U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–010 PDF 2014

NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY SYSTEM: STRATEGIC HATCHERY 

AND WORKFORCE PLANNING 

REPORT

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Serial No. 113–61

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 ......................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress from the 

Northern Mariana Islands ........................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Carter, Ed, Executive Director, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 

Representing the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies .................... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Collins, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Georgia ........................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Crawford, Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arkansas, Prepared statement of ............................................................ 5

Hoskins, David, Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ..................... 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Parks, Diane, Deputy Chief of Operations and Regulatory, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army ............................................ 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Roe, Hon. David P., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee ...................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Letter submitted for the 

record ............................................................................................................. 41

Colorado State Legislative Resolution from the 2014 Session, submitted 

for the record by the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation .................. 42

Colorado State Legislative Resolution from the 2014 Session, submitted 

for the record by the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation .................. 44

Friends of the Chattahoochee Forest National Fish Hatchery, Letter submitted for the record ..................................................................................... 46

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona, Prepared statement of ................................................................... 36

Johnson, Buster D., Supervisor District 3, Mohave County Board of 

Supervisors, Letter submitted for the recored ............................................ 34

Letter Sent to Secretary Jewell from the Tennessee/Arizona Congressional Delegation, submitted for the record by the Congressional 

Sportsman’s Foundation ............................................................................... 47

Mohave County Board of Supervisors, Letter submitted for the record ...... 32

Senate Western Caucus, Letter submitted for the record ............................. 34

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 48

SR 16—Arizona State Resolution from the 2014 Session, submitted for 

the record by the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation ........................ 50

Tennessee State Legislative Resolution, March 2011, submitted for the 

record by the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation ............................... 51

Tennessee State Legislative Resolution, April 2011, submitted for the 

record by the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation ............................... 52

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Questions for the record .............................. 36

(1)

HEARING ON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY 

SYSTEM: STRATEGIC HATCHERY AND 

WORKFORCE PLANNING REPORT 

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming, 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Sablan and Garcia. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. 

Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will examine the November 2013 report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 

their vision on how our national fishery hatchery system should operate in the future. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Before getting into that report, however, it is important to understand that Congress established this network of 

Federal fish hatcheries 143 years ago to address seriously declining 

fish populations and to compensate for lost recreational opportunities caused by the construction of Federal water projects. 

For over a century, these hatcheries have propagated tens of millions of fish which have been used to stock rivers, lakes and 

streams throughout America. From it’s high in 1940 the number of 

Federal hatcheries has declined from 136 to nearly 70 today. These 

facilities, which average more than 70 years of age, produce and 

distribute 140 million fish and 120 million fish eggs with a value 

of over $5 billion each year. 

In 2011, recreational anglers took 69 million trips. They caught 

345 million fish, supported 364,000 jobs, and the recreational fishing industry contributed over $70 billion to our economy. 

Over the years there have been some changes to the hatchery 

system, including the enactment of the Mitchell Act of 1938, the 

transfer of a number of Federal fish hatcheries to the States and 

the passage of the National Fish Hatchery System Volunteer Act 

of 2006. During that entire period there has been an unwavering 

commitment to produce and distribute native and non-native fish 

for recreational purposes. 

During the Obama Administration, there has been new challenges, including consistent budget requests for less money for the 

hatchery system and now the self-fulfilling report that indicates 

that even if funding is increased by 5 percent, recreational propaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
2

gation programs will be terminated and Service employees will be 

reassigned primarily from Southeast Region 4. 

The State of Louisiana has one national fish hatchery, the 

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery in my district which raises 

over 1 million recreational fish per year. For the past 83 years this 

warm water hatchery has, in partnership with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, provided millions of catfish, 

largemouth bass, bluegill, and sunfish, which have been used to 

stock public waters throughout my State. 

During the course of this hearing, I intend to try to find out why 

the Service targeted hatcheries that produce recreational species. 

What is the statutory authority for simply deciding after nearly 

150 years that the hatchery system will no longer mitigate for Federal water projects? 

What is the definition of ‘‘fully reimbursed’’? 

And what input, if any do the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Authority, the Tennessee Valley Authority have in 

determining their rate of payment? 

Are there certain national fish hatcheries or propagation programs that could be conveyed at no cost to various States? 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will examine the November 2013 Report 

issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on their vision on how our National 

Fish Hatchery System should operate in the future. 

Before getting to that report, however, it is important to understand that Congress established this network of Federal fish hatcheries 143 years ago to address 

seriously declining fish populations and to compensate for lost recreational opportunities caused by the construction of Federal water projects. For over a century, these 

hatcheries have propagated tens of millions of fish which have been used to stock 

rivers, lakes and streams throughout America. 

From its high in 1940, the number of Federal hatcheries has declined from 136 

to nearly 70 today. These facilities, which average more than 70 years of age, 

produce and distribute 140 million fish and 120 million fish eggs with a value of 

over $5 billion each year. In 2011, recreational anglers took 69 million trips, they 

caught 345 million fish, supported 364,000 jobs and the recreational fishing industry 

contributed over $70 billion to our economy. 

Over the years, there have been some changes to the hatchery system including 

the enactment of the Mitchell Act of 1938, the transfer of a number of Federal fish 

hatcheries to the States and the passage of the National Fish Hatchery System Volunteer Act of 2006. During that entire period, there has been an unwavering commitment to produce and distribute native and non-native fish for recreational purposes. 

During the Obama Administration there have been new challenges including consistent budget requests for less money for the hatchery system and now the selffulfilling report that indicates that even if funding is increased by 5 percent, recreational propagation programs will be terminated and Service employees will be reassigned primarily from Southeast Region 4. 

The State of Louisiana has one national fish hatchery, the Natchitoches National 

Fish Hatchery in my district, which raises over 1 million recreational fish per year. 

For the past 83 years, this warm water hatchery has in partnership with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries provided millions of catfish, largemouth 

bass, bluegill and sun fish which have been used to stock public waters throughout 

my State. 

During the course of this hearing, I intend to try to find out why the Service targeted hatcheries that produce recreational species? What is the statutory authority 

for simply deciding after nearly 150 years that the hatchery system will no longer 

mitigate for Federal water projects? What is the definition of ‘‘fully reimbursed’’ and 

what input, if any, did the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bonneville Power Authority or the Tennessee Valley Authority have in determining their rate of payment? 

3

Are there certain national fish hatcheries or propagation programs that could be 

conveyed at no cost to various States? 

Dr. FLEMING. I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member for any statement that he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO 

SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NORTHERN 

MARIANA ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning, everyone. Good morning, Dr. Roe. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent 

review of the National Fish Hatchery System, and I commend the 

Service for taking a proactive, transparent and fiscally responsible 

approach to assessing and prioritizing its fish hatchery operations. 

The report lays out a roadmap for ensuring that the fish hatchery system supports the Service’s mission to conserve, protect, and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service’s responsibility to protect and restore threatened and 

endangered species figures prominently in its operation of the 

hatchery system, as well it should. Generations of water quality 

degradation, habitat destruction and direct exploitation have taken 

a massive toll on native fish populations and have depleted many 

to the point that they require the protection of the Endangered 

Species Act just to survive. 

Given the Committee Majority’s much expressed concern and 

continued insistence that the Service should focus more on species 

recovery and less on species listing under the ESA, I would expect 

them to show strong support for a hatchery management plan that 

does just that. 

I understand and appreciate the desire of many sportsmen that 

hatcheries continue to support the production of recreationally important species, like rainbow trout. 

Fisheries for the species contribute significantly to local economies. However, as our Majority continues to ask the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies to do more with less, it has 

become clear that really they can only do less with less. 

That being the case, they must balance their priorities to meet 

a wide range of responsibilities, including native species recovery, 

tribal trust obligations and breeding of sport fish. Fortunately, 

President Obama’s budget proposal includes an additional $2.1 billion for the hatchery system. This would close the system’s current 

budget gap and allow hatcheries to stay open and programs that 

underpin recreational fisheries to continue. 

I urge anyone who supports these recreational fisheries to also 

support the President’s budget. 

I am also interested in learning more today about the role of 

States and other Federal agencies in supporting the Service’s 

hatchery activities, including those that mitigate environmental 

damage caused by public works projects. These partners could 

clearly benefit greatly from their use of adequate resources, and it 

is important to ensure that they share in the stewardship responsibility. 

