Columbia River Basin: A Multilayered Collection of Directives and Plans Guides Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities
Published: 2004-06-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Numerous federal agencies conduct water, power, or resource management activities affecting the fish and wildlife of the Columbia River Basin, as well as the 13 tribes residing there. These agencies, such as the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), Army Corps of Engineers, and Forest Service, and regulatory agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, are also responsible for protecting, sustaining, and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin and involving the tribes in the process. Recently, Bonneville's financial position deteriorated significantly, and some tribes in the basin challenged Bonneville's actions modifying funding of fish and wildlife activities in federal court. In this context, GAO agreed to (1) identify and describe the laws, treaties, executive orders, and court decisions that define federal responsibilities to perform activities benefiting fish and wildlife in the basin and involve the tribes, and (2) describe the plans and programs that guide these respective fish and wildlife activities. In accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing matters that are in litigation, GAO did not examine any issues that are before the court.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal responsibilities for protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as involving the tribes in the process, are defined by a multi-layered collection of laws, treaties, executive orders, and court decisions. Nationwide, basin-specific, and agency mission-specific laws create responsibilities for federal agencies to mitigate the impacts of federal activities that could potentially harm fish, wildlife, and their habitat. For example, the Endangered Species Act establishes nationwide responsibilities for agencies to protect listed species, while the Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) establishes responsibilities in the basin to mitigate the impacts of hydropower development, and each agency has mission-related responsibilities to fish and wildlife, such as the Forest Service's responsibilities under the National Forest Management Act. Regarding tribes, federal agencies must consult and collaborate with Indian tribes on fish and wildlife activities that may impact tribal rights established under various treaties and executive orders. Federal responsibilities and activities under these laws, treaties, and executive orders have been defined and clarified over the years through numerous court decisions. Federal agency fish and wildlife activities in the basin are guided by numerous plans and programs, but the majority of fish and wildlife activities are driven by the Northwest Power Act and the Endangered Species Act. Under the Northwest Power Act, the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program addresses all fish and wildlife impacted by the Federal Columbia River Power System, and under the Endangered Species Act, agencies are guided by the biological opinions developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of threatened and endangered species, as well as two other related collaborative plans. Agency participation in these key efforts varies widely, from mandatory funding of fish and wildlife activities to voluntary collaboration on the design of activities, but interagency collaboration is essential to successful implementation of these activities. In addition, other laws and specific agency missions drive numerous other collaborative and individual fish and wildlife activities. We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, the Interior, as well as Bonneville and the Environmental Protection Agency. Bonneville and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce provided official written comments. The comments were generally technical in nature and we made changes to the report, where appropriate. The Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency had no comments on the report. The Department of the Interior did not provide comments in time to be included in this report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Columbia River Basin encompasses approximately 258,000 square  miles of mountains, forests, rangeland, and coastline extending  predominantly through the Western states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho,  and Montana and into Canada. Although the basin is home to an abundance  of fish and wildlife, some species are in danger of extinction, in part,  because of the extensive hydropower development of the Columbia River  and its tributaries. Endangered species include fish, such as some species  of salmon and steelhead; birds, such as the marbled murrelet; and certain  species of caribou, deer, and rabbit. The basin is also home to 13 Indian  tribes, some of which have treaties with the United States, dating from the  mid-1800s, that explicitly recognize hunting and fishing rights. The tribes  rely on the fish and wildlife of the basin for sustenance and to maintain  their cultural traditions.
Numerous federal agencies conduct activities within the basin that affect  the fish and wildlife of the basin, as well as the tribes. For example, the  Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers (Corps), and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of  Reclamation (Reclamation) manage and operate the Federal Columbia  River Power System, composed of 31 power-generating dams on the  Columbia River and its tributaries. Bonneville collects the revenues from  the Federal Columbia River Power System and uses a portion of those  revenues to fund many of the fish and wildlife activities in the basin. The  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service manages 81,000 square miles of  forest in the basin, and Interior’s Bureau of Land Management manages  33,000 square miles of rangeland.
Along with their primary water or land management responsibilities, these  agencies, as well as regulatory agencies such as the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the  Environmental Protection Agency, are responsible under various laws,  treaties, executive orders, and court decisions for protecting, mitigating,  and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as involving  the tribes in the process. In addition, the Northwest Power and  Conservation Council, established pursuant to the Pacific Northwest  Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act),  develops the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to mitigate  the effects of hydroelectric dams on basin wildlife.
Recently, Bonneville’s financial position deteriorated significantly, raising  questions about its ability to meet its fish and wildlife responsibilities.  Subsequently, several tribes in the basin challenged the legality of actions  by Bonneville and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council  regarding the funding of fish and wildlife activities in the United States  Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In this context, we agreed to (1)  identify and describe the laws, treaties, executive orders, and court  decisions that define the responsibilities of Bonneville and other federal  agencies to perform activities benefiting fish and wildlife in the Columbia  River Basin and involve tribes in the process, and (2) describe the fish and  wildlife plans and programs that Bonneville and other federal agencies  have developed to guide these respective fish and wildlife activities. In  accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing matters that are in  litigation, we did not examine any issues that are before the court. In  conducting our work, agency officials, tribal representatives, and others  brought to our attention concerns about the implementation of various fish  and wildlife plans and programs in the basin, and we have included  information regarding these concerns in this report.
To address the objectives of this report, we updated information in our  prior report on federal salmon and steelhead recovery activities in the  Columbia River Basin. To update the information and identify directives,  plans, and programs for other fish and wildlife species, we met with  officials of the 11 federal agencies identified in that report: Bonneville, the  Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service within the  Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land  Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey and  Reclamation within the Department of the Interior, the Corps within the  Department of Defense, the National Marine Fisheries Service within the  Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. We  also met with representatives of 10 of the 13 Columbia River Basin tribes to  confirm the directives identified by the 11 federal agencies and to  determine how the tribes participate in the fish and wildlife plans and  programs. Appendix I provides further details about the scope and  methodology of our review. We conducted our work from August 2003  through April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Columbia River Basin, the nation’s fourth largest, extends through  seven Western states—Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington,  and Wyoming—and into Canada. (See fig. 1.) Twelve major tributaries, the  longest of which is the Snake River, feed the Columbia River. The basin  contains over 250 reservoirs and about 150 hydroelectric projects,  including 18 dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
The basin is home to many species of fish and wildlife, some of which are  listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or  endangered, in part as a result of the extensive hydropower development of  the basin rivers. Endangered fish in the basin include certain species of  salmon, steelhead, and white sturgeon; bull trout are listed as threatened.  Threatened and endangered wildlife in the basin include birds such as the  marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, and other animals such as  certain species of caribou, deer, lynx, and rabbit. The basin is also home to  13 Indian tribes, which by treaty, executive order, or other authority, reside  on reservation lands within the basin. As shown in table 1, nearly 45,000  members are enrolled in the tribes with reservation lands in the basin. Fish  and wildlife are of critical importance to these tribes, as the tribes rely on  them for sustenance as well as preservation of their cultural traditions. For  example, salmon are part of the spiritual and cultural identity of most of  the basin’s tribes, and are frequently used in tribal religious services.
