Columbia River Basin: A Multilayered Collection of Directives and
Plans Guides Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities (04-JUN-04,
GAO-04-602).
Numerous federal agencies conduct water, power, or resource
management activities affecting the fish and wildlife of the
Columbia River Basin, as well as the 13 tribes residing there.
These agencies, such as the Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville), Army Corps of Engineers, and Forest Service, and
regulatory agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries
Service, are also responsible for protecting, sustaining, and
enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin and involving
the tribes in the process. Recently, Bonneville's financial
position deteriorated significantly, and some tribes in the basin
challenged Bonneville's actions modifying funding of fish and
wildlife activities in federal court. In this context, GAO agreed
to (1) identify and describe the laws, treaties, executive
orders, and court decisions that define federal responsibilities
to perform activities benefiting fish and wildlife in the basin
and involve the tribes, and (2) describe the plans and programs
that guide these respective fish and wildlife activities. In
accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing matters
that are in litigation, GAO did not examine any issues that are
before the court.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-602
ACCNO: A10185
TITLE: Columbia River Basin: A Multilayered Collection of
Directives and Plans Guides Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities
DATE: 06/04/2004
SUBJECT: Executive orders
Fishes
Treaties
Wildlife
Wildlife conservation
Wildlife management
Federal law
Environmental monitoring
Environmental policies
Columbia River Basin
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-602
Report to Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate
June 2004
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
A Multilayered Collection of Directives and Plans Guides Federal Fish and
Wildlife Activities
Contents
Tables
Figures
June 4, 2004Letter
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell Chairman The Honorable Daniel K.
Inouye Vice Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate
The Columbia River Basin encompasses approximately 258,000 square miles of
mountains, forests, rangeland, and coastline extending predominantly
through the Western states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana and
into Canada. Although the basin is home to an abundance of fish and
wildlife, some species are in danger of extinction, in part, because of
the extensive hydropower development of the Columbia River and its
tributaries. Endangered species include fish, such as some species of
salmon and steelhead; birds, such as the marbled murrelet; and certain
species of caribou, deer, and rabbit. The basin is also home to 13 Indian
tribes, some of which have treaties with the United States, dating from
the mid-1800s, that explicitly recognize hunting and fishing rights. The
tribes rely on the fish and wildlife of the basin for sustenance and to
maintain their cultural traditions.
Numerous federal agencies conduct activities within the basin that affect
the fish and wildlife of the basin, as well as the tribes. For example,
the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) manage and operate the Federal Columbia River
Power System, composed of 31 power-generating dams on the Columbia River
and its tributaries. Bonneville collects the revenues from the Federal
Columbia River Power System and uses a portion of those revenues to fund
many of the fish and wildlife activities in the basin. The Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service manages 81,000 square miles of forest in the
basin, and Interior's Bureau of Land Management manages 33,000 square
miles of rangeland.
Along with their primary water or land management responsibilities, these
agencies, as well as regulatory agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency, are responsible under various laws,
treaties, executive orders, and court decisions for protecting,
mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin, as
well as involving the tribes in the process. In addition, the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council, established pursuant to the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power
Act), develops the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to
mitigate the effects of hydroelectric dams on basin wildlife.
Recently, Bonneville's financial position deteriorated significantly,
raising questions about its ability to meet its fish and wildlife
responsibilities.1 Subsequently, several tribes in the basin challenged
the legality of actions by Bonneville and the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council regarding the funding of fish and wildlife activities
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In this
context, we agreed to (1) identify and describe the laws, treaties,
executive orders, and court decisions that define the responsibilities of
Bonneville and other federal agencies to perform activities benefiting
fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin and involve tribes in the
process, and (2) describe the fish and wildlife plans and programs that
Bonneville and other federal agencies have developed to guide these
respective fish and wildlife activities. In accordance with our policy to
refrain from addressing matters that are in litigation, we did not examine
any issues that are before the court. In conducting our work, agency
officials, tribal representatives, and others brought to our attention
concerns about the implementation of various fish and wildlife plans and
programs in the basin, and we have included information regarding these
concerns in this report.
To address the objectives of this report, we updated information in our
prior report on federal salmon and steelhead recovery activities in the
Columbia River Basin.2 To update the information and identify directives,
plans, and programs for other fish and wildlife species, we met with
officials of the 11 federal agencies identified in that report:
Bonneville, the Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service
within the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey
and Reclamation within the Department of the Interior, the Corps within
the Department of Defense, the National Marine Fisheries Service within
the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. We
also met with representatives of 10 of the 13 Columbia River Basin tribes
to confirm the directives identified by the 11 federal agencies and to
determine how the tribes participate in the fish and wildlife plans and
programs. Appendix I provides further details about the scope and
methodology of our review. We conducted our work from August 2003 through
April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief
Federal responsibilities for protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish
and wildlife resources in the Columbia River Basin, and for involving the
tribes in the process, are defined by a multilayered collection of laws,
treaties, executive orders, and court decisions. At the national level,
federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act
create a responsibility for federal agencies to mitigate the impacts of
agency activities that could potentially harm fish, wildlife, and their
habitat. At the basin level, certain federal laws create agency
responsibilities that are specific to the fish and wildlife within the
basin. For example, under the Northwest Power Act, Bonneville, the Corps,
and Reclamation must work together to mitigate the effects of the Federal
Columbia River Power System on fish and wildlife. At the mission level,
many agencies that operate within the basin have fish and wildlife
responsibilities under laws that are unique to their own activities, such
as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for the Bureau of
Land Management and the National Forest Management Act for the Forest
Service. At the tribal level, 6 of the 13 tribes in the basin have treaty
hunting and fishing rights, and various laws and executive orders provide
that federal agencies are to consult and collaborate with Indian tribes on
the management of fish and wildlife in the basin. Agencies have developed
internal agency orders to implement this guidance. Federal
responsibilities under these multilayered directives are continually being
clarified through court decisions, and cases such as United States v.
Oregon and United States v. Washington have confirmed tribal treaty
fishing rights and the extent of those rights.
Multiple plans and programs guide agency fish and wildlife activities in
the basin. Agencies design and implement these plans and programs both
collaboratively and independently, but the majority of fish and wildlife
activities are driven by the Northwest Power Act and the Endangered
Species Act. The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, developed
pursuant to a requirement of the Northwest Power Act, outlines a
collaborative strategy for protecting, mitigating impacts to, and
enhancing fish and wildlife affected by the construction and operation of
hydroelectric dams. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council
spearheads the development and revision of the program. In addition to
developing the program, the Council is also involved with developing plans
for subbasins using watershed-level input from federal agencies, state and
local governments, and tribes. Bonneville funds the implementation of the
program through contracts with federal and state agencies, tribes, and
private organizations, and funds the development of the subbasin plans. In
response to the Endangered Species Act, biological opinions have been
developed that set forth reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives to
minimize the impacts of agency actions on certain fish species-salmon,
steelhead, bull trout, and white sturgeon-affected by the federal
hydropower system and other federal actions. The National Marine Fisheries
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed these biological
opinions collaboratively. In addition, they have collaborated with other
federal agencies on the development of the Basin-wide Salmon Recovery
Strategy, which outlines a conceptual salmon recovery plan. Agencies also
implement fish and wildlife plans and programs that are driven by
agency-specific missions. For example, the Corps utilizes Project
Management Plans to ensure that agency activities follow proper guidelines
for protecting and allowing for fish passage through its hydropower
projects on the Columbia River.
Bonneville and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce provided
technical comments on this report and we made changes, where appropriate.
The Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency had no
comments on the report. The Department of the Interior did not provide
comments in time to be included in this report.
Background
The Columbia River Basin, the nation's fourth largest, extends through
seven Western states-Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming-and into Canada. (See fig. 1.) Twelve major tributaries, the
longest of which is the Snake River, feed the Columbia River. The basin
contains over 250 reservoirs and about 150 hydroelectric projects,
including 18 dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
Figure 1: Map of the Columbia River Basin
The basin is home to many species of fish and wildlife, some of which are
listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered,
in part as a result of the extensive hydropower development of the basin
rivers. Endangered fish in the basin include certain species of salmon,
steelhead, and white sturgeon; bull trout are listed as threatened.
Threatened and endangered wildlife in the basin include birds such as the
marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, and other animals such as
certain species of caribou, deer, lynx, and rabbit. The basin is also home
to 13 Indian tribes, which by treaty, executive order, or other authority,
reside on reservation lands within the basin. As shown in table 1, nearly
45,000 members are enrolled in the tribes with reservation lands in the
basin. Fish and wildlife are of critical importance to these tribes, as
the tribes rely on them for sustenance as well as preservation of their
cultural traditions. For example, salmon are part of the spiritual and
cultural identity of most of the basin's tribes, and are frequently used
in tribal religious services.
Table 1: The 13 Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, Reservation Size, and
Enrollment
Acreage encompassed Number of enrolled
Tribe within reservation tribal membersb
boundariesa
Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur 345,000 1,493
D'Alene Reservation, Idaho
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 250 121
Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho 750,000 3,300
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort 544,000 4,535
Hall Reservation of Idaho
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 1,244,000 6,950
Montana
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck 289,819 1,888
Valley Reservation, Nevada
Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns 11,466 295
Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 172,140 2,140
Reservation, Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Warm 643,570 3,831
Springs Reservation of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of the Colville 1,400,000 8,842
Reservation, Washington
Kalispel Indian Community of the 4,629 329
Kalispel Reservation, Washington
Spokane Tribe of the Spokane 154,898 2,305
Reservation, Washington
Confederated Tribes and Bands of 1,372,000 8,624
the Yakama Reservation, Washington
Total 6,931,772 44,653
Sources: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce.
aIncludes Indian and non-Indian land.
bTribe members residing both on and off reservation lands in 2001.
Numerous federal agencies, including the following, conduct activities
within the basin that affect fish and wildlife, as well as the Columbia
River Basin Indian tribes. Many of these agencies are responsible for
managing water resources, the power generated by hydroelectric projects,
or land resources, such as forests, grazing lands, and wildlife refuges.
o Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) provides power transmission
services and markets the electricity generated by the 31 Corps and
Reclamation dams comprising the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS). In doing so, it must provide treatment to fish and wildlife
equitable to the other purposes for which the FCRPS is operated.
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) designs, builds, and operates civil
works projects to provide electric power, navigation, flood control, and
environmental protection.
o Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) designs, constructs, and operates
water projects for multiple purposes, including irrigation, hydropower
production, municipal and industrial water supply, flood control,
recreation, and fish and wildlife.
o U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) manages national forests and
grasslands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and
ensures that lands will be available for future generations.
o Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers public lands and subsurface
mineral resources, and sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of
public lands for the use and enjoyment of future generations.
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages wildlife refuges,
conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plants, and
implements the ESA for terrestrial species, migratory birds, certain
marine mammals, and certain fish.
o Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) encourages and assists American Indians
to manage their own affairs under the trust relationship with the federal
government. It develops forestlands, leases assets on these lands, directs
agricultural programs, protects water and land rights, and undertakes
other responsibilities in cooperation with the tribes.
Together, these federal agencies and the 13 basin tribes manage over half
of the portion of the Columbia River Basin located within the United
States. The Forest Service and BLM manage about 81,000 square miles of
forest and grasslands, and 33,000 square miles of rangeland, or about 37
percent and 15 percent of the basin's U.S. land area, respectively.
Reservation land totals about 5 percent. All other agencies combined
manage about 3 percent of the U.S. portion of the basin. Figure 2
illustrates the federal and tribal land ownership patterns.
Figure 2: Landholders in the Columbia River Basin
Note: Area shown within reservation boundaries includes both Indian and
non-Indian land.