4

I also want to thank Chairman Fleming, in particular, for not 

having another Lacey Act hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 

RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS AND INSULAR

AFFAIRS

Today’s hearing focuses on the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent review of the 

National Fish Hatchery System. I commend the Service for taking a proactive, 

transparent, and fiscally responsible approach to assessing and prioritizing its fish 

hatchery operations. The report lays out a roadmap for ensuring that the Hatchery 

System supports the Service’s mission to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Service’s responsibility to protect and restore threatened and endangered species figures prominently in its operation of the Hatchery System, as well it should. 

Generations of water quality degradation, habitat destruction, and direct exploitation have taken a massive toll on native fish populations, and have depleted many 

to the point that they require the protection of the Endangered Species Act just to 

survive. 

Given the Committee majority’s much expressed concern and continued insistence 

that the Service should focus more on species recovery and less on species listing 

under the ESA, I would expect them to show strong support for a hatchery management plan that does just that. 

I understand and appreciate the desire of many sportsmen that hatcheries continue to support the production of recreationally important species like rainbow 

trout. Fisheries for these species contribute significantly to local economies. However, as our Majority continues to ask the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal agencies to do more with less, it has become clear that, really, they can only 

do less with less. That being the case, they must balance their priorities to meet 

a wide range of responsibilities, including native species recovery, tribal trust obligations, and breeding of sport fish. 

Fortunately, President Obama’s brand new budget proposal includes an additional 

$2.1 billion for the Hatchery System. This would close the System’s current budget 

gap, and allow hatcheries to stay open and programs that underpin recreational 

fisheries to continue. I urge anyone who supports these recreational fisheries to also 

support the President’s request. 

I am also interested in learning more today about the role of States and other 

Federal agencies in supporting the Service’s hatchery activities, including those that 

mitigate environmental damage caused by public works projects. These partners 

clearly benefit greatly from their use of aquatic resources, and it is important to ensure that they share in the stewardship responsibility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman, but we are going to have 

one tomorrow actually. 

Mr. SABLAN. We do? 

Dr. FLEMING. No, no. I am just kidding. I am kidding, but I just 

thought I would throw that in. 

Well, thank you. I thank the gentleman. 

We will now hear from our first panel of witnesses, which includes Congressman David P. Roe, who represents the First District of the State of Tennessee, and Congressman Doug Collins 

from the Ninth District of the State of Georgia. 

Before doing so, Mr. Crawford from Arkansas was also going to 

be on our panel. He will not be able to be here. So I would like 

to submit for the record his written statement, and hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford follows:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Chairman Fleming and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me 

here today. As you know, my district hosts two of the largest mitigation hatcheries 

in the United States, the Norfork and the Greers Ferry National Fish Hatcheries. 

These hatcheries were built, and have been operated, to mitigate the damage to the 

sporting fish in Arkansas streams and rivers directly caused by Federal water development projects. And further, to ensure that the towns and communities that depended on these world-class fisheries from well before the construction of the water 

development projects, can continue to welcome the tens of thousands of visiting anglers every year. 

These hatcheries play an important and central role in the lives of many of my 

constituents, the communities where they live, and the continued success of countless businesses. In 2010 a study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service on the economic impact of the Norfork and Greers Ferry Hatcheries. This study revealed the truly astounding impact that the Norfork and Greers 

Ferry hatcheries have on our fisheries, especially the now cold-water ones which 

have replaced the once rich, warm-water fisheries destroyed by Federal water development projects. 

The study took a deep and truly revealing look into the economic impact these 

hatcheries bring to the State of Arkansas. For instance, the Greers Ferry National 

Fish Hatchery is responsible for over $36 Million of retail expenditures, and over 

750 good jobs, which themselves generate almost $20 million. Greers Ferry further 

generates over $2 million in State and local tax revenue and over $2.3 million in 

Federal income tax. The total economic output is over $68 million a year. The 2010 

budget for Greers Ferry, the year of this study, was $606,000. That’s a return on 

investment of about $113 for every dollar spent. 

The numbers for the Norfork National Fish Hatchery are even bigger with $47 

million in retail expenditures, almost 1,000 jobs with over $25 million in job income, 

State and local taxes of over $2.8 million, Federal taxes of over $3 million, for a 

total annual economic output of over $90 million. Norfork’s 2010 budget was 

$950,000. That is a return on investment of close to $95 for every dollar spent. 

Altogether, there is over $150 million in annual economic output, and over 1,700 

jobs directly at stake. And that’s just my district. 

Five years ago the Fish and Wildlife Service bore the entire cost of running these 

hatcheries. With some gumption and the example of western hatcheries which operate on a reimbursement arrangement, the Service began negotiating in earnest with 

Water Development Agencies to recapture part of the cost of running the mitigation 

hatcheries. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began to contribute, and this day 

contributes almost two-thirds the cost of running the mitigation hatchery program. 

Not long after, the Bureau of Reclamation followed the Corps of Engineers and 

began to contribute. This last year the Tennessee Valley Authority has begun to 

contribute as well, to the tune of $900,000 per year. Five years ago there was no 

reimbursement and Fish and Wildlife paid the cost, today the mitigation hatcheries 

are operating at close to full reimbursement. 

Unbelievably, just as this hard work has begun to really pay off, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has begun to look at making significant cuts in the mitigation 

hatchery program. Pulling resources from the mitigation program now, at a time 

when we are so close to fully reimbursed, is short-sighted and foolhardy. A hatchery 

manager once told me that running a hatchery is like running a battleship—it can 

take years to shut down and years to bring it back online. Once a hatchery begins 

the shutdown process, it can take a year or more to complete, and even more years 

to bring back to full operational status. To even entertain shutting down any of the 

mitigation hatcheries when we are so close to fully, 100 percent reimbursed is to 

me the kind of short-sighted thinking that makes people back home shake their 

heads and wonder just what we are doing here in Washington. 

These hatcheries play a significant role in the lives of business owners who serve 

the tens of thousands of anglers who continue to come to Arkansas from all over 

the Country, in the lives of my constituents who have learned from a young age 

about responsible fishing and being careful stewards of our natural resources, in the 

lives of the thousands who have jobs either directly or indirectly because of these 

two hatcheries. People like Leon Alexander, who leads the Friends of the Norfork 

National Fish Hatchery, and many others have tirelessly volunteered and given generously to help make these hatcheries more than just a place where fish are grown 

before being released. They have become places to visit and learn how fish grow 

from egg to fry, to fingerling to mature adult, to see and experience firsthand the 

lifecycle of fish. Places where young men and women learn the value of conservation 

6

and respect for hunting and fishing laws. These hatcheries play host to festivals and 

events that draw our communities closer together, programs to bring fishing to 

handicapped and disabled children, and are staffed by some of the most dedicated 

and hard-working people I have had the pleasure to meet. 

I am truly astonished that the Service is even considering taking resources away 

from the mitigation hatchery program. A program that delivers so much, from thousands of jobs and millions in local, State and Federal tax revenue, to the very things 

that throughout our Nation’s history have brought families and communities together. This at the very time when the net cost to the Service is approaching . . . 

nothing. I strongly urge the Service to carefully consider these things before any actions are taken to cut this program, and further to give thought to the language 

in our appropriations which has specifically stated that it is the intent that this program be funded until full reimbursement can be reached. Fortunately, it looks like 

we are very, very close to that. 

Dr. FLEMING. Your written testimony, of course, will appear in 

the full hearing record, and each of my distinguished colleagues 

will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Our microphones are not automatic. So please press the button 

when you are ready to begin. 

Dr. Roe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID P. ROE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Dr. ROE. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member 

Sablan. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before 

the Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee 

this morning on the national fish hatchery system. 

This topic is very important to my district as we are the proud 

host of the Erwin National Fish Hatchery in Unicoi County, Tennessee. The Erwin Hatchery was established in 1894 and is an important part of the brood stock program, National Brood Stock Program. 

Erwin serves as a primary brood stock facility for three strains 

of rainbow trout and produces between 13 and 17 million diseasefree eggs annually. These eggs are then shipped to Federal, State 

and tribal hatcheries to support their fishery management efforts. 

