National Fish Hatcheries: Authority Needed to Better Align Operations
With Priorities (Letter Report, 06/14/2000, GAO/RCED-00-151).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) national fish hatcheries, focusing on
whether: (1) the activities carried out at the national fish hatcheries
are consistent with their statutory authorizations; and (2) changes in
existing laws would be appropriate to provide better direction to FWS on
which programs to emphasize and to authorize FWS to make changes in how
it manages the hatcheries.

GAO noted that: (1) the laws governing national fish hatcheries
authorize and direct hatcheries to engage in a wide variety of
activities; (2) these activities include: (a) establishing and
implementing programs for the protection and conservation of fish, some
of which are threatened or endangered; (b) mitigating the impacts of
constructing federal dams and other federal water projects; (c)
supporting recreational fishing; and (d) supporting fishery resources on
FWS or tribal lands; (3) FWS believes that its most important mandate is
to recover and restore native aquatic species and ecosystems that are
either threatened or endangered; (4) congressional direction on which
programs that Congress wants the hatcheries to emphasize would allow FWS
to better align hatchery operations with the activities that Congress
believes should be FWS' highest priorities; (5) because the laws
affecting hatchery operations were enacted over a long period of time
and covered a broad range of issues, FWS has been charged with meeting a
variety of goals that sometimes conflict or for which the hatcheries are
not well located to carry out; (6) FWS finds itself struggling to
address the many mandates incrementally added over the years while, at
the same time, trying to maintain modern and efficient hatcheries in
locations specified by law; (7) furthermore, FWS finds itself operating
hatcheries in locations and spending resources to produce types of fish
and operate programs that it might not have conducted but for current
laws; (8) although FWS' funding has increased by 34 percent in constant
dollars since fiscal year 1992, the funding allocated to the hatcheries
has declined by about 15 percent in constant dollars in the same period;
(9) at the same time, the hatcheries have tried to maintain activities
in all program areas but in so doing, have fallen short of production
goals or have made compromises affecting fish quality; (10) to obtain
additional funding, FWS has sought to obtain reimbursements from the
beneficiaries of federal dams and other federal water projects and has
succeeded in some cases; and (11) however, FWS is prohibited from
obtaining reimbursement or lacks clear authority to do so.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-151
     TITLE:  National Fish Hatcheries: Authority Needed to Better Align
	     Operations With Priorities
      DATE:  06/14/2000
   SUBJECT:  Statutory law
	     Fishes
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Endangered species
IDENTIFIER:  National Fish Hatchery System

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** 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/RCED-00-151

Appendix I: Selected Laws Impacting Operations of the
National Fish Hatcheries

20

Appendix II: Federal Facilities That GAO Visited

22

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of the Interior

23

Table 1: Five Hatchery Program Categories 8

Figure 1: Location of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional
Offices and Fish Hatcheries 6

GAO General Accounting Office

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

B-284391

June 14, 2000

The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Miller:

The 66 national fish hatcheries of the Interior Department's Fish and
Wildlife Service play a unique role among the nation's hatcheries.1 State,
tribal, and private hatcheries primarily raise and stock fish for commercial
and recreational fishing. In comparison, federal hatcheries help ensure the
recovery of threatened or endangered species, restore native fish stocks to
self-sustaining levels, mitigate fisheries lost as a result of federal water
development projects, and supply fish to waters on Indian tribal and Service
lands. Some hatcheries are old and were established to replace fish lost as
a result of the construction and operation of federal dams and other federal
water projects. More than 100 laws, treaties, executive orders, and court
decisions affect hatchery operations. As a result of the many legal mandates
enacted over the years, the hatcheries' functions have changed, and they are
now being managed to meet a variety of goals.

This is the second of two reports that respond to your request for
information to help evaluate the appropriate role for the national fish
hatcheries.2 In October 1999, we reported on funding for the hatcheries and
their fish production activities. This report addresses (1) whether the
activities carried out at the national fish hatcheries are consistent with
their statutory authorizations and (2) whether changes in existing laws
would be appropriate to provide better direction to the Service on which
programs to emphasize and to authorize the Service to make changes in how it
manages the hatcheries.

The laws governing national fish hatcheries authorize and direct the
hatcheries to engage in a wide variety of activities. These activities
include establishing and implementing programs for the protection and
conservation of fish, some of which are either threatened or endangered;
mitigating the impacts of constructing federal dams and other federal water
projects; supporting recreational fishing; and supporting fishery resources
on Service or tribal lands. The current activities of the hatcheries fall
within these wide boundaries. In this context, the Service has identified
five broad program categories that describe how it carries out its statutory
responsibilities, including, for example, recovering native fish populations
and stocking native and nonnative fish on Service or tribal lands to
mitigate the effects of federal water projects. However, the Service
believes that its most important mandate is to recover and restore native
aquatic species and ecosystems that are either threatened or endangered.