In addition to the water, power, and land resource management agencies,
several other federal agencies have regulatory, resource protection, and
research responsibilities in the basin.
o National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conserves, protects, and
manages living marine resources so as to ensure their continuation as
functioning components of marine ecosystems, and to afford economic
opportunities. NMFS also implements the ESA for marine and anadromous
(migratory fish such as salmon and steelhead) species.
o Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects human health and
safeguards the natural environment by protecting the air, water, and land.
It administers the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
o Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assists farmers, ranchers,
and other landowners in developing and carrying out voluntary efforts to
protect the nation's natural resources.
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts objective scientific studies and
provides information to address problems dealing with natural resources,
geologic hazards, and the effects of environmental conditions on human and
wildlife health.
Along with their primary water, power, resource, and other management and
regulatory responsibilities, these agencies are responsible under various
laws, treaties, executive orders, and court decisions for protecting,
mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin, as
well as involving the tribes in the process. One of the main drivers of
such activities is the Northwest Power Act, which provided for the
establishment of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Under the
act, the Council develops the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program to mitigate the effects of hydroelectric dams on basin fish and
wildlife, and Bonneville assists in implementation and is the principal
source of funding for the program.
Bonneville recently experienced a substantial deterioration of its
financial condition, in part because of drought conditions, rising costs
of providing power, and lower than projected revenue from selling surplus
power. For example, as we reported in July 2003, its end of year cash
reserves fell from $811 million to $188 million from fiscal year 2000 to
2002.3 Bonneville's financial difficulties caused concern about its
ability to meet its fish and wildlife funding responsibilities under the
Northwest Power Act. The Yakama tribe filed two petitions in June 2003,
and the Upper Columbia United Tribes filed a petition in December 2003, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review
Bonneville's budgeting, accounting, and contracting processes, and in the
case of the Yakama, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's
recommendations, regarding fish and wildlife funding. As of now, the two
Yakama filings and the Upper Columbia United Tribes filing are being
discussed in separate settlement negotiations. In accordance with our
policy to refrain from addressing matters that are in litigation, we did
not address the issues before the court in this report.
A Multilayered Collection of Directives Defines Federal Responsibilities
to Fish, Wildlife, and Tribes in the Columbia River Basin
Federal responsibilities for protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish
and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as involving the tribes in
the process, are defined by a multilayered collection of laws, treaties,
executive orders, and court decisions. Nationwide, basin-specific, and
agency mission-specific laws create responsibilities for federal agencies
to mitigate the impacts of their activities on fish, wildlife, and their
habitat. In addition, various laws, treaties, executive orders, court
decisions, and agency policies require agencies to consider the rights of
tribes in the basin. Federal responsibilities and activities under these
layers of directives have been defined and clarified over the years
through numerous court decisions. Appendix II lists laws, treaties, and
executive orders identified by federal agencies as guiding their fish and
wildlife responsibilities in the basin. Appendix III lists laws, treaties,
and executive orders identified by federal agencies as guiding their
tribal responsibilities in the basin. Appendix IV lists court decisions
that have helped define or clarify agency responsibilities to fish,
wildlife, and tribes under these directives. Each appendix includes the
citation for every law, treaty, executive order, and court case listed.
Agency Responsibilities Are Defined by Nationwide, Basin-specific, and
Mission-specific Fish and Wildlife Directives
Federal agencies are responsible under nationwide, basin-specific, and
agency mission-specific laws for mitigating the impacts of their
activities that could potentially harm fish, wildlife, and their habitat.
At the national level, federal environmental and fish and wildlife
protection laws create broad responsibilities for federal agencies in
addition to each agency's mission-specific responsibilities. These laws
guide the fish and wildlife activities of federal agencies nationwide, in
some cases, under the oversight and enforcement authority of regulatory
agencies such as EPA and NMFS. Federal agencies identified the following
nationwide laws, among others, as guiding their fish and wildlife
activities:
o Clean Water Act-Authorizes EPA to establish effluent limitations and
requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from a point source to
navigable waters. EPA approves state and tribal limits for the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water
quality standards for specified purposes, including fish and wildlife.
o Endangered Species Act-Provides for the conservation and recovery of
species of plants and animals that FWS and NMFS determine to be in danger
or soon to become in danger of extinction.
o National Environmental Policy Act-Requires federal agencies to examine
the impacts of proposed major federal actions significantly affecting the
environment.
At the basin level, certain federal laws create agency responsibilities
that are specific to the fish and wildlife there. These laws guide the
fish and wildlife activities of agencies such as Bonneville, the Corps,
and Reclamation that are to be conducted in conjunction with their water
and power responsibilities within the basin. Federal agencies identified
the following basin-specific laws, among others, as guiding their fish and
wildlife activities:
o Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
(Northwest Power Act)-Provides for the formation of the Northwest Power
and Conservation 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 FCRPS 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.
o Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000-Directs the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to implement projects,
such as installation of fish screens and fish passage devices, to mitigate
impacts on fisheries associated with irrigation systems in Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, and Washington.
o Mitchell Act-Directs the Secretary of Commerce to carry on activities
for the conservation of fishery resources in the Columbia River Basin.
At the mission level, many agencies that operate within the basin have
fish and wildlife responsibilities under laws that are unique to their
activities. These laws guide the fish and wildlife activities of agencies
such as the Forest Service, BLM, FWS, and BIA that are to be conducted in
conjunction with their resource management responsibilities. The following
laws were among the numerous mission-specific laws that federal agencies
identified as guiding their fish and wildlife activities:
o National Forest Management Act-Mandates multiple uses for lands managed
by the Forest Service to include outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness purposes.
o Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976-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.
o National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966-Establishes
the National Wildlife Refuge System and directs the Secretary of the
Interior in the overall management of the refuge system to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the system,
and prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge.
o National Indian Forest Resources Management Act-Directs the Secretary of
the Interior to undertake management activities on Indian forest lands
with tribal participation.
Treaties and executive orders also establish federal agency
responsibilities for fish and wildlife. Federal agencies identified two
treaties guiding their fish and wildlife activities in the basin-the
Columbia River Treaty, which defines the relationship between the United
States and Canada concerning the operation of Columbia River dams and
reservoirs, and the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which governs the harvest of
certain stocks in the fisheries of Northwest states (including Alaska) and
Canada. Federal agencies also identified three executive orders guiding
their activities with regard to floodplain management, protection of
wetlands, and protection of migratory birds. The most recent of these,
Executive Order 13186, January 10, 2001, titled Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds, directs executive agencies to
take certain actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats. Executive
Order 11988, May 24, 1977, requires certain actions related to floodplain
management, and Executive Order 11990 of the same date requires certain
actions related to the protection of wetlands.
Various Laws, Treaties, and Executive Orders Require Agencies to Consider
the Rights of Tribes
Laws, treaties, and executive orders create federal responsibilities to
Indian tribes and guide federal agency activities that affect the tribes
of the Columbia River Basin. Federal laws, including the following, create
a responsibility for federal agencies to support tribal self-government,
facilitate tribal participation in federal activities, and assist in the
management of tribal resources.
o Indian Reorganization Act-Enacts measures to protect ownership of Indian
lands, restore lands to tribal ownership, and grants rights of
self-government to Indians.
o Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act-Enacts measures
that promote a policy of Indian self-determination by assuring maximum
Indian participation in educational and other federal services to Indian
communities, generally provided through the Departments of the Interior
and Health and Human Services programs for Indians.
o Snyder Act-Authorizes appropriations and expenditures through BIA for
the benefit; care; and assistance of Indians, such as education, health,
and other purposes.
Treaties between the United States and six basin tribes document the
agreements reached between the federal government and the tribes in
exchange for ceding most of their ancestral lands. Federal agencies have a
general trust responsibility to protect tribal rights reserved under these
treaties. Typically, each treaty describes the boundaries of the tribal
lands ceded, the boundaries of lands reserved for habitation by the tribe,
payments to be made to the tribe, and certain rights of the tribe under
the treaty, including specific hunting and/or fishing rights, as shown in
table 2.
Table 2: Treaties Establishing Reservations and Reserving Hunting and/or
Fishing Rights of Six Columbia River Basin Tribes
Treaty Tribe Hunting and/or fishing
rights
Treaty with the Confederated Tribes of the
Wallawalla, Cayuse, Umatilla Indian The exclusive right of
etc. (12 Stat. 945) Reservation, Oregon taking fish in the
June 9, 1855 streams running
Treaty with the Yakama Confederated Tribes and through and bordering
(12 Stat. 951) June 9, Bands of the Yakama the reservation and at
1855 Reservation, Washington all other usual and
Treaty with the Tribes Confederated Tribes of the accustomed stations in
of Middle Oregon (12 Warm Springs Reservation of common with citizens
Stat. 963) June 25, Oregona of the United States,
1855a and the privilege of
Treaty with the Nez hunting, gathering
Perces (12 Stat. 957) Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho roots, and pasturing
June 11, 1855 their stock on
Treaty with the Confederated Salish and unclaimed lands in
Flatheads, etc. (12 Kootenai Tribes of the common with citizens.
Stat. 975) July 16, Flathead Reservation,
1855 Montana
Treaty with the The right to hunt on
Eastern Band Shoshoni Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the unoccupied lands
and Bannock (15 Stat. the Fort Hall Reservation of the United States
673) July 3, 1868 of Idaho so long as game may be
found thereon.
Source: GAO analysis.
aOff-reservation hunting, fishing, and other rights were relinquished in a
supplemental treaty of November 15, 1865.
Presidential executive orders were used by the U.S. government to reserve
lands for six other Columbia River Basin tribes, as shown in table 3.4
Similar to treaties, these executive orders describe the lands reserved
for habitation by the tribes, but unlike treaties, do not explicitly state
each tribe's right to fish and/or hunt. Nevertheless, the federal
government has respected nontreaty rights to hunt and fish on tribal
lands.
Table 3: Executive Orders Establishing Reservations for Six Columbia River
Basin Tribes
Executive order date Tribe
April 9, 1872 a Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
Washington
Sept.12, 1872b Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony
of Oregon
Nov. 8, 1873 c Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation,
Idaho
April 16, 1877d Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley
Reservation, Nevada
Jan.18, 1881 Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation
March 23, 1914 Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel
Reservation, Washington
Source: GAO analysis.
aThe April executive order was superseded by a July 2, 1872, executive
order that redefined the reservation boundaries. In a May 9, 1891,
agreement, the Indians ceded about 1.5 million acres of the reservation,
referred to as the "North Half", to the United States. Under the
agreement, the tribe retained the right to hunt and fish on those lands.
Congress ratified the agreement in an act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 325,
377-8, and the Supreme Court upheld the hunting and fishing rights
retained against state regulation in Antoine v. Washington, 420 U.S. 194
(1975). Although the 1891 agreement was not ratified until 1906, Congress
opened up the North Half of the reservation for settlement in an act of
July 1, 1892, 27 Stat. 62.
bThe reservation was subsequently dissolved in 1883; lands were purchased
as a subsistence homestead in 1934, under Title II of the National
Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.
cComposed of lands reserved for Indians by an executive order of June 14,
1867.
dA treaty of October 1, 1863, between the United States and the Western
Bands of Shoshonee Indians, authorized the President to establish a
reservation when deemed necessary, and the bands received an annuity as
full compensation and equivalent for the loss of game and the rights and
privileges conceded.