Numerous federal agencies, including the following, conduct activities  within the basin that affect fish and wildlife, as well as the Columbia River  Basin Indian tribes. Many of these agencies are responsible for managing  water resources, the power generated by hydroelectric projects, or land  resources, such as forests, grazing lands, and wildlife refuges.
Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) provides power  transmission services and markets the electricity generated by the 31  Corps and Reclamation dams comprising the Federal Columbia River  Power System (FCRPS). In doing so, it must provide treatment to fish  and wildlife equitable to the other purposes for which the FCRPS is  operated.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) designs, builds, and operates civil  works projects to provide electric power, navigation, flood control, and  environmental protection.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) designs, constructs, and operates  water projects for multiple purposes, including irrigation, hydropower  production, municipal and industrial water supply, flood control,  recreation, and fish and wildlife.
U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) manages national forests and  grasslands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and  ensures that lands will be available for future generations.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers public lands and  subsurface mineral resources, and sustains the health, diversity, and  productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of future  generations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages wildlife refuges,  conserves, protects, and enhances fish, wildlife, and plants, and  implements the ESA for terrestrial species, migratory birds, certain  marine mammals, and certain fish.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) encourages and assists American Indians  to manage their own affairs under the trust relationship with the federal  government. It develops forestlands, leases assets on these lands,  directs agricultural programs, protects water and land rights, and  undertakes other responsibilities in cooperation with the tribes.
Together, these federal agencies and the 13 basin tribes manage over half of  the portion of the Columbia River Basin located within the United States.  The Forest Service and BLM manage about 81,000 square miles of forest  and grasslands, and 33,000 square miles of rangeland, or about 37 percent  and 15 percent of the basin’s U.S. land area, respectively. Reservation land  totals about 5 percent. All other agencies combined manage about 3  percent of the U.S. portion of the basin. Figure 2 illustrates the federal and  tribal land ownership patterns.
In addition to the water, power, and land resource management agencies,  several other federal agencies have regulatory, resource protection, and  research responsibilities in the basin.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conserves, protects, and  manages living marine resources so as to ensure their continuation as  functioning components of marine ecosystems, and to afford economic  opportunities. NMFS also implements the ESA for marine and  anadromous (migratory fish such as salmon and steelhead) species.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects human health and  safeguards the natural environment by protecting the air, water, and  land. It administers the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assists farmers,  ranchers, and other landowners in developing and carrying out  voluntary efforts to protect the nation’s natural resources.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts objective scientific studies and  provides information to address problems dealing with natural  resources, geologic hazards, and the effects of environmental conditions  on human and wildlife health.
Along with their primary water, power, resource, and other management  and regulatory responsibilities, these agencies are responsible under  various laws, treaties, executive orders, and court decisions for protecting,  mitigating, and enhancing fish and wildlife resources in the basin, as well as  involving the tribes in the process. One of the main drivers of such  activities is the Northwest Power Act, which provided for the  establishment of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Under  the act, the Council develops the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife  Program to mitigate the effects of hydroelectric dams on basin fish and  wildlife, and Bonneville assists in implementation and is the principal  source of funding for the program.
Bonneville recently experienced a substantial deterioration of its financial  condition, in part because of drought conditions, rising costs of providing  power, and lower than projected revenue from selling surplus power. For  example, as we reported in July 2003, its end of year cash reserves fell from  $811 million to $188 million from fiscal year 2000 to 2002. Bonneville’s  financial difficulties caused concern about its ability to meet its fish and  wildlife funding responsibilities under the Northwest Power Act. The  Yakama tribe filed two petitions in June 2003, and the Upper Columbia  United Tribes filed a petition in December 2003, in the United States Court  of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review Bonneville’s budgeting,  accounting, and contracting processes, and in the case of the Yakama, the  Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s recommendations, regarding  fish and wildlife funding. As of now, the two Yakama filings and the Upper  Columbia United Tribes filing are being discussed in separate settlement  negotiations. In accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing  matters that are in litigation, we did not address the issues before the court  in this report.
section_title: A Multilayered Collection of Directives Defines Federal Responsibilities to Fish, Wildlife, and Tribes in the Columbia River Basin
paragraphs: Federal responsibilities for protecting, mitigating, and enhancing fish and  wildlife resources in the basin, as well as involving the tribes in the process,  are defined by a multilayered collection of laws, treaties, executive orders,  and court decisions. Nationwide, basin-specific, and agency  mission-specific laws create responsibilities for federal agencies to  mitigate the impacts of their activities on fish, wildlife, and their habitat. In  addition, various laws, treaties, executive orders, court decisions, and  agency policies require agencies to consider the rights of tribes in the  basin. Federal responsibilities and activities under these layers of  directives have been defined and clarified over the years through numerous  court decisions. Appendix II lists laws, treaties, and executive orders  identified by federal agencies as guiding their fish and wildlife  responsibilities in the basin. Appendix III lists laws, treaties, and executive  orders identified by federal agencies as guiding their tribal responsibilities  in the basin. Appendix IV lists court decisions that have helped define or  clarify agency responsibilities to fish, wildlife, and tribes under these  directives. Each appendix includes the citation for every law, treaty,  executive order, and court case listed.
subsections: section_title: Agency Responsibilities Are Defined by Nationwide, Basin-specific, and Mission-specific Fish and Wildlife Directives
paragraphs: Federal agencies are responsible under nationwide, basin-specific, and  agency mission-specific laws for mitigating the impacts of their activities  that could potentially harm fish, wildlife, and their habitat. At the national  level, federal environmental and fish and wildlife protection laws create  broad responsibilities for federal agencies in addition to each agency’s  mission-specific responsibilities. These laws guide the fish and wildlife  activities of federal agencies nationwide, in some cases, under the  oversight and enforcement authority of regulatory agencies such as EPA  and NMFS. Federal agencies identified the following nationwide laws,  among others, as guiding their fish and wildlife activities:  Clean Water Act—Authorizes EPA to establish effluent limitations and  requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from a point source to  navigable waters. EPA approves state and tribal limits for the maximum  amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water  quality standards for specified purposes, including fish and wildlife.