Congressional direction on which programs that the Congress wants the
hatcheries to emphasize would allow the Service to better align hatchery
operations with the activities that the Congress believes should be the
Service's highest priorities. Because the laws affecting hatchery operations
were enacted over a long period of time and covered a broad range of issues,
the Service has been charged with meeting a variety of goals that sometimes
conflict or for which the hatcheries are not well located to carry out.
Today, the Service finds itself struggling to address the many mandates
incrementally added over the years while, at the same time, trying to
maintain modern and efficient hatcheries in locations specified by law. For
example, Service officials cite the restoration and recovery of over 100
species of fish listed as threatened or endangered as a high priority.
However, many hatcheries continue to raise and stock game fish in order to
mitigate for fish losses resulting from federal dam construction.
Furthermore, the Service finds itself operating hatcheries in locations and
spending resources to produce types of fish and operate programs that it
might not have conducted but for current laws. Although the Service's
funding has increased by 34 percent in constant dollars since fiscal year
1992, the funding allocated to the hatcheries has declined by about 15
percent in constant dollars in the same period. At the same time, the
hatcheries have tried to maintain activities in all program areas but in so
doing, have fallen short of production goals or have made compromises
affecting fish quality. To obtain additional funding, the Service has sought
to obtain reimbursements from the beneficiaries of federal dams and other
federal water projects and has succeeded in some cases. In other cases,
however, the Service is prohibited from obtaining reimbursement or lacks
clear authority to do so.

We recommend that the Congress provide direction on which programs it wants
the hatcheries to emphasize and provide the Service with authority to open,
close, change, move, and consolidate hatcheries. We also recommend that the
Congress provide the Service with clear authority to seek reimbursement for
all hatchery operations and maintenance expenses associated with federal
water projects from federal water development agencies and/or project
beneficiaries.

Over the past century, a variety of federal laws were enacted to construct
fish hatcheries as well as to address specific fish problems, advancements
in fish research, and changes in policies for fish protection. (See app. I
for a listing of selected laws.) To accommodate requirements that have
changed over the years, the national fish hatcheries added responsibilities
or changed their operations. For example, the Saratoga National Fish
Hatchery in Wyoming has been producing rainbow trout eggs since 1915. In
1984, it began producing lake trout eggs; and in 1996, it assumed
responsibility for maintaining the endangered Wyoming toad.

The Service is responsible for maintaining the nation's 66 national fish
hatcheries located in 34 states. These hatcheries are overseen by six of the
Service's seven regional offices.3 Figure 1 shows the location of the
hatcheries and the regional offices.

Fish Hatcheries

While overall funding for the Service has increased from fiscal year 1992
through fiscal year 1999, operating and maintenance funding for the national
fish hatcheries, as measured in constant 1999 dollars, has declined by about
15 percent. Appropriations for fiscal year 1992 were $46.7 million in
constant 1999 dollars, compared with $39.5 million for fiscal year 1999.
During the same period, total operating appropriations for the Service rose
by 34 percent, from $493 million to $661 million, as measured in constant
1999 dollars. However, the hatcheries' share of these appropriations
declined from about 9 percent to 6 percent.

National fish hatcheries try to achieve the goals of the laws authorizing
their creation; treaties; and/or the various laws subsequently enacted, such
as the Endangered Species Act, that require them to meet additional goals.
In 1996, the Service established, with input from stakeholders such as
states, tribes, and sport fisherman, the roles and responsibilities of the
Service, including the national fish hatcheries, for fishery resources.
Subsequently, the Service established and defined five hatchery program
categories that reflect its current legal mandates. The five hatchery
program categories are not specifically addressed in the Service's 1997-2002
strategic plan under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 but
are encompassed in two strategic fish goals established in the plan: (1)
Through 2002, interjurisdictional fish populations are conserved through
conservation efforts related to approved management plans and (2) by 2002,
the population levels of 20 percent of identified declining aquatic species
are stabilized or increased through proactive conservation measures.

The Service has developed performance measures for each of the two strategic
goals. Annual performance measurement reports track progress on activities,
financial investments, and results data. Strategic goals reports will be
prepared periodically to report progress toward the longer-term 5-year goals
and measures.

Table 1 describes these five program categories.