Three other executive orders, as well as a presidential memorandum, were
identified by federal agencies as providing guidance in their
intergovernmental relationships with tribes while performing their
missions.
o Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993), Regulatory Planning and
Review-Establishes a program to reform and make more efficient the
regulatory process, including making the process more accessible and open
to the public. Provides that wherever feasible, agencies shall seek views
of appropriate state, local, and tribal officials before imposing
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.
o Executive Order 12875 (October 26, 1993), Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership-Prohibits executive agencies, to the extent
feasible, from promulgating any regulation not required by statute that
creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless
funding for the direct costs is provided or the agency consults with the
affected government.
o Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000), Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments-Requires executive agencies to respect
Indian tribal self-governance and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty and
other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the
unique legal relationship between the federal government and tribal
governments. Provides that each agency shall have an accountable process
to ensure meaningful and timely tribal input in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.
o Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (April
29, 1994), Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments-Requires, among other things, that executive agencies operate
within a government to government relationship with federally recognized
tribal governments; consult to the greatest extent possible with tribal
governments before taking actions that affect tribal governments; and
assess the impact of federal government plans, projects, programs, and
activities on tribal trust resources and ensure that tribal rights and
concerns are considered in developing them.
In addition to these executive orders, some federal agencies have internal
orders and memorandums to guide their actions with tribes. For example,
Secretarial Order 3206, jointly issued by the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Commerce in 1997, clarifies the responsibilities of
the departments, their agencies, offices, and bureaus when actions taken
under the authority of the ESA affect or may affect Indian lands, tribal
trust resources, or the exercise of tribal rights. The order acknowledges
the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States
toward Indian tribes and tribal members and its government to government
relationship in dealing with the tribes. Accordingly, activities of the
Departments of Commerce and the Interior under the ESA should harmonize
trust responsibilities, tribal sovereignty, and the agency missions, and
strive to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden
for the conservation of listed species. In its 1996 Tribal Policy,
Bonneville outlines the foundation for its trust responsibility as a
federal agency and provides a framework for a government to government
relationship with the 13 federally recognized Columbia River Basin tribes.
In addition, FWS cited its Native American Policy of 1994, EPA cited its
Tribal Consultation Framework of 2001, and NMFS cited the Department of
Commerce's American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of 1995, as providing
agency guidance for meeting responsibilities to the tribes.
Court Decisions Define and Clarify Agency Responsibilities
Federal responsibilities and activities under laws, treaties, and
executive orders are continually being defined and clarified through court
decisions. These decisions provide guidance regarding the fish and
wildlife activities of federal agencies such as Bonneville, the Corps, and
NMFS. The following court decisions were among those that federal agencies
identified as guiding their fish and wildlife activities in the basin:
o National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries
Service-Remanded NMFS' 2000 biological opinion for ESA-listed salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers to NMFS to resolve deficiencies
identified by the court.5
o National Wildlife Federation v. United States Army Corps of
Engineers-Remanded a decision regarding dam operations in the FCRPS to the
Corps to address compliance with its obligations under the Clean Water
Act.6
o Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power
Administration-Interpreted Bonneville's responsibility to provide
"equitable treatment" for fish and wildlife in conducting its power
marketing activities under the Northwest Power Act.7
Court decisions have also defined and clarified the responsibilities of
federal agencies to tribes, regarding both the extent of the federal
government's trust responsibilities to tribes under laws, treaties, and
executive orders, and, more specifically, the extent of Columbia River
Basin treaty tribes' fishing rights. Regarding the extent of federal
agency trust responsibilities for Indian tribes, case law defines the
trust responsibility of the federal government to protect the rights of
tribes as established in treaties and other agreements. For example, in
Seminole Nation v. United States, the Supreme Court said that the
government's conduct in carrying out its obligations to Indians should be
"judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards,"8 and in Pyramid Lake
Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, a federal district court found that the
Secretary of the Interior was required to assert his statutory and
contractual authority "to the fullest extent possible" 9 to fulfill the
government's trust responsibilities.
Regarding Columbia River Basin tribes, federal agencies identified two
court cases that have helped to identify and define treaty rights to fish
for four treaty tribes-the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Reservation, Oregon; the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
Reservation, Washington; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon; and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. In 1968, 14
Yakama tribal members filed suit to prevent the State of Oregon from
interfering with their off-reservation treaty fishing rights. The court
found that the state's authority to regulate Indian fishing for
conservation purposes was limited as treaties reserved to the Columbia
River tribes an absolute right to a fair share of the fish produced by the
Columbia River system.10 In the second case, United States v. Washington,
a federal district court in Washington found that the Indians were
entitled to the opportunity to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable
number of fish that can be taken.11
Multiple Plans and Programs Guide Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities in
the Basin
Federal agency fish and wildlife activities in the basin are guided by
numerous plans and programs, but the majority of fish and wildlife
benefits are achieved through a few key collaborative plans, driven by the
Northwest Power Act and the ESA. Under the Northwest Power Act, the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program outlines a collaborative
strategy for benefiting fish and wildlife affected by the development and
operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin, and under the
ESA, agencies are guided by biological opinions developed collaboratively
by FWS and NMFS for the recovery of threatened and endangered species, as
well as by two other related collaborative plans. Additional laws and
specific agency missions drive numerous other collaborative and individual
fish and wildlife plans and programs. Appendix V provides descriptions of
selected plans and programs identified by federal agencies in the basin.
The Northwest Power Act and the Endangered Species Act Drive Key
Collaborative Plans and Programs
The key collaborative fish and wildlife plans and programs in the basin
are driven by responsibilities created under the Northwest Power Act and
the ESA. Agencies collaborate on both the development, as well as the
implementation, of these key plans and programs. The lead agencies and
federal and tribal collaborators in the development and implementation of
the plans and programs are summarized in figure 3.
Figure 3: Federal and Tribal Collaboration on Key Fish and Wildlife Plans
and Programs Driven by the Northwest Power Act and the Endangered Species
Act
Note: Figure does not include significant state, local, and private entity
participation in plan development and implementation.
aThe Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which is led by
representatives from four states, was created by the Northwest Power Act
to assist Bonneville in fulfilling its federal responsibilities to fish
and wildlife.
bThe recovery plans for salmon are still under development. This figure
reflects expected agency contributions to the implementation of recovery
plans.
Northwest Power Act-Driven Plans and Programs
Under the Northwest Power Act, the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (Council) has a duty to prepare and adopt the Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Program (Fish and Wildlife Program) to protect,
mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning
grounds and habitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries for impacts
of all federal and nonfederal hydroelectric projects in the basin. In
preparing the Fish and Wildlife Program, the Council periodically solicits
recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, Indian
tribes, and others concerning the needs of fish and wildlife in the basin.
The Council then develops a draft Amendment to the Fish and Wildlife
Program that incorporates the recommendations received, and releases the
draft for public comment. After reviewing comments received on the draft,
and balancing the needs of fish and wildlife with the region's hydropower
needs, the Council issues the Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides
guidance and recommendations on mitigating the impacts of hydropower on
the region's fish and wildlife.
To incorporate local planning for the more than 50 subbasins in the
Columbia River Basin into the Council's development of the Fish and
Wildlife Program, the Council initiated subbasin planning in 2001. The
Council expects to complete the first round of subbasin plans in May 2004,
review and take comments on the plans through the fall, and then amend
them into the program by January 2005. The plans will then form the basis
from which projects will be solicited and selected. Federal agencies,
including the Corps, Forest Service, Reclamation, BLM, EPA, FWS, NMFS,
NRCS, and USGS, are providing watershed-level information and technical
assistance, and some Columbia River Basin tribes are among those taking
the lead in coordinating and managing development of specific subbasin
plans. A few of the tribes reported that subbasin planning is an important
step to including local input in the Fish and Wildlife Program, but
expressed concern that challenges to the successful implementation of
subbasin plans exist. For example, one tribal representative expressed
concern with the consistency of funding and contracting procedures, while
another expressed concern at the level of local commitment to subbasin
fish and wildlife priorities.
The Northwest Power Act directs Bonneville to fund the protection,
mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife in a manner consistent
with the act. To meet this requirement, Bonneville takes actions and
enters into agreements with other entities to meet the goals and
objectives outlined by the Council. Bonneville receives assistance in this
process from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, composed of
federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife officials, which provides
recommendations regarding fish and wildlife projects proposed by
contractors. The Council's Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews
proposed projects to ensure that they are consistent with the goals of the
Fish and Wildlife Program. As shown in the following examples, other
federal agencies and tribes also collaborate with Bonneville in
implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program, affording Bonneville access to
additional knowledge and technical capabilities, as well as access to
resources needed for mitigation activities.
o FWS and NMFS provide Bonneville with assistance on issues such as fish
passage and population monitoring. In addition, Bonneville provides direct
funding to FWS for the operation and maintenance of certain hatcheries.
o The Corps and Reclamation manage in-river mitigation at hydropower
facilities, such as fish screens, with direct funding from Bonneville.
o Federal agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM, as well as state,
tribal, and private landowners, receive direct funding or contract with
Bonneville for habitat mitigation activities.
o Tribes contract with Bonneville to provide mitigation activities such as
habitat improvement, hatchery management, and habitat acquisition projects
both on and off reservation.
Recently, Bonneville revised its Fish and Wildlife Program project budget,
accounting, and contracting policies, raising concerns among federal
agencies, the Council, and the tribes. For example, in 2002, Bonneville
decided that it should not be the primary source of funding for off-site
mitigation projects on federal lands, and placed a temporary hold on
funding for land purchases and easements for off-site mitigation while it
reviewed its financial condition and liquidity position. In addition,
Bonneville changed its budgeting and planning methods from obligations to
accruals in November 2002. Federal agencies, the Council, and some tribes
reported that Bonneville's processes for project submittal, approval, and
contract renewal and management are inconsistent and constantly changing.
As such, many project managers at the tribes who serve as contractors to
Bonneville reported spending as much time learning and adapting to
changing processes as implementing projects on the ground. According to
Bonneville, the changes were based in part on the recommendations of a
1997 accounting firm review of program implementation, and were necessary
to improve program implementation, keep Fish and Wildlife Program costs on
target, and align its fish and wildlife budgeting approach with its other
program budgets.12
Endangered Species Act-Driven Plans and Programs
Under the ESA, agencies must use their authorities to conserve endangered
and threatened species and make sure that their actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of listed species. In the Columbia River Basin,
agencies collaborate on several concurrent and sometimes overlapping plans
towards this end, including biological opinions, the proposed recovery
plans for salmon, and the Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy. While
different in their specific focus and scope, all of these plans promote
the continued existence of threatened and endangered species in the basin.
As the regulating agencies for endangered and threatened species, FWS and
NMFS are the lead agencies on most fish and wildlife plans driven by the
ESA. Section 7 of the ESA requires agencies to consult with FWS and NMFS
to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species. Based
on these consultations, FWS and NMFS are required to produce biological
opinions that prescribe reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives for
proposed federal actions that may adversely affect listed species.
Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation consult with FWS and NMFS on the
impacts that operation of the FCRPS has on endangered and threatened
species. In response to these consultations, NMFS develops biological
opinions for anadromous species impacted by the FCRPS, while FWS develops
biological opinions for resident fish and wildlife impacted by the
FCRPS.13
NMFS first issued a Biological Opinion for the FCRPS for salmon and
steelhead in 1992, and developed subsequent versions, such as a 1998
supplement that added steelhead. The most recent Biological Opinion for
the FCRPS for salmon and steelhead was issued in 2000. In 2003, however, a
federal court remanded the 2000 Biological Opinion after ruling it
deficient, due to reliance on federal mitigation actions that had not
undergone section 7 consultations, as well as reliance on off-site
nonfederal mitigation activities that were not reasonably certain to
occur.14 A new salmon and steelhead Biological Opinion for the FCRPS is
due in June 2004. FWS developed a Biological Opinion for resident fish
impacted by the FCRPS, including bull trout and white sturgeon. The first
FCRPS Biological Opinion for white sturgeon was developed by FWS in 1995.