Endangered Species Act—Provides for the conservation and recovery  of species of plants and animals that FWS and NMFS determine to be in  danger or soon to become in danger of extinction.
National Environmental Policy Act—Requires federal agencies to  examine the impacts of proposed major federal actions significantly  affecting the environment.
At the basin level, certain federal laws create agency responsibilities that  are specific to the fish and wildlife there. These laws guide the fish and  wildlife activities of agencies such as Bonneville, the Corps, and  Reclamation that are to be conducted in conjunction with their water and  power responsibilities within the basin. Federal agencies identified the  following basin-specific laws, among others, as guiding their fish and  wildlife activities:  Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act  (Northwest Power Act)—Provides for the formation of the Northwest  Power and Conservation Council and directs it to develop a program to  protect, mitigate, and enhance the fish and wildlife of the Columbia  River Basin. Requires Bonneville’s administrator to use Bonneville’s  funding authorities to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife  affected by the development and operation of the FCRPS and to do so in  a manner consistent with the Council’s program while ensuring the  Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable  power supply.
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of  2000—Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to  implement projects, such as installation of fish screens and fish passage  devices, to mitigate impacts on fisheries associated with irrigation  systems in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
Mitchell Act—Directs the Secretary of Commerce to carry on activities  for the conservation of fishery resources in the Columbia River Basin.
At the mission level, many agencies that operate within the basin have fish  and wildlife responsibilities under laws that are unique to their activities.  These laws guide the fish and wildlife activities of agencies such as the  Forest Service, BLM, FWS, and BIA that are to be conducted in conjunction  with their resource management responsibilities. The following laws were  among the numerous mission-specific laws that federal agencies identified  as guiding their fish and wildlife activities:  National Forest Management Act—Mandates multiple uses for lands  managed by the Forest Service to include outdoor recreation, range,  timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness purposes.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—Directs the  Secretary of the Interior to develop and maintain land use plans using a  systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve the integrated  consideration of physical, biological, and economic factors.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of  1966—Establishes the National Wildlife Refuge System and directs the  Secretary of the Interior in the overall management of the refuge system  to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health  of the system, and prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for each  refuge.
National Indian Forest Resources Management Act—Directs the  Secretary of the Interior to undertake management activities on Indian  forest lands with tribal participation.
Treaties and executive orders also establish federal agency responsibilities  for fish and wildlife. Federal agencies identified two treaties guiding their  fish and wildlife activities in the basin—the Columbia River Treaty, which  defines the relationship between the United States and Canada concerning  the operation of Columbia River dams and reservoirs, and the Pacific  Salmon Treaty, which governs the harvest of certain stocks in the fisheries  of Northwest states (including Alaska) and Canada. Federal agencies also  identified three executive orders guiding their activities with regard to  floodplain management, protection of wetlands, and protection of  migratory birds. The most recent of these, Executive Order 13186, January  10, 2001, titled Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory  Birds, directs executive agencies to take certain actions to further  implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the conservation of migratory  birds and their habitats. Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977, requires  certain actions related to floodplain management, and Executive Order  11990 of the same date requires certain actions related to the protection of  wetlands.
section_title: Various Laws, Treaties, and Executive Orders Require Agencies to Consider the Rights of Tribes
paragraphs: Laws, treaties, and executive orders create federal responsibilities to  Indian tribes and guide federal agency activities that affect the tribes of the  Columbia River Basin.   Federal laws, including the following, create a  responsibility for federal agencies to support tribal self-government,  facilitate tribal participation in federal activities, and assist in the  management of tribal resources.
Indian Reorganization Act—Enacts measures to protect ownership  of Indian lands, restore lands to tribal ownership, and grants rights of  self-government to Indians.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act—Enacts  measures that promote a policy of Indian self-determination by assuring  maximum Indian participation in educational and other federal services  to Indian communities, generally provided through the Departments of  the Interior and Health and Human Services programs for Indians.
Snyder Act—Authorizes appropriations and expenditures through BIA  for the benefit; care; and assistance of Indians, such as education,  health, and other purposes.
Treaties between the United States and six basin tribes document the  agreements reached between the federal government and the tribes in  exchange for ceding most of their ancestral lands.   Federal agencies have a  general trust responsibility to protect tribal rights reserved under these  treaties. Typically, each treaty describes the boundaries of the tribal lands  ceded, the boundaries of lands reserved for habitation by the tribe,  payments to be made to the tribe, and certain rights of the tribe under the  treaty, including specific hunting and/or fishing rights, as shown in table 2.
Presidential executive orders were used by the U.S. government to reserve  lands for six other Columbia River Basin tribes, as shown in table 3.  Similar to treaties, these executive orders describe the lands reserved for  habitation by the tribes, but unlike treaties, do not explicitly state each  tribe’s right to fish and/or hunt. Nevertheless, the federal government has  respected nontreaty rights to hunt and fish on tribal lands.
Three other executive orders, as well as a presidential memorandum, were  identified by federal agencies as providing guidance in their  intergovernmental relationships with tribes while performing their  missions.
Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993), Regulatory  Planning and Review—Establishes a program to reform and make  more efficient the regulatory process, including making the process  more accessible and open to the public. Provides that wherever feasible,  agencies shall seek views of appropriate state, local, and tribal officials  before imposing regulatory requirements that might significantly or  uniquely affect them.
Executive Order 12875 (October 26, 1993), Enhancing the  Intergovernmental Partnership—Prohibits executive agencies, to  the extent feasible, from promulgating any regulation not required by  statute that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government,  unless funding for the direct costs is provided or the agency consults  with the affected government.
Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000), Consultation and  Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments—Requires executive  agencies to respect Indian tribal self-governance and sovereignty, honor  tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that  arise from the unique legal relationship between the federal government  and tribal governments. Provides that each agency shall have an  accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely tribal input in the  development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and  Agencies (April 29, 1994), Government to Government Relations  with Native American Tribal Governments—Requires, among other  things, that executive agencies operate within a government to  government relationship with federally recognized tribal governments;  consult to the greatest extent possible with tribal governments before  taking actions that affect tribal governments; and assess the impact of  federal government plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal  trust resources and ensure that tribal rights and concerns are  considered in developing them.
