Potential closing of tailwater fish hatcheries.

[dunfly]

"The federal government is planning to eliminate funding to nine Federal fish hatcheries in GA, TN, KY, UT, MO, ND, and AR, which will result in their closure."

Being from Florida, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but someone needs to step up and take this on. This could have a devastating effect on the tailwater fisheries and have lasting economic repercussions. Quite honestly, I think it should be up to the states to fund the operation of the fish hatcheries since the economic benefits acrue to the states. The Feds do have some mitigation responsibility under the agreements put in place when the dams were originally built, but this could be resolved by donating the fishery facilities to the states.

There needs to be an organization put together like the coastal states put together the CCA to take on this problem. I don't think just signing a petition is going to get it. It should be an easy arguement that the economic benefits outweigh the costs of running the hatcheries, however, someone needs to advance the arguement on a multi state level.

[John_N]

"The federal government is planning to eliminate funding to nine Federal fish hatcheries in GA, TN, KY, UT, MO, ND, and AR, which will result in their closure."

Dunfly, with complete respect, where did that quote come from? I'm actually glad to see this posted, because I had been considering doing the same in order to see if anyone knew where to find factual information on the subject. I'm one of a couple from our local fly fishing club that has been tasked with trying to figure out what we're dealing with here and how to respond and after a couple weeks of investigation, I'm frankly skeptical. I'm not looking to be - 90% of my fishing is done on a tailwater that's our primary fishery around here and it's stocked by one of the hatcheries that would reportedly be closed. However, I'm a critical thinker in general and am also a long-time skeptic of stories that gets circulated around via emails and Internet postings and the propensity those mediums have for distorting stories beyond anything resembling reality. I can't find anywhere where there's a direct statement from anyone in a position of authority that hatcheries will close, much less a list of nine as has been reported by some people. Here's what I basically reported back to some of the folks in our club. I am very interested in comment from anyone who is in the know on this. With all due respect though, please don't report back with hyperbole from a web site, email, letter or similar source unless it points us to something from a governmental agency with standing on the issue or references impending legislation or something of the sort.

_______________________

Gentlemen:

The information I have linked below seems to me to be the closest to the source of any I’ve found or read thus far. The national fish hatcheries are part of (and funded through) the US Fish & Wildlife Services. It turns out their web site includes a link to the proposed 2012 budget for their department and the impact of proposed cuts on various components within their operations. True to governmental form, the entire document is over 500 pages long, but the first link below is just the relevant chapter in that document and is consequently a little shorter. The second link takes you to the home page of their site and you can go there and click on the “Budget” link if you want to dig through the whole thing. As I’ve told a couple of people, my personal opinion is that there’s at least SOME level of threat out there, and consequently I wouldn’t want to sound like I’m advocating sitting on our hands. At the same time, I’m having a hard time finding any factual evidence as to how much of a threat there is and am certainly having a difficult time finding substantiation for some of the “end of the world” interpretations that are being spread around via email and the Internet. If you go to the bottom of page FAR-8 in the document linked below, you get to a paragraph titled “National Fish Hatchery Operations” that seems to be the most direct reference to the information we’re seeking. I’ve copied that text below - take a second to read it, as I think it’s interesting both for the things it does and doesn’t say:

“Funding for the National Fish Hatchery Operations will be reduced by $6,288,000 in 2012. This funding is associated with the production of fish for the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. For many years, the Service has been working to recover costs from responsible agencies in order to focus its available funding on native fish recovery and restoration. Beginning in FY 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has provided some funding for this purpose. In the FY 2012 President’s budget, the Corps has requested $3.8 million to fund mitigation fish production. The Service will continue to work with the Corps and other partners, in all budget climates, to determine equitable reimbursable agreements to satisfy those responsibilities. Without these agreements there could be reduction of mitigation activities. In 2009, mitigation facilities produced a total of 12,786,000 fish and 15,924,000 eyed eggs, which directly supported 3,500 jobs and nearly $325 million in total economic benefit to local and state economies from Service operated mitigation facilities, as cited in the Service report Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by NFHS.”