 Program Categories           Definition
                              The stocking of native fish to help
 Recovery                     reestablish self-sustaining populations at
                              levels of abundance and spatial distributions
                              sufficient for delisting.
                              The stocking of native fish to help
                              reestablish self-sustaining populations at
 Restoration                  levels of abundance and spatial distributions
                              well above the threshold for delisting or
                              listing.
                              The stocking of nonnative and native fish to
 Mitigation                   replace or maintain harvest levels lost as a
                              result of federal water projects.
                              The stocking of nonnative and native fish to
                              enhance harvest, outreach, and educational
 Fish and Wildlife Service    activities on national wildlife refuges (or
 and tribal lands             harvest on tribal lands) but not with the
                              intent of reestablishing or maintaining
                              self-sustaining populations.
                              The stocking of nonnative or native fish to
                              enhance the harvest but not with the intent
 Partnership management       of reestablishing or maintaining
                              self-sustaining populations or mitigating the
                              adverse effects of federal water projects.

Some hatcheries operate an array of programs. For example, hatcheries such
as Gavins Point in South Dakota and Creston in Montana operate programs that
include restoring and recovering threatened and endangered species,
mitigation, tribal stocking, and stocking fish on Service lands.

Although the range of hatchery programs may be broad, Service officials said
that because of the continuing decline in aquatic species, they place the
highest priorities on recovering threatened or endangered species and
restoring other native fish to self-sustaining levels. These two programs
have been the Service's highest priorities since the 1970s and have caused
some populations to increase. The following are examples:

ï¿½ In 1973, the Apache trout was listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. The recovery plan developed for the Apache trout called for
hatchery breeding and stocking of the trout. According to an official at the
Alchesay-Willams Creek National Fish Hatchery in Arizona, the Service's
efforts have increased the population of Apache trout, and it may be removed
from listing under the act in 2004.

ï¿½ Lake trout disappeared from the Great Lakes beginning in the mid-1950s.
Over the past 10 years, Service hatcheries have stocked more than 220
million lake trout eggs and juvenile fish in the Great Lakes to help rebuild
naturally reproducing populations. Self-sustaining populations have returned
to most areas of Lake Superior, and there is recent evidence that stocked
lake trout in Lake Huron are naturally producing.

In order to increase its restoration and recovery efforts, the Service has
redirected approximately $5.6 million in funding from discontinued hatchery
programs, such as redirecting almost $500,000 in 1997 from private
aquaculture activities to programs for improving the health of wild salmon
and lake trout, and the recovery of mitigation costs. In addition, $2
million in new funding has been directed toward restoration and recovery
since 1994.

The Service also, however, continues to emphasize mitigation to compensate
for the effects of federal water projects. For example, the construction of
federal dams on the upper White River in Arkansas lowered water temperatures
to the point where native bass, catfish, and sunfish could not survive below
the dams.4 As a mitigation effort that provides recreational fishing
opportunities, the Norfolk National Fish Hatchery in Arkansas produces
nonnative trout to stock these colder parts of the river. Because the trout
are not able to reproduce and achieve self-sustaining populations in these
waters, continued restocking is necessary.

Better Align Hatchery Operations With Its Highest Priorities

In some cases, the Service is not authorized to make changes to hatchery
operations in order to align them with its highest priorities--recovery and
restoration of native aquatic species, some of which are threatened and
endangered species. Currently, most hatchery production continues to focus
on mitigating the effects of federal water projects, principally by
restocking lakes and rivers for recreational fishing. Furthermore, while
funding for the hatcheries has declined by over 15 percent since 1992, the
Service continues to pursue the many objectives set forth for it in numerous
legal mandates. This has contributed to some operational inefficiencies and
a decline in performance. The authority to open, close, change, move, and
consolidate hatcheries would enable the Service to better target its
resources. In addition, the authority to obtain reimbursement from federal
water development agencies and/or the beneficiaries of federal water
projects could help support hatchery operations.

With Its Priorities or for Efficiency

While the Service's highest priorities for national fish hatcheries are
recovery and restoration, most fish produced by the hatcheries are for
mitigation purposes--that is, to replace fish losses resulting from the
creation of the dams at federal water projects and thereby to maintain
recreational fishing opportunities. While some hatcheries are working to
recover threatened and endangered species; others are conducting de facto
mitigation (in the absence of specific statutes) because they believe they
are obligated to do so; and still others are supporting recreational fishing
as their sole objective. We reported in October 1999 that 60 percent of the
fish and 80 percent of the fish eggs distributed by the hatcheries were for
mitigation efforts or for stocking game fish in federal, state, and tribal
waters for recreational fishing.5 In addition, in some instances, the laws
make it difficult for hatchery program managers to justify the operational
and structural changes needed to address what they believe are the hatchery
program's highest priorities because the hatcheries are operating programs
required by laws that were passed many years ago for then-pressing reasons.