In addition to these executive orders, some federal agencies have internal  orders and memorandums to guide their actions with tribes. For example,  Secretarial Order 3206, jointly issued by the Secretary of the Interior and  the Secretary of Commerce in 1997, clarifies the responsibilities of the  departments, their agencies, offices, and bureaus when actions taken under  the authority of the ESA affect or may affect Indian lands, tribal trust  resources, or the exercise of tribal rights. The order acknowledges the trust  responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward Indian  tribes and tribal members and its government to government relationship  in dealing with the tribes. Accordingly, activities of the Departments of  Commerce and the Interior under the ESA should harmonize trust  responsibilities, tribal sovereignty, and the agency missions, and strive to  ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the  conservation of listed species. In its 1996 Tribal Policy, Bonneville outlines  the foundation for its trust responsibility as a federal agency and provides a  framework for a government to government relationship with the 13  federally recognized Columbia River Basin tribes. In addition, FWS cited its  Native American Policy of 1994, EPA cited its Tribal Consultation  Framework of 2001, and NMFS cited the Department of Commerce’s  American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of 1995, as providing agency  guidance for meeting responsibilities to the tribes.
section_title: Court Decisions Define and Clarify Agency Responsibilities
paragraphs: Federal responsibilities and activities under laws, treaties, and executive  orders are continually being defined and clarified through court decisions.  These decisions provide guidance regarding the fish and wildlife activities  of federal agencies such as Bonneville, the Corps, and NMFS. The following  court decisions were among those that federal agencies identified as  guiding their fish and wildlife activities in the basin:  National Wildlife Federation v. National Marine Fisheries  Service—Remanded NMFS’ 2000 biological opinion for ESA-listed  salmon and steelhead in the Columbia and Snake Rivers to NMFS to  resolve deficiencies identified by the court.
National Wildlife Federation v. United States Army Corps of  Engineers—Remanded a decision regarding dam operations in the  FCRPS to the Corps to address compliance with its obligations under  the Clean Water Act.
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power  Administration—Interpreted Bonneville’s responsibility to provide  “equitable treatment” for fish and wildlife in conducting its power  marketing activities under the Northwest Power Act.
Court decisions have also defined and clarified the responsibilities of  federal agencies to tribes, regarding both the extent of the federal  government’s trust responsibilities to tribes under laws, treaties, and  executive orders, and, more specifically, the extent of Columbia River  Basin treaty tribes’ fishing rights. Regarding the extent of federal agency  trust responsibilities for Indian tribes, case law defines the trust  responsibility of the federal government to protect the rights of tribes as  established in treaties and other agreements. For example, in Seminole  Nation v. United States, the Supreme Court said that the government’s  conduct in carrying out its obligations to Indians should be “judged by the  most exacting fiduciary standards,” and in Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of  Indians v. Morton, a federal district court found that the Secretary of the  Interior was required to assert his statutory and contractual authority “to  the fullest extent possible” to fulfill the government’s trust  responsibilities.
Regarding Columbia River Basin tribes, federal agencies identified two  court cases that have helped to identify and define treaty rights to fish for  four treaty tribes—the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation,  Oregon; the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Reservation,  Washington; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of  Oregon; and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. In 1968, 14 Yakama tribal  members filed suit to prevent the State of Oregon from interfering with  their off-reservation treaty fishing rights. The court found that the state’s  authority to regulate Indian fishing for conservation purposes was limited  as treaties reserved to the Columbia River tribes an absolute right to a fair  share of the fish produced by the Columbia River system. In the second  case, United States v. Washington, a federal district court in Washington  found that the Indians were entitled to the opportunity to take up to 50  percent of the harvestable number of fish that can be taken.
section_title: Multiple Plans and Programs Guide Federal Fish and Wildlife Activities in the Basin
paragraphs: Federal agency fish and wildlife activities in the basin are guided by  numerous plans and programs, but the majority of fish and wildlife benefits  are achieved through a few key collaborative plans, driven by the  Northwest Power Act and the ESA. Under the Northwest Power Act, the  Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program outlines a collaborative  strategy for benefiting fish and wildlife affected by the development and  operation of hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin, and under  the ESA, agencies are guided by biological opinions developed  collaboratively by FWS and NMFS for the recovery of threatened and  endangered species, as well as by two other related collaborative plans.    Additional laws and specific agency missions drive numerous other  collaborative and individual fish and wildlife plans and programs.  Appendix V provides descriptions of selected plans and programs  identified by federal agencies in the basin.
subsections: section_title: The Northwest Power Act and the Endangered Species Act Drive Key Collaborative Plans and Programs
paragraphs: The key collaborative fish and wildlife plans and programs in the basin are  driven by responsibilities created under the Northwest Power Act and the  ESA. Agencies collaborate on both the development, as well as the  implementation, of these key plans and programs. The lead agencies and  federal and tribal collaborators in the development and implementation of  the plans and programs are summarized in figure 3.
Under the Northwest Power Act, the Northwest Power and Conservation  Council (Council) has a duty to prepare and adopt the Columbia River  Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Fish and Wildlife Program) to protect,  mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds  and habitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries for impacts of all  federal and nonfederal hydroelectric projects in the basin. In preparing the  Fish and Wildlife Program, the Council periodically solicits  recommendations from federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, Indian  tribes, and others concerning the needs of fish and wildlife in the basin. The  Council then develops a draft Amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Program  that incorporates the recommendations received, and releases the draft for  public comment. After reviewing comments received on the draft, and  balancing the needs of fish and wildlife with the region’s hydropower  needs, the Council issues the Fish and Wildlife Program, which provides  guidance and recommendations on mitigating the impacts of hydropower  on the region’s fish and wildlife.
To incorporate local planning for the more than 50 subbasins in the  Columbia River Basin into the Council’s development of the Fish and  Wildlife Program, the Council initiated subbasin planning in 2001. The  Council expects to complete the first round of subbasin plans in May 2004,  review and take comments on the plans through the fall, and then amend  them into the program by January 2005. The plans will then form the basis  from which projects will be solicited and selected. Federal agencies,  including the Corps, Forest Service, Reclamation, BLM, EPA, FWS, NMFS,  NRCS, and USGS, are providing watershed-level information and technical  assistance, and some Columbia River Basin tribes are among those taking  the lead in coordinating and managing development of specific subbasin  plans. A few of the tribes reported that subbasin planning is an important  step to including local input in the Fish and Wildlife Program, but  expressed concern that challenges to the successful implementation of  subbasin plans exist. For example, one tribal representative expressed  concern with the consistency of funding and contracting procedures, while  another expressed concern at the level of local commitment to subbasin  fish and wildlife priorities.
