.
We did not include these costs because these costs do not reflect
expenditures for actual recovery actions and determining these costs is
difficult to derive, since replacement power and lost revenues could
result from other management decisions that are not related to salmon
and steelhead recovery.
We conducted our work from July 2001 through June 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix II
contains the details of our scope and methodology.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Administrator
of EPA, the Administrator of Bonneville, and interested congressional
committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, you can contact me on
(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
XII.
Sincerely yours,
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Two Issues That May Affect the Recovery Effort:
During the course of our work, agency officials and others brought to
our attention two issues that may affect the salmon and steelhead
recovery effort: (1) development of a Columbia River basinwide
strategic salmon and steelhead recovery plan and annual performance
plans to facilitate and track recovery efforts and (2) an Endangered
Species Act (ESA) consultation-tracking system to identify and
eliminate unnecessary delays to projects that are specifically designed
to benefit fish, including salmon, steelhead, and other threatened or
endangered species. Although we have not conducted detailed work on
these issues, they are summarized as follows.
Basinwide Strategic Recovery Plan and Annual Performance Plans:
A basinwide strategic recovery plan that identifies overall recovery
goals, estimated total costs, and specific agencies‘ actions and an
annual performance plan that identifies annual funds available and
projects to be completed would help the agencies to focus their actions
and provide a means to assess overall recovery efforts. The ESA
requires that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) develop and
implement a recovery plan for each listed salmon and steelhead
species.[Footnote 4] The ESA requires that this plan include (1) site-
specific management actions; (2) objective and measurable criteria
that, when met, will result in the species‘ delisting; and (3)
estimates of the time and cost required to implement the measures and
achieve the goal of delisting the species.
Because NMFS has not yet developed a recovery plan, the agencies use a
variety of plans, strategies, and guidance to direct their recovery
efforts. Among others, the guidance that each agency uses includes its
own mission plans, NMFS‘s biological opinion for its actions that may
adversely affect or jeopardize listed species, and the Federal Caucus‘
All-H (hydropower, hatcheries, harvest, and habitat) recovery strategy.
However, two recent publications, one prepared by a scientific team and
the other by a private organization, have raised concerns about the
potential success of recovery efforts that follow these plans and
strategies,[Footnote 5] whether they are used individually or combined.
The agencies‘ officials have also stated that a recovery plan that all
entities recognize is needed to help direct their efforts toward those
watersheds and actions that can do the most for recovery.
NMFS is in the process of developing a basinwide recovery plan for ESA-
listed salmon and steelhead, but that plan is several years away from
completion. According to NMFS officials, the plan is being developed in
phases. The first phase is to identify, among other things, target
populations and delisting criteria. The second phase is to identify the
actions needed to meet the target populations and delisting criteria.
In 2004, NMFS expects a plan of action to be in place for the ESA-
listed salmon and steelhead on the lower Columbia River. The plans for
the middle and upper Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations
are to be completed after 2004, but no specific completion dates have
been set.
Once a basinwide recovery plan is completed, annual performance plans
will be needed to implement it. The Government Performance Results Act
of 1993 (GPRA) requires agencies to prepare and monitor annual
performance plans to successfully implement their long-range strategic
plans. Under GPRA, the annual performance plan serves as the basis for
setting annual program goals and for measuring program performance in
achieving those goals. The annual performance plan provides a direct
link between long-term goals and day-to-day operations. The annual
performance plan should contain, among other things, annual goals that
can be used to gauge progress toward achieving strategic long-term
goals, standards that will be used to assess progress, and information
on the funds available to implement the annual performance plan. The
Federal Caucus and the President‘s Council on Environmental Quality
recently started identifying federal appropriations and Bonneville‘s
power receipts that are available annually for salmon and steelhead
recovery.
ESA Consultation-Tracking System:
Under the consultation requirements of the ESA, federal agencies must
consult with NMFS to determine whether a proposed action that is
federally authorized, carried out, or funded is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any threatened or endangered salmon or
steelhead species, or adversely modify or destroy its critical habitat.
Unless a longer time period is mutually agreed to by both NMFS and the
consulting agency, NMFS has 135 days to make this determination and
issue a biological opinion that summarizes its findings.
Officials of several other federal agencies have said that the ESA
consultation process with NMFS sometimes takes too long and that
projects designed to benefit fish, including salmon and steelhead, are
delayed or prevented from being completed. For example, Forest Service
officials reported that, because of the lengthy ESA consultation
process, funding had to be turned back for two road culvert projects.
In each case, Forest Service officials concluded that replacing the
culverts would open up miles of blocked habitat to fish. After
submitting the project consultation packages to NMFS, however, Forest
Service officials stated that they waited over a year for a response.
Because these projects were to be funded with ’one year“ money, the
long delay resulted in the return of the money without the completion
of the projects. BOR officials reported similar problems, stating that
a delay in completing consultation risks not only the loss of funds,
but can delay projects designed to save fish by at least a year.
NMFS officials in the Pacific Northwest stated they were aware of the
agencies‘ concerns about untimely ESA consultations and provided
several reasons why delays may occur, including the recent hiring of a
number of NMFS staff who were inexperienced with the consultation
process and an increase in the number of consultations. According to
NMFS officials, over the past 5 years, in its Habitat Conservation
Division, where many consultations occur, the number of staff has
increased from 6 to 120. As the new staff acquire experience, officials
said the timeliness of consultation should improve. Furthermore, NMFS
officials stated that the number of formal consultations involving
salmon and steelhead in the basin has almost doubled from 46 in 1997 to
88 in 2001.
NMFS officials also said that the agencies‘ concerns might be somewhat
overstated because agencies often mistakenly assume that the time spent
on informal consultation is part of the formal consultation process.
Informal consultations, which ranged from 203 in 1997, to 359 in 1999,
to 232 in 2001 in the Pacific Northwest, are discussions that take
place while NMFS reviews the biological assessment package submitted by
an agency for completeness--i.e., inclusion of all the information
needed to issue a biological opinion.
Because NMFS does not track ESA consultations, we could not verify the
magnitude, frequency, and/or causes of any such delays. However, NMFS
recognizes the need to track the number, status, and timeliness of
consultations and plans to implement a consultation-tracking system in
2002. NMFS officials said they and other agency officials need to know
how well the consultation process is working and whether the process is
taking so long that federal projects, even those beneficial to salmon
and steelhead, are being delayed.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to (1) identify the roles and responsibilities of the
federal agencies involved with the recovery of Columbia River Basin
salmon and steelhead, (2) determine how much they have spent
collectively on recovery efforts, and (3) determine what actions they
have undertaken and what they have accomplished. In conducting our
work, agency officials and others brought to our attention two issues
that may affect the recovery effort: the development of a strategic
recovery plan to direct overall recovery efforts along with annual
performance plans to implement the strategic plan, and the development
of a system to track Endangered Species Act consultations to ensure
that recovery projects are not unnecessarily delayed by the
consultation process.
To identify the roles and responsibilities of the federal agencies
involved in salmon and steelhead recovery, we identified 11 federal
agencies with significant responsibility for salmon and steelhead
recovery in the Pacific Northwest. These agencies were either members
of the Federal Caucus or were referred to us by members of the Federal
Caucus. We interviewed 123 officials from the 11 agencies, including
officials across the various management levels, to determine:
* the role that each agency plays in the recovery effort;
* the laws and mandates with which each agency must comply while also
complying with the ESA;
* the plans that each agency uses to guide its recovery efforts;
* the entities with which they coordinate;
* their membership in groups, such as committees and task forces;
* agencies‘ experiences with the ESA consultation process; and:
* each agency‘s opinion of the overall recovery effort to date.
We also interviewed officials from the states of Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; individual
Indian tribes, and the Northwest Power Planning Council. These
interviews were primarily conducted in Seattle, Washington; Portland,
Oregon; and Boise, Idaho, but also included smaller communities in
eastern Oregon and Washington. In addition to interviews, we reviewed
the recovery plans cited in the interviews, previous GAO reports, and
other studies and reports either referred to us or discovered during
our research.
To determine the amount of federal funds the agencies collectively
expended on salmon and steelhead mitigation, restoration, and recovery
in the Columbia River Basin, we asked each of the 11 agencies to
provide us with an estimate of overall salmon and steelhead
expenditures for fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996 and for detailed
expenditure information for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001. We
requested that the agencies provide expenditure data in two main
categories: (1) expenditures made specifically to benefit salmon and
steelhead (specific expenditures) and
(2) those that were made for another purpose but also benefited salmon
and steelhead (nonspecific expenditures). Within each of these
categories, we requested that further detail be provided on how the
money was spent. For example, we asked the agencies to identify
expenditures by type--projects, research, monitoring, consultation/
coordination, litigation or administration. Because the 11 agencies
provided us with a combined dollar estimate of expenditures for fiscal
year 1982 through fiscal 1996, we did not adjust these estimates to
account for inflation. The remaining data supplied for individual
fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001 have been adjusted to the constant
base of 2001 dollars.
Because funds used for salmon and steelhead recovery are seldom
specifically identified as such, and because each agency has a
different accounting system, agency officials were asked to provide
actual numbers whenever possible and estimates when specific numbers
were not available. In conducting our analysis, we did not
independently verify or test the reliability of the expenditure data
provided by the agencies.
To identify the actions that the agencies have taken and what they have
accomplished to recover salmon and steelhead, we obtained fish count
data from the Fish Passage Center on the number of adult salmon and
steelhead returns to Bonneville and Lower Granite Dams for the past
25 years. In addition, we sent the agencies a data-collection
instrument asking them to furnish us with a list of representative
actions that they had taken to assist in the recovery effort. We also
reviewed accomplishment reports that some of the agencies are required
to prepare and compared the data in the reports with what they provided
us.
In the course of our work, agencies‘ officials and others brought to
our attention two issues that may affect the recovery effort: the
development of a strategic recovery plan to direct overall recovery
efforts along with annual performance plans to implement the strategic
plan and the development of a system to track ESA consultations to
ensure that recovery projects are not unnecessarily delayed by the
consultation process. To obtain additional information on these issues,
we reviewed
(1) the Government Performance Results Act and the ESA; (2) the
agencies‘ various mission-related mandates and salmon and steelhead
recovery strategies and critiques of those plans and strategies; (3)
the cross-cutting budget prepared by the Federal Caucus and President‘s
Council on Environmental Quality; (4) previous GAO reports on restoring
the Florida Everglades, GPRA, and ESA consultations; and (5) data
requested from the National Marine Fisheries Service on the number and
timeliness of consultations conducted in the past 5 years.
We performed our work at various locations in the states of Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington from August 2001 through June 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Selected Laws Affecting Agency Operations:
Federal agencies must comply with the requirements of numerous laws,
treaties, executive orders, and court decisions while recovering salmon
and steelhead. Table 5 lists the selected laws that federal agencies
reported as guiding their actions.
Table 5: Selected Laws Affecting Agency Operations:
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act; Authorizes the Secretaries of
Commerce and of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements for
the development, conservation, and enhancement of anadromous fish
resources.
Bonneville Project Act; Creates the Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville) and authorizes it to market power produced by the
Bonneville Project and to construct transmission lines to transmit
electric energy. Requires Bonneville to set its rates to recover the
cost of producing and transmitting electric energy from the Federal
Columbia River Power System, including the amortization of the capital
investment. These rates must be based on the cost allocations among the
project‘s purposes that Congress authorized--typically power,
navigation, flood control, and irrigation.
Clean Water Act; Authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish water quality standards and to issue permits for the
discharge of pollutants from a point source to navigable waters.
Authorizes EPA to approve total maximum daily load standards
established by states and tribes. These standards are determined by the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards for specified uses, including fish and
wildlife.
Coastal Zone Management Act; Directs federal agencies to cooperate with
state and local governments to control polluted runoff in coastal
areas.
Columbia Basin Project Act; Authorizes mitigation for fish and wildlife
resources affected by the construction of Grand Coulee Dam..
Columbia River Treaty; Defines the relationship between the United
States and Canada concerning the operation of Columbia River dams and
reservoirs.
Endangered Species Act; Directs the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to return endangered and
threatened species to the point where they no longer need special
protection measures by protecting threatened or endangered species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend.
Energy Policy Act of 1992; Authorizes the transfer of Bonneville Power
Administration funds to the Secretaries of the Army and of the Interior
to fund nonroutine maintenance at hydroelectric projects.
Executive Order 11988; Directs federal agencies to evaluate the
potential effects of any actions they may take in a floodplain and to
take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and to preserve the
beneficial values served by floodplains.
Executive Order 11990; Directs federal agencies to minimize the
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands in carrying out their
responsibilities on federal land.
Executive Order 13186; Directs executive departments and agencies to
take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act; Along with the Classification
and Multiple Use Act, established a multiple-use mandate for lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Directs the Secretary
of the Interior to develop and maintain land use plans using a
systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve the integrated
consideration of physical, biological, and economic factors.
Federal Power Act; Authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to issue licenses to construct and operate certain nonfederal
hydroelectric projects. For projects using lands within federal land
reservations, such as national forests, licenses are subject to
conditions established by the relevant land management agency for
protection of the lands. The act requires FERC to include license
conditions requiring fish passage as prescribed by the Secretaries of
the Interior and Commerce. The license must also include conditions for
the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife, which
FERC must generally base on recommendations made by federal and state
fish and wildlife agencies.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act; Directs FWS to identify species,
subspecies and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without
additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for
listing under the ESA and to identify and implement conservation
actions to ensure that ESA listing does not become necessary for those
species.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Provides that fish and wildlife
conservation receive equal consideration and coordination with other
project purposes.
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000; Directs
the Department of the Interior to establish a program to implement
projects to mitigate impacts on fisheries associated with irrigation
system water diversions in Pacific Ocean drainages located in Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Eligible projects include the
development, improvement, or installation of fish screens and fish
passage devices.
Flood Control Act; Provides that the federal government should improve
or participate in the improvement of navigable waters for flood control
purposes if the benefits are in excess of the estimated costs.
Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act; Provides for
maximum Indian participation in government and education of Indian
people through the participation of Indian tribes in programs and
services conducted by the federal government for Indians. Authorizes
funding for the development and implementation of management plans to
preserve and enhance natural resources on tribal trust lands and shared
off-reservation resources.
Individual project authorization acts; Projects operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) may be authorized for specific
purposes including flood control, navigation, power production, water
supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) must construct and operate each individual project in accordance
with its specific authorizing statute, which usually addresses project
purposes, facilities, operations, and the fiscal relationships between
the United States and water users.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Requires
federal agencies, in consultation with NMFS, to promote the protection
of essential fish habitat. NMFS shall provide conservation
recommendations for any federal or state activity that may adversely
affect essential fish habitat.
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Prohibits the take of marine mammals
except under specified conditions, including as an incidental take
during commercial fishing operations. Requires NMFS to study the effect
of growing sea lion and harbor seal populations on salmonids in the
Pacific Northwest. Allows states to apply to NMFS for a permit to take
sea lions and harbor seals under certain conditions.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Implements various treaties and conventions
between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet
Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, taking,
killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful.
Mitchell Act; Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to carry on
activities for the conservation of fishery resources in the Columbia
River Basin. Authorizes federal funds for hatchery construction and
operation within the Columbia River Basin for the conservation of
fish.
National Environmental Policy Act; Procedural act requiring federal
agencies to examine the impacts of proposed federal actions that may
significantly affect the environment.
National Forest Management Act; Along with the Organic Act and the
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, establishes multiple-use mandate for
lands managed by the Forest Service to include outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness purposes.
Regulations adopted pursuant to the National Forest Management Act
requires the Forest Service to manage habitat to maintain viable and
well-distributed populations of native fish and wildlife.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Organic Act; Authorizes the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide technical assistance,
conduct surveys, and support conservation-planning efforts.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Authorizes grants to public-
private partnerships to protect, enhance, and restore wetland
ecosystems. Federal grants require nonfederal matching funds.
Northwest Forest Plan; Amends the Forest Service‘s and BLM‘s management
plans within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Addresses agency
actions, such as timber harvesting and salmon and steelhead issues.
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act;
Authorizes the formation of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Planning Council (Council) and directs it to develop a
program to protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife of the
Columbia River Basin. Requires Bonneville‘s Administrator to use
Bonneville‘s funding authorities to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish
and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the Federal
Columbia River Power System and to do so in a manner consistent with
the Council‘s program while ensuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate,
efficient, economical, and reliable power supply. Limits Bonneville‘s
share of mitigation costs to those necessary to deal with adverse
effects caused by the development and operation of the dams‘ electric
power facilities only. Requires federal agencies responsible for
managing, operating, or regulating hydroelectric facilities in the
Columbia River Basin to provide equitable treatment for fish and
wildlife with the other purposes for which these facilities are
operated and managed. These agencies must, at every relevant stage of
their decision-making process, also consider, to the fullest extent
practicable, the Council‘s fish and wildlife program.
Pacific Salmon Treaty; Treaty signed by the United States and Canada in
1985 governing the harvest of certain salmon stocks in the fisheries of
the Northwest states (including Alaska) and Canada.
Reclamation Act; Requires the BOR to obtain water permits and operate
projects in accordance with state water law.
Rivers and Harbors Act; Requires permits for the construction,
excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under navigable
waters of the United States, such as piers, wharfs, breakwaters,
bulkheads, jetties, weirs, dams, and dikes.
Sikes Act; Establishes a program for fish and wildlife conservation and
rehabilitation at each military reservation in accordance with a
cooperative plan determined by the Secretaries of Defense and the
Interior, and the appropriate agency designated by the state in which
the reservation is located.
Transmission System Act; Designates Bonneville as the marketing agent
of all electric power generated by federal plants constructed by the
Army Corps of Engineers or BOR in the Pacific Northwest, except for
power required for the operation of such projects and the power from
BOR‘s Green Springs project. Authorizes Bonneville to operate and
maintain the federal transmission system within the Pacific Northwest
and to construct appropriate additions and improvements. Establishes
the Bonneville Fund within the U.S. Treasury, a revolving fund that
consists of all of Bonneville‘s receipts and proceeds, and from which
Bonneville‘s Administrator may make expenditures determined to be
necessary or appropriate.
Treaties between individual Indian tribes and the United States;
Establish federal agency responsibilities for trust assets, hatchery
and harvest issues, and tribal water rights.
Tualatin Project Act; Authorizes funding to mitigate for lost fish and
wildlife habitat resulting from construction of the Tualatin Project.
U.S. v. Oregon, U.S. v. Washington; Court decisions affirming the right
of certain Indian tribes to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of
salmon.
Umatilla Basin Project Act; Authorizes the construction of a water
exchange project between the Umatilla and Columbia Rivers to mitigate
anadromous fish losses resulting from the Umatilla Project.
Water Resources Development Acts; Various Water Resources Development
Acts authorize the Corps to construct environmental restoration
projects; to restore degraded ecosystems resulting from the
construction or operation of a project; to restore, protect, and create
aquatic and wetlands habitat in connection with a project; and to
assist tribal, state, and local governments in preparing comprehensive
development plans. Authorizes compensation for fish and wildlife losses
caused by power generation at the four dams on the lower Snake River.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act; Authorizes federal
assistance to local groups to plan and carry out projects in watersheds
for conservation and use of land and water, and flood prevention.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Declares that certain rivers with
outstanding values be preserved in a free-flowing state.
Wyden Amendment; Authorizes BLM to enter into cooperative agreements
with federal agencies, tribal, state, and local governments; private
and nonprofit entities; and landowners for the protection, restoration,
and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and other resources on
public and private land.
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project; Authorizes BOR to
protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife through improved water
management; improved in-stream flows; improved water quality; and the
protection, creation, and enhancement of wetlands; and provides for the
Yakama Indian Nation, at its sole discretion, to implement an
enhancement project integrating agricultural, fish, wildlife, and
cultural resources.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Groups Involved in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery:
This appendix shows the committees, task forces, and groups that the
federal agencies reported belonging to or whose meetings they attend.
Table 6 shows the main committees, task forces, and groups that
collaborate on salmon and steelhead recovery, along with their purpose
and the frequency of meetings. Table 7 shows the purpose and meeting
frequency for other groups with limited functional or geographic roles
in salmon and steelhead recovery.
Table 6: Major Groups Involved in Salmon and Steelhead Recovery
Efforts:
Group: Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority; Description:
Coordinates input and makes recommendations to the Northwest Power
Planning Council on budgets, strategic direction, and analytical
criteria for projects. Contains subgroups that meet two or three times
a month to make final project recommendations.; Frequency: Monthly.
Description: Group : Technical Management Committee on Fish Marking.;
Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Technical Management Committee on Harvest.;
Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Fish Passage Advisory Committee.; Frequency: Group
: Weekly, during migration season.
Description: Group : Fish Screen Oversight Committee. Designs fish
screens and prioritizes locations to receive them.; Frequency: Group :
[Empty].
Group: Federal Caucus; Description: Members include federal agencies
with natural resource responsibilities. The Caucus provides guidance
and policy on the implementation and coordination of the All-H Strategy
and Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) biological opinion. It
also discusses hatchery and Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Team issues.; Frequency: Monthly, more frequently if
needed.
Group: [Empty]; Description: Executive Committee. Develops and
coordinates policy-level decisions regarding salmon and steelhead
recovery between federal, state, and tribal leaders.; Frequency:
Irregularly.
Description: Group : Caucus Staff Team. Conducts staff work for
Executive Committee.; Frequency: Group : Monthly.
Description: Group : Biological Opinion Implementation Coordination
Team. Coordinates the implementation of the FCRPS biological opinion
and determines the operation and configuration of FCRPS.; Frequency:
Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Salmon Policy Group. Washington, D.C., group
consisting of the Council on Environmental Quality and political
appointees for the departments and federal agencies.; Frequency: Group
: [Empty].
Description: Group : Federal Habitat Team. Develops the implementation
plan and guides Recovery Team discussions on actions undertaken by
federal agencies in the All-H Strategy. Three subgroups have been
established.; Frequency: Group : Monthly. Subgroups also meet monthly.
Description: Group : Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Team. Monitors
the status and effectiveness of Biological Opinion actions and develops
databases.; Frequency: Group : Weekly and monthly.
Group: Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership; Description: Voluntary
plan for actions to improve the ecology of the Columbia River estuary.;
Frequency: [Empty].
Description: Group : ESA Executive Committee. Integrates ESA with Lower
Columbia Partnership actions.; Frequency: Group : Quarterly.
Group: [Empty]; Description: Foundation Board. Assists the Lower
Columbia Partnership with implementation and seeks to broaden the
program‘s funding base beyond federal and state funds.; Frequency:
[Empty].
Description: Group : Implementation Committee. Develops and implements
the Lower Columbia Partnership‘s Management Plan.; Frequency: Group :
[Empty].
Group: Northwest Forest Plan Regional Ecosystem Office; Description:
Implements the Northwest Forest Plan.; Frequency: [Empty].