I interpret that to reinforce a few things that I’d heard rumor of previously. It reads as if the agency wants to focus its dollars on “native fish recovery and restoration” and “recover costs from responsible agencies” for mitigation/recovery of non-native fish, which would of course be situations like tailwaters. In keeping with that, they clearly state they’ve been working on agencies like the Corps (as one of the responsible parties for the dams that created the artificial tailwater fisheries) to contribute to the cost. In a significant statement that I don’t think anybody’s talking about, it sounds as if the Corps actually requested $3.8 million in their 2012 budget to partially offset the $6.2 million that the USFW is potentially going to cut. As it goes on, the USFW seems to be saying that they “will continue to work with the Corps and other partners” to make up the shortfall and IF these agreements cannot be reached, there COULD be reduction of mitigation activities. No word as to what this many dollars’ worth of reduction would translate into, but it’s worth noting in this same document that the total expense for hatchery operations in 2010 was over $54 million. That’s the facts as I’ve been able to find them. I may forward this on to the guy I talked to at FFF and to [name removed] to see what their take is, but thought I’d pass it along to you guys as well. Thanks.

http://www.fws.gov/budget/2012/PDF%20Files%20FY2012%20Greenbook/13.%20Fisheries%202012.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/

[PigsEye]

Senators in potentially affected states.


KENTUCKY- Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery
Senator Mitch McConnell 202-224-2541
Senator Rand Paul 202-224-4343

TENNESSEE- Dale Hollow and Erwin National Fish hatcheries
Senator Lamar Alexander 202-224-4944
Senator Bob Corker 202-224-3344

GEORGIA- Chattahoochee Forest National Fish Hatchery
Senator Saxby Chambliss 202-224-3521
Senator Johnny Isakson 202-224-3643

ARKANSAS- Norfork and Greers Ferry National Fish Hatcheries
Senator John Boozman 202-224-4843
Senator Mark Pryor 202-224-2353

MISSOURI-Neosho National Fish Hatchery
Senator Roy Blunt 202-224-5721
Senator Claire McCaskill 202-224-6154

NORTH DAKOTA-Garrison Dam National Fish Hatchery
Senator Kent Conrad 202-224-2043
Senator John Hoeven 202-224-2551

UTAH- Jones Hole National Fish Hatchery
Senator Orrin Hatch 202-224-5251
Senator Mike Lee 202-224-5444

[PigsEye]

Letter I received from one of Arkansas' Representatives:

Thank you for contacting me about the status of the Greers Ferry and Norfork National Fish Hatcheries. This is an extremely important issue that directly affects Arkansas's 1st District and I have made it one of my top priorities.

As you know, in his Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, President Obama proposed cutting $6,288,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Hatchery Operations, where the production of fish is for the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. Under this proposal, the Greers Ferry and Norfork trout hatcheries would lose their FWS funding. These hatcheries play a vital role in their communities, creating jobs and drawing in tourists, and I am committed to preserving funding for these important operations.

With a total annual operations budget of approximately $1.6 million, the Greers Ferry and Norfork National Fish Hatcheries in Arkansas are responsible for creating a total local economic impact of well over $150 million. They employ fourteen Fish and Wildlife experts; they account for nearly 2,000 jobs in rural Arkansas communities; and according to Arkansas's Department of Parks and Tourism, they generate approximately $5.5 million in federal tax revenues. The release of more than one million fish annually from these hatcheries contributes to our state's world-renowned reputation for trout fishing. Simply put, the investment into Arkansas's trout hatcheries pays for itself.

After the Army Corps of Engineers constructed dams in Greers Ferry and Norfork that drastically dropped water temperatures, these two hatcheries were created to maintain a trout population that could survive in cold-water. The Army Corps of Engineers built the hatcheries which have since been run by the FWS using their own funds. Now, the FWS has argued that the Army Corps of Engineers should fund these two hatcheries through an inter-agency agreement. In an attempt to pressure the Army Corps into funding the hatcheries, the FWS requested that funding for National Mitigation Hatchery Operations be removed from their budget. I have met with representatives from both agencies to ensure that an agreement is reached and that will fund these hatcheries and keep them open. The Fish and Wildlife Services have assured me that they have no intention of shutting down either of these hatcheries.