The Northwest Power Act directs Bonneville to fund the protection,  mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife in a manner consistent  with the act. To meet this requirement, Bonneville takes actions and enters  into agreements with other entities to meet the goals and objectives  outlined by the Council. Bonneville receives assistance in this process from  the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, composed of federal, state,  and tribal fish and wildlife officials, which provides recommendations  regarding fish and wildlife projects proposed by contractors. The Council’s  Independent Scientific Review Panel reviews proposed projects to ensure  that they are consistent with the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program. As  shown in the following examples, other federal agencies and tribes also  collaborate with Bonneville in implementing the Fish and Wildlife Program,  affording Bonneville access to additional knowledge and technical  capabilities, as well as access to resources needed for mitigation activities.
FWS and NMFS provide Bonneville with assistance on issues such as  fish passage and population monitoring. In addition, Bonneville  provides direct funding to FWS for the operation and maintenance of  certain hatcheries.
The Corps and Reclamation manage in-river mitigation at hydropower  facilities, such as fish screens, with direct funding from Bonneville.
Federal agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM, as well as state,  tribal, and private landowners, receive direct funding or contract with  Bonneville for habitat mitigation activities.
Tribes contract with Bonneville to provide mitigation activities such as  habitat improvement, hatchery management, and habitat acquisition  projects both on and off reservation.
Recently, Bonneville revised its Fish and Wildlife Program project budget,  accounting, and contracting policies, raising concerns among federal  agencies, the Council, and the tribes. For example, in 2002, Bonneville  decided that it should not be the primary source of funding for off-site  mitigation projects on federal lands, and placed a temporary hold on  funding for land purchases and easements for off-site mitigation while it  reviewed its financial condition and liquidity position. In addition,  Bonneville changed its budgeting and planning methods from obligations to  accruals in November 2002. Federal agencies, the Council, and some tribes  reported that Bonneville’s processes for project submittal, approval, and  contract renewal and management are inconsistent and constantly  changing. As such, many project managers at the tribes who serve as  contractors to Bonneville reported spending as much time learning and  adapting to changing processes as implementing projects on the ground.  According to Bonneville, the changes were based in part on the  recommendations of a 1997 accounting firm review of program  implementation, and were necessary to improve program implementation,  keep Fish and Wildlife Program costs on target, and align its fish and  wildlife budgeting approach with its other program budgets.
subsections: section_title: Endangered Species Act-Driven Plans and Programs
paragraphs: Under the ESA, agencies must use their authorities to conserve endangered  and threatened species and make sure that their actions do not jeopardize  the continued existence of listed species. In the Columbia River Basin,  agencies collaborate on several concurrent and sometimes overlapping  plans towards this end, including biological opinions, the proposed  recovery plans for salmon, and the Basin-wide Salmon Recovery Strategy.    While different in their specific focus and scope, all of these plans promote  the continued existence of threatened and endangered species in the basin.
As the regulating agencies for endangered and threatened species, FWS  and NMFS are the lead agencies on most fish and wildlife plans driven by  the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA requires agencies to consult with FWS and  NMFS to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize listed species.  Based on these consultations, FWS and NMFS are required to produce  biological opinions that prescribe reasonable and prudent  measures/alternatives for proposed federal actions that may adversely  affect listed species.   Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation consult with  FWS and NMFS on the impacts that operation of the FCRPS has on  endangered and threatened species. In response to these consultations,  NMFS develops biological opinions for anadromous species impacted by  the FCRPS, while FWS develops biological opinions for resident fish and  wildlife impacted by the FCRPS.
NMFS first issued a Biological Opinion for the FCRPS for salmon and  steelhead in 1992, and developed subsequent versions, such as a 1998  supplement that added steelhead. The most recent Biological Opinion for  the FCRPS for salmon and steelhead was issued in 2000. In 2003, however,  a federal court remanded the 2000 Biological Opinion after ruling it  deficient, due to reliance on federal mitigation actions that had not  undergone section 7 consultations, as well as reliance on off-site  nonfederal mitigation activities that were not reasonably certain to occur.  A new salmon and steelhead Biological Opinion for the FCRPS is due in  June 2004. FWS developed a Biological Opinion for resident fish impacted  by the FCRPS, including bull trout and white sturgeon. The first FCRPS  Biological Opinion for white sturgeon was developed by FWS in 1995.
To develop the reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives outlined in  the FCRPS Biological Opinions, FWS and NMFS rely on technical input  from several agencies, as well as information contained in other fish and  wildlife plans:  Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation consult with FWS and NMFS in  developing reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives for  hydropower operation that can reasonably be implemented;  Forest Service and BLM contribute information used to develop the  reasonable and prudent measures/alternatives that address off-site  habitat; and  To the extent possible, NMFS has incorporated information from the  Council’s subbasin planning in their development of the Biological  Opinions due in June.
Notwithstanding this collaboration, several agencies and groups, such as  the Council and tribes, expressed a desire for increased participation in  developing the Biological Opinions. These groups indicated that they have  important technical information and experience that could help inform the  development of the Biological Opinions.
Responsibility for implementing the Biological Opinions lies with the  operators and managers of the FCRPS—Bonneville, the Corps, and  Reclamation—known as the Action Agencies. In fulfilling this  responsibility, the Action Agencies create Biological Opinion  Implementation Plans, which provide guidance on how the Biological  Opinions should be implemented. The Action Agencies create 1-Year  Implementation Plans, which outline annual goals for meeting reasonable  and prudent measures/alternatives, as well as 5-Year Implementation Plans,  which address longer-term goals for meeting the measures. The  development of Implementation Plans typically involves significant input  from other agencies. For example, Bonneville and the Council work  together to support ESA objectives by integrating the implementation of  the Biological Opinions with subbasin planning and the Fish and Wildlife  Program’s administrative process. In addition, implementation of the  Biological Opinions has evolved as the Action Agencies continue to  incorporate new information from ESA recovery planning processes.
