Hatchery closure--help keep Wolf Creek Hatchery open

[peter]

From: Friends of Wolf Creek NFH <friendsofwolfcreeknfh@gmail.com>
Subject: Petition to Save Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery
To:
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 4:15 PM


An online petition has been created to help save the hatcheries that are being affected by President Obama's proposed budget cuts. In addition to writing letters to your state and local representatives, please take a moment to sign the online petition by clicking HERE.

Also the Friends of Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery has launched a fan page on Facebook. Please take a minute to click on our page and click on like to get updates on upcoming events, newsletters, and much more. To visit our fan page, please click HERE.

Finally we have updated our website with several documents about the proposed budget cuts. Please take a moment to visit our site and check out the documents that are posted including a starter support letter for you to use as you see fit. To visit our website please click HERE and click on the Funding Cuts tab at the top of the page.

For more specifics or details please contact Wolf Creek NFH Project Leader James Gray at james_gray@fws.gov or 270-343-3797.

--
Johanna Spencer, Administrative Assistant
Friends of Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery
50 Kendall Rd.
Jamestown, KY 42629
Office: 270-343-3797
Fax: 270-343-2874
www.friendsofwolfcreeknfh.com
www.catcharainbow.org

[raincheck]

Done

[peter]

From: Friends of Wolf Creek NFH <friendsofwolfcreeknfh@gmail.com>
Subject: Help Save Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery
To:
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 4:16 PM


Your county either directly receives trout reared at the Wolf Creek NFH, has a body of water that is stocked that flows into your county or joins a county that receives trout of which your citizens may fish. The entire trout fishery in Kentucky depends on fish reared at Wolf Creek and are stocked in 75 Kentucky counties, so you either directly or indirectly benefit from this fishery.

As you can see from the attached "Green Book" document the President has proposed cutting funding for several National Fish Hatcheries, one of which is Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery located in Jamestown, KY. The Fact Sheet and Impacts documents provide information on the importance of the hatchery. Attached you will find a draft support letter to be used however you see fit. Add to, cut, paste, edit, or send as is. Please add in your perspective of the economic impact trout fishing has to your county.




The following people need to hear from you ASAP, so please send letters. At the very least the Secretary of Interior, USFWS Director, Senator McConnell, and Congressman Rogers need to receive letters because of the senior positions they hold. Feel free to send a letter to any other political leader you feel like.



U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Secretary, Ken Salazar
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240


DIRECTOR
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Senator Mitch McConnell
261-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Congressman Ed Whitfield
2368 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Congressman Hal Rogers
2406 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

For more specifics or details please contact Wolf Creek NFH Project Leader James Gray at james_gray@fws.gov or 270-343-3797.

--
Johanna Spencer, Administrative Assistant
Friends of Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery
50 Kendall Rd.
Jamestown, KY 42629
Office: 270-343-3797
Fax: 270-343-2874
www.friendsofwolfcreeknfh.com
www.catcharainbow.org

[peter]

Sorry but the tables did not transfer to the post so the info in the tables in in one long column.
-Peter


President Obama’s FY2012 proposed budget calls for $6,288,000 in funding cuts for operation of nine National Fish Hatcheries responsible for mitigating the adverse effects of federal water development projects. In 2009, these facilities produced a total of 12,786,600 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 many as 65 employees would be impacted.

Any reduction in fish production from Service trout mitigation hatcheries in the Southeast will have a lasting impact on our economy, particularly in States such as Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. It will impact jobs being generated in the private sector and impact revenues being collected by State and Local governments and also the Federal government. It will impact small “mom and pop” businesses and also large companies that depend upon anglers for much of their revenues.

Hatchery
Retail Expenditures **
Jobs Generated
Job
Income
State and Local Tax Revenue
Federal Income Tax
Total Economic Output*
Recreational Fish Stocked (2010)
FWS Operational Budget (2010)
Chattahoochee Forest NFH, GA
$15,252,333
317
$8,240,937
$908,759
$1,002,718
$28,826,909
1,045,197
$778,000
Dale Hollow NFH, TN
$39,744,225
826
$21,474,069
$2,368,026
$2,612,864
$75,116,586
1,817,431
$797,000
Erwin NFH, TN***
$810,547
17
$437,944
$48,294
$53,287
$1,531,934
35,278
$669,000
Greers Ferry NFH, AR
$36,208,924
752
$19,563,922
$2,157,387
$2,380,446
$68,434,866
1,505,351
$606,000
Norfork NFH, AR
$47,845,369
994
$25,851,171
$2,850,706
$3,145,449
$90,427,747
1,728,755
$952,000
Wolf Creek NFH, KY
$17,859,173
371
$9,649,430
$1,064,079
$1,174,097
$33,753,837
862,494
$634,000
TOTALS
$157,720,571
3,277
$85,217,473
$9,397,250
$10,368,862
$298,091,880
6,944,506
$4,436,000

During a period of economic problems in our country and the fact that a large number of people remain unemployed, the closure or reduction of any trout mitigation hatchery would have a negative economic impact on local and state economies. The six indentified hatcheries generated 3,277 jobs with a total income of $85,217,473. Additionally, many of the jobs created as a result of these hatcheries are in rural areas where unemployment is much higher than the national average.

Each dollar ($1.00) of rainbow trout hatchery expenditures is associated with $67.19 in economic output. The economic benefits from these hatcheries far outweigh the operational cost to the Service of these facilities. Almost $20 million in Federal, State, and local tax revenue is generated annually by six National Fish Hatcheries. This represents a return to the Federal Treasury of 2.33 times more than what it costs to operate these hatcheries. These funds can be used to help fund beneficial Federal programs that don’t pay for themselves.

The entire trout fishing program in Kentucky relies solely on the Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery. Fish produced at Wolf Creek are stocked in 115 different waters in 74 Kentucky counties and contribute over $34 million annually to the local economy.

Along with these cuts the Service is proposing increases for other programs, like a $10 million increase for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) which has no economic benefit to the American people and is not supported by most State Fish & Wildlife Agencies.

I encourage you to give this matter serious consideration and make the right choice for the American people by not closing or reducing funding for any National Fish Hatchery. As a tax paying citizen I am appalled such a proposal that has so many positive economic and sociological benefits would even be considered.

[peter]

Formatting off here too--Peter



National Fish Hatchery Operations (-$6,288,000/-65 FTE)
Funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations will be reduced by $6,288,000 in 2012. For several decades the Service has been working to recover costs from responsible agencies to mitigate the adverse effects of federal water development projects while focusing on native fish recovery and restoration. If full reimbursement is not obtained from responsible agencies in 2012 Fisheries Program activities could be eliminated or substantially reduced at nine facilities until reimbursement is negotiated. These stations include Neosho NFH (MO), Greers Ferry NFH and Norfork NFH (AR), Chattahoochee NFH (GA), Wolf Creek NFH (KY), Dale Hollow NFH and Erwin NFH (TN), Garrison Dam NFH (ND), and Jones Hole NFH (UT). Mitigation activities (e.g., broodstock services and aquatic animal health services) would also be eliminated at nine other Service facilities. In 2009, these facilities produced a total of 12,786,600 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. Additionally, should the Service fail to gain reimbursement, as many as 65 FTEs could be impacted.

Full reimbursement by the responsible federal water agency would allow for the continued operations of facilities where the Fisheries Program has invested over $5 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funding and $3.4M deferred maintenance and construction funding in FY 2008, FY 2009 and FY 2010.

In Fiscal Year 2011, the Fisheries Program will continue on-going discussions with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and initiate discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Central Utah Project Completion Act, and the Bonneville Power Administration to pursue $6,288,000 in reimbursement for the mitigation activities related to federal water development projects provided by National Fish Hatchery System facilities and staff. These reimbursements are essential to offset the funding reduction and are critical for facility operations. Full reimbursement would allow for the continued production of fish for mitigation and recreational fishing, as well as assisting in the recovery and restoration of imperiled aquatic species by developing propagation and culture techniques and production of threatened, endangered and at-risk species.

In its 2010 Appropriation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) was provided with $4.5 million to reimburse the Fisheries Program for its fishery mitigation activities and those funds were transferred. In its FY 2011 request, the Corps reduced that amount to $3.8 million for this activity, which is 80% of the 2010 Appropriation and the full reimbursement level. Fisheries Program and Corps personnel continue working to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to solidify the relationship between the two agencies, for the benefit of the local communities whose economies are linked to Service mitigation actions. A provision in the Corps budget will clarify authorities for these transfers.

An example of the activities at a mitigation hatchery includes:

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Peter/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image003.jpg[/IMG]Neosho National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in Missouri is the nation’s oldest operational federal fish hatchery. Established in 1888, the facility and its history are tightly woven into the social and cultural fabric of the Neosho community and southeast Missouri. More than 130 species of cold, cool, and warm water fish have been produced over the years for the purposes of [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Peter/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image005.jpg[/IMG]conservation. The facility focuses on paddlefish and lake sturgeon restoration, endangered pallid sturgeon recovery, production of rainbow trout for mitigation of federal water projects, native mussel propagation, and serves as refugia for native Ozark cave fish. With the lack of reimbursable mitigation funding to keep it operational, this iconic center for conservation faces potential closure. Closure would affect more than just the aquatic species produced and sheltered here. Neosho NFH hosts 45,000 visitors per year with the number expected to rise to 100,000 visitors per year with the completion in 2010 of a new visitor’s center -- complete with an auditorium and classrooms for purposes of educating local and regional students and the next generation of natural resource conservation professionals. The Friends Group is among the most active in all of the Service, and in conjunction with the dedicated staff, provides a multitude of tours and information to the public. The hatchery provides total economic benefits of more than $10 million annually and an estimated 110 jobs from its mitigation stocking program.

[peter]

IMPACTS OF A REDUCTION IN FISH PRODUCTION FROM SERVICE TROUT MITIGATION HATCHERIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
Southeast Region – Fisheries Program
Fish and Wildlife Service
February 2011

The vision of the Service and its Fisheries Program is working with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public. (Conserving America’s Fisheries – Vision for the Future, Fish and Wildlife Service, March 2004)

Preface

Any reduction in fish production from Service trout mitigation hatcheries in the Southeast will have a lasting impact on our economy, particularly in States such as Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. It will impact jobs being generated in the private sector and impact revenues being collected by State and Local governments and also the Federal government. It will impact small “mom and pop” businesses and also large companies that depend upon anglers for much of their revenues. It will also impact Service programs such as Federal Assistance who will see a decrease in excise tax generated from the sale of fishing tackle.

Beyond its economic impacts, any reduction in fish production from Service trout mitigation hatcheries would severely impact Service efforts in maintaining strong relationships with our partners and stakeholders. We will lose credibility with key conservation organizations and our volunteer Friends Groups. We will also lose credibility with Congress who has historically supported the Service’s Fisheries Program and the National Fish Hatchery System. If we give away critical water supplies, the Service will lose an important tool in addressing endangered, threatened and imperiled fishes and mussels in the Southeast.

In 2002, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget announced development of a tool for formally evaluating the effectiveness of Federal programs, called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART is a diagnostic tool used to assess the performance of Federal programs and to drive improvement in program performance. PART reviews help inform budget decisions and identify actions to improve results. The Fisheries Program and the National Fish Hatchery System received a rating of “Effective” and “Moderately Effective” respectively. These were the highest ratings received by any Fish and Wildlife Service program. (Source: Office of Management and Budget website). Additionally, two studies completed in 2005 - “An Efficiency Measure for National Fish Hatchery System Rainbow Trout Production” and “A Cost Comparison Analysis for National Fish Hatchery System Rainbow Trout Production” clearly documented the efficiencies of National Fish Hatcheries that produce rainbow trout. Additional improvements to make our hatcheries even more efficient can be implemented which can provide even more return on the taxpayers dollar used to operate these facilities.

Helping the Economy(Dr. James Caudill and Dr. John Charbonneau, 2010, “An Assessment of Economic Contributions from Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation”, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
[All Dollar Figures in 2010 Dollars]
Hatchery
Retail Expenditures **
Jobs Generated
Job
Income
State and Local Tax Revenue
Federal Income Tax
Total Economic Output*
Recreational Fish Stocked (2010)
FWS Operational Budget (2010)
Chattahoochee Forest NFH, GA
$15,252,333
317
$8,240,937
$908,759
$1,002,718
$28,826,909
1,045,197
$778,000
Dale Hollow NFH, TN
$39,744,225
826
$21,474,069
$2,368,026
$2,612,864
$75,116,586
1,817,431
$797,000
Erwin NFH, TN***
$810,547
17
$437,944
$48,294
$53,287
$1,531,934
35,278
$669,000
Greers Ferry NFH, AR
$36,208,924
752
$19,563,922
$2,157,387
$2,380,446
$68,434,866
1,505,351
$606,000
Norfork NFH, AR
$47,845,369
994
$25,851,171
$2,850,706
$3,145,449
$90,427,747
1,728,755
$952,000
Wolf Creek NFH, KY
$17,859,173
371
$9,649,430
$1,064,079
$1,174,097
$33,753,837
862,494
$634,000
TOTALS
$157,720,571
3,277
$85,217,473
$9,397,250
$10,368,862
$298,091,880
6,944,506
$4,436,000

* Total Economic Output: The production value of all output generated by angling expenditures. Total output includes the direct, indirect and induced effects of angling expenditures.
**Retail Expenditures: Angling expenditures associated with the recreational catch of the fish stocked.
***Erwin NFH: This hatchery is primarily a broodstock hatchery. Eyed rainbow trout eggs are provided to other National Fish Hatcheries. Fish stocked are generally surplus to the hatchery’s needs.

· During a period of economic problems in our country and the fact that a large number of people remain unemployed, the closure or reduction of any trout mitigation hatchery would have a negative economic impact on local and state economies. The six indentified hatcheries generated 3,277 jobs with a total income of $85,217,473. Additionally, many of the jobs created as a result of these hatcheries are in rural areas where unemployment is much higher than the national average. Many of these jobs are in small businesses that provide lodging for anglers and retail sales of fishing reels, lures and rods.

· The six identified hatcheries generate on an annual basis over $157 million in retail expenditures by anglers. These purchases are for food and lodging, transportation, rods and reels, boats, and other equipment. The total economic output generated by angling expenditures is over $298 million annually. This is the result of stocking almost 7 million trout annually.

· In this study alone, each dollar ($1.00) of rainbow trout hatchery expenditures is associated with $67.19 in economic output. The economic benefits from these hatcheries far outweigh the operational cost to the Service of these facilities.

· Almost $20 million in Federal, State, and local tax revenue is generated annually by six National Fish Hatcheries. This represents a return to the Federal Treasury of 2.33 times more than what it costs to operate these hatcheries. These funds can be used to help fund beneficial Federal programs that don’t pay for themselves. Continuing to operate these six hatcheries just makes good business sense.

Reduction in Partnership Involvement

· The Fisheries Program and its partners and stakeholders recognize that many responsibilities for managing and conserving fish and other aquatic resources are shared, and overall success is contingent upon the combined knowledge, resources and commitment of each party. The Fisheries Program has a proven track record in working with its Federal and State partners to address fish and aquatic resource needs in the Southeast. This is evident by the formation of the Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP) in 2001. In reality, SARP gave birth to the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and is a model of Strategic Habitat Conservation.

· The loss or reduction of fish production from any of our National Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast will impact Service-State partnership involvement. This was evident with the closures of a number of National Fish Hatcheries in the Southeast in the mid-1990s. A critical component National Fish Hatcheries bring to the table is the working relationships that are in place with State partners. State partners see fishery mitigation as a joint Federal-State responsibility. The Southeast Region has a history of meeting its mitigation responsibilities with our State partners. Any reduction in this relationship could ultimately impact the Service in developing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).

Loss of Critical Water Supplies and a Tool in Addressing Imperiled Fishes and Mussels in the Southeast

· Former Director Sam Hamilton stated several years ago that the Service can no longer afford to give away critical water supplies located on Service lands. This has become apparent during the long-term drought cycles occurring in the southeastern United States. Critical water supplies will serve as the life-blood in addressing global warming and its impacts to fishes and other aquatic organisms. As water temperatures increase and water quality deteriorates, impacts of fishes and aquatic resources that occupy these environments can be deadly. National Fish Hatcheries are able to focus on refugia and recovery efforts using these unique water supplies. The Region’s fishery mitigation hatcheries are located Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Georgia where the largest number of imperiled fishes and mussels are located (The Nature Conservancy: 34 percent of the North American fish species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern are found in the Southeast; 90 percent of the listed mussel species are located in the Southeast).

Loss of Credibility with Key Conservation Organizations

· Organizations like the American Sportfishing Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Council have been long-time supporters of the Service’s Fisheries Program. Two documents developed by the Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Council voiced support in their recommendations for Service mitigation hatcheries. Some examples include:

Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Report – “Saving a System in Peril” – September 2000. “Legislation is necessary to clarify various existing legislative mandates and FWS policies regarding mitigation. New legislation must articulate clearly the role of the NFHS in mitigating for federal water and other development projects and how these mitigation activities are to be funded. Costs for the entire range of activities associated with hatchery production and stocking for mitigation must be fully reimbursed by the party or parties responsible for the development project. However until this legislation is enacted the FWS must continue to fund the current mitigation responsibilities of the NFHS.” “Until legislation is enacted to require reimbursement, current funding for NFHS mitigation operations must be maintained and must not be redirected for any other purpose.”

Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Report – “A Partnership Agenda for Fisheries Conservation.” January 2002. “Recommendation #12: The Secretary of the Interior and the FWS Director must aggressively seek to recover costs of mitigation from sponsors of federal water projects. Costs for the entire range of activities associated with hatchery production and stocking for mitigation must be fully reimbursed by the party or parties responsible for the development project.”

· The Service will again have to explain why we are going contrary to the recommendations of the conservation organizations that support our programs.



Loss of Credibility with Congress

· Congress has historically supported the Service’s Fisheries Program and the National Fish Hatchery System. Even though closures of facilities have occurred in the past, Congress readily listens to their constituents’ on the value of the hatcheries to the local economies. Congress has on a number of occasions directed the Service to work with the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to seek reimbursement for mitigation hatcheries. Some examples include:

GAO Report, June 2000. – Authority Needed to Better Align Operations with Priorities. “…We also recommend that the Congress provide the Service with clear authority to seek reimbursement for all hatchery operations and maintenance expenses associated with federal water projects from federal water development agencies and/or project beneficiaries.”

Committee on Appropriations Report, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008. “The Committee directs the Service to work with the Corp of Engineers and other Federal partners to obtain full reimbursement for the operation and maintenance of mitigation hatcheries in the National Fish Hatchery System.”

In the FY 2010 Appropriation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a line item in the Conference Report identified $4.7 million for “Fish and Wildlife Operating Fish Hatchery Reimbursement.”

· The Service would have to explain to Congress why we are proposing to reduce trout mitigation hatcheries when the Corps has finally agreed to provide reimbursement.

Outrage from Friends Groups

· Some of the strongest Friends Groups developed in the Southeast Region have been on National Fish Hatcheries involved in fishery mitigation. A classic example would be the Friends of Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery and Friends of Norfork National Fish Hatchery. Both groups are very active and vocal in their support of these National Fish Hatcheries. Friends of Wolf Creek National Fish Hatchery actively operate for the Service a multi-million dollar visitors centers. Additionally, they host numerous events and workshops for the hatchery throughout the year. The Friends of the Norfork National Fish Hatchery is considered the largest Friends Group in the National Fish Hatchery System. They have donated many thousands of dollars for much needed projects on the hatchery.

· Friends Groups invest a lot of effort and dedication in the National Fish Hatcheries that they serve. Proposals to close or a reduction in fish production at any one of these hatcheries that have active Friends Groups will certainly be met with substantial resistance and a lot of bad public relations for the Service.

[Basswipe]

Let me play devils advocate on this one:

WHY should it be the responsibility of the FEDERAL government to run a fish hatchery in central Ky? If the people of Ky want the fish hatchery, they need to pay for it with Ky funds.

[MagikSmallie]

Thats not being Devil's Advocate...thats common sense and I agree, it's not the Feds place to fund fish hatcheries.

[kygorski]

Make trout anglers buy a 10 buck stamp, and then have Ky take control or lease the hatchery.If you want to play, then pay.But what ***** is that cut will save far less than 2%, aqbout what it cost to shoot all those missles into Libiya.

[peter]

I hear ya there. The feds get involved in a lot of things they should not be involved in. No news there. We have national parks, national forests, national seashores, national hatcheries and on and on. Wolf Creek Dam is a Federal project. It is my understanding that the hatchery was put there to mitigate the damage to the warm water water species caused by building the dam. Rivers and lakes frequently cross state lines.

My view. If feds want to spend money to increase fishing opportunities ...bring home the pork Mitch and I'll fry it up. I always cash checks from the federal government and they always cash mine.

Personally it does not matter to me who pays for it as long as they keep a class operation down there (emphasis on Class), the feds, the state, the fishermen any combination thereof.

[TimE]

Trout are slimy,snakelike creatures that are better off dead. Al Gore SR. flooded my Grandfathers and Grandmothers families farm for electricity.


They flooded it. Built the dam and flooded people out so they would leave. Do some research on Lake Cumberland and tell me why i should be concerned.

[Basswipe]

I have no problem with the trout hatchery and supporting the fisheries in general, but the fact remains that we've stretched the Federal Budget possibly beyond repair. Something has to be done NOW.

I don't think it's the job of the federal government to run a trout hatchery. Turn it over to the state. There's revenue to be generated with the program and capacity there.

We, as people that use the outdoors pay our own way in this state. Hunting and fishing licenses pays the bills. Why should this be any different? The people that want to elk hunt continue to pay for that program with the tag and lottery system.

Maybe the best plan would be get a consortium of states that get fish from the hatchery to take it over and fund it themselves. I'd think that a group of 4 or 5 states could share the cost rather easily. Add a dollar to the fishing license and a few bucks to the trout stamps in each of those states to pay for the operations and share the fish equally.

Regardless of how it's solved, the Feds don't need to be running fish farms in Ky. They're already 14 trillion in debt.