Additionally, the Erwin Hatchery provides eggs to research centers, classrooms, and universities around the Nation. The Erwin 

Fish Hatchery and resulting trout stocking account for nearly 3,500 

jobs and $89.6 million in wages and salary income across the 

United States. Each taxpayer dollar spent for trout production at 

hatcheries in the region leads to nearly $73 in economic output. 

Last November, I was pleased to see that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service announced that there would be no hatchery closures this 

year, but I was also troubled by its warning that closures might be 

necessary in fiscal year 2015. During these tough economic times, 

I understand and believe wholeheartedly that we must all do more 

with less, but it seems to me that a program that sees $73 return 

on every dollar spent should be protected and prioritized. 

The omnibus funding bill included important funding for these 

programs, and thanks to the leadership of Senator Lamar Alexander includes a stipulation that none of the funding included in 

the Department of the Interior’s budget can be used to close fish 

hatcheries. 

7

There is also a provision in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget 

that includes $4.7 million to reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue to operate Erwin and Dale Hollow facilities in Tennessee, as well as more than $46 million to continue operations at 

every fish hatchery system as requested. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority has also worked with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to assist in providing the funds needed to continue hatchery operations, and I commend them for this. 

While I am hopeful that the Fish and Wildlife Service can obtain 

reimbursable agreements with various agencies that benefit downstream from the Erwin Fish Hatcheries, I do not believe it would 

be prudent to eliminate funding for this program within the Fish 

and Wildlife Service until these agreements have been signed. 

Fishing benefits a whole host of businesses and provides tourism 

dollars to many regions. So closure of fish hatcheries would be devastating to the economy in Tennessee and throughout the Southeast region, as the Chairman just spoke. 

I hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to pursue partnerships with stakeholders and focus on creative ways to keep 

these programs up and running rather than continue the threats 

of closure each year. 

I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on this important issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 

preserve these hatcheries for years to come, and just as an aside, 

Mr. Chairman, I have actually been to the hatchery many times in 

my district and have stepped out in the water with waders and actually retrieved the eggs. It is really remarkable what is done. 

And what is also remarkable is that the vision just 5 years after 

the cessation of the most violent war that has ever been, the Civil 

War that occurred on this country that the leaders had the vision 

to begin to look at our natural resources in this Nation in 1870, 

and I think it was President Grant that started this Fish Hatchery 

Program. 

So just from a historical perspective, we need to look at that and 

the economic impact that it has on all of our regions in the country. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to be here, both to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roe follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID P. ROE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan and esteemed members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before the Fisheries, Wildlife, 

Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee this afternoon on the National Fish 

Hatchery System. This topic is very important to my district, as we are proud to 

host the Erwin National Fish Hatchery in Unicoi County. The Erwin hatchery was 

established in 1894 and is an important part of the National Broodstock Program. 

Erwin serves as the primary broodstock facility for three strains of rainbow trout 

and produces between 13 and 17 million disease-free eggs annually. These eggs are 

then shipped to Federal, State and tribal hatcheries to support their fishery management efforts. Additionally, the Erwin hatchery provides eggs to research centers, 

classrooms and universities around the country. 

The Erwin fish hatchery and resulting trout stocking account for nearly 3,500 jobs 

and $89.6 million in wage and salary income across the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Region. Each taxpayer dollar spent for trout production at hatcheries 

8

in the region leads to nearly $73 in economic output. Last November, I was pleased 

to see that the Fish and Wildlife Service announced there would be no hatchery closures this year, but I was also troubled by its warning that closures might be necessary in fiscal year 2015. During these tough economic times, I understand and believe wholeheartedly that we all must do more with less, but it seems to me a program that sees a $73 return on every dollar spent should be protected and 

prioritized. 

The omnibus funding bill included important funding for these programs and, 

thanks to the leadership of Senator Lamar Alexander, includes a stipulation that 

none of the funding included in the Department of Interior’s budget can be used to 

close fish hatcheries. There is also a provision in the Army Corps of Engineers budget that includes $4.7 million to reimburse the Fish and Wildlife Service to continue 

to operate the Erwin and Dale Hollow facilities in Tennessee, as well as more than 

$46 million to continue operations at every hatchery in the system as requested. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority has also worked with Fish and Wildlife to assist 

in providing the funds needed to continue hatchery operations. 

While I am hopeful that FWS can obtain reimbursable agreements with the various agencies that benefit downstream from the Erwin fish hatcheries, I do not believe it would be prudent to eliminate funding for this program within the FWS 

until these agreements are signed. Fishing benefits a whole host of businesses and 

provides tourism dollars to many regions, so closure of fish hatcheries would be devastating to the economy in Tennessee and throughout the Southeast Region. 

I hope Fish and Wildlife will continue to pursue partnerships with stakeholders 

and focus on creative ways to keep these programs up and running, rather than continuing with threats of closure each fiscal year. 

I thank the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue, and I 

look forward to working with my colleagues to preserve these hatcheries for years 

to come. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman for his comments and testimony. 

The Chair would now like to recognize Congressman Collins, who 

is fashionably late this morning. 

You are now recognize, sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I do apologize. You know how 

schedules can get, but I am very appreciative of this hearing and 

very appreciative of being able to come testify before you this 

morning. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member 

Sablan, and distinguished members of this Committee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to speak with you about the recent National Fish 

Hatchery System Planning Report and the Chattahoochee National 

Forestry Fish Hatchery that is located in Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District. 

Suches, which in Georgia is a sleepy community in Union County 

located high up in the Appalachian Mountains, it is rural area 

without any major stores or banks. One thing it does have, however, is the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery. 

Chattahoochee is a mitigation hatchery established in 1937 after 

the numerous dams and reservoirs disrupted the natural flow of 

the fish to the area. It starts at the tail waters of the multiple 

projects of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, with rainbow trout for the enjoyment of over 160,000 

anglers per year. 

The tail waters would be barren without this facility and the 

services that they provide. In fact, to be honest, I was more than 

9

surprised when I heard that the Fish and Wildlife Service was 

thinking of closing this hatchery. It is beloved by the community. 

It shows a great return on investment, and it is an economic engine of this rural part of Georgia. This hatchery is a major source 

of revenue for Suches and northeast Georgia in general, having 

generated just over $30 million of total economic output on just an 

investment of $740,000. 

Talk about being a bang for your buck, this hatchery delivers 

that in a big way. According to the planning report itself, since its 

establishment in 1871, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Hatchery System has been a cornerstone of the Service’s mission of working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their inhabitants for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. 

The American people, Mr. Chairman, yet their statement seems 

to be a bit at odds with their stated priorities. The Department of 

Fish and Wildlife has ranked its funding priorities in this report 

in the following order: Recovery of species federally listed as 

threatened or endangered; restoration of imperiled aquatic species; 

tribal partnerships and trust responsibilities; other propagation 

programs for native species; and, finally, other propagation programs for non-native species. 

Currently, more than 75 percent of the 291 propagation programs within the National Hatchery Systems exist within Priorities 1 through 3. The first of these three make up almost 90 percent of the funding from the National Hatchery System. 

The planning report looked at five potential funding scenarios: 

Level funding; an 11 percent reduction; 15 percent reduction; 24 

percent reduction; and a 5 percent increase. The Service concluded 

that meeting or cutting level funding would require discontinued 

Service funding for some of the lower priority propagation programs. 

Please keep in mind that mitigation hatcheries fall under the 

Categories 4 and 5, the lowest priority funding priorities. This 

brings up a serious question. Why should mitigation hatcheries be 

regarded as such a low priority program to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service? 

I believe stocking the tail waters, streams, lakes, and rivers of 

America should be a higher priority, providing our Nation’s anglers 

with the recreational enjoyment and opportunities to catch fish is 

an important service, particularly vital to the economic growth of 

northeast Georgia. 

And just as a side note, it would be devastating for my District 

Director because he spends most of his life in these trout streams, 

and this is something very important to him. 

It is important to note that the Chattahoochee Hatchery is nearly 90 percent reimbursed from the Army Corps of Engineers and 

the TVA. Why should the Service choose to de-generate a propagation program that is being reimbursed for and that also provide 

real economic benefits to rural America? 

It is because of their bias toward the Endangered Species Act’s 

related propagation. I recently had the privilege to serve as a member of Chairman Hastings’ Endangered Species Act Working 

Group. My involvement with the Working Group only reinforced 

10

the significant and growing need for Congress to look at this bias 

and seek solutions to address such misguided policies. 

