GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Resources, House of

Representatives

June 2000 NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERIES

Authority Needed to

Better Align

Operations With

Priorities

GAO/RCED-00-151

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes 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

Tables Table 1: Five Hatchery Program Categories 8

Figures Figure 1: Location of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional

Offices and Fish Hatcheries 6

Abbreviations

GAO General Accounting Office
Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries
Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284391 Letr

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

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).
B-284391

Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

programs to emphasize and to authorize the Service to make changes in

how it manages the hatcheries.

Results in Brief 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
B-284391

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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.

Background 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.

3

The Alaska Region does not have national fish hatcheries.
B-284391

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Figure 1: Location of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional Offices and 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.

Makah Quilcene

Quinault Winthrop

Entiat

Leavenworth Carson

Willard

Kooskia

Dworshak

Hagerman

Coleman

Livingston Stone

Lahontan

Williams Creek

Alchesay

Mescalero

Dexter

Inks Dam

San Marcos

Natchitoches

Welaka

Orangeburg

Warm Springs

Edenton

Harrison Lake

Allegheny

North

Attleboro

Richard Cronin

Pittsford

White 

River

Craig Brook

Green Lake

Nashua

White

Sulphur

Sprs.

Chattahoochee

Forest

Dale Hollow

Wolf Creek

Genoa

Jordan River

Pendills Creek

Hiawatha Forest Iron

River

Erwin

Private

John

Allen

Norfolk

Neosho

Garrison Dam

Valley City

Gavins

Point

Greers

Ferry

Mammoth

Spring

Uvalde

Tishomingo

Mora

Leadville Hotchkiss

Ouray

Jones Hole

Jackson

Saratoga

Willow Beach

Ennis

Creston

Eagle Creek

Spring

Creek

Warm

Springs

Little White Salmon

National fish hatchery

Regional office

Source: Prepared by GAO from data provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Portland

Albuquerque

Lakewood

Fort

Snelling

Atlanta

Hadley
B-284391

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

National Hatcheries

Try to Meet the Goals

of a Variety of Laws

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.
B-284391

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Table 1: Five Hatchery Program Categories

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:

• 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.

Program Categories Definition

Recovery The stocking of native fish to help

reestablish self-sustaining populations at

levels of abundance and spatial

distributions sufficient for delisting.

Restoration The stocking of native fish to help

reestablish self-sustaining populations at

levels of abundance and spatial

distributions well above the threshold for

delisting or listing.

Mitigation The stocking of nonnative and native fish to

replace or maintain harvest levels lost as a

result of federal water projects.

Fish and Wildlife Service and tribal lands The stocking of nonnative and native fish to

enhance harvest, outreach, and educational

activities on national wildlife refuges (or

harvest on tribal lands) but not with the

intent of reestablishing or maintaining selfsustaining populations.

Partnership management The stocking of nonnative or native fish to

enhance the harvest but not with the intent

of reestablishing or maintaining selfsustaining populations or mitigating the

adverse effects of federal water projects.
B-284391

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

• Lake trout disappeared from the Great Lakes beginning in the mid1950s. 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.

Additional Authority

Would Enable the Fish

and Wildlife Service to

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

4

Water released from behind a dam is generally much deeper and colder than the shallower

and warmer river water.
B-284391

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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.

The Service Cannot Always

Manage Hatchery

Operations in Accordance

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 thenpressing 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

5

See National Fish Hatcheries: Classification of the Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs

Needs Refinement (GAO/RCED-00-10, Oct. 15, 1999).
B-284391

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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

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.
B-284391

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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 theWarm

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.

Maintaining Existing

Programs With Declining

Funds Has Impaired

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
B-284391

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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:

• 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.

• 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

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.
B-284391

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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

8

A water-borne single-celled animal that, when ingested, can cause abdominal cramping,

severe diarrhea, fatigue, and weight loss.
B-284391

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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
B-284391

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Bureau completely reimburses the hatchery for the expenses incurred to

propagate and augment the Razorback sucker.

Conclusions 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.

Recommendations to

the Congress

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.
B-284391

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish 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.

Agency Comments 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.

Scope and

Methodology

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.
B-284391

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

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
Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries
Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Appendix I

Selected Laws Impacting Operations of the Apendxies

National Fish Hatcheries ApendxIi

Law Purpose

Anadromous Fish

Conservation Act

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements with the states

and other nonfederal interests for conservation, development, and enhancement of the

nation’s anadromous fish resources. Provides authority for the construction, operation, and

maintenance of fish hatcheries wherever necessary to accomplish the purposes of this act.

Atlantic Coastal

Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act

Supports and encourages the development, implementation, and enforcement of the effective

interstate conservation and management of Atlantic coastal fish resources. States affected

include all states bordering on the Atlantic Ocean.

Atlantic Striped Bass

Conservation Act

Supports and encourages the development, implementation, and enforcement of effective

interstate action regarding the conservation and management of the Atlantic striped bass.

National fish hatcheries affected include those in Pennsylvania and states bordering the

Atlantic Ocean north of South Carolina.

Boulder Canyon Project Act Provides for the construction of projects for the protection and development of the Colorado

River Basin.

Colorado River Storage Project Act 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 participating projects, to construct, 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

Project Act

Governs the repayment of expenditures for the construction, operation, and maintenance of

projects constructed in the Columbia Basin.

Endangered Species

Act of 1973

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Fish and Wildlife

Act of 1956

Establishes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and establishes a comprehensive policy with

respect to the proper development of fish and wildlife resources. According to the policy, the

act will be administered with due regard to the rights 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

Coordination Act

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist federal, state, and other agencies in

developing, protecting, rearing, stocking, and controlling fish and wildlife resources.

Grand Coulee Dam Project Act Authorizes construction of the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River in Washington State

for the purpose of navigation, 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.

Great Lakes Fish &

Wildlife Restoration

Act of 1998

Provides for the implementation of recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service

contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Study (a joint study by the Great Lakes

Fisheries Commission, states, Indian tribes, and other interested entities to encourage

cooperative conservation, restoration, and management of the fish and wildlife resources and

their habitat of the Great Lakes Basin).

Mitchell Act Authorizes and directs the establishment of hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin, within the

states of Washington, Oregon, and 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.

National Environmental Protection Act Requires that every major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human

environment include a detailed statement of the environmental impact of the proposed action.
Appendix I

Selected Laws Impacting Operations of the

National Fish Hatcheries

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Palisades Dam & Reservoir Project Act Authorizes facilities for the improvement of fish and wildlife resources along the headwaters of

the Snake River in connection with the construction and operation of the Palisades Dam and

Reservoir Project in Idaho.

Sikes Act 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 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.

Water Resources Development Act of

1976

Authorizes implementation of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan to mitigate for fish

and wildlife losses in the states of Washington and Idaho resulting from four Corps of

Engineers dams constructed on the lower Snake River.

White Act Authorizes the establishment and maintenance of fish hatcheries, substations, experimental

stations, and laboratories in various locations throughout the United States.

Law Purpose
Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Appendix II

Federal Facilities That GAO Visited ApendxiI

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
Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-151 National Fish Hatcheries

Appendix III

Comments From the Department of the

Interior ApendxIi

(141394) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00