Several hatchery managers expressed frustration with their inability to both
comply with the Service's priorities of restoration and recovery and, at the
same time, satisfy stakeholders--such as states, tribes and sport
fisherman--whose interests may differ from those priorities. They attributed
this difficulty in part to changing guidance provided by the Service over
time. The issue of recreational fishing illustrates this problem. Executive
Order 12962, in furtherance of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and other
laws, states that federal agencies should promote recreational fishing to
the extent permitted by law. However, the Service's five hatchery program
categories do not include recreational fishing. Service management decided
not to identify recreational fishing as a program category because
recreational fishing would benefit from meeting the five identified hatchery
program categories. Furthermore, according to the 1994 Report of the
National Fish Hatchery Review Panel, some species produced and stocked for
recreational fishing purposes have been competitors with or predators of
native fish species, such as those protected under the Endangered Species
Act.6 According to nearly all of the 29 regional officials and the 12
hatchery managers whom we contacted, it is important to clarify the
relationship between recreational fishing and other hatchery programs.

Furthermore, long-standing relationships between hatcheries and stakeholders
make it difficult for some managers to make recovery and restoration the
hatcheries' highest priorities. For these stakeholders, other objectives,
principally recreational fishing, are a higher priority. Several Service
officials said that these stakeholders do not fully understand the direction
and emphasis of the Service's priorities for restoring and recovering native
fish and see it as an abdication of federal involvement in recreational
fishing.

Hatchery managers also attribute the problem of both complying with the
Service's priorities and satisfying stakeholders to the array of laws
governing hatchery operations. For example, in fiscal year 1999, 38
hatcheries were involved in mitigation activities related to the
construction of federal dams. In 13 cases, the statutes authorizing
hatcheries require them to carry out mitigation activities. In the other
cases, the Service recognizes a de facto responsibility for conducting fish
mitigation activities, even though a hatchery might not have been
established initially as a mitigation hatchery. For example, the Uvalde
National Fish Hatchery in Texas was established in 1935 to provide fish to
farm ponds. The farm pond program was phased out in the mid-1970s, when the
hatchery's fishery program changed to providing channel catfish and
largemouth bass to federal and state waters as de facto mitigation for
federal water development projects.

In addition to the challenges of balancing priorities, hatchery managers are
unable to make certain operational and structural changes that would help
create efficient and modern hatcheries. Specifically, some hatcheries are
located in specific geographic locations that may no longer be appropriate.
Since the Service is unable to move or close a hatchery mandated by earlier
laws, hatchery officials are forced to make compromises that make it more
difficult or expensive to successfully raise the needed fish species. For
example, the hatcheries may use sources of water created by the projects to
rear fish. While the water may be ideal for cold-water fish, such as trout,
the hatcheries may need significant retrofitting to produce warm-water fish
that could be threatened or endangered. This is the case with the Willow
Beach National Fish Hatchery in Arizona, which was constructed in 1962 to
mitigate for fish losses associated with Hoover Dam's construction.
Annually, the hatchery stocks approximately 150,000 rainbow trout in the
Colorado River from Lake Mead south to the Mexican border. After more than
30 years of trout production, the hatchery also began rearing and
distributing endangered Razorback sucker and Bonytail chub. In order to
produce these warm-water species, the Service installed extensive solar
panels at the hatchery to heat the water needed to raise these endangered
fish.

Other hatcheries are in locations that are not conducive to producing
healthy fish or are producing them at greater expense, such as the Warm
Springs National Fish Hatchery in Oregon and the Iron River National Fish
Hatchery in Wisconsin. The Warm Springs hatchery produces Spring Chinook
salmon to provide harvest opportunities and protect wild fish populations.
However, the hatchery's location has made it difficult to maintain good
water quality without the use of specialized equipment. Water temperatures
are too warm in the summer, so chillers must be used to cool the water.
Without chillers, the salmon's health is jeopardized, thereby resulting in
higher fish mortality. Water quality is also of concern at the Iron River
National Fish Hatchery. The hatchery gets its water from a source that is 2
miles away. The water contains a significant amount of sediment, which
contaminates fish spawning and rearing equipment, making it difficult to
rear fish successfully.