In summation, I support the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery as it plays an integral role in the sustainability of businesses 

and communities in northeast Georgia, from providing environmental education and public outreach opportunities to visitors, 

school groups, and various other organizations to facilitating recreational opportunities to 160,000 anglers a year. 

Northeast Georgia would not be the same without this facility. 

I appreciate the great work this Committee is doing to bring light 

to this issue, and I hope to continue working with this Committee 

to address Fish and Wildlife Service’s bias against mitigation 

hatcheries. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman, and before I quit, I would like to add a special thank you to 

Deborah Burger, the Hatchery Manager at Chattahoochee Hatchery for her 36 years of service at that location and congratulate her 

on her upcoming retirement. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and distinguished members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about the recent National Fish Hatchery System Planning Report and the Chattahoochee National Forest Fish Hatchery that is located in Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District. 

Suches, Georgia is a sleepy community in Union County, located high up in the 

Appalachian Mountains. It is a rural area, without any major stores or banks. One 

thing that it does have, however, is the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery. 

Chattahoochee is a mitigation hatchery, established in 1937, after the numerous 

dams and reservoirs disrupted the natural flow of fish to the area. It stocks the tail 

waters of multiple projects for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority with Rainbow Trout for the enjoyment of 160,000 anglers per year. 

These tail waters would be barren without this facility and the service that they 

provide. 

To be honest, I was more than surprised when I heard that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service was thinking of closing this hatchery. It is beloved by the community, it 

shows great return on investment, and it is an economic engine of this rural part 

of Georgia. This hatchery is a major source of revenue for Suches, and northeast 

Georgia in general, having generated just over $30 million of total economic output 

on just a $747,000 investment. Talk about bang for your buck, this hatchery delivers. 

According to the Planning Report itself, ‘‘since its establishment in 1871, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Hatchery System has been a cornerstone 

of the Service’s mission of working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitants for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.’’ The American people, Mr. Chairman. Yet their statement seems to be a bit 

at odds with their stated priorities. 

The Department of Fish and Wildlife has ranked its funding priorities in this report in the following order: (1) Recovery of species federally listed as threatened or 

endangered; (2) Restoration of imperiled aquatic species; (3) Tribal partnerships and 

trust responsibilities; (4) Other Propagation Programs for Native Species; and finally (5) Other Propagation Programs for Non-Native Species 

Currently, more than 75 percent of the 291 propagation programs within the National Hatchery System exist within priorities 1–3. These first three priorities also 

make up nearly 90 percent of the funding from the National Hatchery System. The 

planning report looked at five potential funding scenarios: level funding, an 11 percent reduction, a 15 percent reduction, a 24 percent reduction, and a 5 percent increase. The Service concluded that meeting any cut or level funding would require 

‘‘discontinuing Service funding for some of the lower priority propagation programs.’’ 

11

Please keep in mind that mitigation hatcheries fall under categories four and five, 

the lowest priority funding priorities. 

This brings up a serious question, why should mitigation hatcheries be regarded 

as such low priority programs to the Fish and Wildlife Service? I believe stocking 

the tail waters, streams, lakes, and rivers of America should be a higher priority. 

Providing our Nation’s anglers with the recreational enjoyment and opportunity to 

catch fish is an important service, particularly vital to the economic growth of northeast Georgia. 

It is important to note that the Chattahoochee Hatchery is nearly 90 percent reimbursed from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Why would the Service choose to denigrate propagation programs that they are 

being reimbursed for and that also provide real economic benefits to rural America? 

It is because of their bias towards Endangered Species Act related propagation. I 

recently had the privilege to serve as a member of Chairman Hastings’ Endangered 

Species Act Working Group. My involvement with the working group only reinforced 

significant and growing need for Congress to look at this bias and seek solutions 

to address such misguided policies. 

In summation, I support the Chattahoochee National Fish Hatchery, as it plays 

an integral role in the sustainability of businesses and communities in northeast 

Georgia. From providing environmental education and public outreach opportunities 

to visitors, school groups, and various other organizations to facilitating recreational 

opportunities to 160,000 anglers a year, northeast Georgia would not be same without this facility. I appreciate the great work this Committee is doing to bring light 

to this issue and I hope to continue working with this Committee and its members 

to address Fish and Wildlife Service’s bias against mitigation hatcheries. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman. 

I would also like to add a special thank you to Deborah Burger, the Hatchery 

Manager at Chattahoochee hatchery, for her 36 years of service at that location and 

congratulate her on her upcoming retirement. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I thank the gentleman, and as is customary, 

you are certainly released back to your congressional duties. We do 

appreciate your time and your testimony today. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is something very important as you can tell from my testimony, something that strikes at 

the heart. It’s the very nature of our rural culture and people come 

there to fish. They come for these waters, and then when you take 

into account the cooperation really between the Corps and the 

TVA, this is something we really believe needs to be addressed, 

and I appreciate your willingness to take that on. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. 

We are now ready for our second panel, which you can go ahead 

and come forward, panel, as I introduce you. 

We are now ready for our second panel which included Mr. David 

Hoskins, Assistant Director, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; Ms. Diane Parks, Acting Deputy Chief 

of Operations and Regulations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 

Mr. Ed Carter, Executive Director, Tennessee Wildlife Resources 

Agency. 

Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. 

So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 

4(a). 

Our microphones are not automatic. So please press the button 

when you are ready to begin. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes a yellow light will appear, and at that time 

you will begin to conclude your statement. Obviously when you hit 

12

red, we want you to go ahead and conclude so we can move forward 

with other testimonies. 

Mr. Hoskins, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present 

testimony on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HOSKINS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FISH 

AND AQUATIC CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. HOSKINS. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the Subcommittee. I am David Hoskins, Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the National Fish 

Hatchery System, Strategic Hatchery and Work Force Planning Report. 

The Service’s National Fish Hatchery System has played a critical role in conserving America’s fisheries for more than 140 years. 

This national and highly specialized network of facilities and employees plays a vital role in the recovery of threatened and endangered species, the restoration of imperiled species and fulfilling our 

trust obligations to Native American tribes. In addition, it provides 

fish and other species for stocking into America’s waterways helping to sustain economically and recreationally important fisheries. 

The National Fish Hatchery System has struggled with declining 

funding for a number of years. Significant increases in operational 

costs have contributed to these fiscal challenges. In fiscal year 2012 alone the system incurred a $2.1 million 

shortfall in overall funding and needed to reprogram deferred 

maintenance funding to cover operational shortfalls and continue 

fish production. 

As a result of these fiscal challenges, the Service assembled a 

team of experts from across the country to conduct a comprehensive review of the 70 active propagation hatcheries. The purpose of 

this review was to position hatcheries to meet national aquatic resource conservation needs, operate hatcheries with available funding, identify the highest priority propagation programs and help us 

make informed management decisions under a range of potential 

budget scenarios. 

The Service established five priorities for the National Fish 

Hatchery System’s propagation programs consistent with the Service’s overall mission and priorities: One, recovery of threatened or 

endangered species; two, restoration of imperiled species; three, 

tribal partnerships and trust responsibilities; four, other native 

species; and five, other non-native species. 

The review team also developed five different funding scenarios. 

It is important to note, however, that a report is not a decision document. It offers management options and recommendations to put 

the system on a more sound and sustainable financial footing. 

In that context, the review team recognized that reimbursable 

funding is an important resource for our hatcheries. I am pleased 

to inform you that we have had very positive discussions with the 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority. As 

a result of increased funding from both of these partners, the Service has made great progress toward full reimbursement for the 

13

operational cost that we incur to produce native and non-native 

fish for mitigation purposes. 

When the report was released in November 2013, the Service announced that we did not intend to close any hatcheries in fiscal 

year 2014. Recently Congress provided the Service with $46.5 million to operate the National Fish Hatchery System this fiscal year, 

substantially more than we had anticipated. However, that level of 

funding is still not sufficient to fully cover our operational costs for 

all of our propagation programs at current levels. 

The Service is using the report to engage partners and stakeholders, including Congress, State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

tribes and others in a discussion on its major findings and recommendations. Our hope is that by engaging in a transparent and 

open dialog with our partners and stakeholders we can chart a unified course forward for the National Fish Hatchery System. 