To develop the reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives outlined in
the FCRPS Biological Opinions, FWS and NMFS rely on technical input from
several agencies, as well as information contained in other fish and
wildlife plans:
o Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation consult with FWS and NMFS in
developing reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives for hydropower
operation that can reasonably be implemented;
o Forest Service and BLM contribute information used to develop the
reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives that address off-site
habitat; and
o To the extent possible, NMFS has incorporated information from the
Council's subbasin planning in their development of the Biological
Opinions due in June.
Notwithstanding this collaboration, several agencies and groups, such as
the Council and tribes, expressed a desire for increased participation in
developing the Biological Opinions. These groups indicated that they have
important technical information and experience that could help inform the
development of the Biological Opinions.
Responsibility for implementing the Biological Opinions lies with the
operators and managers of the FCRPS-Bonneville, the Corps, and
Reclamation-known as the Action Agencies. In fulfilling this
responsibility, the Action Agencies create Biological Opinion
Implementation Plans, which provide guidance on how the Biological
Opinions should be implemented. The Action Agencies create 1-Year
Implementation Plans, which outline annual goals for meeting reasonable
and prudent measures/alternatives, as well as 5-Year Implementation Plans,
which address longer-term goals for meeting the measures. The development
of Implementation Plans typically involves significant input from other
agencies. For example, Bonneville and the Council work together to support
ESA objectives by integrating the implementation of the Biological
Opinions with subbasin planning and the Fish and Wildlife Program's
administrative process. In addition, implementation of the Biological
Opinions has evolved as the Action Agencies continue to incorporate new
information from ESA recovery planning processes.
Many basin agencies provide input to the Action Agencies on the
implementation of hydrosystem operations and configuration under the
Biological Opinions through the Regional Forum (Forum). Key members of the
Forum include Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation, as well as FWS and
NMFS, and the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Forum
is composed of five committees that make decisions concerning the FCRPS in
accordance with the Biological Opinions, facilitating regional
communication and coordination towards fulfillment of the Biological
Opinions. Forum meetings are open to all entities, and interagency
collaboration is an essential element of the Forum. However, some tribal
representatives indicated that they would like to have more sovereign
representation on the Forum. They feel that the meetings neither provide
for a collaborative, balanced exchange of information between federal
agencies and the tribes, nor satisfy the requirement for
government-to-government consultation with tribes on matters that affect
them.
As further required by the ESA, NMFS is currently developing recovery
plans for salmon (recovery plans) for various regions within the Columbia
River Basin, which outline programs for the recovery of endangered or
threatened salmon and steelhead in the basin. Specifically, the recovery
plans are designed to organize, coordinate, and prioritize recovery
actions for salmon and steelhead, as well as outline objective measurable
criteria that will be used to determine when they no longer need the
protection of the ESA. In addition, recovery plans communicate the vision
for salmon and steelhead recovery to other agencies and the public.
NMFS' development of the recovery plans has been enhanced by collaboration
and information sharing with other agencies and groups, including tribes.
NMFS is using the Council's subbasin planning as a framework for
developing the various recovery plans. While NMFS is not required to
collaborate with the Council on this effort, working through the subbasin
framework affords NMFS access to local watershed information. Although the
recovery plans have yet to be completed- the first recovery plan is due in
December 2005-NMFS hopes they will be implemented through interagency
collaboration using the subbasin plans.
Separate from the recovery plans, the Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy
provides an interim conceptual, collaborative plan for the recovery of
salmon and steelhead in the basin, until recovery plans are complete.
Referred to as the "All-H Paper" because it addresses the four "H's" of
fish management-hatcheries, habitat, harvest, and hydropower-it is a
blueprint for collaboration among federal agencies in the basin seeking to
restore aquatic habitat and achieve recovery objectives for endangered and
threatened salmon and steelhead.
Development of the All-H paper involved input from nine federal agencies,
collectively known as the Federal Caucus-Bonneville, the Corps, Forest
Service, Reclamation, BIA, BLM, EPA, FWS, and NMFS. Agency participation
in the development varied according to agencies' missions and expertise:
o Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation provided input on recovery
activities related to hydropower, and Reclamation provided input on
irrigation;
o Forest Service and BLM provided input on recovery concerns related to
habitat;
o FWS and NMFS provided input on the role of annual harvest allocations in
recovery;
o FWS and NMFS provided extensive input and guidance on the role of
hatcheries in recovery; and
o EPA provided input and recommendations related to habitat and
hydropower.
After input from the nine agencies had been collected, and the All-H was
completed, agencies memorialized their collaboration through a Memorandum
of Agreement that outlined how agencies could cooperate on implementation
of the All-H. Overall, interagency collaboration on the development of the
All-H was well regarded, and the four "H's" have contributed to decision
making on other plans in the basin. In addition, NMFS has relied on
information outlined in the All-H Paper as a framework for developing the
forthcoming recovery plans.
Implementation of the measures by the nine federal agencies as outlined in
the All-H Paper is voluntary; while agreed to by members of the Federal
Caucus, the paper establishes expectations, but does not establish
specific obligations for individual agencies. Actual implementation of the
recommendations has varied across agencies, and across the different
categories of recovery-hatcheries, habitat, harvest, and hydropower.
Nonetheless, the comprehensive approach to species management outlined in
the All-H Paper has informed and guided agencies' work on other plans. For
example, the Council now uses information contained in the All-H Paper in
its development of the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Action Agencies
use the four "H's" in the Biological Opinion Implementation Plans.
Other Directives and Agency Missions Drive Additional Collaborative and
Independent Plans and Programs
Additional fish and wildlife plans and programs are driven by other
directives, such as the Clean Water Act and court decisions based on
treaty rights, as well as by each agency's unique mission. Agencies
develop and implement these plans and programs through collaborative and
independent agency efforts. The lead agencies and federal and tribal
collaborators in the development and implementation for selected plans and
programs are summarized in figure 4.
Figure 4: Federal and Tribal Collaboration on Selected Fish and Wildlife
Plans and Programs Driven by Other Directives and Agency Missions
Note: Figure does not include significant state, local, and private entity
participation in plan development and implementation.
Clean Water Act-Driven Programs
The Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. As the
regulating agency for the Clean Water Act, EPA has the authority to
implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards
for industry. The Clean Water Act also provides for states and tribes to
set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. EPA
also manages grant programs designed to assist agencies, tribes, and
others to comply with this guidance.
In the Columbia River Basin, EPA manages several grant programs that
indirectly benefit fish and wildlife by promoting water and environmental
quality on tribal lands. EPA manages these programs collaboratively with
tribes and other organizations to identify water quality needs in the
basin, as well as suitable projects to address these needs. Grant programs
in the basin identified by EPA include the following:
o Clean Water Act General Assistance Grant Program to Tribes-Provides
general assistance grants to Indian tribal governments and intertribal
consortia to build capacity to administer regulatory and multimedia
programs addressing environmental issues on Indian lands.
o Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program-Provides funding to states and
Indian tribes for a wide variety of nonpoint source activities, including
technical and financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring.
o Clean Water Act Section 106 Grant Programs-Assists Indian tribes and
states in carrying out effective water pollution control programs,
including water quality planning and assessments, development of water
quality standards, and water quality monitoring.
Implementation of these grant projects is handled by grant recipients,
with minimal assistance from EPA beyond the initial discussions concerning
project design and funding. According to EPA, the grant programs work well
and allow the tribes to fully incorporate their technical knowledge and
experience into water quality planning.
Court Decision-Driven Plans and Programs
In addition to federal environmental protection laws, such as the Clean
Water Act, tribal treaty rights and clarifying court decisions have also
resulted in plans to manage basin fish and wildlife. For example, the 1969
United States v. Oregon and 1974 United States v. Washington court
decisions ruled that certain Columbia River Basin tribes have a right to
50 percent of the annual harvestable catch of fish at all usual and
accustomed fishing areas. A subsequent court ruling in 1977 ordered FWS,
NMFS, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the tribes to develop a
collaborative plan for managing the annual harvest of the fisheries
affected by United States v. Oregon. In addition, BIA assists the tribes
in negotiations with federal agencies and development of the plan. Known
as the Five Year Columbia River Fish Management Plan, the plan sets forth
harvest allocation terms, as well as efforts to rebuild and enhance fish
runs. Since that plan expired in 1982, harvest allocation under United
States v. Oregon has been alternately managed by additional multiyear
collaborative plans and annual court-ordered negotiations that seek to
balance tribal harvest, nontribal harvest, and species protection.
According to FWS and NMFS, their input on United States v. Oregon
negotiations must balance both their trust responsibilities to tribes, as
well as their responsibilities to endangered and threatened species that
are affected by the United States v. Oregon decision. At present, United
States v. Oregon harvest allocation is decided by annual court-ordered
negotiations, although the parties are seeking to develop a new long-term
collaborative plan, to be known as the Columbia River Fish Management
Agreement. Otherwise, the parties will continue to revisit harvest and
fish management decisions for the Columbia River through annual
negotiations.
Implementation of measures agreed to in United States v. Oregon
negotiations or plans is handled collaboratively by federal, state, and
tribal parties. For example, FWS and NMFS are responsible for implementing
measures, such as hatchery enhancement, to rebuild depressed fish stocks.
State agencies are responsible for publishing and regulating annual
harvest levels. The five Columbia River Basin tribes that are parties to
United States v. Oregon are responsible for abiding by annual harvest
levels. According to NMFS, the implementation of United States v. Oregon
negotiations or plans affect fisheries in a number of important areas,
including habitat, production, and hatchery management. Furthermore, the
decisions reached during the negotiations serve as guidelines for the
various decisions made on the Regional Forum committees. For example,
agreements concerning harvest levels that are reached with tribes during
the United States v. Oregon negotiations serve as the baseline for
discussions of harvest management and monitoring at the Regional Forum.
Agency Mission-Driven Plans and Programs
Agency missions also drive fish and wildlife plans in the basin.
Specifically, the water and resource management responsibilities of the
Corps, Reclamation, Forest Service, BLM, and NRCS require these agencies
to create plans that address the fish and wildlife impacts of their
activities. Some of these plans are collaborative in their design or
implementation, and represent agency efforts to more fully meet their
mission with assistance from other agencies. Others are designed and
implemented independently by individual agencies, and represent agency
efforts to benefit fish and wildlife through mission activities.
The Corps uses Project Management Plans to ensure that their internal
agency activities follow appropriate guidelines for protecting fish
passage and mitigating barriers to it along the Columbia River. The scope
of Project Management Plans varies widely, but each plan includes a fish
protection and mitigation component. Development and implementation of
Project Management Plans is handled independently by the Corps.
Information contained within Project Management Plans informs the Corps'
participation in other plans in the basin, and thus influences the
activities of other agencies. For example, the Corps reported that the
content of Project Management Plans is frequently used in developing the
annual and 5-year Biological Opinion Implementation Plans for the FCRPS.
Reclamation uses Research and Monitoring Programs to independently fund,
develop, and implement a wide range of discretionary efforts, including
research and monitoring efforts that focus on fish and wildlife. Funding
for the Research and Monitoring Programs is distributed annually from
Reclamation's Commissioner's office, and projects are selected from across
a variety of departments. According to Reclamation officials, Research and
Monitoring Programs are important tools for incorporating fish and
wildlife activities into internal agency policies.