Description: Group : Aquatic Effectiveness Management Team. Assesses
the actions taken to reach plan‘s aquatic objectives.; Frequency: Group
: Every 2 months.
Description: Group : Water Demonstration Work Group. Discusses
reasonable and prudent actions included in the plan.; Frequency: Group
: Twice monthly.
Description: Group : Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Senior
regional entity that coordinates and implements the Northwest Forest
Plan.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Group: Northwest Power Planning Council (Power Council); Description:
Council of representatives appointed by the governors of Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington established by the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. Operates a program to
protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife, including related
spawning grounds and habitat of the Columbia River and its tributaries.
Requires federal agencies to operate the Federal Columbia River Power
System projects in a manner that provides equitable treatment for fish
and wildlife and to consider, to the fullest extent practicable, the
Power Council‘s fish and wildlife program.; Frequency: Monthly.
Description: Group : Fish 4 Group. Power Council representatives
focused on fish issues.; Frequency: Group : Monthly.
Description: Group : Power 4 Group. Power Council representatives
focused on power issues.; Frequency: Group : Monthly.
Description: Group : Provincial Review and Sub-Basin Planning Process.
Identifies fish, wildlife, and habitat goals, and reviews projects for
funding in each of the 11 provinces and 62 river subbasins.; Frequency:
Group : As needed.
Description: Group : Artificial Production Review Committee. Power
Council‘s hatchery-planning group.; Frequency: Group : Monthly.
Description: Group : Hatchery Genetic Management Planning Group.
Identifies hatchery improvements through off-site actions.; Frequency:
Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Independent Science Advisory Board.; Frequency:
Group : [Empty].
Group: NMFS Regional Implementation Forum; Description: An
intergovernmental forum for discussing and implementing NMFS‘s FCRPS
biological opinion and related funding matters. Coordinates actions
taken under the biological opinion with other related plans and forums
in the basin.; Frequency: [Empty].
Description: Group : System Configuration Team. Plans and prioritizes
dam configuration actions.; Frequency: Group : Monthly.
Description: Group : Executive Committee. Resolves Implementation Team
disputes. Policy-level forum for hydroelectric operations in the
Columbia River Basin.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Implementation Team. Resolves Technical Management
Team disputes. Policy-level forum for hydroelectric operations and
configurations in the Columbia River Basin.; Frequency: Group :
Monthly.
Description: Group : Technical Management Team. Determines operations
of the hydropower system under criteria set by the FCRPS Biological
Opinion.; Frequency: Group : Weekly.
Description: Group : Water Quality Team. Reports to the Implementation
Team on water quality issues.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Fish Passage Operations and Maintenance
Coordination Team. Coordinates fish passage facility operation and
maintenance activities and adult counting.; Frequency: Group :
Monthly.
Description: Group : Fish Facility Design Review Workgroup. Develops
and implements fish passage improvements at dams operated by the
Corps.; Frequency: Group : Quarterly.
Group: Technical Recovery Teams; Description: Established by the
National Marine Fisheries Service to develop recovery plans for all
listed salmon and steelhead as required under the Endangered Species
Act, including identifying (1) population and delisting goals; (2)
habitat/fish abundance relationships; (3) the factors for decline and
limiting factors for each listing; and (4) research, evaluation, and
monitoring needs. Includes regional subteams.; Frequency: [Empty].
Group: U.S. v. Oregon; Description: Production Advisory Committee.
Develops stock status information, reviews harvest impacts and
production proposals, and coordinates the implementation of the court
decision.; Frequency: As needed.
Description: Group : Policy Committee. Resolves disputes on production
and harvest issues.; Frequency: Group : As needed.
Group: Willamette and Lower Columbia River Team; Description:
Coordinates federal agency review and comments on the biological
opinion for federal Willamette River Basin hydroelectric facilities.;
Frequency: As needed.
[End of table]
Table 7: Other Groups That Federal Agencies Coordinate with on Salmon
and Steelhead Recovery:
Group: Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program; Description: Identifies and
coordinates research needs.; Frequency: As needed.
Group: Captive Brood Oversight Committee; Description: Provides
oversight on managing captive brood stocks.; Frequency: Monthly.
Group: Caspian Tern Working Group; Description: Developing a plan to
reduce smolt predation by Caspian terns nesting in the Columbia River
estuary.; Frequency: As needed.
Group: Federal Regulatory Energy Commission workgroups; Description:
Addresses impacts to fish and wildlife for each dam being relicensed
under the Federal Power Act.; Frequency: Two to four times monthly.
Group: Habitat Conservation Plan Committee for Chelan and Douglas
Counties; Description: Develops Habitat Conservation Plans for three
hydroelectric projects.; Frequency: Weekly.
Group: Interagency Aquatic Monitoring Team; Description: Coordinates
aquatic-monitoring actions and data for a portion of Oregon and
Washington.; Frequency: [Empty].
Group: Interagency Implementation Team for PACFISH and INFISH
Biological Opinion; Description: Implements PACFISH and INFISH, interim
strategies for the management of anadromous and resident fish on
federal lands in the interior Columbia River Basin.; Frequency:
Monthly, plus quarterly executive meetings.
Group: Interagency Salmon Science Team; Description: Coordinates salmon
research.; Frequency: Semiannually.
Group: International Joint Commission; Description: Oversees treaty
between the United States and Canada regarding operation of
hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin.; Frequency:
[Empty].
Group: Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board; Description: A regional
board to evaluate project funding.; Frequency: [Empty].
Group: Mid-Columbia Coordinating Committee; Description: Coordinates
mitigation efforts and designs fish passage facilities.; Frequency:
[Empty].
Group: Oregon Water Trust Board; Description: Purchases water rights
and converts them to in-stream flows.; Frequency: Quarterly.
Group: Pacific Fishery Management Council; Description: Exercises
authority over the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean off the California,
Oregon, and Washington coasts under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.; Frequency: [Empty].
Description: Group : Salmon Technical Team. Analyzes salmon stock
status and impacts of fishery options.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Group: Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee; Description:
Develops research priorities; technical, diagnostic, prophylactic, and
therapeutic procedures; fish cultural practices; and practical fishery
management policies to prevent the introduction and spread of diseased
fish and pathogens, to minimize the impact of diseases, and promote the
production of healthy fish.; Frequency: Semiannually.
Group: Pacific Salmon Commission; Description: Provides the United
States and Canada with regulatory advice and recommendations. Addresses
international aspects, including harvest. Established by treaty in
1985.; Frequency: Four times per year.
Description: Group : Chum Technical Committee. Evaluates management
actions, the status of salmon stocks, and the progress of rebuilding
programs required under treaty.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Coho Technical Committee. Evaluates management
actions, status of salmon stocks, and the progress of rebuilding
programs required under treaty.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Joint Chinook Technical Committee. Evaluates
management actions, status of salmon stocks, and the progress of
rebuilding programs required under treaty.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Southern Panel. Makes recommendations to the
Pacific Salmon Commission.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Group: Salmon Memorandum of Understanding; Description: Coordinates ESA
and Clean Water Act requirements.; Frequency: As necessary.
Group: Streamlining Consultation Teams; Description: Includes BLM, the
Forest Service, NMFS, FWS. Reviews proposed projects to determine if
analyses required under the Endangered Species Act are complete.
Disagreements are referred to a manager-level team for resolution.;
Frequency: [Empty].
Group: Technical Working Groups in Sub-Basin; Description: Coordinates
projects developed by various fish and natural resources managers.;
Frequency: [Empty].
Group: Transboundary Gas Group; Description: Addresses international
water quality issues.; Frequency: Quarterly.
Group: Various Watershed and State Level Efforts; Description: Federal
agencies provide planning assistance, technical expertise, or otherwise
serve on numerous watershed councils or similar locally based
organizations. Federal agencies also coordinate their actions with the
appropriate state agencies. These groups are too numerous to list
separately, but several examples are included below:; Frequency:
[Empty].
Description: Group : Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. State
effort to restore and protect salmon and watersheds through local,
voluntary, and cooperative efforts.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
Description: Group : Salmon Recovery Funding Board. State of Washington
effort to select restoration projects for funding.; Frequency: Group :
[Empty].
Description: Group : Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. Develops
recovery projects and submits them to the Salmon Recovery Funding
Board.; Frequency: Group : [Empty].
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Agency Expenditures:
During fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996, the 11 federal agencies
estimated they expended almost $1.8 billion (unadjusted for inflation)
in federal funds and Bonneville ratepayer revenues to recover salmon
and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. These agencies also estimate
they expended another almost $1.5 billion (in 2001 dollars) from fiscal
year 1997 through fiscal 2001. The $1.5 billion consists of $968.0
million expended directly by federal agencies and $537.2 million that
the federal agencies received and then provided to nonfederal agencies,
such as the states and Indian tribes. The $968.0 million was expended
on projects, research studies, monitoring actions, Endangered Species
Act consultations, non-ESA consultations on salmon and steelhead
issues, litigation involving salmon and steelhead issues, and program
administration costs.
In addition to the $1.5 billion expended by federal agencies or
provided by federal agencies to nonfederal agencies for specific salmon
and steelhead recovery actions, federal agencies also estimated that
they expended
$302 million (in 2001 dollars) in the last 5 fiscal years on changes to
mission-related projects that benefited, but were not specifically
directed at, salmon or steelhead, such as road improvements that reduce
erosion.
For the period covering fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001, each
agency‘s expenditures follow. The agencies are listed in alphabetical
order.
Army Corps of Engineers:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated it expended about
$769 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through
fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon
and steelhead. The Corps estimated it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, approximately $590 million (in 2001 constant
dollars) specifically for salmon and steelhead recovery efforts, as
shown in table 8. Of the $590 million, more than $430 million was
expended on such projects as construction of juvenile fish bypass
facilities, the operation and maintenance of juvenile and adult passage
facilities and fish--hauling actions, and the development and
installation of fish screens to steer juvenile fish away from the
turbines at Bonneville and John Day dams.
Table 8: Army Corps of Engineers‘ Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $91,783; 1998: $95,523; 1999: $84,999;
2000: $68,711; 2001: $90,674; Total: $431,690.
Research expenditures; 1997: 21,254; 1998: 34,223; 1999: 22,646; 2000:
33,112; 2001: 36,889; Total: 148,124.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 5; 1998: 5; 1999: 626; 2000: 840; 2001:
190; Total: 1,666.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 164; 1998: 218; 1999: 258; 2000:
342; 2001: 342; Total: 1,324.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 97; 1998: 109; 1999: 204;
2000: 236; 2001: 219; Total: 865.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 107; 1998: 105; 1999: 107; 2000: 108; 2001: 110;
Total: 537.
Administration[D]; 1997: 1,206; 1998: 1,286; 1999: 978; 2000: 1,021;
2001: 1,010; Total: 5,501.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 114,616; 1998:
131,469; 1999: 109,818; 2000: 104,370; 2001: 129,434; Total: 589,707.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 1,072; 1998:
1,086; 1999: 2,721; 2000: 2,206; 2001: 1,500; Total: 8,585.
Total expenditures; 1997: $115,688; 1998: $132,555; 1999: $112,539;
2000: $106,576; 2001: $130,934; Total: $598,292.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation, and restoration of salmon
and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts, including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data. :
[End of table]
The Corps also expended over $8.6 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not
specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead. The Corps did not report
providing nonfederal entities with any funds.