This will allow us to operate the system on a sound financial 

footing and position the system to better meet today’s and tomorrow’s conservation challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify 

before your Subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have on the report and the National Fish 

Hatchery System. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoskins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID HOSKINS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISH AND

AQUATIC CONSERVATION, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the 

Subcommittee. I am David Hoskins, Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department 

of the Interior. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Service 

on the National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning 

Report.

The Service’s National Fish Hatchery System, comprised of 72 National Fish 

Hatcheries, one Historic National Fish Hatchery, Fish Technology Centers, Fish 

Health Centers, and the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program, has 

played a critical role in conserving America’s fisheries for more than 140 years. This 

national and highly specialized network of facilities and employees not only provides 

fish and other species for stocking into America’s waterways, helping to sustain economically and recreationally important fisheries, it plays a vital role in the recovery 

of threatened and endangered species, the restoration of imperiled species, and in 

fulfilling our trust obligations to Native American tribes. 

Our work to propagate fish, native mussels, and other aquatic species listed as 

threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and to 

restore declining species before they are listed, is part of the Service’s larger ongoing 

effort to conserve and recover native fish and other aquatic species under the ESA. 

We rely heavily on our National Fish Hatchery System to help fulfill our statutory 

obligations under the ESA. The Service’s work to propagate aquatic species also addresses our responsibilities under other Federal statutes, such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as well as mitigation requirements established for individual 

Federal water resource development projects. 

In addition to the conservation mandates established by the ESA and other Federal fish and wildlife statutes, the U.S. Department of the Interior has broad trust 

responsibilities to Native American Tribes. These include responsibilities specifically 

or generally required by treaty, statute, or pursuant to a consent decree or court 

order. By helping to ensure that tribes have continued access to native species important to their way of life, the National Fish Hatchery System also plays an essential role in meeting these trust responsibilities. 

The National Fish Hatchery System, however, has struggled with declining funding for a number of years. Significant increases in operational costs for fish food, 

fuel for distribution vehicles, and energy costs have contributed to these fiscal chalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
14

lenges. In fiscal year 2012 alone, the National Fish Hatchery System incurred a $2.1 

million shortfall in overall funding, and needed to reprogram Deferred Maintenance 

funding to cover operational shortfalls and continue fish propagation. The Service 

realized that this approach was not sustainable into the future. 

As a result of those fiscal challenges and other financial issues plaguing the National Fish Hatchery System, the Service assembled a team of experts from across 

the county in 2012 to conduct a comprehensive review of the 70 active propagation 

hatcheries. The team was led by the Regional Director in Alaska and included all 

of our Assistant Regional Directors for Fish and Aquatic Conservation as well as 

key senior staff in Headquarters. 

The purpose of this review was to position hatcheries to meet national aquatic resource conservation needs, operate hatcheries consistent with available funding and 

without having to borrow from other accounts, identify the highest priority propagation programs, and make informed management decisions under a range of potential 

budget scenarios. The review team collected and examined detailed information on 

species produced, staffing, organizational structure, and operational budgets from 

each of our National Fish Hatchery System propagation programs across all of our 

propagation hatcheries. 

As part of the review, the Service established and ranked the following priorities 

for the National Fish Hatchery System’s propagation programs for fish and other 

aquatic species consistent with the Service’s mission and priorities:

• Recovery of threatened or endangered species. • Restoration of imperiled species. • Tribal partnerships and trust responsibilities. • Other propagation programs for native species. • Other propagation programs for non-native species.

Through the review, we know that in FY 2012:

• Two hundred and ninety-one propagation programs occurred at the 70 propagation hatcheries; • The Service’s three highest priority categories (recovery, restoration, and tribal) 

accounted for more than 75 percent of all propagation programs; • About 90 percent of our limited funds are directed to our three highest priorities; and • Reimbursable funding is an important resource for the National Fish Hatchery 

System, especially for propagation programs that provide mitigation for Federal 

water development projects.

The National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning 

Report (Report) is the product of that comprehensive review. It is important to note, 

however, that the Report is not a decision document. It offers management options 

and recommendations to put the system on a more sound and sustainable financial 

footing. 

The review team developed five different funding scenarios to be considered depending on the level of funding that will be appropriated in the future. Those five 

scenarios, using FY 2012 as a baseline, are a 5 percent increase, level funding, an 

11 percent reduction, a 15 percent reduction, and a 24 percent reduction. Each funding scenario, and the respective changes to propagation programs, is described in 

the Report. The Report also analyzed staffing data and recommended that we strive 

to achieve a 65:35 percent ratio of salaries to other operational costs. Currently 

hatcheries are spending more of their funding on salaries, which leaves less funding 

available for other operational costs, such as fish food, fuel for distribution, and utilities. With rising operational costs, this ratio was recommended to allow the hatcheries to better absorb increases in operational costs. 

One of the findings of the Report is that reimbursable funding is an important 

resource for our hatcheries. For many years, the Service has been directed by Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and our partners, such as the Sport 

Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, to secure full reimbursable funding which 

include operational costs (e.g. staff salaries, fish food, chemicals, fish distribution, 

and utilities) so our appropriated dollars could be directed to higher priority activities. We have long-standing reimbursable agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 

I am pleased to inform you that we have had very positive discussions with our 

partners in the Corps and have received additional Corps funding for previously unreimbursed programs since FY 2010. In FY 2014, Congress provided $4.7 million in 

Corps funding for mitigation reimbursement. In addition, the Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority recently reached a new 3 year funding agreement through 

15

2016 that will provide $900,000 to the Service each year. As a result, the Service 

has made great progress toward full reimbursement for the operational costs that 

we incur to produce native and non-native fish for mitigation purposes for our partners. As the Service announced in November 2013 when the Report was released, we 

do not intend to close any hatcheries in FY 2014. Moreover, Congress provided the 

Service with $46,528,000 to operate the National Fish Hatchery System in the recently enacted FY 2014 Omnibus, which is substantially more than we anticipated 

had sequestration continued into FY 2014. However, that level of funding is still not 

sufficient to fully cover our operational costs for all of our propagation programs at 

current levels. 

The Service is using the Report to engage partners and stakeholders, including 

State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and others, in a discussion on its major findings and recommendations. We are seeking their input on how we should operate 

the National Fish Hatchery System more efficiently and within available resources 

in the future. Taking into consideration their input, current and anticipated funding 

levels, the costs to operate our existing propagation programs, and the Report’s findings and recommendations, we will consider how we can further streamline our operations to better reflect the Service’s priorities and bring expenditures in line with 

available funding. This could conceivably include transferring ownership of additional individual Federal hatchery facilities to the States. 

Our hope is that by engaging in a transparent and open dialogue with this Committee and others in Congress, our partners and stakeholders we can chart a unified 

course forward for the National Fish Hatchery System that not only allows us to 

operate the system on a sound financial footing but positions the system to better 

meet today’s and tomorrow’s conservation challenges. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your Committee today. I 

will be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the Report and the National Fish Hatchery System. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Hoskins. 

Ms. Parks, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE PARKS, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF OF 

OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Ms. PARKS. Thank you. 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, I am Diane Parks, 

Deputy Chief of Operations and Regulatory for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the National 

Fish Hatchery System associated with the Corps’ Water Resources 

Projects. 

The Corps recognizes the impacts of water development projects 

and strives to meet the commitment of offsetting impacts by replacing stocks of native fish where possible or providing non-native 

sport angling opportunities with support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Hatchery System. 

The Corps also appreciates the significant economic benefits that 

the sport fishing industry brings to local communities where stocking of hatchery fish into lakes and streams is common practice. 

Appendix A of the March 2013 National Fish Hatchery System 

Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report shows that the 

Corps is completing over 95 percent of its mitigation requirements 

and reimbursements for native endangered species management in 

the Northwest Region 1, which is funded by specific Corps projects, 

and we will continue to work with the Service to strive to meet 100 

percent. 

We also concur that the report data from 2012 accurately shows 

the Corps meeting 80 percent of the mitigation requirements at 17 

16

national fish hatcheries within Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6. These requirements are centrally funded by the Corps’ Civil Works Operations and Maintenance appropriations under Fish and Wildlife 

Operating Fish Hatchery Reimbursement. 

Although the hatchery work in the Northwest has been ongoing 

for decades, this centrally funded program began in 2010 under 

congressional direction that the Service seek reimbursement for 

mitigation fish production. 