The collaborative efforts of the Forest Service and BLM have yielded the
Northwest Forest Plan, an effort to facilitate a collaborative interagency
approach to ecosystem management on federal lands located within the range
of the threatened northern spotted owl. In addition, the Northwest Forest
Plan includes an Aquatic Conservation Strategy designed to promote the
recovery of listed endangered and threatened species, as well as nonlisted
aquatic species. As land management agencies, Forest Service and BLM take
the lead on developing and implementing measures for the long-term health
of forests, wildlife, and waterways on their lands. Nonetheless, several
other federal agencies provided input on the design of the Northwest
Forest Plan through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Corps,
Forest Service, BIA, BLM, EPA, FWS, NMFS, USGS, and the National Park
Service. In addition, federal agencies, as well as state, local, and
tribal governments, continually collaborate on the implementation of the
Northwest Forest Plan. For example, the Regional Interagency Executive
Committee, which is comprised of representatives from the federal
agencies, facilitates the prompt and coordinated implementation of the
Northwest Forest Plan at the regional level. In addition, the
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which is comprised of
representatives from federal, state, county, and tribal governments,
provides a vehicle for input from the states, counties, and tribes, and
promotes the integration and coordination of forest management activities
among federal and nonfederal entities.
The Forest Service also develops Land and Resource Management Plans,
commonly referred to as Forest Plans, to manage each specific National
Forest. Forest Plans, developed through the National Environmental Policy
Act public comment process, address a variety of forest management
concerns but contain objectives and standards/guidelines that specifically
address conservation and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat
integrated with other resource management needs. According to the Forest
Service, Forest Plans were the primary vehicle for integrating fish and
wildlife concerns with other management objectives. Forest Plans do not
set forth determinations on the type and number of actions to be
implemented, but provide sideboards and guidance for the design of
site-level actions. Development and implementation of these plans are
primarily handled by the Forest Service, although NMFS, FWS, and tribes
provide some input. The Forest Service coordinates with BLM on the
development of Forest Plans where BLM lands lie adjacent to National
Forests. BLM and Forest Service also collaborate on species management,
including habitat management and aquatic management strategies. Through
consultations with the Forest Service, Columbia River Basin tribes provide
input on the design and implementation of Forest Plans, and also
participate in cost-share fish and wildlife activities on National Forest
System lands. According to one Forest Service official, securing
cost-share funding for activities benefiting nonlisted fish is an ongoing
challenge because endangered and threatened species fish tend to receive
the most attention and funding.
BLM uses District Resource Management Plans to guide agency activities.
Resource Management Plans outline general management guidelines for all
agency activities, and also contain specific management guidelines for
protecting fish and wildlife. Although Resource Management Plans address
internal management guidelines for BLM, they are developed through the
National Environmental Policy Act public comment process. As such, they
receive significant public attention and input, and BLM must incorporate
the comments into their development of the plans.
NRCS uses its Environmental Quality Incentive Program to fund projects
that indirectly benefit fish and wildlife through environmental
improvements to irrigation, erosion, water quality, and agriculture.
Operated collaboratively with tribes, NRCS funds these projects on a
cost-share basis, providing a minimum of 2.6 percent of the total funds.
According to NRCS, tribes are an excellent vehicle for gaining access to
lands previously inaccessible to environmental improvements because the
tribes are continually purchasing land from private sellers, and because
they are willing to partner with NRCS on land rehabilitation.
In conjunction with their agency missions, and in recognition of their
trust responsibilities to tribes, federal agencies also have the
opportunity to participate in the development and implementation of
tribally managed fish and wildlife plans. For example, representatives
from the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama tribes, as well as
staff from the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, compiled the
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, which outlines a framework for restoring
anadromous fish stocks in the Columbia River Basin. This tribal plan
outlines the cultural context for the tribes' salmon restoration efforts,
as well as technical and institutional recommendations and watershed
restoration actions. According to the tribes, however, federal agency
collaboration on tribe-led plans is minimal, and there is significant room
for increased participation from agencies on tribal fish and wildlife
plans.
In addition to opportunities for collaboration on tribal plans, agencies
also have opportunities to fulfill agency missions and other
responsibilities through collaboration on state-managed plans. For
example, one agency reported collaborating with the state of Washington on
their "Extinction Is Not an Option" plan, which provides a framework for
the recovery of endangered species in the state. Agencies also collaborate
with the state of Oregon on the Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. According
to some federal agency representatives, collaboration on federal and state
fish and wildlife plans is important in ensuring that overall fish and
wildlife goals in the basin are met.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, the Interior, as well as Bonneville and EPA. Bonneville
and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce provided official written
comments. (See apps. VI through VIII, respectively, for the full text of
the comments received from these agencies and our responses.) The comments
were generally technical in nature with few comments on the report's
overall findings. We made changes to the report, where appropriate, based
on the technical comments provided by the three entities that commented on
the report. The Department of Defense and EPA had no comments on the
report. The Department of the Interior did not provide comments in time to
be included in this report.
Bonneville commented that the draft would benefit from the inclusion of
additional information regarding the federal government's trust
responsibilities to the tribes in the Columbia River Basin. Within the
scope of our review, we believe the topic is adequately and accurately
described in the report. The Department of Agriculture objected to our
assertions in figures 3 and 4 that the Forest Service contributes to the
development or implementation of certain plans, and that BLM contributes
to the development and implementation of Forest Service Land and Resource
Management Plans, respectively. The figures are intended to demonstrate
the collaborative nature of fish and wildlife plans and programs in the
basin. While we recognize that in many cases agencies do not have official
roles or responsibilities in specific plans, we believe our figures
accurately highlight both formal and informal contributions from agencies
and tribes, as described to us by agency officials, tribal
representatives, and others.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, the Interior, and the Administrators of Bonneville and
EPA, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested Members of
Congress. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IX.
Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Scope and MethodologyAppendix I
To identify and describe the laws, treaties, executive orders, and court
decisions that define the responsibilities of the Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville) and other federal agencies to perform
activities benefiting fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin and
involve tribes in the process, we reviewed our prior report on salmon and
steelhead recovery activities in the Columbia River Basin for 11 agencies
with significant responsibility for fish and wildlife in the Pacific
Northwest.1 These agencies were Bonneville; the Forest Service and Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Department of
Agriculture; the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the Department of the
Interior; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) within the Department
of Defense; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the
Department of Commerce; and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We
reviewed the directives identified by the agencies in the report as
defining their responsibilities for salmon and steelhead in the basin, and
requested confirmation from each agency on these directives. In addition,
we asked each agency to identify any additional directives that define
their responsibilities for other fish and wildlife, and to identify any
directives applicable to Columbia River Basin tribes that create fish and
wildlife responsibilities for agencies. We also requested input from the
13 Columbia River Basin tribes on the directives that define federal
responsibilities for fish and wildlife in the basin. Based on the
responses provided by agencies and tribes, we compiled a summary of
directives that define agency responsibilities for fish and wildlife in
the basin. We collected documentation on these directives from the
agencies, discussed the directives with agency, tribal, and other
representatives for clarification.
To identify and describe the fish and wildlife plans and programs that
Bonneville and other federal agencies have developed to guide their fish
and wildlife activities, we reviewed our prior report on salmon and
steelhead recovery activities in the Columbia River Basin. We then
reviewed the plans and programs identified by the agencies in the report
as guiding their recovery activities for salmon and steelhead, and
requested confirmation from each agency on these plans and programs. In
addition, we asked agencies to identify any additional plans and programs
used to fulfill agency responsibilities for fish and wildlife in the
basin, and we interviewed agency officials to gather additional
information on the implementation of fish and wildlife plans and programs.
We also interviewed staff and officials of the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority,
in order to gather information on their roles in assisting federal
agencies with the design and implementation of fish and wildlife plans and
programs. To gather the tribal perspective on fish and wildlife plans and
programs, we met with representatives from 10 of the 13 federally
recognized tribes in the basin, as well as representatives from the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and the Upper Columbia United
Tribes. In addition, 10 of the 13 tribes submitted written comments on
tribal participation in federal fish and wildlife plans in the basin.
During our information collection, agencies, organizations, and tribes
highlighted a number of concerns regarding the implementation of fish and
wildlife plans and programs in the basin, which we included in this
report. In accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing matters
that are in litigation, we did not examine or report on any issues that
are before the court.
We performed our work from August 2003 through April 2004, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Laws, Treaties, and Executive Orders Guiding Agency Activities Affecting
Columbia River Basin Fish and WildlifeAppendix II
Tables 4, 5, and 6 list the nationwide, basin-specific, and
mission-specific laws reported by federal agencies as guiding their
actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the
Columbia River Basin.
Table 4: Nationwide Laws Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Nationwide law Citation Description
Authorizes the
Secretaries of Commerce
and of the Interior to
enter into cooperative
Anadromous Fish 16 U.S.C. S:S: agreements for the
Conservation Act 757a-757f development,
conservation, and
enhancement of anadromous
(migratory) fish
resources.
Prohibits the taking or
16 U.S.C. S:S: possession of and
Bald Eagle Protection Act 668-668d commerce in bald and
golden eagles, with
limited exceptions.
Requires EPA to set
limits on air pollutants
and approve state
42 U.S.C. S:S: implementation plans to
Clean Air Act 7401-7671q reduce pollutants that
exceed limits, and
requires federal
activities to comply with
limits.
Provides for the
restoration and
maintenance of the
Nation's waters.
Authorizes EPA to
establish effluent
limitations and requires
Federal Water Pollution permits for the discharge
Control Act (commonly 33 U.S.C. S:S: of pollutants from a
referred to as the Clean 1251-1387 point source to navigable
Water Act) waters. EPA approves
state and tribal limits
for the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water
body can receive and
still meet water quality
standards for specified
purposes, including fish
and wildlife.
Directs federal agencies
to cooperate with state
and local governments to
control polluted runoff
in coastal waters and to
Coastal Zone Management Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: otherwise generally
of 1972 1451-1465 protect, develop, and
restore the resources of
the nation's coastal
zone, including fish and
wildlife and their
habitats.
Provides for the cleanup
of hazardous waste by
imposing liabilities and
duties on responsible
Comprehensive Environmental parties, including
Response, Compensation, and 42 U.S.C. S:S: federal agencies, and by
Liability Act of 1980 9601-9675 authorizing the federal
government to take
cleanup actions in
response to releases or
threatened releases of
hazardous substances.
Provides for the
conservation and recovery
of species of plants and
animals that the National
Marine Fisheries Service
or the U.S. Fish and
Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: Wildlife Service
1531-1544 determines to be in
danger of or soon to
become in danger of
extinction. Includes
measures to protect the
habitats of these
species.
Declares that recreation
and fish and wildlife
Federal Water Project 16 U.S.C. S:S: enhancement should be
Recreation Act 460l-12 to l-21 given full consideration
as purposes of federal
water development
projects.
Provides for financial
and technical assistance
Fish and Wildlife 16 U.S.C. S:S: to states for development
Conservation Act of 1980 2901-2912 and implementation of
conservation plans and
programs for nongame fish
and wildlife.
Authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to, among
other things, provide
assistance to, and
cooperate with, federal,
state, and public or
private agencies and
Fish and Wildlife 16 U.S.C. S:S: organizations in the
Coordination Act 661-666c development, protection,
rearing, and stocking of
all species of wildlife
and their habitat, in
minimizing damages from
overabundant species, and
in providing public
shooting and fishing
areas.
Nationwide law Citation Description
E.g. Flood Control Authorize projects for
Act of 1970, Pub. L. the benefit of
No. 91-611, 84 Stat. navigation, the control
Flood Control Acts 1818 (1970) and of destructive
Flood Control Act of floodwaters, protection
1965, Pub. L. No. of the shorelines, and
89-298, 79 Stat. other purposes.
1073 (1965).