Hatchery Operations

Operation and maintenance funding for the national fish hatcheries declined
by about 15 percent during fiscal years 1992 through 1999, down from $46.7
million in fiscal 1992 to $39.5 million in fiscal 1999, as measured in
constant 1999 dollars. By comparison, during this same time period, states
received over $200 million annually from federal excise taxes on fishing and
boating equipment to fund freshwater and saltwater sport fish management
projects.

As a result of the decline in funds, hatcheries have not always been able to
meet their production objectives or have had to make compromises that
affected fish quality, according to Service officials. For example, the
Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex in Washington State has had
difficulty meeting production objectives in part because it has not had
funding to replace outdated and dilapidated rearing ponds and holding and
handling facilities for adult fish. Similarly, at the Dale Hollow National
Fish Hatchery in Tennessee, the lack of funds has prevented the
modernization of the aerator building, an oxygen-enriching facility. This
facility is needed to reduce the number of fish health problems, such as
partial blindness and tumors.

Hatcheries' efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs have
also been affected by the decline in funds. The following are examples:

ï¿½ The lack of funds has resulted in not tagging all juvenile fish for the
Great Lakes lake trout restoration program, according to officials in the
Northeast Region. These officials are concerned that unless a sufficient
number of juvenile fish are tagged, restoration decisions will end up being
based on incomplete information.

ï¿½ At the Green Lake National Fish Hatchery in Maine, the manager said that
funding shortages have permitted only minimal monitoring and evaluation of
the Atlantic salmon recovery program. According to the manager, without
adequate monitoring of the juvenile salmon released from the hatchery, the
Service will be unable to determine why these salmon are not surviving.
Hatchery officials in the Northwest Region also report that funding
shortages have limited their monitoring of their Pacific salmon recovery
efforts.

Funding declines have also reduced hatcheries' ability to perform needed
maintenance and have resulted in the loss of fish and a general state of
disrepair at some hatcheries, according to program officials. As of April
2000, the Service was reporting a deferred maintenance backlog of about $274
million.7 Hatchery managers said that the deferred projects included ones
that could cause the loss of juvenile fish and adversely affect the safety
of hatchery personnel and the public. For example, at the Pittsford National
Fish Hatchery in Vermont, about 15,000 juvenile salmon were lost because of
a pump failure, and about 2.5 million juvenile fish were lost because of
equipment failure at the North Attleboro National Fish Hatchery in
Massachusetts. In addition, the Carson National Fish Hatchery in Washington
State has been unable to upgrade its water supply system, which increases
the potential for water-borne viruses or microorganisms, such as giardia,8
to infect hatchery employees, residents, and visitors.

Concern about the level of funding for the national fish hatcheries is not
new. In 1984, proposed legislation would have required reimbursement for the
hatcheries' operating and maintenance expenses by (1) water or electric
power users who benefit from federal water development projects and (2) the
federal agency or state government that exercised jurisdiction over fishery
management. While this legislation was not enacted, the Service has obtained
and is seeking reimbursements for the cost of operating and maintaining the
hatcheries from entities that benefit from federal water development
projects.

As of April 2000, Service officials were evaluating, on a hatcherywide
basis, cost recovery and cost reimbursement from project beneficiaries.
Service officials believe that unless they can increase staff and obtain
additional funding, they may be forced to reduce production and/or close
some hatcheries. However, Service officials believe that their closing
options would be limited because many of the hatcheries were set up by
specific laws and sometimes for specific purposes. As a result, the
hatcheries that could be closed might be those that provide the Service with
the greatest flexibility or are those that are most needed to meet the
Service's highest priorities.

The Service has been successful in some cases in seeking reimbursements. For
example, in fiscal year 1999, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation paid the entire $4.2 million operating expense for the Coleman
National Fish Hatchery Complex in California and the entire $2.9 million
operating expense for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex in
Washington State. In both cases, the Bureau required customers of water
supplied from the Bureau's water development projects--such as purchasers of
electric power--to pay a pro-rated share, on the basis of the amount of
water purchased, of the operation and maintenance expenses associated with
protecting fishery resources. In addition, the Service's Northwest Region is
entering into a reimbursement agreement with the Bonneville Power
Administration under which ratepayers will pay the operating and maintenance
expenses for some mitigation hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin.