The hatcheries in Greers Ferry and Norfork are two examples of how the federal government should be investing taxpayer dollars. These operations generate large amounts of revenue on a relatively small investment and put Americans to work. Along with fellow members of the Arkansas delegation, I have signed on to a letter to President Obama expressing the need for funding these hatcheries and the important role that they play in their communities. I will continue to work to ensure that these hatcheries are fully funded for FY2012 and beyond.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue. If you have any additional comments or questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at Crawford.House.Gov to sign up for my e-newsletter and receive regular updates from Washington, D.C

[PigsEye]

This is cut and pasted from an Arkansas forum I post on. I would think the economics would be similar for all the targeted hatcheries.

For Norfork, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service "For each $1 spent of budget expenditures, $5.86 tax revenue was generated." - http://www.fws.gov/norfork/

From http://www.fws.gov/greersferry/
"Annual budget (FY 09) $458,086.
Annual economic impact of trout production at Greers Ferry NFH $45.7 million (1999 dollars)"
Granted, this doesn't address todays money, but I would assume the ratio is close to the same.

Arkansas state Senator Johnny Key introduced legislation requesting continued federal funding. The resolution says that the two hatcheries have a total economic impact of $150 million but only cost $1.5 million to run. Together, the fisheries also create $5.5 million in federal tax revenue ($3.65 to every $1 in operating expenses.)

Mr. Key also shows that Bull Shoals and Norfork generate almost $100 million in electricity and the the dam system on the White and Little Red River averted $51.4 million in flood damages in the last fiscal year. Per Key, the trout fisheries value is almost equal to the value of electricity and flood control combined.

One of the arguments is that the hatcheries were promised as a way to replace the warm water species that were lost in the streams that were dammed. It was part of the bargain made in exchange for the dams on the White/Little Red River system. Water is too cold to support a viable smallmouth population. That's why they're not in those areas now. It's plausible that if there are no more stockings and the Little Red River goes to catch and release only, it MIGHT be able to support a brown trout population, but that's a big might. We may have to see, but I hope not.

What I don't get about it is that this is a proven revenue stream for the federal govt (at least according to the Fish and Wildlife service) and they want to end it. As strapped as the gov't is, you think they would be more than happy to have the hatcheries there.

[James Smith]

I'm going to offer a different perspective to this funding issue that may end up drawing out some unpleasant comments. While we all love our sport of fishing (fly fishing in particular) and the tailwater fisheries are an important element for many of us; when you come right down to it, spending federal tax dollars on any program that is not mandated in the U.S.Constitution especially when the country is running record level debt (the interest alone is 4 billion dollars a day), doesn’t make any sense. Something has to give. Everyone says stop the spending, cut the waste, reduce the national debt, but don't cut the programs that benefit me. Dunfly has it right, this should be funded with state funding, generated by fishing license fees or local tax money (if approved by the voters). If the return on investment is as good as some of you have stated, then it shouldn't be that tough of a sell at the state and local level.

The problem with Washington is that the people passing spending bills are passing them based on how many votes it will "buy" for them in the next election, not what is best for our country at this time. If the U.S.government does not reduce the national debt or if they default on the trillions of dollars of loans they have accrued, then the entire house of cards starts to fall down. The dollar ceases to be the standard of payment for oil around the world, our credit rating goes into the toilet and interest rates rise so that 4 billion per day in interest seems like a bargin. The dollar is then devalued so much that most of our savings and investments become if not worthless, at least seriously reduced.

It’s time for the country to get real about federal (and state) spending. What sounds like a great idea for spending to some of us, sounds like pork barrel spending to others. The bottom line is that if tailwater fisheries are that important to fishermen and to the local economies, then we should support the programs with our own money and sweat equity.

There, I’ve said it. Now I have to find a way to get into the witness protection program or at the very least find a new FAOL identity to go by.