Bonneville Power Administration:
The Bonneville Power Administration estimated that it expended over
$487 million (in unadjusted dollars) in power receipts during fiscal
year 1982 through fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to
benefit salmon and steelhead. Bonneville estimated that it expended,
for fiscal year 1997 through 2001, over $26 million (in 2001 constant
dollars) specifically for salmon and steelhead restoration efforts, as
shown in
table 9. Of the $26 million, almost $22 million was for contract
administration actions. Because Bonneville provides other entities with
power receipts for projects, research, and monitoring, it has no
expenditures in these categories.
Table 9: Bonneville Power Administration‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $0; 1998: $0; 1999: $0; 2000: $0; 2001: $0;
Total: $0.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 46; 1998: 48; 1999: 49; 2000: 49;
2001: 50; Total: 242.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 418; 1998: 429; 1999: 437;
2000: 441; 2001: 450; Total: 2,175.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 316; 1998: 402; 1999: 378; 2000: 370; 2001: 340;
Total: 1,806.
Administration[D]; 1997: 4,753; 1998: 4,034; 1999: 4,744; 2000: 3,647;
2001: 4,604; Total: 21,782.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 5,533; 1998:
4,913; 1999: 5,608; 2000: 4,507; 2001: 5,444; Total: 26,005.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 62,228; 1998: 81,814;
1999: 78,668; 2000: 68,419; 2001: 87,563; Total: 378,692.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999:
0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Total expenditures; 1997: $67,761; 1998: $86,727; 1999: $84,276; 2000:
$72,926; 2001: $93,007; Total: $404,697.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
The costs shown above include the direct program costs that Bonneville
itself has expended on salmon-and steelhead-related activities. In
addition to their direct program costs, however, Bonneville uses
ratepayer revenues to (1) reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the
hydroelectric share of Corps, BOR, and Fish and Wildlife operation and
maintenance costs and other noncapital expenditures for fish and
wildlife and (2) fund the hydroelectric share of capital investment
costs of the Corps‘ and BOR‘s fish and wildlife projects. Bonneville
estimates that its operation and maintenance reimbursements from fiscal
year 1997 through fiscal 2001 were $215.1 million and its funding of
capital investment for the same time period were $453.9 million. These
costs have been included in the totals of the agencies that originally
expended them.
Bonneville officials indicated that they have also incurred significant
nonspecific salmon and steelhead recovery costs. Examples it cited of
nonspecific salmon and steelhead costs included a portion of its
electricity rate justification case that includes fish protection and
programmatic National Environmental Policy Act documents for
watersheds. While Bonneville officials stated that these costs are
quite extensive, they did not furnish us with any estimates.
Finally, Bonneville estimated that it provided state, tribal, and
private entities with approximately $379 million (adjusted to 2001
dollars) from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001. The states, tribes,
and other entities used these funds for many actions, including habitat
restoration and support of the Northwest Power Planning Council‘s fish
and wildlife program.
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) estimated that it expended more than
$41 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through
fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon
and steelhead. BIA estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, over $360,000 (in 2001 constant dollars)
specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in
table 10. Of the $360,000, more than $300,000 was expended on
consultation actions, such as attending meetings, other coordination
actions, and contract administration. Because BIA provides other
entities with funds for projects, research, and monitoring, it did not
report any expenditures in these categories.
Table 10: Bureau of Indian Affairs‘ Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $0; 1998: $0; 1999: $0; 2000: $0; 2001: $0;
Total: $0.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 2; 1998: 13; 1999: 13; 2000: 12;
2001: 12; Total: 52.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 32; 1998: 32; 1999: 31; 2000:
30; 2001: 30; Total: 155.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 25; 1998: 25; 1999: 24; 2000: 24; 2001: 57;
Total: 155.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 59; 1998: 70;
1999: 68; 2000: 66; 2001: 99; Total: 362.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 5,744; 1998: 5,674; 1999:
6,053; 2000: 5,918; 2001: 6,263; Total: 29,652.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 5; 1998: 5; 1999:
5; 2000: 5; 2001: 5; Total: 25.
Total expenditures; 1997: $5,808; 1998: $5,749; 1999: $6,126; 2000:
$5,989; 2001: $6,367; Total: $30,039.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
BIA estimated it provided tribal organizations and individual tribes,
including the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, the Nez Perce
Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Yakama
Indian Nation, the Colville Tribe, the Fort Hall Shoshone, the Upper
Columbia United Tribes, and the Spokane Tribe, with over $29 million
(adjusted to 2001 dollars) during fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001.
BIA also expended more than $25,000 (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not
specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead.
Bureau of Land Management:
The Bureau of Land Management estimated it expended that more than $22
million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal
1996, on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon and
steelhead. BLM estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal 2001, approximately $12 million (in 2001 constant dollars)
specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in
table 12. Of the
$12 million, more than $7.5 million was expended on such projects as
the Fishermen‘s Bend, Eaton, and Sandy River Corridor land purchases;
Hill‘s Creek road decommissioning and culvert removal; Lemhi riparian
habitat conservation, and the Hayden Creek road sediment reduction
project and other monitoring activities.
Table 11: Bureau of Land Management‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $865; 1998: $891; 1999: $914; 2000: $947;
2001: $1,244; Total: $4,861.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 42; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 40;
Total: 82.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 601; 1998: 619; 1999: 634; 2000: 400;
2001: 583; Total: 2,837.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 270; 1998: 381; 1999: 416; 2000:
340; 2001: 276; Total: 1,683.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 32; 1998: 48; 1999: 65; 2000:
276; 2001: 260; Total: 681.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 25; Total: 25.
Administration[D]; 1997: 241; 1998: 280; 1999: 286; 2000: 358; 2001:
422; Total: 1,587.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 2,009; 1998:
2,261; 1999: 2,315; 2000: 2,321; 2001: 2,850; Total: 11,756.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 34; 1998: 0; 1999: 52;
2000: 0; 2001: 50; Total: 136.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 2,576; 1998:
2,930; 1999: 2,804; 2000: 2,717; 2001: 3,330; Total: 14,357.
Total expenditures; 1997: $4,619; 1998: $5,191; 1999: $5,171; 2000:
$5,038; 2001: $6,230; Total: $26,249.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
BLM also expended over $14 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not
specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead. BLM provided nonfederal
entities with $136,000.
Bureau of Reclamation:
The Bureau of Reclamation estimated that it expended over $144 million
(in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996 on
actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon and steelhead.
BOR estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal
2001, almost $62 million (in 2001 constant dollars) specifically for
salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in table 12. Of the $62
million, more than $58 million was expended on Columbia and Snake River
salmon-and steelhead-recovery projects and on several segments of the
Yakima River Basin water enhancement project--including its tributary
program, water acquisition program, water augmentation program, and
habitat acquisition program. Of the $58 million, approximately $27
million was expended on operations and maintenance of fish screen
facilities in the Yakima River Basin.
Table 12: Bureau of Reclamation‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $15,345; 1998: $12,246; 1999: $9,933; 2000:
$13,361; 2001: $7,809; Total: $58,694.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 96; 1998: 529; 1999: 617; 2000:
946; 2001: 589; Total: 2,777.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 24; 2000:
128; 2001: 44; Total: 196.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 41; 1998: 12; 1999: 3; 2000: 139; 2001: 23; Total:
218.
Administration[D]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total:
0.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 15,482; 1998:
12,787; 1999: 10,577; 2000: 14,574; 2001: 8,465; Total: 61,885.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon-and steelhead-expenditures; 1997: 955; 1998: 2,137;
1999: 2,411; 2000: 2,165; 2001: 2,551; Total: 10,219.
Total expenditures; 1997: $16,437; 1998: $14,924; 1999: $12,988; 2000:
$16,739; 2001: $11,016; Total: $72,104.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
BOR also expended over $10 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not
specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead. BOR did not report
providing nonfederal entities with any funds.
Environmental Protection Agency:
The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that it expended no funds
from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia
River Basin to benefit salmon and steelhead. EPA estimated that it
expended, for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001, $67,000 (in 2001
constant dollars) specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery
efforts, as shown in table 13. Of the $67,000, $47,000 was expended on
the salaries of those participating in ESA consultation actions and the
remainder on other meeting and coordination actions. EPA estimated that
it had no expenditures for projects, research, or monitoring.
Table 13: Environmental Protection Agency‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $0; 1998: $0; 1999: $0; 2000: $0; 2001: $0;
Total: $0.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 10; 1998: 10; 1999: 9; 2000: 9;
2001: 9; Total: 47.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 0; 1998: 5; 1999: 5; 2000: 5;
2001: 5; Total: 20.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total:
0.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 10; 1998: 15;
1999: 14; 2000: 14; 2001: 14; Total: 67.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999:
0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Total expenditures; 1997: $10; 1998: $15; 1999: $14; 2000: $14; 2001:
$14; Total: $67.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
EPA identified no funds that it provided nonfederal entities with nor
did it identify any funds expended on changes to mission-related
projects that benefited, but were not specifically directed at, salmon
or steelhead.
Fish and Wildlife Service:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it expended over
$182 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through
fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon
and steelhead. FWS estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, almost $97 million (in 2001 constant dollars)
specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in
table 14. Of the
$97 million, more than $78 million was expended on such projects as the
Abernathy Fish Technology Center, the Kooskia National Fish Hatchery,
the Little White Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery, the Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan, the Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center,
and the Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resources Office.
Table 14: Fish and Wildlife Service‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $15,747; 1998: $14,652; 1999: $14,775;
2000: $15,103; 2001: $17,960; Total: $78,237.
Research expenditures; 1997: 479; 1998: 515; 1999: 549; 2000: 528;
2001: 784; Total: 2,855.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 1,121; 1998: 1,580; 1999: 1,779; 2000:
1,841; 2001: 2,337; Total: 8,658.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 0; Total: 0.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 489; 1998: 517; 1999: 534;
2000: 468; 2001: 462; Total: 2,470.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 689; 1998: 794; 1999: 844; 2000: 1,134; 2001:
1,050; Total: 4,511.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 18,525; 1998:
18,058; 1999: 18,481; 2000: 19,074; 2001: 22,593; Total: 96,731.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 375; 1998: 1,244; 1999:
22,944; 2000: 9,679; 2001: 13,167; Total: 47,409.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 485; 1998: 958;
1999: 753; 2000: 1,010; 2001: 1,239; Total: 4,445.
Total expenditures; 1997: $19,385; 1998: $20,260; 1999: $42,178; 2000:
$29,763; 2001: $36,999; Total: $148,585.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
FWS also estimated it provided state and tribal entities with over
$47 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) from fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal 2001. The states and tribal entities used these funds for
hatchery improvement studies, estuary research initiatives, and salmon
reproductive biological research. Finally, FWS expended another $4.4
million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on changes to mission-related
projects that benefited, but were not specifically directed at, salmon
or steelhead.
Forest Service:
The U.S. Forest Service estimated that it expended about $118 million
(in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through fiscal 1996 on
actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon and steelhead.
The Forest Service estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, almost $106 million (in 2001 constant dollars)
specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in
table 15. Of the $106 million, more than $87 million was expended on
such projects as watershed improvements, flood area restoration,
burned-area emergency restoration, and land acquisition.
Table 15: Forest Service‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead Expenditures
in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $21,320; 1998: $16,511; 1999: $14,819;
2000: $16,020; 2001: $18,400; Total: $87,070.
Research expenditures; 1997: 257; 1998: 233; 1999: 340; 2000: 457;
2001: 300; Total: 1,587.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 1,178; 1998: 847; 1999: 730; 2000: 816;
2001: 900; Total: 4,471.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 2,464; 1998: 2,434; 1999: 2,609;
2000: 2,551; 2001: 2,500; Total: 12,558.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 0; Total: 0.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total:
0.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 25,219; 1998:
20,025; 1999: 18,498; 2000: 19,844; 2001: 22,100; Total: 105,686.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 27,855; 1998:
24,132; 1999: 19,829; 2000: 26,020; 2001: 33,500; Total: 131,336.
Total expenditures; 1997: $53,074; 1998: $44,157; 1999: $38,327; 2000:
$45,864; 2001: $55,600; Total: $237,022.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
The Forest Service also expended more than $131 million (adjusted to
2001 dollars) on changes to mission--related projects that benefited,
but were not specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead. The Forest
Service did not report providing nonfederal entities with any funds.
National Marine Fisheries Service:
The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that it expended about
$21 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through
fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon
and steelhead. NMFS estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, approximately $49 million (in 2001 constant
dollars) specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as
shown in table 16. Of this amount, almost $34 million was expended on
consultation actions under the Endangered Species Act and for such
research projects as the effects of hatchery operations on small wild
salmon populations.
Table 16: National Marine Fisheries Service‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $600; 1998: $766; 1999: $1,002; 2000:
$1,261; 2001: $1,434; Total: $5,063.
Research expenditures; 1997: 1,091; 1998: 2,748; 1999: 2,054; 2000:
3,213; 2001: 4,292; Total: 13,398.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 41; 2001: 94;
Total: 135.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 3,180; 1998: 3,515; 1999: 4,485;
2000: 4,641; 2001: 4,772; Total: 20,593.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 0; 1998: 159; 1999: 96; 2000:
104; 2001: 147; Total: 506.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 126; 1998: 196; 1999: 219; 2000: 241; 2001: 239;
Total: 1,021.
Administration[D]; 1997: 806; 1998: 1,314; 1999: 1,380; 2000: 2,155;
2001: 2,172; Total: 7,827.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 5,803; 1998:
8,698; 1999: 9,236; 2000: 11,656; 2001: 13,150; Total: 48,543.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 14,715; 1998: 19,390;
1999: 17,068; 2000: 14,208; 2001: 15,929; Total: 81,310.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead; expenditures; 1997: 894; 1998: 995;
1999: 2,279; 2000: 1,089; 2001: 1,142; Total: 6,399.
Total expenditures; 1997: $21,412; 1998: $29,083; 1999: $28,583; 2000:
$26,953; 2001: $30,221; Total: $136,252.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
NMFS estimated it also provided state and tribal groups with over
$81 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) from fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal 2001. The states and tribal groups used these funds for many
actions, including hatchery operations to mitigate the negative impacts
on fish caused by the dams. Finally, NMFS expended another $6 million
(adjusted to 2001 dollars) on changes to mission-related projects that
benefited, but were not specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead.
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) estimated that it
expended more than $3.6 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal
year 1982 through fiscal 1996, on actions in the Columbia River Basin
to benefit salmon and steelhead. NRCS estimated that it expended, for
fiscal year 1997 through fiscal 2001, approximately $8 million (in 2001
constant dollars) specifically for salmon and steelhead recovery
efforts, as shown in table 17. Of the $8 million, almost $7 million was
expended on such projects as salmon-recovery initiatives in the states
of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Conservation Technical Assistance to
various soil conservation districts for salmon and steelhead recovery.
NRCS estimated that it had no expenditures for research and monitoring.
Table 17: Natural Resources Conservation Service‘s Estimated Salmon and
Steelhead Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $1,714; 1998: $945; 1999: $1,117; 2000:
$1,410; 2001: $1,384; Total: $6,570.
Research expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 48; 1998: 58; 1999: 72; 2000: 62;
2001: 93; Total: 333.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 150; 1998: 116; 1999: 170;
2000: 181; 2001: 220; Total: 837.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total:
0.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 1,912; 1998:
1,119; 1999: 1,359; 2000: 1,653; 2001: 1,697; Total: 7,740.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 24,916; 1998:
28,006; 1999: 21,975; 2000: 26,503; 2001: 22,197; Total: 123,597.
Total expenditures; 1997: $26,828; 1998: $29,125; 1999: $23,334; 2000:
$28,156; 2001: $23,894; Total: $131,337.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data.
[End of table]
NRCS also expended more than $123 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited fish but were not
specifically directed at salmon or steelhead. NRCS officials stated
that these expenditures assisted farmers, ranchers, and other private
landowners to manage their natural resources in a sustainable manner
without degradation while complying with federal, state, and local
natural resources laws. Most of these expenditures provided cost-share
funds to private landowners for installing and managing conservation
practices through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wetland
Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and Small
Watershed Program. A portion of these funds was used by the agency to
provide landowners with technical assistance to plan and implement
these conservation programs.
U.S. Geological Survey:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that it expended more than
$12 million (in unadjusted dollars) from fiscal year 1982 through
fiscal 1996 on actions in the Columbia River Basin to benefit salmon
and steelhead. USGS estimated that it expended, for fiscal year 1997
through fiscal 2001, over $19.5 million (in 2001 constant dollars)
specifically for salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts, as shown in
table 18. Of the $19.5 million, more than $16 million was expended on
such research projects as the genetic effects of hatchery fish
introduction on the productivity of naturally spawning salmon, the
significance of other salmon and steelhead predators, and the
development of prey protection measures for juvenile salmon and
steelhead in Columbia and Snake rivers reservoirs, and the behavior and
survival of hatchery fall Chinook salmon after being released into the
Snake River. Because USGS‘s Western Fisheries Research Center is
primarily a research facility, it did not report any project or
monitoring expenditures.
Table 18: U.S. Geological Survey‘s Estimated Salmon and Steelhead
Expenditures in the Columbia River Basin, Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Dollars in thousands.
Project expenditures; 1997: $0; 1998: $0; 1999: $0; 2000: $0; 2001: $0;
Total: $0.
Research expenditures; 1997: 4,006; 1998: 3,684; 1999: 2,930; 2000:
2,719; 2001: 3,003; Total: 16,342.
Monitoring expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0;
Total: 0.
ESA consultation expenditures; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 15; Total: 15.
Other consultation expenditures[B]; 1997: 0; 1998: 29; 1999: 30; 2000:
31; 2001: 41; Total: 131.
Litigation[C]; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Administration[D]; 1997: 571; 1998: 585; 1999: 598; 2000: 609; 2001:
654; Total: 3,017.
Total salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures; 1997: 4,577; 1998:
4,298; 1999: 3,558; 2000: 3,359; 2001: 3,713; Total: 19,505.
Funds provided to nonfederal entities; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000:
0; 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Nonspecific salmon and steelhead expenditures; 1997: 432; 1998: 604;
1999: 608; 2000: 724; 2001: 904; Total: 3,272.
Total expenditures; 1997: $5,009; 1998: $4,902; 1999: $4,166; 2000:
$4,083; 2001: $4,617; Total: $22,777.
Note: Dollars adjusted to 2001 dollars.
[A] Salmon-and steelhead-specific expenditures include those funds used
specifically for the recovery, mitigation and restoration of salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
[B] Other consultation expenditures include funds spent to attend
meetings and to perform coordination actions associated with salmon and
steelhead recovery, mitigation, and restoration in the Columbia River
Basin.
[C] Litigation expenditures include funds used to support active or
pending lawsuits but do not include funds expended by the agency‘s
Office of General Counsel.
[D] Administration expenditures include funds spent to support all the
salmon-and steelhead-specific efforts including funds spent for
contract administration and project management. Some agencies have
incorporated these funds into their project costs because they could
not be separated.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency-supplied data. :
[End of table]
USGS also expended more than $3.3 million (adjusted to 2001 dollars) on
changes to mission-related projects that benefited, but were not
specifically directed at, salmon or steelhead. USGS did not report
providing nonfederal entities with any funds.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Agency Actions Benefiting Salmon and Steelhead
Populations:
Each of the 11 federal agencies with significant responsibilities for
salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia River Basin has taken
many actions in the past 5 years to fulfill those responsibilities.
Some actions were undertaken specifically to benefit fish while others
were undertaken in pursuit of other agency mandates or programs. In
both instances, a direct correlation between actions taken and the
number of fish returning is not always clear and often takes years to
materialize. Below, in alphabetical order, are examples of actions
taken by each agency.
Army Corps of Engineers:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates numerous hydroelectric dams
in the Columbia River Basin. Each dam is authorized for specific
purposes, such as flood control, navigation, power production, water
supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The following examples
illustrate actions the agency has taken to meet its obligations and/or
to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
* Consulted with NMFS and FWS on the operation of FCRPS and other
projects in the Columbia River Basin; developed in conjunction with the
Federal Caucus, the All-H Strategy for restoring threatened and
endangered salmon and steelhead; in conjunction with Bonneville and
BOR, prepared 1-year and 5-year plans to implement the biological
opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System.
* Constructed juvenile bypass systems at seven of the eight mainstem
dams to improve juvenile fish guidance and survival rates. For example,
the juvenile bypass system at Bonneville Dam‘s second powerhouse was
expected to increase juvenile survival by 6 to 13 percent, depending on
the species.
* Redesigned and/or rehabilitated fish ladders to improve passage
efficiency.
* Constructed spillway deflectors at the John Day and Ice Harbor dams
to allow higher spill flows and increase juvenile passage.
* Constructed new facilities and modified operations to enhance
juvenile fish transportation. For example, the Corps improved or
replaced the collecting and holding facilities at the four dams that
collect juvenile fish, purchased two additional barges to transport
juvenile fish, modified existing barges to provide better fish release
systems, and extended the transport season on the Snake River.
* Rehabilitated turbines at Bonneville Dam‘s first powerhouse,
resulting in a 2 percent increase in juvenile fish survival.
* Constructed a monitoring facility at John Day Dam to obtain data on
juvenile passage and other research needs.
* Installed a prototype surface bypass system at Lower Granite Dam and
evaluated the effects of various configurations of behavioral guidance
structures.
* Conducted a study to identify the characteristics of dissolved gases
resulting from spills at Columbia River projects and to identify and
evaluate alternatives for spillway modifications to reduce dissolved
gas production to benefit fish passage while meeting water quality
standards.
* Conducted juvenile and adult passage evaluation studies at eight dams
on the Columbia and Snake rivers to help determine improvements in
facilities and operations that may be necessary to increase spawning
success.
Bonneville Power Administration:
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
directs the Bonneville Power Administration to use its funding
authorities to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife
affected by the construction and operation of the Federal Columbia
River Power System. Primarily, Bonneville provides other agencies with
funding to undertake actions to meet this goal. In doing so, Bonneville
is to act consistently with the Northwest Power Planning Council‘s fish
and wildlife program while ensuring an adequate, economical, and
reliable power supply. Examples of the actions that Bonneville has
taken to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin
include the following:
* Provided federal, state, tribal and other entities with funding to
protect and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydropower
development in the Columbia River Basin. Worked with other federal
agencies to protect and rebuild species listed under the Endangered
Species Act.
* In conjunction with the Federal Caucus, developed the All-H strategy
for restoring threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia River Basin.
* Consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on the operation of the Federal Columbia
River Power System in the Columbia River Basin.
* In conjunction with the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation,
prepared a 1-and 5-year plan to implement the biological opinion on the
Federal Columbia River Power System.
* Made fish protection the priority of FCRPS operations (except under
flood control and power emergencies).
* Provided, on average, 7.2 million acre feet (50-water-year average)
of flow augmentation annually (this equates to approximately 1.5 times
the storage capacity of Grand Coulee Dam).
* Worked with the Corps and BOR to increase fish passage survival at
dams, on average, by 5 percent or more at each dam.
* Funded predator control throughout FCRPS and the estuary to save
approximately 7 million to 12 million juvenile salmon and steelhead per
year. This equates to an approximate 5 to 10 percent increase in
juvenile fish survival.
* Achieved, together with the Corps and BOR, on average, an in-river
survival of juveniles through FCRPS that is now higher than ever
measured.
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a trustee of fishing rights reserved by
certain tribes in their treaties with the United States. As a party to
the U.S. v. Oregon case, BIA plays a role in protecting, rebuilding,
and enhancing upper Columbia River fish runs while providing harvests
for both treaty Indian and non-Indian fisheries. The following examples
illustrate actions the agency has taken to meet its obligations and/or
to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin:
* Monitored actions of the Federal Caucus and others that affect tribal
trust resources. Communicated its concerns regarding the All-H Strategy
and other plans, including italics harvest negotiations and Mid-
Columbia Habitat Conservation Plans.
* Provided the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission with funding
to, among other things, implement its recovery plan, conduct fishery
enforcement, develop an Energy Vision report, implement certain aspects
of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and provide input on federal actions
affecting salmon recovery, including the Bonneville Power
Administration‘s rate case.
* Provided individual tribes, including the Umatilla Tribe, the Yakama
Indian Nation, the Warm Springs Tribe, the Nez Perce Tribe, the
Colville Tribe, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, with funding and
actions performed by the tribes with these funds include the
construction of hatchery and acclimation facilities and stream
restoration.
Bureau of Land Management:
The Bureau of Land Management manages lands for multiple uses,
including livestock grazing, recreation, mineral production, timber,
and fish and wildlife. The following examples illustrate actions the
agency has taken to meet its obligations and/or to benefit salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia River Basin:
* Acquired land for conservation purposes, including land at
Fisherman‘s Bend and on the Sandy River corridor.
* Performed road and trail maintenance, decommissioned roads, conducted
culvert inventories, and replaced culverts to reduce erosion that can
run off into streams.
* Performed habitat restoration and protection actions. Specific
actions include planting 50 acres of riparian habitat on the lower
Grande Ronde River, constructing 1 mile of cattle fencing and
completing 3 acres of planting in the Grande Ronde Basin, improving in-
stream habitat through the placement of boulders and large woody
debris, rehabilitating areas burned by fire to reduce sedimentation,
and reducing fuel loads to reduce the risk of future fires.
* Conducted several studies, including water quality, temperature, and
flow monitoring on numerous streams in the basin; juvenile salmon and
steelhead abundance and run timing in the Clackamas River; the effects
of boulder placement on fish in streams in southwest Oregon; the
effects of watershed disturbances on fish habitat; and an inventory of
stream habitat.
* Prepared biological assessments to meet ESA consultation
requirements.
* Coordinated with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission during the
relicensing of the Hells Canyon and Pelton/Round Butte projects.
* Increased staff of fishery biologists to address fish issues of land
management actions.
* Provided the federal liaison and board member for the Willamette
River Restoration Initiative, a pilot project under the Oregon State
Salmon and Watershed Recovery Plan.
* Participates in the Interagency Implementation Team to implement the
biological opinions for a federal land management conservation strategy
for salmon and steelhead, commonly referred to as PACFISH.
* Participates in the Federal Caucus.
* Participates with private landowners, watershed councils, Native
American tribes, and other partners in the development and
implementation of restoration plans and projects.
Bureau of Reclamation:
The Bureau of Reclamation operates numerous hydroelectric dams in the
Columbia River Basin. Each dam may be authorized for specific purposes,
including irrigation, power production, and recreation. The following
examples illustrate actions the agency has taken to meet its
obligations and/or to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia
River Basin:
* Consulted with NMFS on the operation and maintenance of the Federal
Columbia River Power System and 19 other BOR projects in the Columbia
River Basin. In conjunction with requirements under the biological
opinion, prepared and submitted annual and 5-year plans to NMFS and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
* Initiated the implementation on 61 of the 199 reasonable and prudent
alternatives included in the biological opinion for the Federal
Columbia River Power System that apply to BOR, including dam
operations; water conservation; water quality; hatchery operations;
tributary habitat improvements; and research, monitoring, and
evaluation.
* Developed, in conjunction with the Federal Caucus, the All-H Strategy
for restoring threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead.
* Worked with the Idaho legislature and local water masters in Idaho
and Oregon to meet flow augmentation standards required by the 1995
biological opinion.
* Completed nine consultations for biological opinions and other
purposes.
* Prepared Tributary Enhancement Water Conservation Demonstration
Project reports for the Lemhi River Basin in Idaho and the Wallowa and
John Day River basins in Oregon.
* Conducted studies on dissolved gas abatement and management at Grand
Coulee Dam.
* Designed and built fish screens and fish passage facilities for
irrigation diversions on authorized BOR projects.
* Provided federal and state agencies, tribes, irrigation districts,
and watershed councils with technical assistance to replace or improve
fish screens and fish ladders at diversions in the Lemhi River Basin in
Idaho; in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Wallowa, and Willamette
River basins in Oregon; and in the mid-Columbia, Okanogan, and Yakima
basins in Washington.
* Initiated the Water Conservation Field Services Program to encourage
the efficient use and conservation of water at federal reclamation
projects. This program provides water districts and water users with
technical and financial assistance and supports watershed partnerships
to improve fish and wildlife habitat.
* Funded and worked with numerous Indian tribes, including the Nez
Perce, Shoshone Bannock, Umatilla, Yakama, Warm Springs, Colville,
Nisqually, Elwha, and Colville, to improve migration, water quality,
and spawning and rearing habitat in support of treaty obligations.
Environmental Protection Agency:
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is
authorized to establish water quality standards and to issue permits
for the discharge of pollutants from a point source to navigable
waters. The act also authorizes EPA to approve the total maximum daily
load standards established by states. These standards determine the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still
meet water quality standards for specified uses, including for fish and
wildlife. The agency participated in the following actions to meet its
obligations and/or to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia
River Basin:
* Participated in developing the All-H Strategy to ensure that
Endangered Species Act actions would be coordinated with ongoing and
future water quality efforts in the Columbia River Basin.
* Negotiated an agreement with other federal agencies and the Council
on Environmental Quality for the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power
System‘s biological opinion to efficiently integrate ESA and Clean
Water Act implementation efforts.
* Worked closely with the Federal Caucus and the Federal Regional
Executive Forums to provide a unified federal voice for Columbia River
decisions.
* Developed a one-dimensional temperature model for the mainstem
Columbia and Snake rivers that will provide a critical foundation for
future implementation decisions.
* Using this model, EPA provided regional Columbia River managers with
scientific and technical analysis to assist in critical decisions
during the 2001 power emergency.
Fish and Wildlife Service:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates and/or funds fish
hatcheries. Funds for hatchery operations provided under the Mitchell
Act are intended to mitigate for fish affected by the construction and
operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System. FWS also conducts
applied research and has responsibilities for other species under the
ESA that require coordination with the National Marine Fisheries
Service. The following examples illustrate actions the agency has taken
to meet its obligations and/or to benefit salmon and steelhead in the
Columbia River Basin:
* Operated 12 National Fish Hatcheries and funded an additional 8 state
hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin that produced over 32 million
salmon and steelhead in fiscal year 2001. This represented about 50
percent of all salmon and steelhead released from hatcheries above
Bonneville Dam.
* Helped to fund the compilation of research data on the status of
Caspian Terns at known sites throughout the Pacific Northwest. This
study will form a biological basis for future actions concerning
Caspian Terns and their predation of juvenile salmon and steelhead.
* Developed a new technique to detect the presence of multiple fish
pathogens from a single tissue sample, which will save considerable
time and money in testing for fish diseases.
* As a part of the National Wild Fish Health Survey, surveyed wild
salmon and steelhead in the basin to ascertain pathogen levels for
disease.
* In conjunction with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, transferred
about 350,000 spring Chinook salmon from a hatchery to the Umatilla
River to increase local returns.
* Conducted spawning ground surveys and tracked the adult movement and
habitat use of fall Chinook and Chum salmon below Bonneville Dam. This
information was critical for determining dam operations during the 2001
drought.
* Initiated several fish-marking projects to support tribal efforts
targeted at reintroducing hatchery stocks in areas where native stocks
have been eliminated.
* Prepared and released a draft environmental impact statement on a
proposal to provide upstream and downstream passage to salmon and
steelhead in Icicle Creek.
* As part of the Washington State Ecosystem Conservation Program,
restored and protected 7 miles and 28 acres of riparian habitat,
restored 2 miles of in-stream habitat, removed eight barriers to fish
migration, and replaced eight culverts with bridges.
* Provided technical assistance on numerous Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission relicensing projects.
* As part of the Metro Greenspaces Program, completed eight
conservation and restoration projects including the following:
developing a strategic plan for a local land conservancy, enhancing 20
acres of riparian area, removing invasive species, and revegetating
over 14 acres of land above streams.
Forest Service:
The U.S. Forest Service manages lands for multiple purposes, including
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish
purposes. The following examples illustrate actions the agency has
taken to meet its obligations and/or to benefit salmon and steelhead in
the Columbia River Basin:
* Developed a comprehensive Aquatic Conservation Strategy, a foundation
for salmon and watershed restoration in 17 Columbia River Basin
national forests. The strategy addressed land allocations, management
direction, standards, guidelines, and monitoring designed to protect
and restore fish and other aquatic resources. Implementing the strategy
required close coordination with other federal agencies; tribal
governments; state and local agencies; and a variety of local watershed
councils, user groups, and conservation organizations.
* Improved more than 2,000 miles of stream banks and 9,000 acres of
riparian area by using various methods, such as planting and placing
logs in the streams to provide deeper pools.
* Decommissioned over 2,000 miles and stabilized 7,000 miles of road to
reduce sedimentation runoff into nearby streams.
* Improved passage at barrier culverts.
* Under the Pacific Northwest Streams Initiative, acquired more than 50
miles (38,000 acres) of critical stream and riparian habitat for listed
or at-risk fish stocks.
* Provided training sessions that are consistent with other federal,
state and local agencies on fish habitat and watershed inventory,
assessment, restoration, and monitoring methodologies and that are open
to other agencies and the public.
* Assisted in the formation of, and provided technical and operational
support for, watershed councils and groups in the states of Oregon and
Washington.
* Created, in cooperation with other community partners, a variety of
programs that study, inform, and monitor aquatic habitat, including
school programs, self-guided interpretive exhibits, festivals, family
fishing clinics, and technical assistance that reach over 100,000
people annually.
National Marine Fisheries Service:
Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service
is responsible for preparing a recovery plan and for consulting with
other agencies on whether their planned actions will jeopardize listed
salmon and steelhead populations. The following examples illustrate
actions the agency has taken to meet its obligations and/or to benefit
salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.
* Listed nine populations of salmon and steelhead under the ESA and,
pursuant to these and other listings, designated critical habitat for
19 populations and established a structure to conduct the recovery-
planning process.
* Issued a final biological opinion on the operation of the Federal
Columbia River Power System, the Corps‘ juvenile fish transportation
program, and 19 BOR projects.
* Issued or is developing biological opinions for (1) 15 categories of
permits issued by the Corps, (2) relicensing the Hells Canyon Complex
of nonfederal dams on the Snake River, (3) deepening the Columbia River
shipping channel, (4) numerous programmatic actions on several National
Forests and Bureau of Land Management districts, (5) hatchery
operations, and (6) tribal and sport harvest of Columbia River
steelhead.
* In conjunction with the Federal Caucus, developed the All-H Strategy
for restoring listed salmon and steelhead.
* Engaged in extensive public outreach actions including conducting 17
workshops on ESA attended by 1,039 individuals, participating in 15
public meetings in five states to obtain comments on salmon recovery,
and holding 18 hearings in four states to obtain comments on the draft
ESA rules.
* Helped develop Habitat Conservation Plans, including a plan for 1.7
million acres of private timberlands in Idaho, Montana, and Washington
and a plan for public utility districts‘ operation of several dams on
the Columbia River.
* Developed and tested an Internet-based system so applicants of the
Corps‘ permits can track their applications.
* Conducted studies and discussed management strategies with other
agencies on factors affecting salmon mortality, such as predation by
terns, seals, and sea lions; screening of water diversions; and the
effects of drought and energy shortages on recovery strategies.
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides individual
landowners with technical and financial assistance, conducts surveys,
and supports conservation-planning efforts. NRCS‘s assistance to
private landowners has resulted in the following actions being taken to
benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin in the past 5
years:
* Worked with 23,481 private individuals to develop resource management
plans for 4,806,614 acres.
* Assisted with implementing these plans on 2,278,856 acres.
* Worked with private individuals to:
* create or restore 10,566 acres of wetlands,
* treat 3,874,276 acres for erosion control,
* protect 327,902 feet of stream bank,
* create or improve 27,114 acres of riparian forest buffers,
* establish 45,732 acres of trees and shrubs,
* manage more effectively 1,237,384 acres for grazing,
* manage more effectively 1,075,351 acres for wildlife habitat, and:
* manage more effectively 186,868 acres of irrigated land.
U.S. Geological Survey:
The U.S. Geological Survey provides scientific information to assist
other agencies in fulfilling their requirements under several acts,
including the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act, Economy Act, Clean Water Act, Northwest Forest
Practices Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The following
examples illustrate actions the agency has taken to meet its
obligations and/or to benefit salmon and steelhead in the Columbia
River Basin:
* Sponsored and organized the 11TH Annual Smolt Workshop to share
information.
* Prepared an annual report quantifying smolt predation by Northern
Pikeminnows.
* Prepared an annual report comparing the experimental success of the
progenies of hatchery and wild salmon in natural and hatchery
environments.
* Prepared journal articles and reports on topics such as increased
mortality to juvenile salmon, dietary and consumption patterns for
juvenile salmon and steelhead, temperature-related movements of fall
Chinook for 1998-99, identification of rearing habitats, and heavy
metals present in foods of juvenile Chinook salmon and their potential
effects.
* Estimated systemwide effects of mortality from predation.
* Evaluated the large-scale predator removal project.
* Developed data sets describing hatchery-rearing conditions,
environmental factors, and migration performance for various
hatcheries.
* Developed methods to detect bacterial and viral diseases in juvenile
hatchery salmon.
* Issued a progress report on the use of estuarine habitats by juvenile
salmon.
* Developed nonintrusive genetic markers for recognizing gender and
stock in spring and fall-run Chinook.
* Conducted a week-long lecture and laboratory course for Department of
the Interior resource managers in fish virology.
* Prepared a handbook for fish hatchery managers on chemical
contaminants in hatchery food, and pathological symptoms.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at
Bonneville
and Lower Granite Dams, 1977 through 2001:
This appendix shows adult salmon and steelhead returns to the Columbia
River Basin for the past 25 years as counted at two dams. Bonneville
Dam is the first dam the adults must pass on the Columbia River, and
Lower Granite Dam is the last dam they must pass on the Snake River
before they can migrate into Idaho.
Table 19: Returning Adult Salmon and Steelhead Counted at Bonneville
and Lower Granite Dams, 1977 through 2001:
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
2001; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 1,243,132; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 634,088; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 1,877,220; [Empty];
Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower
Granite Dam: Year: 2001; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye
salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 195,612; Returning adult
salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam:
Steelhead: 262,558; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye
salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 458,170; Returning adult
salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam:
Sockeye[A]: 36.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
2000; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 580,903; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 275,273; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 856,176; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 2000; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 42,647; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
113,021; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 155,668; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
299.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1999; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 365,611; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 206,488; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 572,099; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1999; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 10,195; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
74,440; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 84,635; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 14.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1998; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 308,368; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 185,094; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 493,462; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1998; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 16,130; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
72,017; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 88,147; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 2.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1997; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 431,759; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 258,385; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 690,144; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1997; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 46,111; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
85,917; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 132,028; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
11.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1996; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 319,058; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 205,213; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 524,271; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1996; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 8,125; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
86,072; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 94,197; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 3.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1995; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 208,651; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 202,448; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 411,099; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1995; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 2,867; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
80,853; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 83,720; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 3.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1994; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 241,188; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 161,978; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 403,166; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1994; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 4,711; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
47,550; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 52,261; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 5.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1993; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 350,181; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 188,386; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 538,567; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1993; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 30,106; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
66,700; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 96,806; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 12.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1992; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 319,106; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 314,974; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 634,080; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1992; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 25,275; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
121,456; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 146,731; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
15.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1991; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 363,332; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 274,535; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 637,867; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1991; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 11,073; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
100,367; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 111,440; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
8.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1990; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 357,611; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 183,011; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 540,622; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1990; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 22,791; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
56,939; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 79,730; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 0.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1989; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 442,508; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 287,802; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 730,310; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1989; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 16,833; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
132,575; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 149,408; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
2.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1988; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 518,656; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 279,277; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 797,933; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1988; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 36,292; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
87,047; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 123,339; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
23.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1987; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 603,451; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 300,351; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 903,802; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1987; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 35,699; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
69,334; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 105,033; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
29.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1986; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 537,761; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 376,752; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 914,513; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1986; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 38,528; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
134,321; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 172,849; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
15.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1985; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 498,240; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 330,170; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 828,410; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1985; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 30,848; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
114,477; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 145,325; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
34.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1984; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 385,613; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 315,795; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 701,408; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1984; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 12,624; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
98,930; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 111,554; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
47.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1983; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 295,158; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 218,419; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 513,577; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1983; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 14,095; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
86,753; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 100,848; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]:
122.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1982; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 353,946; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 157,640; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 511,586; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1982; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 17,543; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
72,840; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 90,383; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 211.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1981; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 310,271; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 159,270; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 469,541; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1981; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 16,997; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
40,234; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 57,231; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 218.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1980; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 279,626; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 129,254; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 408,880; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1980; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 8,728; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
40,454; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 49,182; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 96.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1979; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 318,290; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 114,010; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 432,300; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1979; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 10,147; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
25,046; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 35,193; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 25.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1978; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 403,349; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 104,431; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 507,780; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1978; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 53,278; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
29,960; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 83,238; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 123.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
1977; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 400,896; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 193,437; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 594,333; [Empty]; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Year: 1977; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon
counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 45,247; Returning adult salmon,
steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Steelhead:
51,076; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted
at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 96,323; Returning adult salmon, steelhead,
and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 458.
Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Year:
Total; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam:
Salmon: 10,436,665; Returning adult salmon and steelhead counted at
Bonneville Dam: Steelhead: 6,056,481; Returning adult salmon and
steelhead counted at Bonneville Dam: Total: 16,493,146; [Empty];
Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower
Granite Dam: Year: Total; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and
Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Salmon: 752,502; Returning
adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite
Dam: Steelhead: 2,150,937; Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and
Sockeye salmon counted at Lower Granite Dam: Total: 2,903,439;
Returning adult salmon, steelhead, and Sockeye salmon counted at Lower
Granite Dam: Sockeye[A]: 1,811.
[A] Sockeye salmon totals are included in the salmon column totals.
Source: Fish Passage Center.
[End of Table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United StatesForestWashington Office Department ofService Agriculture:
14TH & Independence SW P.O. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090:
File Code:1420:
Date:
JUN 13 2002:
Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment General Accounting Office,
Room 1842:
441 G. Street NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, ’COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SALMON AND STEELHEAD: Federal Agencies‘
Recovery Responsibilities Expenditures and Actions,“ (GAO-02-612,
Assignment code: 360111). The report provides a concise and thorough
description of federal agency roles and responsibilities in recovering
Columbia River salmon and steelhead. The Forest Service and the Natural
Resource Conservation Service‘s expenditures and accomplishments have
been accurately reported and displayed.
Enclosed are the comments to the draft report. These comments include
those of a general nature pertinent to the draft report as a whole and
those that may assist in better describing the agencies‘ roles.
If you have additional questions, please contact the Agency‘s External
Audit Liaison, Linda Washington at (202) 205-1560.
Sincerely,
DALE N. BOSWORTH Chief:
Signed by an individual for Dale N. Bosworth:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Bonneville Power Administration:
Department of Energy:
Bonneville Power Administration P.O. Box 3621 Portland, Oregon 97208-
3621:
June 10, 2002:
In reply refer to: KN-DC:
Mr. Barry T. Hill, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Sir:
Thank you for providing us with a copy of a Draft Report titled
Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies‘ Recovery
Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions (GAO-02-612), dated May
2002. The Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) appreciates the
opportunity the General Accounting Office (GAO) has provided us to
review and comment on the Draft Report, which you sent us on May 21,
2002. We do have some significant concerns with the accuracy and scope
of the first draft of the report. Consequently, we are providing this
letter and the attachment with exhibits to help GAO improve the quality
of the final report and provide additional information.
Our greatest concerns with the Draft Report are understatements
regarding the nature and extent of Bonneville anadromous fish recovery
costs and the source of those costs. We recognize the GAO purposefully
chose to limit the scope of the response to Senator Crapo. We do,
however, firmly believe that without a full description of all the
costs the federal agencies incur in recovering salmon and steelhead,
the final report will create an incomplete picture of the recovery
costs and efforts to date. In the event GAO retains its limited scope
of reporting recovery costs, Bonneville believes such costs should be
reported more closely following the Council on Environmental Quality‘s
crosscut budget as presented to the governors of the four Columbia
Basin states in a letter dated October 11, 2001, which is attached as
Exhibit A.
Bonneville encourages GAO to include in its final report a complete
discussion of the kinds of Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS)
costs our ratepayers incur-direct costs, capital costs, reimbursed
costs, replacement power, and lost revenues. Many of these costs are
described more fully in the Bonneville Administrator‘s letter dated
December 3, 2001, to the Chairman of the Northwest Power Planning
Council (NPPC), which is also included as Exhibit B to our comments.
These are all legally mandated or recognized costs borne by Bonneville
and its ratepayers.
The Draft Report, for instance, does not mention Bonneville‘s
responsibility for reimbursing the U.S. Treasury for capital
appropriations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of
Engineers), Bureau of Reclamation, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for certain salmon and steelhead recovery costs. While those
costs are reflected in the totals for those agencies, there is no
indication
that those costs actually get repaid to the Treasury, with market-based
interest, by Bonneville. We are not suggesting GAO double count these
dollars. We are concerned, though; that without a description of
Bonneville‘s repayment role, readers of the report may erroneously
believe because these costs start out as appropriated dollars they are
fully borne by the U.S. taxpayers. Such is not the case. Similarly,
there
is an omission of the operation and maintenance funding that Bonneville
provides directly to these agencies. We believe it is critical that the
final report explain that while other federal agencies may expend them,
the share of those funds allocated to power derive from Bonneville‘s
power
marketing rate base. Therefore, they are not a cost to the U.S.
taxpayer, as
it would appear when they are categorized as expenditures by other
federal
agencies; they are a FCRPS ratepayer cost.