In some cases, the Service is precluded from obtaining reimbursements or it
is questionable whether the Service could obtain reimbursement. For example,
in 1991, the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General found
that language of applicable legislation authorizing federal projects makes
it unlikely that project beneficiaries could be required to repay the
operation and maintenance expenses for the Lahonton, Hotchkiss, Jones Hole,
and Jackson national fish hatcheries. The Inspector General's report stated
that the statutes authorizing the projects specify that expenses to operate
and maintain hatcheries are not to be included as part of project expenses.
Also, according to Service officials, in some cases, it is questionable
whether the Service could obtain reimbursements because the legislation
authorizing the projects and hatcheries does not address the issue or
because the Service is not legislatively required to perform mitigation
services but has traditionally done so as part of its overall mitigation
responsibilities. For example, all of the funding for the Warm Springs
National Fish Hatchery in Oregon comes from the Service because the
hatchery's authorizing legislation does not clearly state that some of the
funds can be obtained through reimbursement agreements with hatchery
beneficiaries. Additionally, the Jackson National Fish Hatchery in Wyoming
is operated as a de facto mitigation hatchery for the Palisades Reservoir on
the Snake River, although the authorizing legislation requires the hatchery
only to improve the fishery on the upper Snake River drainage area. As a
result, the Service has not sought reimbursement from the Bureau of
Reclamation, which operates the dam.

Finally, at the Willow Beach Hatchery in Arizona, the expenses associated
with mitigation activities are not reimbursed, but a portion of the
hatchery's expenses associated with threatened and endangered fishery
activities is reimbursed. Although the hatchery was originally constructed
to propagate trout as mitigation for the impacts associated with the
construction of the Bureau of Reclamation's Hoover Dam, the hatchery has not
been reimbursed for mitigation activities. However, in 1994, the hatchery
began producing Razorback suckers and Bonytail chubs--both endangered
species--as part of the federal effort under the Endangered Species Act to
maintain and recover genetically diverse populations of these species. In
1995, the Service entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Bureau
for financial and personnel assistance for the threatened and endangered
species program. Under this agreement, the Bureau completely reimburses the
hatchery for the expenses incurred to propagate and augment the Razorback
sucker.

The Service operates the national fish hatcheries to achieve the goals of
the laws that originally authorized the hatcheries as well as various
subsequent laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, that require the
Service to meet additional responsibilities. Collectively, the Service has
been charged with meeting a variety of goals that are not always consistent
or for which the hatcheries are not well located or equipped to carry out.
While recovery and restoration are the Service's highest priorities, Service
officials believe they are obligated to provide mitigation of fish losses at
federal water projects that provide recreational fishing opportunities, and,
consequently, they have been reluctant to redirect resources from mitigation
to the Service's higher-priority activities. Service officials also have had
to spend the agency's limited funds on maintaining hatcheries at mandated
geographic locations that may not be the most suitable for raising
threatened or endangered species. Consequently, the Service finds itself
struggling to address the many mandates added over the years while at the
same time trying to maintain modern and efficient hatcheries. In addition,
while the Service has been successfully reimbursed in some cases for its
mitigation expenses at federal water projects from the project's
beneficiaries, in other cases, the Service is prohibited or lacks clear
authority to do so. In our view, congressional guidance is needed on which
programs the Service should emphasize. Furthermore, the Service needs the
authority to make changes to better align its hatchery operations with its
highest priorities, including the authority to open, close, change, move, or
consolidate hatcheries. We further believe that it would be useful to
clarify the Service's authority to obtain reimbursement from federal water
development agencies and/or project beneficiaries for mitigation services
provided at federal water projects.

To assist the Service in accommodating the variety of laws that it
implements in its management of the hatchery program, we recommend that the
Congress provide direction on which programs it wants the hatcheries to
emphasize. Furthermore, to allow the Service to more efficiently and
effectively align its operations with congressionally directed priorities,
we recommend that the Congress authorize the Service to open, close, change,
move, and consolidate hatcheries.

To provide an additional source of funding for hatchery operations that
mitigate the impacts of federal water development projects that benefit
third parties, such as water users or electric power recipients, we
recommend that the Congress provide the Service with clear authority to seek
reimbursement from federal water development agencies and/or project
beneficiaries for all hatchery operation and maintenance expenses associated
with such projects.

We provided the Department of the Interior with a draft of this report for
review and comment. The Department generally agreed with the report's
conclusions and recommendations. The Department suggested that our
recommendation that it be given authority to close, change, move, and
consolidate hatcheries also include the option to open hatcheries. We agreed
and changed the wording accordingly. In addition, the Department provided
technical corrections and suggested clarifying wording in selected places.
We have incorporated those suggestions and comments into our report as
appropriate. The Department's written comments are included in appendix III.