The guy formally known as Jim Smith

[ol' blue]

Yep, I'm with you, James. That's exactly what crossed my mind. If the payoff is as high as is claimed, then the local gov or private sector will keep it going. But to be honest with you, those sorts of estimates are suspect in my mind.

"Per Key, the trout fisheries value is almost equal to the value of electricity and flood control combined." Yeah, but remove all 3 and see which ones are really important.

[fishbum]

I'm going to offer a different perspective to this funding issue that may end up drawing out some unpleasant comments. While we all love our sport of fishing (fly fishing in particular) and the tailwater fisheries are an important element for many of us; when you come right down to it, spending federal tax dollars on any program that is not mandated in the U.S.Constitution especially when the country is running record level debt (the interest alone is 4 billion dollars a day), doesn’t make any sense. Something has to give. Everyone says stop the spending, cut the waste, reduce the national debt, but don't cut the programs that benefit me. Dunfly has it right, this should be funded with state funding, generated by fishing license fees or local tax money (if approved by the voters). If the return on investment is as good as some of you have stated, then it shouldn't be that tough of a sell at the state and local level.

The problem with Washington is that the people passing spending bills are passing them based on how many votes it will "buy" for them in the next election, not what is best for our country at this time. If the U.S.government does not reduce the national debt or if they default on the trillions of dollars of loans they have accrued, then the entire house of cards starts to fall down. The dollar ceases to be the standard of payment for oil around the world, our credit rating goes into the toilet and interest rates rise so that 4 billion per day in interest seems like a bargin. The dollar is then devalued so much that most of our savings and investments become if not worthless, at least seriously reduced.

It’s time for the country to get real about federal (and state) spending. What sounds like a great idea for spending to some of us, sounds like pork barrel spending to others. The bottom line is that if tailwater fisheries are that important to fishermen and to the local economies, then we should support the programs with our own money and sweat equity.

There, I’ve said it. Now I have to find a way to get into the witness protection program or at the very least find a new FAOL identity to go by.



The guy formally known as Jim Smith

I could not have said it better. Hatcheries should indeed be funded on a local level rather than a national level. Keep the federal government out of it and your dollar will go a lot further.

fishbum

[Longs for Cutts]

James:

The other problem is that taxes, especially on top wage earners and corporations, have been nosediving since this 80s. The middle class has its highest tax burden compared to that of the wealthy in history. Cutting wasteful spending makes perfect sense, but when Exxon and even BP are making massive profits and their CEOs are making thousands of times what the average worker makes and paying the lowest taxes on it since the 1920s, raising taxes back to 1990s levels sure makes a lot of sense too.

[John_N]

Now, the FWS has argued that the Army Corps of Engineers should fund these two hatcheries through an inter-agency agreement. In an attempt to pressure the Army Corps into funding the hatcheries, the FWS requested that funding for National Mitigation Hatchery Operations be removed from their budget. I have met with representatives from both agencies to ensure that an agreement is reached and that will fund these hatcheries and keep them open. The Fish and Wildlife Services have assured me that they have no intention of shutting down either of these hatcheries.

These few sentences from the Congressman's letter are the ones I find most telling. What I had heard originally was that this was somewhat of a maneuver by FWS to force other entities (the Corps and TVA in particular from what I gather) to step up to the plate for funding hatcheries that were the result of mitigation from dam construction. It's worth noting, as you'll see in the link I originally posted, that the overall funding for FWS is proposed to increase in 2012, making their proposal for cutting even a portion of hatchery funding that much more curious unless it were part of a broader agenda. As the excerpt from their own budget proposal states and the assurance highlighted above suggests, it sounds like they're just trying to force sharing of the expenses, not that they're intending to shut anything down. I have yet to find anything "from the source" so to speak that specifically threatens closure and/or names hatcheries that would be closed, which of course makes this portion of the Congressman's statement all the more puzzling as to where the information about impending closure came from, particularly since the highlighted portion above from his letter contradicts it:

As you know, in his Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, President Obama proposed cutting $6,288,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Hatchery Operations, where the production of fish is for the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. Under this proposal, the Greers Ferry and Norfork trout hatcheries would lose their FWS funding.