Since 2010, the Corps has worked closely with the Service to 

produce and release approximately 32 million fish into 45 different 

receiving waters impacted by the Corps dams. This amount, although not full mitigation, represented the amount the Corps was 

able to fund by considering all eligible projects, programs, and activities, including significant increases in the cost of biological opinions related to listed endangered species across many programs. 

The Corps must annually prioritize investments in the Nation’s 

water resources based on their return to the Nation, which requires 

us to make difficult decision that affect many program areas. All 

costs, including any increases in mitigation, must be evaluated 

closely. The baseline cost of $4.7 million was an estimate determined by the Service in 2010 to meet 100 percent of its requirements to raise and distribute fish for Corps mitigation. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 includes this 

amount to be transferred to the Service for production of mitigation 

fish for the Corps which will meet 100 percent of our mitigation 

this fiscal year. Even under the constrained fiscal times, the Corps 

looks forward to continued coordination and collaboration with the 

Service in meeting our mitigation commitments. 

The Corps has been in contact with the Service to improve the 

Corps’ involvement in the process, improve accuracy of funding 

needs, and to formalize an agreement between the Corps and Service for long-term commitment. 

In closing, the Corps is actively engaged in the process to improve and formalize the current partnership with the Service and 

to ensure the protection and benefits our resources provide to the 

public. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify here today, 

and I look forward to any questions you or the Ranking Member 

may have of me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Parks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE PARKS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF OPERATIONS AND

REGULATORY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Diane 

Parks, Deputy Chief of Operations and Regulatory for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the National Fish 

Hatchery System associated with Corps water resources projects. The Corps recognizes the impacts of water development projects and strives to meet the commitment of off-setting impacts by, where appropriate, replacing stocks of native fish 

where possible or providing non-native sport angling opportunities with support of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) National Fish Hatchery System. The 

Corps also appreciates the significant economic benefits that the sport fishing industry brings to local communities where stocking of hatchery fish into lakes and 

streams is common practice. 

Appendix A of the March 2013 National Fish Hatchery System Strategic Hatchery 

and Workforce Planning Report, shows that the Corps is completing over 95 percent 

of its mitigation requirements and reimbursements for native endangered species 

17

management in the Northwest Region 1 funded by specific Corps projects and we 

will continue to work with the Service to strive to meet 100 percent. We also do 

concur that the report data from 2012 accurately shows the Corps meeting 80 percent of the mitigation requirements at the 17 National Fish Hatcheries within Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6. These requirements are centrally funded by the Corps’ Civil 

Works Operation and Maintenance Appropriations under ‘‘Fish and Wildlife Operating Fish Hatchery Reimbursement.’’ Although the hatchery work in the Northwest 

has been ongoing for decades, this centrally funded program began in 2010 in response to the Committee on Appropriations Report 110–187 (Accompanying the Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008), 

directing the Service to seek reimbursement for mitigation fish production. Since 

2010, the Corps has worked closely with the Service to produce and release approximately 32 million fish into 45 different receiving waters impacted by Corps dams. 

This amount, although not full mitigation, represented the amount the Corps was 

able to fund, while considering all eligible projects, programs, and activities, including significant increases in cost of Biological Opinions related to listed endangered 

species, across many programs. The Corps must annually prioritize investments in 

the Nation’s water resources based on their return to the Nation, which requires 

the agency to make difficult decisions that affect many program areas. All costs, including any increases in mitigation, must be evaluated closely. 

The baseline cost of $4,700,000 was an estimate determined by the Service in 

2010 to meet 100 percent of its requirements to raise and distribute fish for Corps 

mitigation (based on historic numbers). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2014 includes $4,700,000 to be transferred to the Service for production of mitigation fish for the Corps, which will meet the 100 percent mitigation this fiscal year. 

Even under constrained fiscal times, the Corps looks forward to continued coordination and collaboration with the Service in meeting our mitigation commitments. 

The Corps has been in contact with the Service to improve the Corps involvement 

in the process, improve accuracy of funding needs, and to formalize an agreement 

between the Corps and Service for long term commitment. 

In closing, the Corps is actively engaged in the process to improve and formalize 

the current partnership with the Service and to insure the protection and benefits 

our resources provide to the public. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Parks. 

And finally we have Mr. Ed Carter, who is testifying on behalf 

of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Mr. Carter, you, sir, are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ED CARTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. CARTER. Good morning, Chairman Fleming and members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to see the perspectives from the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s National Fish Hatchery Program and the 

Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report. 

My name is Ed Carter. I’m the Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and I am here today testifying 

on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for which 

I serve as a member of the Executive Committee and also serve 

right now as the President of the Southeastern Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was founded in 

1902 and it is a professional trade association for the State Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. Our members include the State Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies from all 50 States, provinces, and the Federal 

Governments of both the United States, Mexico and Canada. 

18

We promote sound resource management and strengthen our 

Federal, State and private cooperation in protecting and managing 

our fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. 

We are very interested in the future of the National Fish Hatchery System and the future changes and what they could mean to 

the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the constituents that they 

serve, and our Nation’s fisheries. 

The State fish and wildlife agencies have a long and valued partnership with the Federal agency in the fisheries management. Fish 

hatcheries have been and remain important components of many 

successful fish hatchery restoration and management efforts, as 

well as offering recreational and significant economic benefits. 

The National Fish Hatchery System was established in 1871 by 

Congress and to conserve fishery resources for future generations, 

and it is used extensively by State Fish and Wildlife Agencies in 

supporting State and Federal fisheries managements throughout 

the country, often in a very cooperative example. 

In Tennessee, I will offer as an example, we have 9 fish hatcheries, 10 if you count our endangered species hatchery. We do not 

meet currently the demand that we have for fishing in our mitigation waters and the loss of any fish would be really devastating for 

our fisheries as well as the economic benefits that they are associated with. 

Recreational fishing and fisheries resources are significant contributors to the economic health of the Nation. The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife and Associated Recreation reported that 31 million Americans participated in recreational fishing which supports more than 587,000 jobs and provides a total 

economic contribution exceeding $61 billion. 

This economic impact of fish and aquatic conservation programs 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service was an estimated $3.56 billion supporting more than 68,000 jobs. In nine of the Southeastern States, 

for example, $5 million that is spent on the National Fish Hatchery’s stock generated $239 million in local economic output and 

supports 3,100 jobs, including $63 million in total economic benefit. 

It generates about $14 million in State and Federal taxes. 

Tennessee’s Dale Hollow Fish Hatchery returns $89 for every 

dollar spent and returns $5.1 million in State and local taxes in 

Tennessee alone. As Congressman Roe mentioned earlier, the 

Erwin Hatchery adds even greater economic benefit as it supports 

about 10 different States. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has a record of 

raising issues about the role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in operating and managing Federal fish hatcheries. I would like to 

outline just a few of those. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has Federal responsibility for 

meeting the mitigation needs of Federal water projects. Since before the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has had a statutory responsibility to mitigate fisheries’ losses and loss of recreational fishing opportunities which result from Federal water development projects, such as dams. 

We want to ensure that the Service does not abdicate that responsibility and that water development projects fund these activiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
19

ties fully. Private development projects must mitigate, and the Federal Government should be a model and follow the same standards. 

And Federal hatcheries are not just about mitigation. The States 

rely on Federal fish hatchery production to support recreational 

fishing and species recovery. The Association’s member States are 

willing to work with the Service in a national approach to coordinate fish production, taking into account the fish produced by the 

50 State and fish and wildlife agencies and the fish produced by 

the Service to ensure that the most efficient methods for producing 

fish and recreation mitigations of species and conservation. 

We must have a robust and collaborative national effort to meet 

the country’s fish production needs. For instance, in Tennessee we 

gave $3.1 million to Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery to help 

in their restoration efforts. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies is very concerned about the potential divestiture of the 

major portion of the National Fish Hatchery Programs and about 

the perceived retreat from sport fisheries’ partnerships with State 

agencies and the Federal Hatcheries Report. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to answer any 

questions that I can answer for you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED CARTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE WILDLIFE

RESOURCES AGENCY, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

Good afternoon Chairman Fleming and members of the Subcommittee, and thank 

you for inviting me to be with you today to share the perspectives of the State fish 

and wildlife agencies on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) National Fish 

Hatchery System (NFHS) and the Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report. My name is Ed Carter, and I am the Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, representing the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(Association). I am a member of the Association’s Executive Committee. I also serve 

as the current President of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

The Association, founded in 1902, is the professional association for the State fish 

and wildlife agencies, and our membership includes public agencies charged with 

the protection and management of North America’s fish and wildlife resources. The 

Association’s governmental members include the fish and wildlife agencies of the 

States, provinces, and Federal Governments of the United States and Canada, and 

we collaborate with Mexico. All 50 States are members. The Association has been 

a key organization in promoting sound resource management and strengthening 

Federal, State, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish, wildlife, 

and their habitats in the public interest. 