To determine if hatcheries' activities are consistent with authorizing laws,
we reviewed legislation and held discussions with Service officials at
headquarters, regional offices, and hatcheries. We also visited 12 of the 66
national fish hatcheries. We chose the 12 hatcheries, 2 from each of the
Service's six regions that have hatcheries, so that we would have a mixture
of conservation and mitigation hatcheries that deal with threatened or
endangered fish species, warm- or cold-water fish species, and native or
nonnative fish species. The cross-section of hatcheries allowed us to
evaluate different geographic fish issues in each of the six regions.
Service officials agreed that this was an appropriate cross-section to
provide an overall perspective on hatchery operations. Appendix II lists the
facilities that we visited. To assess the impacts of the laws on hatchery
operations, we spoke with officials in headquarters, regional offices, and
hatcheries, and we obtained from them relevant data and reports--such as
reports from special internal groups reviewing the national fish hatcheries.
Because of the number of laws and legal mandates, we did not perform a
detailed review of their requirements; instead, we reviewed the general
purpose and intent of the major laws and compared those with hatchery
program areas to determine consistency.

To determine if there is a need for the Congress to consider any changes in
existing legislation to improve the management of the national fish
hatcheries, we analyzed hatcheries' goals and production objectives for
fiscal years 1995 through 1999. This information came from annual reports
and other documents obtained from the Service's headquarters, six regional
offices, and 12 hatcheries we visited. At the hatcheries we visited, we also
reviewed authorizing legislation, management and operational plans for
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, and other relevant data and reports. In
addition, we interviewed officials at the Service's headquarters, regional
offices, and hatcheries to obtain their opinions of hatchery funding
shortages, the impacts of the funding shortages, and the efforts undertaken
to obtain additional funds for the national fish hatcheries.

We performed our work from October 1999 through May 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested
congressional committees; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the
Interior; the Honorable Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and
Budget. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at
(202) 512-3841. Major contributors to this report were Bob Arthur, Doreen
Feldman, Kathy Gilhooly, Araceli Hutsell, Bill Temmler, and Ed Zadjura.

Sincerely yours,
Jim Wells
Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues

Selected Laws Impacting Operations of the National Fish Hatcheries

             Law                                 Purpose
                               Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
                               enter into cooperative agreements with the
                               states and other nonfederal interests for
 Anadromous Fish               conservation, development, and enhancement
                               of the nation's anadromous fish resources.
 Conservation Act              Provides authority for the construction,
                               operation, and maintenance of fish
                               hatcheries wherever necessary to accomplish
                               the purposes of this act.

 Atlantic Coastal              Supports and encourages the development,
                               implementation, and enforcement of the
 Fisheries Cooperative         effective interstate conservation and
                               management of Atlantic coastal fish
 Management Act                resources. States affected include all
                               states bordering on the Atlantic Ocean.
                               Supports and encourages the development,
                               implementation, and enforcement of effective
 Atlantic Striped Bass         interstate action regarding the conservation
                               and management of the Atlantic striped bass.
 Conservation Act              National fish hatcheries affected include
                               those in Pennsylvania and states bordering
                               the Atlantic Ocean north of South Carolina.
                               Provides for the construction of projects
 Boulder Canyon Project Act    for the protection and development of the
                               Colorado River Basin.
                               Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
                               construct, operate, and maintain the
                               Colorado River storage project and
                               participating projects. Directs the
                               Secretary of the Interior, in connection
                               with the Colorado River Storage Project and
 Colorado River Storage        participating projects, to construct,
 Project Act                   operate, and maintain public recreational
                               facilities and facilities to mitigate the
                               losses of and improve conditions for fish
                               and wildlife. All costs incurred for these
                               recreational and fish and wildlife
                               facilities shall be nonreimbursable and
                               nonreturnable.

 Columbia Basin                Governs the repayment of expenditures for
                               the construction, operation, and maintenance
 Project Act                   of projects constructed in the Columbia
                               Basin.
 Endangered Species
                               Provides for the conservation of threatened
 Act of 1973                   and endangered species.
                               Establishes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                               Service and establishes a comprehensive
                               policy with respect to the proper
                               development of fish and wildlife resources.
 Fish and Wildlife             According to the policy, the act will be
                               administered with due regard to the rights
 Act of 1956                   of individuals to engage in fishing for
                               pleasure, and with the intent of maintaining
                               and increasing public opportunities for
                               recreational use of fish and wildlife
                               resources and stimulating the development of
                               a strong fishing industry.