Establishes a framework
for the conservation and
management of U.S.
coastal and Outer
Continental Shelf fishery
resources and anadromous
species, which includes
the establishment of
national standards for
fishery management and
conservation and of eight
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Regional Fishery
Conservation and Management 16 U.S.C. S:S: Management Councils to
Act of 1972 1801-1883 develop fishery
management plans.
Requires federal agencies
to consult with the
Secretary of Commerce
with respect to any
agencies actions that may
adversely affect
essential fish habitat,
and requires the
Secretary to recommend
habitat conservation
measures to the agency.
Enacts various measures
to protect marine mammals
and their habitats. Most
notably, prohibits the
Marine Mammal Protection 16 U.S.C. S:S: taking of marine mammals,
Act 1361-1421h except under certain
conditions, including as
an incidental take during
commercial fishing
operations.
Regulates the dumping of
all types of materials
into ocean waters and
authorizes the EPA to
issue dumping permits for
material other than
33 U.S.C. S:S: dredged material and the
Marine Protection, Research 1401-1445, 16 U.S.C. Army Corps of Engineers
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 S:S: 1431-1434 to issue permits for the
transportation and
dumping of dredged
materials, based in part
on the effect of the
dumping on fish and
wildlife and the marine
environment.
Establishes a Migratory
Bird Conservation
Commission, headed by the
Secretary of the
Interior, to approve
Migratory Bird Conservation 16 U.S.C. S:S: areas of land or water
Act 715-715r recommended by the
Secretary, and approved
by the state in which the
land is located, for
acquisition as
reservations for
migratory birds.
Implements various
treaties and conventions
between the United
States, Canada, Japan,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: Mexico, and the former
703-712 Soviet Union for the
protection of migratory
birds. Prohibits taking,
killing, or possessing
migratory birds.
Enacts measures to
promote efforts to
prevent or eliminate
damage to the
National Environmental 42 U.S.C. S:S: environment. Requires
Policy Act of 1969 4321-4347 federal agencies to
examine the impacts of
proposed major federal
actions "significantly
affecting" the
environment.
Encourages agencies and
individuals to develop
historic preservation
programs, and requires
agencies to oversee any
historic sites under
National Historic 16 U.S.C. S:S: 470 their jurisdiction and
Preservation Act of 1966 consider the effects of
its actions on historic
sites. Provides for
tribes to designate an
official to administer
the preservation program
on tribal lands.
Enacts measures to
prevent the unintentional
introduction of
nonindigenous species
into the waters of the
United States and to
minimize the economic and
Nonindigenous Aquatic ecological effects of
Nuisance Prevention and 16 U.S.C. S:S: such species that become
Control Act of 1990 4701-4751 established. Establishes
a task force, comprising,
among others, the FWS,
the Coast Guard, and EPA
to develop a program to
prevent introduction of
and to control the spread
of introduced aquatic
nuisance species.
Nationwide law Citation Description
Enacts measures to
protect, enhance,
restore, and manage
wetlands and their
North American Wetlands 16 U.S.C. S:S: ecosystems (which
Conservation Act 4401-4414 includes fish and
wildlife). Authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior
to fund wetland
improvement projects.
Imposes liability on
responsible parties for
damages (e.g., loss of
33 U.S.C. S:S: natural resources) and
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 2701-2761 for removal costs that
agencies, tribes, and
others incur from oil
discharges into navigable
waters.
Establishes a national
policy to improve
conditions on public
rangelands; requires the
Secretary of the Interior
Public Rangelands 43 U.S.C. S:S: and Secretary of
Improvement Act of 1978 1901-1908 Agriculture to develop,
update, and maintain and
inventory of range
conditions; and
authorizes funding for
range improvement
projects.
Prohibits projects that
interfere with
navigation, unless
congressional approval is
given and a permit is
obtained from the
River and Harbor Act of 33 U.S.C. S:S: 401, Department of
1899, S:S: 9,10 403 Transportation for
bridges or causeways, or
from the Army Corps of
Engineers for other
projects such as piers,
wharfs, breakwaters,
bulkheads, jetties,
weirs, dams, or dikes.
Enacts measures to
protect public drinking
water. Requires EPA to
promulgate national
drinking water
Safe Drinking Water Act of 42 U.S.C. S:S: 300f regulations to be
1974 to j-26 enforced by states, and
prohibits federal
agencies from assisting
actions that will
contaminate an aquifer
designated as a drinking
water source.
Establishes a program for
conservation and
rehabilitation of natural
resources, including fish
and wildlife, at military
Sikes Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: installations, in
670-670o accordance with a plan
developed by the
Secretaries of Defense
and the Interior in
coordination with the
appropriate state agency.
Directs the Secretary of
Transportation, in
coordination with the
Secretary of the
Interior, to study
alternative
transportation needs on
public lands, such as
national parks,
recreation areas, and
Transportation Equity Act wildlife refuges, to
for the 21st Century, S: 49 U.S.C. S: 138 encourage and promote the
3039 note development of
transportation systems
for the betterment of
those areas in order to,
among other things,
conserve natural,
historical, and cultural
resources and prevent
adverse impacts, relieve
congestion, reduce
pollution, and enhance
the visitor experience.
Authorizes the Secretary
of Agriculture to provide
financial and other
assistance to state and
local entities and to
Watershed Protection and 16 U.S.C. S:S: Indian tribes to plan and
Flood Prevention Act 1001-1010 carry out projects in
watersheds for flood
prevention, conservation,
development, utilization,
and disposal of water, or
for conservation and
proper use of land.
Institutes a national
wild and scenic rivers
system and implements a
policy of protecting
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: rivers that comprise the
1271-1287 system and preserving
them in a free-flowing
state, by enacting
protective and other
measures.
Establishes a National
Wilderness Preservation
System composed of
federally owned areas the
Congress designates as
"wilderness areas," which
are to be administered in
Wilderness Act 16 U.S.C. S:S: a way that protects the
1131-1136 areas and preserves their
wilderness character.
Federal agencies that had
jurisdiction over areas
designated as part of the
system are to retain
jurisdiction and continue
to manage them.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 5: Basin-specific Laws Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Basin-specific law Citation Description
Authorizes the construction,
maintenance and operation of
the Bonneville Project to
improve navigation on the
Columbia River, and for
incidental purposes such as the
production of electricity.
Creates the Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville) and
Bonneville Project Act of 16 U.S.C. S:S: authorizes it to market power
1937 832-832l produced by the Project and to
construct electricity
transmission lines. Requires
Bonneville to set its rates in
a way that considers the
recovery of the cost of
producing and transmitting
electric energy from the
Federal Columbia River Power
System.
Makes the construction of Grand
Coulee Dam subject to federal
reclamation laws discussed in
this table, and authorizes the
Columbia Basin Project 16 U.S.C. S:S: Secretary of the Interior to
Act 835-835c-5 take certain actions, including
the sale and exchange of lands
and the administration of
public lands in the project
area, to, among other things,
protect project land.
Directs the Secretary of
Energy, through the
Administrator of the Bonneville
Power Administration, to
operate and maintain the
federal electric power
transmission system in the
Pacific Northwest and to
Federal Columbia River 16 U.S.C. S:S: construct appropriate
Transmission System Act 838-838k improvements and additions.
Designates Bonneville as the
marketing agent, with some
exceptions, of electric power
generated by federal plants
constructed by the Army Corps
of Engineers or the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Pacific
Northwest.
Directs the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with
heads of other appropriate
agencies, to develop and
implement projects to mitigate
impacts on fisheries of the
construction and operation of
Fisheries Restoration and water diversions by local
Irrigation Mitigation Act 16 U.S.C. S: 777 governmental entities in
of 2000 portions of Oregon, Washington,
Montana, and Idaho from which
water drains into the Pacific
Ocean. Eligible projects
include the development,
improvement, or installation of
fish screens and fish passage
devices.
Directs the Secretary of
Commerce to establish
salmon-cultural stations in the
16 U.S.C. S:S: Columbia River Basin in Oregon,
Mitchell Act 755-757 Washington, and Idaho, and to
carry out other activities for
the conservation of fishery
resources in the Columbia River
Basin.
Basin-specific law Citation Description
Enacts measures to assure the
Pacific Northwest of an
adequate, efficient,
economical, and reliable power
supply, and includes provisions
for the protection of fish and
wildlife. Provides for the
formation of the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and
Conservation Planning Council
(Council) and directs it to,
among other things, develop a
program to "protect, mitigate,
and enhance" fish and wildlife
of the Columbia River Basin.
Requires the Administrator of
the Bonneville Power
Administration to take steps to
"protect, mitigate, and
Pacific Northwest 16 U.S.C. S:S: enhance" fish and wildlife
Electric Power Planning 839-839h affected by the development and
and Conservation Act operation of the Federal
Columbia River Power System,
while ensuring the Pacific
Northwest an adequate,
efficient, economical, and
reliable power supply. 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, and to consider in
their decision-making process,
to the fullest extent
practicable, the Council's fish
and wildlife program.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 6: Mission-specific Laws Guiding Agency Activities Affecting
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Mission-specific law Citation Description
In setting policy for and
providing for the
management of public lands,
along with the
Classification and Multiple
Use Act, establishes a
multiple-use mandate for
lands managed by the Bureau
Federal Land Policy and 43 U.S.C. S:S: of Land Management. Directs
Management Act of 1976 1701-1782 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.
Provides for the
development, conservation,
and use of the nation's
navigable waters, including
the development of
waterpower resources, and,
to that end, requires
federal licenses for the
construction and operation
of certain nonfederal
hydroelectric projects. For
projects using lands within
federal land reservations,
such as national forests,
16 U.S.C. S:S: licenses are subject to
Federal Power Act 791a-797, 798-824a, conditions established by
and 824b-825r the relevant land
management agency for
protection of the lands.
License conditions must
include a requirement for
fish passage as prescribed
by the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce. The
license must also include
conditions for the
protection and enhancement
of fish and wildlife, based
generally on
recommendations made by
federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies.
Authorize Columbia River
Basin projects by agencies
Individual project Various authorizing such as the Army Corps of
authorization acts (E.g., statutes (E.g., Pub. Engineers and the Bureau of
Tualatin Federal L. No. 89-596, 80 Reclamation for purposes
Reclamation Project Act) Stat. 822) such as navigation, power
production, fish and
wildlife conservation, and
recreation.
Directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop and
administer the renewable
surface resources of the
national forests for
Multiple-Use 16 U.S.C. S:S: multiple use and sustained
Sustained-Yield Act of 528-531 yield of the various
1960 products and services
obtained from those areas,
in cooperation with
interested state and local
government agencies and
others.
Along with the Organic Act
and the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act,
establishes a multiple-use
mandate for lands managed
by the Forest Service to
include outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed,
National Forest 16 U.S.C. S:S: wildlife and fish, and
Management Act 1600-1614 wilderness purposes.
Regulations adopted
pursuant to the National
Forest Management Act
require the Forest Service
to manage habitat to
maintain viable and
well-distributed
populations of native fish
and wildlife.
Establishes the National
Wildlife Refuge System and
directs the Secretary of
the Interior to, among
National Wildlife Refuge 16 U.S.C. S:S: other things, provide for
System Administration Act 668dd, 668ee the conservation of fish
of 1966 and wildlife and their
habitats within the system
and to prepare a
comprehensive conservation
plan for each refuge.
Act of June 17, Includes a requirement that
1902, ch. 1093, 32 the Bureau of Reclamation
Reclamation Act Stat. 388; Act of obtains water project
August 4, 1939, ch. permits from and operates
418, 55 Stat. 1187 projects in accordance with
state water law.
Establishes federal
responsibility to provide
opportunities for public
recreation at federal water
Reclamation Recreation 16 U.S.C. S:S: projects, and authorizes
Management Act 4601-4631 the Secretary of the
Interior to undertake
specific measures for the
management of Reclamation
lands.
Mission-specific law Citation Description
Authorizes the Natural
Resources Conservation
Service, and includes among
its purposes the protection
Soil Conservation and 16 U.S.C. S:S: 590a of rivers and harbors
Domestic Allotment Act to 590q-3 against the results of soil
erosion, and the prevention
and abatement of
agriculture-related
pollution.
Authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to construct
environmental restoration
projects; to restore
degraded ecosystems
resulting from the
construction or operation
E.g., Water of a project; to restore,
Resources protect, and create aquatic
Water Resources Development Act, 33 and wetlands habitat in
Development Acts U.S.C. S:S: connection with a project;
2201-2330 and to assist tribal,
state, and local
governments in preparing
comprehensive development
plans. Authorize
compensation for fish and
wildlife losses caused by
four dams on the lower
Snake River.
Authorizes the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management to enter into
cooperative agreements with
federal agencies, tribal,
state and local
Wyden Amendment 16 U.S.C. S: 1011(a) governments, private and
nonprofit entities, and
landowners for the
protection, restoration,
and enhancement of fish and
wildlife habitat and other
resources on public or
private land.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 7 lists the treaties that federal agencies reported as guiding their
actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the
Columbia River Basin.
Table 7: Treaties Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin
Fish and Wildlife
Treaty Citation Description
Treaty Relating to Defines the relationship
Cooperative Development between the United States
Columbia River Treaty of the Water Resources of and Canada concerning the
the Columbia River Basin operation of Columbia
(with Annexes) (September River dams and reservoirs.
16, 1964)
Treaty between the Governs the harvest of
Government of Canada and certain salmon stocks in
Pacific Salmon Treaty the Government of the the fisheries of the
United States of America Northwest states
Concerning Pacific Salmon (including Alaska) and
(August 13, 1985) Canada.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 8 lists the executive orders that federal agencies reported as
guiding their actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife
in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 8: Executive Orders Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Executive order Citation Description
Directs executive agencies
to evaluate the potential
effects of any actions
they may take in a
Floodplain Management E.O. 11988 (May 24, floodplain and to take
1977) action to reduce the risk
of flood loss and to
preserve the beneficial
values served by
floodplains.
Directs executive agencies
to minimize the
E.O. 11990 (May destruction, loss, or
Protection of Wetlands 24,1977) degradation of wetlands in
carrying out their
responsibilities on
federal land.
Directs executive agencies
to take certain actions to
Responsibilities of Federal E.O. 13186 (January further implement the
Agencies to Protect 10, 2001) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory Birds for the conservation of
migratory birds and their
habitats.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Laws and Executive Orders Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin TribesAppendix III
Table 9 lists the laws that federal agencies reported as guiding their
actions with regard to tribes in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 9: Laws Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin
Tribes
Law Citation Description
Enacts measures to protect
ownership of Indian lands
25 U.S.C. S:S: and to restore lands to
461-463, 464, 465, tribal ownership, and
Indian Reorganization Act 466-470, 471-473, authorizes the Secretary of
474, 475, 476-478, the Interior to acquire
479. lands for Indians. Grants
rights of self-governance
to Indians.
Enacts measures that
promote a policy of Indian
self-determination by
assuring maximum Indian
participation in
educational and other
Indian Self-Determination 25 U.S.C. S:S: federal services to Indian
and Education Assistance 13a, 450-450n, communities, including
Act 455-458e effective and meaningful
participation in the
planning, conduct, and
administration of those
services. Includes measures
to improve Indian
education.
Directs the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department
of the Interior, to spend
appropriated funds for the
Snyder Act 25 U.S.C. S: 13 benefit, care, and
assistance of Indians for
enumerated purposes, such
as education, health, and
the development of water
supplies.
Directs the Secretary of
the Interior to undertake
management activities,
together with the Indians,
on Indian forestland to
develop, maintain, and
National Indian Forest 25 U.S.C. S:S: enhance the land in a
Resources Management Act 3101-3120 perpetually productive
state in accordance with
the principles of sustained
yield and multiple uses, to
maintain and improve
wildlife and fisheries, and
for other purposes.
Establishes a process for
agencies to return Native
American remains and
associated funery objects
to lineal descendants and
Native American Graves 25 U.S.C. S:S: affiliated Indian tribes,
Protection and Repatriation 3001-3013 and regulates the ownership
Act and control of Native
American cultural items
that are excavated or
discovered on federal or
tribal lands after November
16, 1990.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 10 lists the executive orders and presidential memorandum that
federal agencies reported as guiding their actions with regard to tribes
in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 10: Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandum Guiding Agency
Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin Tribes
Executive order or Citation Description
memorandum
Requires executive agencies to
respect Indian tribal self
governance and sovereignty,
honor tribal treaty and other
rights, and strive to meet the
responsibilities that arise
Consultation and from the unique legal
Coordination with Indian E.O. 13175 (Nov. relationship between the
Tribal Governments 6, 2000) federal government and tribal
governments. Each agency shall
have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely
tribal input in the
development of regulatory
policies that have tribal
implications.
Requires, among other things,
that executive agencies
operate within a
government-to-government
relationship with federally
recognized tribal governments;
Memorandum for the consult to the greatest extent
Government to Government Heads of Executive possible with tribal
Relations with Native Departments and governments before taking
American Tribal Agencies (April actions that affect tribal
Governments 29, 1994) governments; and agencies
assess the impact of federal
government plans, projects,
programs, and activities on
tribal trust resources and
ensure that tribal rights and
concerns are considered in
developing them.
Establishes a program to
reform and make more efficient
the regulatory process,
including making the process
more accessible and open to
Regulatory Planning and E.O. 12866 the public. Wherever feasible,
Review (September 30, agencies are required to seek
1993) the views of appropriate
state, local and tribal
officials before imposing
regulatory requirements that
might significantly or
uniquely affect them.
Prohibits executive agencies,
to the extent feasible, from
promulgating any regulation
not required by statute that
creates a mandate upon a
state, local, or tribal
government, unless funds
necessary for direct costs of
the mandate are provided by
Enhancing the E.O. 12875 the federal government or the
Intergovernmental (October 26, 1993) agency has consulted with
Partnership affected state, local, or
tribal government. Requires
agencies to develop effective
processes to permit state,
local, and tribal
representatives to provide
meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory
proposals containing
significant unfunded mandates.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Court Decisions Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin
Fish, Wildlife, and TribesAppendix IV
Table 11 lists the court decisions that federal agencies reported as
guiding their actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife
in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 11: Court Decisions Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Court decision Citation Result
Invalidated NMFS listing of
Alsea Valley Alliance v. 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 naturally spawning Coho
Evans (D. Or. 2001) salmon on the Oregon coast
as threatened.
Invalidated the NMFS
biological opinion that
concluded that in light of
certain mitigation actions,
endangered and threatened
species of salmon and
National Wildlife No. CV 01-640-RE, steelhead trout in the
Federation v. National 2003 WL 21077450 (D. Columbia River Basin would
Marine Fisheries Service Or. May 7, 2003) not be jeopardized by
federal agencies' continued
operations of the Federal
Columbia River Power
System. The court remanded
the opinion to NMFS to
resolve deficiencies the
court identified.
Held that the Army Corps of
Engineers' 1995 and 1998
"Records of Decision"
describing how the Corps
would operate dams on the
Snake and Columbia Rivers
violated the Clean Water
Act by failing to ensure
National Wildlife compliance with water
Federation v. United 132 F. Supp.2d 876 quality standards issued by
States Army Corps of (D. Or. 2001) the State of Washington
Engineers under the act. The court
remanded the 1998 Record of
Decision to the Corps for
reconsideration and
directed the Corps to issue
a decision, within 60 days,
that addresses compliance
with its obligations under
the Clean Water Act.
Held that the requirement
in the Pacific Northwest
Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act to treat
fish and wildlife equitably
with power did not require
Bonneville to dedicate a
portion of the water to
fish and wildlife in
connection with agreements
Bonneville entered into
with Canada and several
utilities governing rights
Northwest Environmental to water stored behind
Defense Center v. 117 F.3d 1520 (9th electric dams on the
Bonneville Power Cir. 1997) Columbia River system in
Administration Canada. The court found
that the act did not
require equitable treatment
for fish and wildlife for
every action Bonneville
took, but only required
equitable treatment on a
systemwide basis. Also held
that the National
Environmental Policy Act
did not require Bonneville
to prepare an environmental
impact statement in this
case.
Held that in its final
amendments to the Columbia
River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program, the
Northwest Power Planning
Council failed to comply
with requirements of the
Pacific Northwest Electric
Power Planning and
Northwest Resource Conservation Act and the
Information Center, Inc. 35 F.3d 1371 (9th Administrative Procedure
v. Northwest Power Cir. 1994) Act by failing to (1)
Planning Council explain a statutory basis
for its rejection of
recommendations of fish and
wildlife agencies and
Indian tribes, and (2)
evaluate proposed program
measures against sound
biological objectives. The
court remanded the final
amendments to the Council
for reconsideration.
Court decision Citation Result
Held that the Bonneville
Power Administration erred
in its adoption of the
"Final Policy" for
implementation of the
Columbia River Basin Fish
and Wildlife Program in
deciding that only those
Public Utility District measures protecting fish
No. 1 of Douglas County 947 F.2d 386, 392-94 and wildlife specifically
v. Bonneville Power (9th Cir. 1991) described in the program
Administration were compensable under the
provision of the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation
Act entitling nonfederal
electric projects to
compensation for costs,
including power loss,
resulting from federally
imposed measures to protect
fish and wildlife.
Held that the Bonneville
Power Administration's
alleged unreasonable delay
Confederated Tribes of in implementing the Pacific
the Umatilla Indian 342 F.3d 924 (9th Northwest Electric Power
Reservation v. Bonneville Cir. 2003) Planning and Conservation
Power Administration Act requirement to provide
equitable treatment to fish
and wildlife was not
reviewable by a court.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Table 12 lists the court decisions that federal agencies reported as
guiding their actions with regard to tribes in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 12: Court Decisions Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia
River Basin Tribes
Court decision Citation Result
Held that the lower court
should not have directed
that a permanent injunction
be issued to stop the
Secretary of the Interior
from disposing of land that
Lane v. Pueblo of Santa comprised the Pueblo of
Rosa 249 U.S. 110 (1919) Santa Rosa, a Pueblo Indian
town in southern Arizona
acquired from Mexico under
the Gadsden Treaty, without
allowing the federal
government a chance to
address the merits of the
claim against it.
Found, among other things,
that although the United
States had a general trust
responsibility to Indian
tribes, unless there is a
Morongo Band of Mission specific duty that has been
Indians v. Federal 161 F.3d 569, 574 placed on the government
Aviation Administration (9th Cir. 1998) with respect to Indians,
this responsibility is
discharged by the agency's
compliance with general
regulations and statutes
not specifically aimed at
protecting Indian tribes.
Tribe successfully
challenged the Secretary of
the Interior's regulation
establishing the basis for
determining the amount of
water to be provided to the
Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District. Court held that
the Secretary failed to
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 354 F. Supp. 252 (D. adequately justify how much
of Indians v. Morton D.C. 1973) water, under court decrees
and a contract with an
irrigation district, he
determined could be
diverted from a river prior
to the point where it
flowed into an Indian
reservation and fed a lake
relied upon by many Indians
for their livelihood.