The Association is very interested in the future of the National Fish Hatchery 

System and what changes to that system could mean to the State fish and wildlife 

agencies, the constituents they serve, and our Nation’s fisheries. Mr. Chairman, the 

State fish and wildlife agencies have a long and valued partnership with the Federal agencies in fisheries management. Fish hatcheries have been and remain important components of many successful fishery restoration and management efforts. 

Given our shared responsibilities for the management of fish and other aquatic resources, and the diverse benefits derived by the American public from integrated 

and efficient hatchery production, we look forward to continuing to work closely 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure quality fish for restoration and to support diverse recreational and commercial use. Toward that end, we appreciate the 

opportunity to be here today to explore ways to maintain and improve upon an important tool in our conservation toolbox. 

Federal fish hatchery closures and associated activity reductions or modifications, 

unless carefully coordinated with the States and tribes and methodically approached, could degrade many invaluable fisheries management and conservation 

projects that are vital to sustaining important fish populations in our Nation’s waterways and the jobs the fishery resources support. Healthy waterways and robust 

20

1 National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report, March 

2013, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, page 6. 2Southwick Associates, 2011, The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States. Report prepared for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, page 8. 3 Joseph J. Charbonneau and James Caudill, 2010, An Assessment of Economic Contributions 

from Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4Sport Fishing & Boating Partnership Council, 2010. Programmatic Evaluation: Activities of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Program, FY 2005–2009, page 64. 

fish populations are vital to the well-being of our society and economy. They provide 

sustainable fisheries, provide jobs for our citizens, recreational enjoyment for millions, and support many local communities. 

BACKGROUND

The National Fish Hatchery System was established in 1871 by Congress to conserve fishery resources for future generations of Americans. Today, the Service’s 

NFHS includes 70 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs), 9 Fish Health Centers (FHCs), 

and 6 Fish Technology Centers (FTCs). These facilities are used extensively by some 

State fish and wildlife agencies. The Federal hatchery system is a key ingredient 

in supporting State and Federal fisheries management throughout the country. As 

stated in a recent report by the Service ‘‘the [Federal fish hatchery system] is a complex and dynamic network of assets and expertise operating to support the Service’s 

mission.’’1

The State fish and wildlife agencies are strong proponents of a healthy Federal 

fish hatchery system. We believe the Federal hatchery system should not operate 

or be managed in a vacuum. In effect, the Federal system is a part of a more comprehensive national system that includes the hatcheries operated by State fish and 

wildlife agencies, other public agencies, and even private enterprise. When you then 

take into consideration tribal hatcheries, it becomes clear how extensive the network 

of hatcheries is to meet Federal, State, and tribal needs for recreation, mitigation, 

and species recovery. 

The State fish and wildlife agencies are partners with the Service and tribes in 

producing fish for our Nation’s interests and needs. Some State fish and wildlife 

agencies rely heavily on Federal hatchery grown fish or eggs to provide for recreational angling opportunities and restoration work. Other States may not use Federal fish hatcheries at all, or will partner with Federal fish hatcheries to address 

a specific need. I should mention that some State hatcheries produce threatened or 

endangered species to assist our Federal partners in delisting efforts and help recover fisheries systems that are important to the State. Consequently, a shift in any 

Federal fish hatchery will have broad implications for many more interests than 

just the Service and its workforce planning efforts. The Service should closely collaborate with the States and tribes when the agency contemplates changes to a fish 

hatchery or fish health center including closures, change in production, or shifting 

priorities which, to date, has not occurred. 

Since at least 1995, we have revisited the concept of changes in Federal fish 

hatchery modifications, priorities, closures, and the like several times either through 

Service proposals or the President’s budget and each seemingly without due consideration of impacts on others outside the Service that could be affected by such actions. 

ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR NATION’S FISHERIES

Recreational fishing and fishery resources are significant contributors to the economic health of the Nation. The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and 

Wildlife Associated Recreation found 33.1 million individuals participating in recreational fishing. The economic impact from recreational fishing alone supports 

more than 587,000 jobs and provides a total economic contribution exceeding $61 

billion.2 The estimated economic impact of the Fish and Aquatic Conservation program of the FWS also provides a strong indication of the value of the United States’ 

aquatic resource assets. In 2010 the program’s activities yielded an estimated $3.56 

billion in economic output, supporting more than 68,000 jobs and $301 million in 

substitution value for subsistence activity.3

Federal investment in fish hatcheries produces a strong return on investment and 

is a model of an economic multiplier effect. In the nine Southeastern States alone, 

for example, the $5 million spent on NFH-stocked fish generates at least $239 million in local economic output and supports 3,100 jobs with incomes totaling $63 million. This activity generates $14 million in State and Federal taxes.4

The NFHS relies a great deal on volunteer work, which significantly cuts program 

costs and allows important funding dollars to be used directly for the rearing and 

21

5 Joseph J. Charbonneau and James Caudill, 2010, An Assessment of Economic Contributions 

from Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

release of hatchery fish. Additionally, these hatcheries are a career gateway for 

rural and Native American youth, helping to diversify Service staff and invest youth 

in the stewardship of our environment at an early age. Through the use of volunteers and the implementation of the Youth Conservation Corps initiative, these 

hatcheries are avenues for introducing people to outdoors, outdoor skills and conservation. They increase recruitment and retention in the participation of traditional outdoor activities. 

Several of the agencies that rely on these fish stocking operations, including the 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), have failed 

to fully reimburse the Service for its efforts. If the Service is not fully reimbursed 

by these two agencies, the large decrease in funding that is anticipated for the 

NFHS will be felt in local economies, as nationwide hatchery efforts support over 

8,000 jobs and result in almost $35 million in State and local tax revenue every 

year.5 The best remedy for this unfortunate situation is for Congress to either mandate that these partner agencies fully reimburse the Service for their share of the 

hatchery operating costs or provide the Service with the necessary funding within 

the NFHS’s budget to keep these facilities operating, complementary to the program’s base funding, while reimbursements are negotiated. The Association supports 100 percent reimbursement to the Service by other Federal agencies. 

Finally, we would add that this is not an issue that has only Federal level impacts. States depend on these hatcheries to provide fish and recreational fishing opportunities, which support jobs in rural areas that depend on the recreational angler 

for their livelihood. Over the years the Service has cut hatcheries through closures 

and transfers to States. The hatchery program has for some years been at the minimum staffing and size necessary to fulfill responsibilities, as well as recreational 

opportunities and in some States any additional losses would be devastating. 

TENNESSEE: AN EXAMPLE

Tennessee relies on Service hatcheries to maintain trout fisheries across the 

State. The Federal hatcheries have become a critical component of statewide trout 

management providing over half the trout produced for the State. Most of these fish 

are provided for stocking into waters associated with Federal water development 

projects. In a typical year Federal hatcheries provide about 300,000 pounds or 1.3 

million trout to fisheries that have been permanently altered by Federal power 

projects. Fisheries for native fish no longer exist at these locations due to habitat 

loss associated with project operations. Trout are stocked to mitigate for this loss. 

The mitigation trout fisheries include 8 large reservoirs and 13 rivers located in 

middle to east Tennessee. Many of Tennessee’s most famous rivers, like the Caney 

Fork, Hiwassee, Clinch, Watauga, South Holston, and Tellico Rivers rely on the 

Federal mitigation stocking program. 

Tennessee’s view is that the Federal Government is responsible for mitigation 

stocking at Federal water development projects, operated by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Private power 

companies are held to these standards throughout the Nation, and the Federal Government should be a model participant in the mitigation model, not an objector. The 

Service once had a proud tradition of performing the mitigation role for the Federal 

Government. The Service’s strategic plans and annual reports rightfully touted 

these successful stocking programs for decades. Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery 

in Celina, TN was built in 1965 to perform this role that it continues to this day. 