 Fish and Wildlife             Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
                               assist federal, state, and other agencies in
 Coordination Act              developing, protecting, rearing, stocking,
                               and controlling fish and wildlife resources.
                               Authorizes construction of the Grand Coulee
                               Dam on the Columbia River in Washington
                               State for the purpose of navigation,
 Grand Coulee Dam Project Act  controlling floods, reclaiming lands, and
                               generating electric energy. The act also
                               authorizes the President to construct,
                               operate, and maintain dams, structures,
                               canals, and incidental projects.
                               Provides for the implementation of
                               recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife
 Great Lakes Fish &            Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery
                               Resources Study (a joint study by the Great
 Wildlife Restoration          Lakes Fisheries Commission, states, Indian
                               tribes, and other interested entities to
 Act of 1998                   encourage cooperative conservation,
                               restoration, and management of the fish and
                               wildlife resources and their habitat of the
                               Great Lakes Basin).
                               Authorizes and directs the establishment of
                               hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin,
                               within the states of Washington, Oregon, and
 Mitchell Act                  Idaho. Directs the Secretary of Commerce to
                               conduct investigations, engineering and
                               biological surveys, and experiments as
                               necessary for the conservation of Columbia
                               River fishery resources.
                               Requires that every major federal action
 National Environmental        that may significantly affect the quality of
 Protection Act                the human environment include a detailed
                               statement of the environmental impact of the
                               proposed action.
                               Authorizes facilities for the improvement of
                               fish and wildlife resources along the
 Palisades Dam & Reservoir     headwaters of the Snake River in connection
 Project Act                   with the construction and operation of the
                               Palisades Dam and Reservoir Project in
                               Idaho.
                               Authorizes the Departments of the Interior
                               and Defense to carry out a program in
                               accordance with a cooperative plan with
                               state agencies in planning, developing, and
 Sikes Act                     maintaining fish and wildlife resources on
                               military reservations. The plan may provide
                               that nominal fees collected by the states
                               for hunting and fishing permits shall be
                               used to protect, conserve, and manage the
                               fish and wildlife resources.
                               Authorizes implementation of the Lower Snake
                               River Compensation Plan to mitigate for fish
 Water Resources Development   and wildlife losses in the states of
 Act of 1976                   Washington and Idaho resulting from four
                               Corps of Engineers dams constructed on the
                               lower Snake River.
                               Authorizes the establishment and maintenance
                               of fish hatcheries, substations,
 White Act                     experimental stations, and laboratories in
                               various locations throughout the United
                               States.

Federal Facilities That GAO Visited

Headquarters

Division of Hatcheries, Arlington, Virginia

Region 1

Regional Office, Portland, Oregon
Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery, Leavenworth, Washington
Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery, Warm Springs, Oregon

Region 2

Regional Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Uvalde National Fish Hatchery, Uvalde, Texas
Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery, Boulder City, Nevada

Region 3

Regional Office, Fort Snelling, Minnesota
Genoa National Fish Hatchery, Genoa, Wisconsin
Iron River National Fish Hatchery, Iron River, Wisconsin

Region 4

Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia
Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery, Celina, Tennessee
Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, Natchitoches, Louisiana

Region 5

Regional Office, Hadley, Massachusetts
Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery, East Orland, Maine
Green Lake National Fish Hatchery, Ellsworth, Maine

Region 6

Regional Office, Lakewood, Colorado
Jackson National Fish Hatchery, Jackson, Wyoming
Jones Hole National Fish Hatchery, Vernal, Utah

Comments From the Department of the Interior

(141394)

Table 1: Five Hatchery Program Categories 8

Figure 1: Location of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional
Offices and Fish Hatcheries 6
  

1. In a prior report, we noted there were 67 hatcheries; however, the
Berkshire National Fish Hatchery in Massachusetts is currently in caretaker
status and is being operated as an educational facility. See National Fish
Hatcheries: Classification of the Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs Needs
Refinement (GAO/RCED-00-10 , Oct. 15, 1999).

2. Our first report provided a baseline assessment of current activities at
the hatcheries. See National Fish Hatcheries: Classification of the
Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs Needs Refinement (GAO/RCED-00-10 , Oct.
15, 1999).

3. The Alaska Region does not have national fish hatcheries.

4. Water released from behind a dam is generally much deeper and colder than
the shallower and warmer river water.

5. See National Fish Hatcheries: Classification of the Distribution of Fish
and Fish Eggs Needs Refinement (GAO/RCED-00-10, Oct. 15, 1999).

6. The report was prepared by The Conservation Fund under contract to the
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which was asked by the Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, to conduct an outside evaluation of the federal fish
hatchery program.

7. This amount consists of $107 million in projects to be funded by the
Resource Management Account and $167 million in projects to be funded by the
Construction Account. The Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector
General has not audited these amounts.

8. A water-borne single-celled animal that, when ingested, can cause
abdominal cramping, severe diarrhea, fatigue, and weight loss.
*** End of document. ***