Many basin agencies provide input to the Action Agencies on the  implementation of hydrosystem operations and configuration under the  Biological Opinions through the Regional Forum (Forum). Key members of  the Forum include Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation, as well as FWS  and NMFS, and the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The  Forum is composed of five committees that make decisions concerning the  FCRPS in accordance with the Biological Opinions, facilitating regional  communication and coordination towards fulfillment of the Biological  Opinions. Forum meetings are open to all entities, and interagency  collaboration is an essential element of the Forum. However, some tribal  representatives indicated that they would like to have more sovereign  representation on the Forum. They feel that the meetings neither provide  for a collaborative, balanced exchange of information between federal  agencies and the tribes, nor satisfy the requirement for  government-to-government consultation with tribes on matters that affect  them.
As further required by the ESA, NMFS is currently developing recovery  plans for salmon (recovery plans) for various regions within the Columbia  River Basin, which outline programs for the recovery of endangered or  threatened salmon and steelhead in the basin. Specifically, the recovery  plans are designed to organize, coordinate, and prioritize recovery actions  for salmon and steelhead, as well as outline objective measurable criteria  that will be used to determine when they no longer need the protection of  the ESA. In addition, recovery plans communicate the vision for salmon  and steelhead recovery to other agencies and the public.
NMFS’ development of the recovery plans has been enhanced by  collaboration and information sharing with other agencies and groups,  including tribes. NMFS is using the Council’s subbasin planning as a  framework for developing the various recovery plans. While NMFS is not  required to collaborate with the Council on this effort, working through the  subbasin framework affords NMFS access to local watershed information.  Although the recovery plans have yet to be completed— the first recovery  plan is due in December 2005—NMFS hopes they will be implemented  through interagency collaboration using the subbasin plans.
Separate from the recovery plans, the Basin-wide Salmon Recovery  Strategy provides an interim conceptual, collaborative plan for the  recovery of salmon and steelhead in the basin, until recovery plans are  complete. Referred to as the “All-H Paper” because it addresses the four  “H’s” of fish management—hatcheries, habitat, harvest, and  hydropower—it is a blueprint for collaboration among federal agencies in  the basin seeking to restore aquatic habitat and achieve recovery objectives  for endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead.
Development of the All-H paper involved input from nine federal agencies,  collectively known as the Federal Caucus—Bonneville, the Corps, Forest  Service, Reclamation, BIA, BLM, EPA, FWS, and NMFS. Agency  participation in the development varied according to agencies’ missions  and expertise:  Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation provided input on recovery  activities related to hydropower, and Reclamation provided input on  irrigation;   Forest Service and BLM provided input on recovery concerns related to   FWS and NMFS provided input on the role of annual harvest allocations   FWS and NMFS provided extensive input and guidance on the role of  hatcheries in recovery; and  EPA provided input and recommendations related to habitat and  hydropower.
After input from the nine agencies had been collected, and the All-H was  completed, agencies memorialized their collaboration through a  Memorandum of Agreement that outlined how agencies could cooperate on  implementation of the All-H. Overall, interagency collaboration on the  development of the All-H was well regarded, and the four “H’s” have  contributed to decision making on other plans in the basin. In addition,  NMFS has relied on information outlined in the All-H Paper as a framework  for developing the forthcoming recovery plans.
Implementation of the measures by the nine federal agencies as outlined in  the All-H Paper is voluntary; while agreed to by members of the Federal  Caucus, the paper establishes expectations, but does not establish specific  obligations for individual agencies.   Actual implementation of the  recommendations has varied across agencies, and across the different  categories of recovery—hatcheries, habitat, harvest, and hydropower.  Nonetheless, the comprehensive approach to species management outlined  in the All-H Paper has informed and guided agencies’ work on other plans.  For example, the Council now uses information contained in the All-H  Paper in its development of the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Action  Agencies use the four “H’s” in the Biological Opinion Implementation Plans.
section_title: Other Directives and Agency Missions Drive Additional Collaborative and Independent Plans and Programs
paragraphs: Additional fish and wildlife plans and programs are driven by other  directives, such as the Clean Water Act and court decisions based on treaty  rights, as well as by each agency’s unique mission. Agencies develop and  implement these plans and programs through collaborative and  independent agency efforts. The lead agencies and federal and tribal  collaborators in the development and implementation for selected plans  and programs are summarized in figure 4.
The Clean Water Act established the basic structure for regulating  discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. As the  regulating agency for the Clean Water Act, EPA has the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater  standards for industry. The Clean Water Act also provides for states and  tribes to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.  EPA also manages grant programs designed to assist agencies, tribes, and  others to comply with this guidance.
In the Columbia River Basin, EPA manages several grant programs that  indirectly benefit fish and wildlife by promoting water and environmental  quality on tribal lands. EPA manages these programs collaboratively with  tribes and other organizations to identify water quality needs in the basin,  as well as suitable projects to address these needs.   Grant programs in the  basin identified by EPA include the following:  Clean Water Act General Assistance Grant Program to  Tribes—Provides general assistance grants to Indian tribal  governments and intertribal consortia to build capacity to administer  regulatory and multimedia programs addressing environmental issues  on Indian lands.
Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program—Provides funding to  states and Indian tribes for a wide variety of nonpoint source activities,  including technical and financial assistance, education, training,  technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring.
Clean Water Act Section 106 Grant Programs—Assists Indian  tribes and states in carrying out effective water pollution control  programs, including water quality planning and assessments,  development of water quality standards, and water quality monitoring.
Implementation of these grant projects is handled by grant recipients, with  minimal assistance from EPA beyond the initial discussions concerning  project design and funding. According to EPA, the grant programs work  well and allow the tribes to fully incorporate their technical knowledge and  experience into water quality planning.
subsections: section_title: Court Decision-Driven Plans and Programs
paragraphs: In addition to federal environmental protection laws, such as the Clean  Water Act, tribal treaty rights and clarifying court decisions have also  resulted in plans to manage basin fish and wildlife. For example, the 1969  United States v. Oregon and 1974 United States v. Washington court  decisions ruled that certain Columbia River Basin tribes have a right to 50  percent of the annual harvestable catch of fish at all usual and accustomed  fishing areas. A subsequent court ruling in 1977 ordered FWS, NMFS, state  fish and wildlife agencies, and the tribes to develop a collaborative plan for  managing the annual harvest of the fisheries affected by United States v.  Oregon. In addition, BIA assists the tribes in negotiations with federal  agencies and development of the plan. Known as the Five Year Columbia  River Fish Management Plan, the plan sets forth harvest allocation terms,  as well as efforts to rebuild and enhance fish runs. Since that plan expired  in 1982, harvest allocation under United States v. Oregon has been  alternately managed by additional multiyear collaborative plans and annual  court-ordered negotiations that seek to balance tribal harvest, nontribal  harvest, and species protection. According to FWS and NMFS, their input  on United States v. Oregon negotiations must balance both their trust  responsibilities to tribes, as well as their responsibilities to endangered and  threatened species that are affected by the United States v. Oregon  decision. At present, United States v. Oregon harvest allocation is decided  by annual court-ordered negotiations, although the parties are seeking to  develop a new long-term collaborative plan, to be known as the Columbia  River Fish Management Agreement.   Otherwise, the parties will continue  to revisit harvest and fish management decisions for the Columbia River  through annual negotiations.
Implementation of measures agreed to in United States v. Oregon  negotiations or plans is handled collaboratively by federal, state, and tribal  parties.   For example, FWS and NMFS are responsible for implementing  measures, such as hatchery enhancement, to rebuild depressed fish stocks.  State agencies are responsible for publishing and regulating annual harvest  levels. The five Columbia River Basin tribes that are parties to United  States v. Oregon are responsible for abiding by annual harvest levels.  According to NMFS, the implementation of United States v. Oregon  negotiations or plans affect fisheries in a number of important areas,  including habitat, production, and hatchery management. Furthermore, the  decisions reached during the negotiations serve as guidelines for the  various decisions made on the Regional Forum committees. For example,  agreements concerning harvest levels that are reached with tribes during  the United States v. Oregon negotiations serve as the baseline for  discussions of harvest management and monitoring at the Regional Forum.
section_title: Agency Mission-Driven Plans and Programs
paragraphs: Agency missions also drive fish and wildlife plans in the basin. Specifically,  the water and resource management responsibilities of the Corps,  Reclamation, Forest Service, BLM, and NRCS require these agencies to  create plans that address the fish and wildlife impacts of their activities.  Some of these plans are collaborative in their design or implementation,  and represent agency efforts to more fully meet their mission with  assistance from other agencies. Others are designed and implemented  independently by individual agencies, and represent agency efforts to  benefit fish and wildlife through mission activities.
The Corps uses Project Management Plans to ensure that their internal  agency activities follow appropriate guidelines for protecting fish passage  and mitigating barriers to it along the Columbia River. The scope of Project  Management Plans varies widely, but each plan includes a fish protection  and mitigation component. Development and implementation of Project  Management Plans is handled independently by the Corps. Information  contained within Project Management Plans informs the Corps’  participation in other plans in the basin, and thus influences the activities  of other agencies. For example, the Corps reported that the content of  Project Management Plans is frequently used in developing the annual and  5-year Biological Opinion Implementation Plans for the FCRPS.
Reclamation uses Research and Monitoring Programs to independently  fund, develop, and implement a wide range of discretionary efforts,  including research and monitoring efforts that focus on fish and wildlife.  Funding for the Research and Monitoring Programs is distributed annually  from Reclamation’s Commissioner’s office, and projects are selected from  across a variety of departments. According to Reclamation officials,  Research and Monitoring Programs are important tools for incorporating  fish and wildlife activities into internal agency policies.
The collaborative efforts of the Forest Service and BLM have yielded the  Northwest Forest Plan, an effort to facilitate a collaborative interagency  approach to ecosystem management on federal lands located within the  range of the threatened northern spotted owl. In addition, the Northwest  Forest Plan includes an Aquatic Conservation Strategy designed to  promote the recovery of listed endangered and threatened species, as well  as nonlisted aquatic species. As land management agencies, Forest Service  and BLM take the lead on developing and implementing measures for the  long-term health of forests, wildlife, and waterways on their lands.  Nonetheless, several other federal agencies provided input on the design of  the Northwest Forest Plan through a Memorandum of Understanding  signed by the Corps, Forest Service, BIA, BLM, EPA, FWS, NMFS, USGS,  and the National Park Service. In addition, federal agencies, as well as  state, local, and tribal governments, continually collaborate on the  implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. For example, the Regional  Interagency Executive Committee, which is comprised of representatives  from the federal agencies, facilitates the prompt and coordinated  implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan at the regional level. In  addition, the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which is comprised  of representatives from federal, state, county, and tribal governments,  provides a vehicle for input from the states, counties, and tribes, and  promotes the integration and coordination of forest management activities  among federal and nonfederal entities.
The Forest Service also develops Land and Resource Management Plans,  commonly referred to as Forest Plans, to manage each specific National  Forest. Forest Plans, developed through the National Environmental Policy  Act public comment process, address a variety of forest management  concerns but contain objectives and standards/guidelines that specifically  address conservation and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat integrated  with other resource management needs. According to the Forest Service,  Forest Plans were the primary vehicle for integrating fish and wildlife  concerns with other management objectives. Forest Plans do not set forth  determinations on the type and number of actions to be implemented, but  provide sideboards and guidance for the design of site-level actions.  Development and implementation of these plans are primarily handled by  the Forest Service, although NMFS, FWS, and tribes provide some input.  The Forest Service coordinates with BLM on the development of Forest  Plans where BLM lands lie adjacent to National Forests.   BLM and Forest  Service also collaborate on species management, including habitat  management and aquatic management strategies. Through consultations  with the Forest Service, Columbia River Basin tribes provide input on the  design and implementation of Forest Plans, and also participate in  cost-share fish and wildlife activities on National Forest System lands.  According to one Forest Service official, securing cost-share funding for  activities benefiting nonlisted fish is an ongoing challenge because  endangered and threatened species fish tend to receive the most attention  and funding.
BLM uses District Resource Management Plans to guide agency activities.    Resource Management Plans outline general management guidelines for all  agency activities, and also contain specific management guidelines for  protecting fish and wildlife. Although Resource Management Plans address  internal management guidelines for BLM, they are developed through the  National Environmental Policy Act public comment process. As such, they  receive significant public attention and input, and BLM must incorporate  the comments into their development of the plans.
NRCS uses its Environmental Quality Incentive Program to fund projects  that indirectly benefit fish and wildlife through environmental  improvements to irrigation, erosion, water quality, and agriculture.  Operated collaboratively with tribes, NRCS funds these projects on a  cost-share basis, providing a minimum of 2.6 percent of the total funds.    According to NRCS, tribes are an excellent vehicle for gaining access to  lands previously inaccessible to environmental improvements because the  tribes are continually purchasing land from private sellers, and because  they are willing to partner with NRCS on land rehabilitation.
In conjunction with their agency missions, and in recognition of their trust  responsibilities to tribes, federal agencies also have the opportunity to  participate in the development and implementation of tribally managed fish  and wildlife plans. For example, representatives from the Nez Perce,  Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama tribes, as well as staff from the  Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, compiled the  Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, which outlines a framework for restoring  anadromous fish stocks in the Columbia River Basin. This tribal plan  outlines the cultural context for the tribes’ salmon restoration efforts, as  well as technical and institutional recommendations and watershed  restoration actions. According to the tribes, however, federal agency  collaboration on tribe-led plans is minimal, and there is significant room for  increased participation from agencies on tribal fish and wildlife plans.
In addition to opportunities for collaboration on tribal plans, agencies also  have opportunities to fulfill agency missions and other responsibilities  through collaboration on state-managed plans. For example, one agency  reported collaborating with the state of Washington on their “Extinction Is  Not an Option” plan, which provides a framework for the recovery of  endangered species in the state. Agencies also collaborate with the state of  Oregon on the Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. According to some federal  agency representatives, collaboration on federal and state fish and wildlife  plans is important in ensuring that overall fish and wildlife goals in the  basin are met.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, the Interior, as well as Bonneville and EPA.  Bonneville and the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce provided  official written comments. (See apps. VI through VIII, respectively, for the  full text of the comments received from these agencies and our responses.)  The comments were generally technical in nature with few comments on  the report’s overall findings. We made changes to the report, where  appropriate, based on the technical comments provided by the three  entities that commented on the report. The Department of Defense and  EPA had no comments on the report. The Department of the Interior did  not provide comments in time to be included in this report.
Bonneville commented that the draft would benefit from the inclusion of  additional information regarding the federal government’s trust  responsibilities to the tribes in the Columbia River Basin. Within the scope  of our review, we believe the topic is adequately and accurately described  in the report. The Department of Agriculture objected to our assertions in  figures 3 and 4 that the Forest Service contributes to the development or  implementation of certain plans, and that BLM contributes to the  development and implementation of Forest Service Land and Resource  Management Plans, respectively. The figures are intended to demonstrate  the collaborative nature of fish and wildlife plans and programs in the  basin. While we recognize that in many cases agencies do not have official  roles or responsibilities in specific plans, we believe our figures accurately  highlight both formal and informal contributions from agencies and tribes,  as described to us by agency officials, tribal representatives, and others.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Commerce, Defense, the Interior, and the Administrators of Bonneville and  EPA, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested Members  of Congress. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify and describe the laws, treaties, executive orders, and court  decisions that define the responsibilities of the Bonneville Power  Administration (Bonneville) and other federal agencies to perform  activities benefiting fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin and  involve tribes in the process, we reviewed our prior report on salmon and  steelhead recovery activities in the Columbia River Basin for 11 agencies  with significant responsibility for fish and wildlife in the Pacific  Northwest. These agencies were Bonneville; the Forest Service and  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Department of  Agriculture; the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land  Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the  Department of the Interior; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)  within the Department of Defense; the National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce; and the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA). We reviewed the directives identified by the  agencies in the report as defining their responsibilities for salmon and  steelhead in the basin, and requested confirmation from each agency on  these directives. In addition, we asked each agency to identify any  additional directives that define their responsibilities for other fish and  wildlife, and to identify any directives applicable to Columbia River Basin  tribes that create fish and wildlife responsibilities for agencies.   We also  requested input from the 13 Columbia River Basin tribes on the directives  that define federal responsibilities for fish and wildlife in the basin. Based  on the responses provided by agencies and tribes, we compiled a summary  of directives that define agency responsibilities for fish and wildlife in the  basin. We collected documentation on these directives from the agencies,  discussed the directives with agency, tribal, and other representatives for  clarification.
To identify and describe the fish and wildlife plans and programs that  Bonneville and other federal agencies have developed to guide their fish  and wildlife activities, we reviewed our prior report on salmon and  steelhead recovery activities in the Columbia River Basin. We then  reviewed the plans and programs identified by the agencies in the report as  guiding their recovery activities for salmon and steelhead, and requested  confirmation from each agency on these plans and programs. In addition,  we asked agencies to identify any additional plans and programs used to  fulfill agency responsibilities for fish and wildlife in the basin, and we  interviewed agency officials to gather additional information on the  implementation of fish and wildlife plans and programs. We also  interviewed staff and officials of the Northwest Power and Conservation  Council and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, in order to  gather information on their roles in assisting federal agencies with the  design and implementation of fish and wildlife plans and programs. To  gather the tribal perspective on fish and wildlife plans and programs, we  met with representatives from 10 of the 13 federally recognized tribes in the  basin, as well as representatives from the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish  Commission, and the Upper Columbia United Tribes. In addition, 10 of the  13 tribes submitted written comments on tribal participation in federal fish  and wildlife plans in the basin.
During our information collection, agencies, organizations, and tribes  highlighted a number of concerns regarding the implementation of fish and  wildlife plans and programs in the basin, which we included in this report.    In accordance with our policy to refrain from addressing matters that are in  litigation, we did not examine or report on any issues that are before the  court.
We performed our work from August 2003 through April 2004, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Laws, Treaties, and Executive Orders Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
paragraphs: Tables 4, 5, and 6 list the nationwide, basin-specific, and mission-specific  laws reported by federal agencies as guiding their actions to protect,  mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 7 lists the treaties that federal agencies reported as guiding their  actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the Columbia  River Basin.
Table 8 lists the executive orders that federal agencies reported as guiding  their actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the  Columbia River Basin.
section_title: Laws and Executive Orders Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin Tribes
paragraphs: Table 9 lists the laws that federal agencies reported as guiding their actions  with regard to tribes in the Columbia River Basin.
Table 10 lists the executive orders and presidential memorandum that  federal agencies reported as guiding their actions with regard to tribes in  the Columbia River Basin.
section_title: Court Decisions Guiding Agency Activities Affecting Columbia River Basin Fish, Wildlife, and Tribes
paragraphs: Table 11 lists the court decisions that federal agencies reported as guiding  their actions to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife in the  Columbia River Basin.
Table 12 lists the court decisions that federal agencies reported as guiding  their actions with regard to tribes in the Columbia River Basin.
section_title: Plans and Programs Implemented by Federal Agencies to Manage Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Activities
paragraphs: Table 13 provides descriptions of plans and programs identified by federal  agencies, including the directives driving the plans and programs and the  lead agencies.
section_title: Comments from the Bonneville Power Administration
section_title: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Jill Berman, Brad Dobbins, and Rebecca  Sandulli made key contributions to this report.  Also contributing to the  report were Bob Crystal and Cynthia Norris.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs