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: