“I~ II ‘I / 11 11 -__” .___.__l__..__l___..~..~.~.._ I _....-..- ._... .._.._...-..-.--_..---.-_ United ‘~_-_---~.Citates General Accounting~----- Office - - - -- 11 “1’ G#,/(J Briefing Report to Congressional ;/,’ ‘11 Requesters _l__-_.“.. I.. ._.- _ . .- _._ -..---... ..___.-.----.____- ------“-.-~-_~___ --_.~ ; July 1992 ENDANGERED SPECIES Past Actions Taken to Assist Columbia River Salmon 147148 RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting Office unless specifically approved by the Office of Congressional Relations, ,# 5534377 - -.I____- GAO/RCED-92-173BR ------“-- United States General Accounting Offlce GAO Washington, D.C. 20648 Besources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-248261 July 13,1992 The Honorable Bob Packwood United States Senate The Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate Concerns about declining populations of certain wild salmon species led the Department of Commerce’sNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list the Snake River sockeye salmon as an endangered species and certain types of Snake River chinook salmon as a threatened species under the Endangered SpeciesAct. Your requests asked us to examine historical efforts to address declines in salmon runs. As agreed with your offices, we obtained from federal agencies and organizations in the Pacific Northwest the types of actions, and their costs, that have been taken to maintain and restore runs of salmon (both wild and hatchery-bred) on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. We also obtained the results of studies and research that have evaluated the effectiveness of the salmon recovery measures undertaken. On April 29,1992, we briefed your offices on the results of our work. This briefing report presents the information provided at that briefing. Separately,you also asked that we examine available assessmentsof the likely economic impacts of future actions being considered to protect the salmon species listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct. We plan to report on the results of our work on this matter later this year. In summary: . Federal agenciesand regional organizations have taken numerous actions and incurred substantial costs for more than 60 years to maintain and improve salmon runs in the Columbia River Basin. l The cost of actions taken, as reported by federal and regional entities, is signiilcan~since 1981over $1.3 billion (adjusted to 1991dollars) has been spent. Substantial costs were also reported as being incurred prior to 1981,but becausethe cost data were generally not identified by the year incurred, we could not calculate total costs in 1991dollars. (Apps. I and II provide a detailed breakdown of reported costs by organization for the postc1981and pre-1981time periods, respectively.) . Actions taken have included the construction and operation of fish hatcheries; the construction of fLshladders and other facilities at Page 1 GAO/WED-@2-172BB Endangered Salmon B-248261 Columbia and SnakeRiver dams to assistsalmon in their migration to and from the sea;improvements to salmon habitat; and research related to learning more about salmon or to assessand improve salmon runs.’ l Regional efforts intensified following enactment of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and ConservationAct in 1980,which required that assistancebe provided for fmh and wildlife resources affected by power-generating facilities at Columbia River Basin dams, l The effectivenessof actions taken to maintain and improve salmon runs, according to evaluationsperfor med by a number of federal, state, and regional organizations,indicate that some actions taken have been effective in helping certain types of salmon at specific locations. But the evaluations either did not address or were inconclusive regarding the effectivenessof actions from a Columbia River Basin-wideperspective. For example: l Hatchery operations have generally been viewed as successfulby organizationsin the Pacific Northwest. For example, about 250 million juvenile salmon were produced by hatcheries in 1933,compared with hatchery production of about 76 million in 1960.However, some studies have found that hatchery-produced salmon have had a negative impact on wild salmon runs, For example, in 1991NMFS found that lower Columbia River wild coho salmon was no longer a distinct species becauseof interbreeding with hatchery-produced salmon. The effectivenessof facilities to assist salmon in their migrations has varied. For example,studies have found that the effectivenessof fish screensinstalled at dams to divert juvenile salmon away from electric power turbines differed by dam location and type of salmon. Efforts to transport juvenile salmon past dams in tank trucks or barges have worked well for some but not all salmon species.For example, transportation was more effective for steelheadtrout than for spring chinook salmon. l Similarly, studies of the effectiveness of improved salmon habitat ’ showed varying results. For example, one study reported increased salmon density in a river basin where habitat improvementswere made, while another study found that a similar habitat improvement in the same general area had not increased salmon density. (App. V lists the research studies we cite in this report.) In conducting our review, we contacted 132federal and state agencies, electric utilities, timber companies,Indian tribes and organizations,and ‘Appendix III presents statistics on historical salmon runs into the Columbia River from 1970through 1990. Page 2 GAOIRCED-9%173BB Endangered Salmon B.242261 private organizations (see app. IV); we obtained costs allocated to salmon-relatedexpenses by 22 of these entities. As agreed with your offices, we did not obtain written commentson a draft of this briefing report from the organizations involved. We did, however, discussthe information contained in this briefing report with responsible officials of the major agenciesinvolved, including representativesof the Office of Power Salesand the F’ishand Wildlife Division of the Department of Energy’sBonneville Power Administration; U.S.Army Corps of Engineersheadquarters officials, the North Pacific Division Commanderand his staff, and representativesof the Portland District; the Acting Northwest Regional Director and the Division Chief, Environmental and Technical ServicesDivision, NMFS; the Columbia River Coordinator, Department of the Interior’s U.S. F’ishand Wildlife Service; and the Executive Director and staff, Pacific Northwest Electric Power and ConservationPlanning Council (an interstate planning agency).These officials generally agreed with the factual information presented; on the basis of their comments,we have made changesas appropriate. Section 1 of this briefing report provides background and a discussionof the objectives, scope, and methodology of our work. Section 2 identifies actions taken to maintain and restore Columbia River Basin salmon runs, as well as the costs associatedwith the actions, Section 3 describes studies made and researchperfor med to assessthe effectivenessof actions taken. Unlessyou publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no distribution of this briefing report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will make copies available to the Secretaryof Commerce;the Secretaryof the Interior; the Secretaryof Defense;the Administrator, 4 Bonneville Power Administration; the Chairman,Pacific Northwest Electric Power and ConservationPlanning Council; and other interested parties. Copieswill also be made available to others on request. P&ge 8 GAO/WED-92-173BB Endangered Salmon r , ,. B-248261 Pleasecontact me on (202) 276-7766if you or your staffs have any questions.Other @or contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix VI. JamesDuffus III Director, Natural Resources ManagementIssues Page 4 GAO/WED-92.178BB Endangered Salmon Pyle 6 GXO/BCED-92473BB Endangered Salmon Contents Letter 1 Section 1 8 Historical Level of Salmon Runs Has Declined 8 Background Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12 Section 2 15 F’ishHatcheries 17 Apes and Costs of F’ishPassage Activities 18 Actions Taken to Habitat Protection and Restoration 19 Benefit Salmon Runs Research and Studies 19 Section 3 20 Hatcheries 20 Effectiveness of F’ishPassage 21 Actions Taken to Habitat Improvement Research 24 Assist Salmon Other Research 26 Populations Appendix I 26 Salmon Protection Costs Reported to GAO, 1981-91 Appendix II 28 Salmon Protection b Costs Reported to GAO Prior to 1981 or in Indeterminate Years Page 6 GAO/BCED-92.173BB Endangered Salmon Content4 Appendix III 30 Historical Salmon Runs Into the Columbia River Appendix IV Agencies and Organizations Contacted Regarding Salmon Protection costs Appendix V Research Studies Cited in Report Appendix VI 37 Major Contributors to This Briefing Report Figures Figure 1.1:Major Damson the Columbia and SnakeRivers 10 Figure 2.1: Categoriesof Costs Incurred to Benefit Salmon 16 Between 1981and 1991 Figure 2.2: Entities Incurring Coststo Benefit Salmon 16 Between 1981and 1991 l Abbreviations GAO GeneralAccounting Office NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service PUD public utility district Page 7 GAOiRCED-92.173BB Endangered Salmon Section 1 Background The Columbia River Basin, which encompassesparts of several northwestern states and southwest Canada,is habitat for four types of Pacific salmon-chinook, coho, sockeye,and chum-and for steelhead trout. The normal salmoni life cycle includes hatching at an upstream location within the river basin, migrating to the sea, and eventually returning as adults to the