The acquisition of replacement power is often necessary to enable fish
spill and flow measures called for by fish managers. These replacement
power costs are recognized expressly in the Pacific Northwest Electric
Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act). 16 U.S.C. §§
839b(h)(6)(E)(i)-(ii), (10)(A), and 16 U.S.C. §§ 838i(b)(6)(iv),
(b)(12). Similarly, the Northwest Power Act also acknowledges the
validity of counting the opportunity costs reflected by the lost
revenues. 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(8)(D). The attached Exhibit D, Bonneville
Fish & Wildlife MOA Funding, shows the hundreds of millions of dollars
in revenues Bonneville foregoes that must be made up in other places or
other ways. Excluding them from a report on recovery costs
significantly understates the overall costs to the region.
Where appropriations have not been forthcoming to other agencies and
Bonneville shares a legal duty with them to implement a recovery
action, then Bonneville has used its unique ability under section
4(h)(1 0)(C) of the Northwest Power Act to fund the entire project and
then take a credit against debts to the Treasury for the share of the
cost not allocated or attributable to the ratepayers. 16 U.S.C. §
839b(h)(10)(C). For fiscal year 2001, for example, Bonneville had to
recoup over $592.6 million in costs incurred by ratepayers on behalf of
the taxpayers as shown in Exhibit C. Those recouped expenditures do not
appear to be addressed in the Draft Report.
We urge GAO to reconsider its decision to exclude everything but
Bonneville‘s expenditures on the direct program of the NPPC and the
off-site mitigation called for in the National Marine Fisheries
Service‘s 2000 Biological Opinion on the FCRPS. The attachment and
exhibits included with this letter show how Bonneville‘s costs from
fiscal year 1997 through 2001 were over $3 billion dollars, not simply
the $378 million shown in the Draft Report.
Of equal importance is the nature of Bonneville‘s funding. We
appreciate the efforts made in the Draft Report to mention that
Bonneville payments come from power receipts. We would, however, like
to refine that description because GAO‘s final report will be read by a
national audience, and it is imperative that the full breadth of
Bonneville funding be transparent. It is true that most of Bonneville‘s
expenditures come from revenues generated from power marketing
activities. Such revenues are deposited into the Bonneville Fund, a
special self-financed revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury. We use the
Bonneville Fund to implement the NPPC‘s Program, for the off-site
mitigation in the 2000 NMFS FCRPS Biological Opinion, to reimburse the
power share of appropriations to the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service, to direct fund the
operation
and maintenance of the FCRPS, and to purchase replacement power needed
when
power generation decreases as a result of dam operations done for
recovery
and mitigation purposes. We also borrow from and repay to the U.S.
Treasury funds to cover capital construction and improvements at FCRPS
projects, including hatcheries. Thus, whether Bonneville uses receipts
deposited in the Treasury from power marketing revenues, or funds
borrowed from the Treasury and repaid with market-based interest, our
recovery costs are covered completely by regional ratepayers, not the
nation‘s taxpayers.
GAO‘s audit team has made tremendous effort to process and present the
complex and arcane information necessary to show the costs of salmon
and steelhead recovery in the Columbia River Basin. We have made these
comments hoping their inclusion will improve the comprehensiveness and
accuracy of the GAO final report and more precisely depict Bonneville‘s
role and responsibilities in the recovery effort. Thank you for
allowing us the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey K. Stier:
Vice-President for National Relations:
Signed by Jeffrey K. Stier:
Enclosures:
The following are GAO‘s comments on the Bonneville Power
Administration‘s letter dated June 10, 2002.
GAO‘s Comments:
1. Bonneville commented that the report does not fully reflect its role
in funding salmon-and steelhead-recovery efforts. For example,
Bonneville stated that the report does not explain that it reimburses
the U.S. Treasury for most of the expenditures for capital improvements
at the Corps‘ and BOR‘s hydroelectric projects as well as operation and
maintenance costs at these projects and at FWS‘s Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan hatcheries. We agree that Bonneville is a major
supplier of salmon-and steelhead-recovery moneys, and clarifications
were made in the report to reflect its role. However, we were not asked
to provide information on the source of funds for salmon-and steelhead-
recovery efforts but rather how much the agencies expended on such
efforts. Therefore, the report reflects the funds Bonneville is
referring to as expenditures by other federal agencies, such as the
Corps, BOR, and FWS.
2. Bonneville also commented that the report does not fully describe
that the funds it provides other agencies with are from ratepayer
receipts and, as a result, much of the salmon-and steelhead-recovery
expenditures shown in the report are paid for by those that buy the
electric power the dams generate. While the report notes that ratepayer
receipts fund these expenditures, we have added additional details on
the source of the funds Bonneville uses to cover agencies expenditures
and how Bonneville reimburses the U.S. Treasury for agencies
expenditures for capital and operation and maintenance costs.
3. Bonneville expressed concern that we did not include the cost of
replacement power and lost power revenues in our expenditure totals. We
did not include these costs because they do not reflect expenditures
for actual recovery actions and determining these costs is difficult to
derive, since replacement power and lost revenues could result from
other management decisions that are not related to salmon and steelhead
recovery.
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:
JUL 2 2002:
Mr. Barry T. Hill Managing Director Natural Resources and Environment
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW, Room 2T23A Washington,
D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Enclosed is the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration‘s response
to the Draft Report on COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SALMON AND STEELHEAD:
Federal Agencies‘ Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions
(GAO-02-612). We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments.
Enclosure:
Sincerely,
Sonya G. Stewart:
Signed by Sonya G. Stewart:
NOAA COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GAO REPORT ENTITLED COLUMBIA BASIN SALMON
AND STEELHEAD: Federal Agencies‘ Recovery Responsibilities,
Expenditures and Actions (GAO-02-612):
GENERAL COMMENTS:
On page 4 the report states that ’federal agencies have undertaken many
types of recovery actions and, although these actions are generally
viewed as resulting in higher numbers of returning adult salmon and
steelhead, there is little conclusive evidence to quantify the extent
of their effects on the fish populations.“ This statement is repeated
again on pages 16, 19, and 22 of the report. However, this is an
oversimplification of the state of knowledge regarding salmon recovery
efforts.
In fact, there is extensive agency and published, peer-reviewed science
that documents at least the proximate effects of salmon recovery
efforts. For example:
As the report mentions under Corps of Engineers‘ actions, there is a
great deal of detailed quantitative information documenting the
reductions in juvenile and adult salmon mortality resulting from fish
passage engineering efforts, including spillway, fish bypass, fish
ladder, and barging program modifications. The National Marine
Fisheries Service‘s (NMFS) survival estimates during the 1970s with 7-
8 dams in place typically were 10-13 percent for Snake River spring/
summer chinook salmon. In 1993-99, after structural and operational
improvements in the hydropower system, survival estimates ranged from
31-59 percent. These estimates are similar to estimates made with only
four dams in place between 1966 and 1967 when survival was
32-56 percent. The source of this information is Williams, Smith and
Muir (2001) North American Journal of Fisheries Management, pages 10-
317.
There are numerous published studies in fisheries literature
documenting the effects of streamflow and riparian habitat enhancement
on instream habitat conditions (temperature, stream cover, pool depth,
sediment loading, etc.) as well as resultant improvements to salmonid
spawning and rearing success. Examples of references include:
Olson and Foster. 1957. Temperature tolerance of eggs and young of
Columbia River chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 85: 203-207.
Reeves, Everest, and Sedell. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous
salmonid assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different Levels of
timber harvest. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:
309-317.
Miller and Simenstad. 1997. A comparative assessment of a natural and
created estuarine slough as rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook and
coho salmon. Estuaries 20: 792-806.
Bjornn and Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in
streams.In Influences of Forest and Rangeland management on Salmonid
Fishes and Their Habitats.American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19: 83-138.
Bugert and Bjornn. 1991. Habitat use by steelhead and coho salmon and
their responses to predators and cover in laboratory streams.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 486-493.
Studies are documenting reductions in the rate of return predation on
juvenile outmigrants as a result of agency efforts to move the nesting
colonies further downstream. (See Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids
in the Lower Columbia River; Report to Bonneville Power Administration
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September revision.):
These and many other examples provide the foundation for the analyses
contained in the NMFS‘ 1999 Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia
River Power System [for more references, go to www.nwr.noaa.gov/
lhydrop/hydroweb/docs/Final/2000Biop.html]. While natural fluctuations
in salmonid populations and other complicating factors make population-
level analyses complex, nonetheless NMFS and others are developing and
implementing monitoring and modeling methodologies to document the
effects of recovery efforts.
The following are GAO‘s comments on the letter dated July 2, 2002, from
the Department of Commerce‘s National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The National Marine Fisheries Service, the lead
federal agency responsible for salmon and steelhead recovery in the
Columbia River Basin, is an agency of NOAA.
GAO‘s Comments:
1. We agree that there are many studies and documents that discuss
various recovery actions and their effect on the survival rates of
salmon and steelhead. However, these studies and documents generally do
not quantify the affect. At best they estimate or approximate the
effect of recovery efforts. For example, the Williams, Smith and Muir
article, cited in NOAA‘s comments, estimates the effect of engineering
efforts on the survival rate of juvenile salmon and steelhead moving
past the dams but does not quantify how many of these juveniles return
as adults. The number of returning adults is important because other
studies have shown that using bypass facilities increases salmon and
steelhead mortality downstream. Hence, our point that there is little
evidence to quantify the effects of recovery efforts on the number of
returning salmon and steelhead is valid. We did, however, revise the
report to include information on the estimated increased survival rates
of salmon and steelhead passage at the dams.
2. The report recognizes that NMFS and others are developing and
documenting recovery efforts. However, until these efforts are
completed and results quantified, the full extent of recovery efforts
will not be known.
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
JUN 12 2002:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office
report entitled, ’COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SALMON AND STEELHEAD: Federal
Agencies‘ Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions“ (GAO-
02-612) dated May 20, 2002. In general, we agree with the findings in
the report.
The enclosure provides specific comments and suggestions from the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Geological
Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. We hope
our comments will assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
P. Lynn Scarlett Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:
Signed by P. Lynn Scarlett:
Enclosure:
Appendix XII: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Keith W. Oleson (415) 904-2218:
Acknowledgments:
In addition, Jerry Aiken, Jill Berman, Jonathan Dent, Jaelith Hall-
Rivera, Jonathan McMurray, and John Kalmar, Jr., made key contributions
to this report.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Funds used for salmon and steelhead recovery are seldom
specifically identified and, because each agency has a different
accounting system, we asked agency officials to provide actual numbers
whenever possible and estimates when specific numbers were not
available. Because the 11 agencies provided us with a combined dollar
estimate of expenditures for fiscal years 1982 through 1996, we did not
adjust these estimates to account for inflation. The remaining data
supplied for individual fiscal years 1997 through 2001 have been
adjusted to the constant base of 2001 dollars.
[2] Original members of the Federal Caucus include NMFS, FWS, the
Corps, BOR, Bonneville, the Forest Service, BLM, EPA, and BIA. In 2001,
the Federal Caucus added the National Park Service as its 10th agency.
[3] Returning salmon and steelhead also migrate up rivers, like the
Willamette, that flow into the Columbia below Bonneville Dam and are
harvested before reaching Bonneville Dam and these numbers are not
included in the 25-year average.
[4] Unless the appropriate Secretary determines that a recovery plan
will not promote conservation of the species.
[5] See Independent Scientific Advisory Board, ’A Review of Salmon and
Steelhead Recovery Strategies for the Columbia River Basin“ (Aug. 22,
2001) and Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, ’Salmon Report Card“ (Feb.
27, 2002).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