Held that lands acquired by
the U.S. in trust for the
United States v. Ferry 511 F. Supp. 546 tribes and individual
County (E.D. Wash. 1981) Indians are nontaxable, and
that all tax assessments
against such lands are null
and void.
Resolved a number of
monetary claims by the
Seminole Nation v. United 316 U.S. 286 (1942) Seminole Indians, finding
States in favor of the Seminoles
on some, and against them
on others.
Court decision Citation Result
Held that the United States
was liable to the Creek
Indians for damages that
occurred when it disposed
United States v. Creek 295 U.S. 103 (1935) of Creek land that a survey
Nation erroneously indicated
belonged to the United
States, measured by the
value of the property at
the time of the disposal.
Held that the United States
breached its fiduciary duty
to the Indians by
United States v. Mitchell 463 U.S. 206 (1983) mismanaging Indian forest
resources, and was liable
to the Indians for
resulting money damages.
Held that the State of
Oregon was limited in its
power to regulate the
exercise of the Indians'
federal treaty right to
fish, in that regulation
must be necessary for
302 F. Supp. 899 (D. conservation of the fish,
Sohappy v. Smith Or. 1969) the state restrictions must
not discriminate against
the Indians, and
restrictions must meet
appropriate standards.
Affirmed the treaty rights
of certain Indian tribes to
a fair share of the
harvestable catch.
Held that the State of
Washington had authority to
regulate Indians' exercise
of their treaty fishing
rights only to the extent
necessary for the
conservation of fishery
United States v. 384 F. Supp. 312 resources, and that tribes
Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974) (that met certain
conditions) had the right
to regulate fishing by
their members without any
state interference.
Affirmed the treaty rights
of certain Indian tribes to
a share of the harvestable
catch.
Held that a reservation of
waters for irrigation
purposes for the Indians on
the Fort Belknap
reservation is implied from
Winters v. United States 207 U.S. 564 (1908) an agreement that
established a reservation
for the Indians, and that
no one has the right to
divert water from naturally
flowing to the reservation.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Plans and Programs Implemented by Federal Agencies to Manage Columbia
River Basin Fish and Wildlife ActivitiesAppendix V
Table 13 provides descriptions of plans and programs identified by federal
agencies, including the directives driving the plans and programs and the
lead agencies.
Table 13: Plans and Programs That Guide Federal Fish and Wildlife
Activities in the Columbia River Basin
Plan/program Lead agency Description
Northwest Power
Act-driven plans and
programs
Program to protect, mitigate,
and enhance fish and
wildlife, including related
Columbia River Basin Bonneville, spawning grounds and habitat,
Fish and Wildlife on the Columbia River and its
Program the Council tributaries. Developed by the
Council, funded by
Bonneville, and implemented
by a number of agencies and
other organizations.
Process to incorporate
local-level planning for the
Northwest Power and 50+ subbasins in the Columbia
Conservation Council The Council River Basin into the
Subbasin Planning development and
Process implementation of the
Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program.
Program developed by the
Council, and operated on a
Northwest Power and 3-year cycle, to improve the
Conservation Council The Council technical review and approval
Provincial Review of projects funded by the
Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program.
Endangered Species
Act-driven plans and
programs
Plans that set forth
reasonable and prudent
measures/alternatives for
operation by the Corps,
Biological Opinions for FWS and NMFS Reclamation, and Bonneville
the FCRPS of the FCRPS, in order to
minimize impacts to fish and
wildlife. Created as a result
of consultation with FWS and
NMFS under Section 7 of ESA.
Biological Opinion Frameworks developed by the
Implementation Plans for Bonneville, the agencies managing the FCRPS
the FCRPS Corps, Reclamation for complying with Biological
Opinions for the FCRPS.
Plan designed to organize,
coordinate, and prioritize
recovery actions for bull
trout, and to outline
Bull Trout Recovery Plan FWS objective measurable criteria
that will be used to
determine when bull trout no
longer needs the protection
of the ESA.
Plans designed to organize,
coordinate, and prioritize
recovery actions for
Recovery plans for endangered and threatened
salmon (under NMFS salmon and steelhead, and to
development) outline objective measurable
criteria that will be used to
determine when salmon and
steelhead no longer need the
protection of the ESA.
A strategy and accompanying
suite of actions to be used
Basin-wide Salmon as a blueprint to guide
Recovery Strategy (All-H All agencies in the federal actions towards
Paper) Federal Caucus recovery of threatened and
endangered salmon and
steelhead in the Columbia
River Basin.
Clean Water Act-driven
plans and programs
Program to provide funding to
states and Indian tribes for
a wide variety of nonpoint
Clean Water Act Section source activities including
319 Grant Program EPA technical and financial
assistance, education,
training, technology
transfer, demonstration
projects, and monitoring.
Program to provide assistance
grants to Indian tribal
Clean Water Act General governments and intertribal
Assistance Grant Program EPA consortia to build capacity
to Tribes to administer regulatory and
multimedia programs
addressing environmental
issues on Indian lands.
Plan/program Lead agency Description
Program to provide assistance
to state water pollution
control agencies; interstate
agencies; and other nonprofit
Clean Water Act Section institutions, organizations,
104(b)(3) Support to EPA and individuals to promote
Total Maximum Daily the coordination of
Loads environmentally beneficial
activities, including storm
water control, sludge
management, and pretreatment
of wastewater.
Program to provide assistance
to Indian tribes in carrying
out effective water pollution
Clean Water Act Section control programs, including
106 Grant Program EPA water quality planning and
assessments, developing water
quality standards and total
maximum daily loads, and
ambient monitoring.
A loan program to fund water
quality protection projects
Clean Water State EPA for wastewater treatment,
Revolving Fund nonpoint source pollution
control, and watershed and
estuary management.
Program under Clean Water Act
Section 320 to improve the
quality of the Lower Columbia
Estuary, and provide the
Lower Columbia Estuary EPA basis for estuarine salmon
Partnership recovery efforts. Key
activities include habitat
monitoring, volunteering
monitoring, and species
recovery.
Court-driven plans and
programs
Plans that address tribal
allocation of annual fish
U.S. v Oregon Management FWS, NMFS harvest, as well as hatchery
Plans/Agreements and supplementation measures
designed to help rebuild
depressed fish stocks.
Mission-driven plans and
programs
Project to install spillway
Gas Abatement Project at deflectors and implement
Chief Joseph Dam The Corps operational changes at Chief
Joseph Dam in order to reduce
total dissolved gas levels.
Program to develop and
evaluate anadromous fish
passage facilities at Corps
dams on the Columbia and
Army Corps Anadromous The Corps lower Snake Rivers. Includes
Fish Evaluation Program monitoring, research, and
evaluation studies conducted
in collaboration with other
federal, state, and tribal
agencies.
Internal management plans
developed in parallel with
any Corps project. Designed
Project Management Plans The Corps to ensure that proper
internal procedures are
followed to protect and
mitigate barriers to fish
passage.
Internal management plans for
all BLM activities. Developed
via the National
District Resource BLM Environmental Policy Act
Management Plans process, they include
specific management
guidelines for protection of
fish and wildlife.
Management plans developed to
ensure that agency activities
Wild and Scenic River protect identified
Plans BLM, Forest Service "outstandingly remarkable
values," including fish and
wildlife, recognized in Wild
and Scenic River Areas.
Project designed to provide a
basis of coordination and
cooperation between local,
private, state, tribal, and
federal fish and land
Upper Salmon Basin managers, land users, land
Project NRCS owners and other affected
entities. Goal is to manage
the biological; social; and
economic resources to
protect, restore, and enhance
anadromous and resident fish
habitat.
Projects funded by special
congressional appropriations,
some of which address fish
General Investigations Reclamation and wildlife enhancement or
mitigation. Also typically
involve partnerships with
other groups, such as states,
interest groups, and tribes.
Internal Reclamation programs
funded by the Commissioner's
Research and Monitoring office that focus on a range
Programs Reclamation of discretionary activities,
including research and
monitoring efforts for fish
and wildlife.
Plan/program Lead agency Description
Management plans required for
all reservoirs managed by the
Resource Management agency. Plans address
Plans Reclamation management of recreational
activities, as well as
conservation of fish and
wildlife.
Specific project at Hungry
Horse Dam to control water
Hungry Horse Mitigation withdrawals at the reservoir
Implementation Plan Reclamation that were causing harm to
fish, and to mitigate for
impacts of constructing a
water control system.
Specific project to mitigate
impacts to fish and wildlife
Lower Snake River from construction of last
Compensation Plan Bonneville, FWS four FCRPS dams on the Lower
Snake River. Project preceded
mitigation requirements set
forth under the Power Act.
Recreational Fishery Internal agency plan to
Resources Conservation FWS incorporate conservation
Plan planning into the management
of recreational fisheries.
Internal agency plans that
incorporate specific
Land and Resource conservation measures for
Management Plans (Forest Forest Service fish, wildlife, plants, and
Plans) other natural resources, into
management of National
Forests.
Strategy to address the needs
of lynx and lynx habitat in
Lynx Conservation the context of forest
Strategy and Agreement Forest Service management, and to foster
cooperation and interaction
between foresters and
wildlife biologists.
Aquatic strategies that apply
interim standards and
guidelines to agency actions
PACFISH & INFISH Forest Service, BLM for the protection of aquatic
and riparian habitat for the
restoration of endangered and
threatened fish within the
interior Columbia basin.
An interagency approach to
developing and implementing
Northwest Forest Plan Forest Service, BLM measures for the long-term
health of forests, wildlife,
and waterways on federal
lands.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Assist the states and tribes
Recovery Fund NMFS in implementing salmon
restoration efforts.
Cost-share program, operated
collaboratively with tribes,
Environmental Quality to benefit fish and wildlife
Incentive Program NRCS through environmental
improvements to irrigation,
erosion, water quality, and
agriculture.
State-driven plans and
programs
Long-term strategy for the
recovery of salmon in
"Extinction Is Not an Washington state. Primary
Option": Washington goals of the strategy are to
Statewide Strategy to State of Washington restore salmon, steelhead,
Recover Salmon and trout populations to
healthy and harvestable
levels and improve the
habitats on which fish rely.
Collaborative agreement
between Washington state,
tribes, federal agencies,
Fish and Forest State of Washington timber interests, and
Agreement in Washington environmental groups to
address timber practices so
as to minimize impacts to
fish populations.
A statewide approach to
natural resource management
in Oregon that focuses on
Oregon Plan for Salmon & restoring Coho salmon through
Watersheds State of Oregon the Coastal Salmon
Restoration Initiative and
improving water quality
through the Healthy Streams
Partnership.
Tribally-driven plans
and programs
A framework for restoring
salmon in the Columbia River
Nez Perce, that outlines the cultural
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Umatilla, Warm context for the tribes'
Wa-Kish-Wit ("Spirit of Springs, Yakama salmon restoration efforts,
the Salmon") tribes as well as technical and
institutional recommendations
and watershed restoration
activities.
Plan outlining management
Warm Springs National measures and operational
Fish Hatchery procedures for the Warm
Operational and Warm Springs tribe Springs National Fish
Implementation Plan Hatchery, which is
cooperatively managed by FWS
and the Warm Springs tribe.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by federal agencies.
Comments from the Bonneville Power AdministrationAppendix VI
Comments from the Department of AgricultureAppendix VII
Comments from the Department of CommerceAppendix VIII
GAO Contacts and Staff AcknowledgmentsAppendix IX
GAO Contacts
Barry T. Hill, (202) 512-3841 Jeffery D. Malcolm, (202) 512-6536
Acknowledgments
In addition to those named above, Jill Berman, Brad Dobbins, and Rebecca
Sandulli made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the
report were Bob Crystal and Cynthia Norris.
(360380)
*** End of document. ***