Erwin National Fish Hatchery, in Erwin, TN provides eggs for mitigation trout at 

both Federal and State hatcheries across the Nation. 

The 2013 Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report states that the Service has chosen to discontinue this role. This decision should not give the Federal 

Government as a whole a pass on its mitigation responsibility. The funding could 

come from Federal appropriations to the Service or by payments from USACE and 

TVA. The mechanism for this funding is a Federal matter that the States should 

not need to design or negotiate. 

The Federal Government should pay for mitigation. If it is decided that the Service will no longer produce mitigation trout, then those hatcheries and an annual allocation to operate those hatcheries should be transferred to the States or private 

hatcheries to perform that role for the Federal Government. Any conveyance of Federal mitigation hatcheries to State agencies should include legislation that ensures 

annual operating funds for that facility will be provided by the Federal Government. 

The States and anglers that support them should not pay to operate these Federal 

mitigation hatcheries. 

22

Aside from the mitigation responsibility, the Service hatcheries should be operated to maintain the economic benefits that have been created over the decades. 

These fisheries benefit a variety of local businesses and stimulate tourism in Tennessee. The economic analysis of Dale Hollow National Fish Hatchery reports that 

for every dollar spent the economic return is $88.76, nearly all of this is realized 

in Tennessee. The program annually supports 867 jobs, $22.5 million in wages, 

$41.7 million in retail sales, and $5.1 million in Federal and State taxes. Erwin National Fish Hatchery influences a broader region of the country and as such is an 

even greater economic driver. Erwin returns $72.95 for each tax dollar spent and 

supports 3,442 jobs, $89.5 million in wages, $166 million in retail sales, and $20.7 

million in taxes. 

AREAS OF CONCERN

The Association has a record of raising issues through the years about the role 

of the Service in operating and managing Federal fish hatcheries. I will outline 

these issues briefly and then return to elaborate on each point.

1. The Service has Federal responsibility for meeting the mitigation needs of Federal water development projects. Since before the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

of 1934, the Service has had statutory responsibility to mitigate fisheries losses and 

loss of recreational fishing opportunities which result from Federal water development projects. We want to ensure that the Service does not abdicate this responsibility and that the water development project agencies fund these activities fully. 

2. Federal hatcheries are not just about mitigation. The States rely on Federal 

fish hatchery production to support recreational fishing and species recovery. The 

Association’s member States are willing to work with the Service on a national approach to coordinate fish production, taking into account the fish produced by the 

50 State fish and wildlife agencies and the fish produced by the Service to ensure 

the most efficient methods for producing fish for recreation, mitigation, and species 

conservation. We must have a robust and collaborative national effort to meet the 

Nation’s fish production needs and restoration potential now and into the future. 

Furthermore, Service fish health centers are frequently used by States to test for 

diseases, pathogens and genetic characteristics which is critical information for fisheries managers. 

3. Proposals to close or transfer fish hatcheries or reduce their production happen 

every several years. From our perspective these cycles seem to signal that the Service places a low priority on fish production compared to other non-fishery program 

areas. From the States’ perspective, the Service’s fish and aquatic programs are a 

significant priority. Hatchery production is one of the three legs of the fishery management stool alongside habitat conservation and harvest management. 

4. The Association has always expressed concern about using Federal Aid in Sport 

Fish Restoration Act (or Wallop-Breaux) administrative (non-project) funds to transition divested hatcheries to the States. Fortunately, there are no recent discussions 

about using Sport Fish Restoration funds to transfer hatcheries to the States, but 

the suggestion was made in the past during similar proposed hatchery changes, and 

we want to ensure that any future discussion avoids this trap. The Wallop-Breaux 

user pay/user benefit system was designed to enhance fisheries and recreational 

fisheries opportunities but not to divest Federal agencies of their mitigation responsibilities. We believe that non-project funds were intended to be used for Federal 

administration of the Sport Fish restoration program to the States, not to substitute 

for fish and aquatic conservation operational funding deficits at the Federal level. 

5. A big part of meeting the Nation’s fish production requirements is the availability of drugs that prevent disease or safely sedate fish during handling. Under 

the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership run by the Service from its offices 

in Bozeman, Montana, State agencies collaborate with the Service and the Food and 

Drug Administration to approve drugs for fish culture. This program is a high priority to the State fish and wildlife agencies and we remain concerned that the Service intends to turn this Federal program into a cost-recovery center using the States 

as primary funders. Drug approval efforts are a Federal requirement and this program should be fully-funded by the agency. 

Federal Responsibility for Fisheries Mitigation 

Statutory mandates for the Service’s efforts to mitigate the impacts of Federal 

water development projects, as well as activities authorized under FERC licenses or 

by Section 9, 10, 13 and 404 permits, are very broad. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that fish and wildlife be given equal consideration with other 

project purposes in making decisions about Federal water projects and license or 

permit applications. Other mandates and authorities for the Service’s involvement 

in mitigation activities associated with Federal water projects as well as with federVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
23

6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Fisheries Resources Program. Statement of Responsibilities and Role, page 6. 

ally licensed or permitted alteration of navigable waters include the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899, the Federal Power Act, the Clean Water Act, the Mitchell Act, 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, and other statutes. In addition to 

these statutory requirements and authorities, NEPA regulations also require that 

mitigation measures be considered in environmental impact statements for significant Federal activities and development initiatives. Hence there is a substantial 

mandate for the Service’s involvement in identifying mitigation requirements for all 

Federal water development initiatives as well as federally licensed or permitted activities and in ensuring that mitigation measures are included in projects when they 

are planned, constructed and become operational.6

The Association is concerned with the Service’s apparent withdrawal from these 

statutorily mandated mitigation responsibilities. The quid pro quo for these Federal 

water development projects has been that losses to local fisheries and diminished 

recreational opportunities would be mitigated by the establishment, funding, and 

administration (by the Federal Government) of fish hatcheries. Longstanding Federal policy has been that the mitigation must be continued for the life of the project 

and as long afterwards as the effects of the project persist. In some cases, then, the 

mitigation should continue in perpetuity. The Service’s proposal seems to signal an 

abdication of these responsibilities or, at a minimum, an attempt to transfer those 

responsibilities (without funding) to the States or others. 

Recreational Fish and Species Recovery Production 

The responsibility for management of many fish populations rests with States. 

However, the migratory nature of many native species, recovery needs of species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act and mitigation obligations resulting from 

Federal water development actions place considerable responsibilities in the hands 

of Federal fisheries management agencies. Shared jurisdiction that has evolved over 

many decades, under the almost constant pressure of budget constraints at State 

and Federal levels, has created an efficient system that delivers quality fish for a 

variety of purposes. State hatcheries focus heavily, but not exclusively, on fish production to supplement stocks for recreational fishing purposes. Some State hatcheries produce federally threatened or endangered species for restoration and recovery efforts. Federal hatcheries focus on native species restoration, rehabilitation 

through the stocking of fish and eggs, meeting mitigation responsibilities for Federal 

water development projects, federally threatened or endangered species for restoration and recovery efforts, and developing and maintaining brood stocks of various 

and sometimes unique genetic strains. Over the years, the States have also come 

to rely on the Federal hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technical centers for 

technical assistance and scientific expertise in a variety of areas. While it may appear at first glance that the system includes redundancy among agencies this is not 

the case. Neither the States nor the Federal hatcheries and facilities alone could 

geographically or functionally satisfy the diverse needs for fish, or provide the collective expertise currently supplied by the sum total of the current system. 

Looking forward, we anticipate continued need to focus on public fish hatcheries 

as an essential tool in sound fisheries management. Hatcheries will continue to play 

a role in protection and restoration of native fish populations and supplementation 

of natural populations to support valuable recreational and commercial fisheries. 

Today, the States, Federal partners and others are launching ambitious new efforts 

to protect and enhance fish habitat. While we have seen the declines of much fish 

habitat across the country, we have also seen examples where habitat previously 

lost to fish has recovered to the point where it once again supports valuable fisheries. In many of those cases, population enhancement through hatcheries has 

played a critical role in restoring those stocks and the fisheries that depend upon 

them. 

One close by example is that of shad recovery in the Chesapeake Bay. Following 

fish passage and water quality improvements, waters once lost to anadromous shad 

runs were reopened. Yet fish populations had declined to the point where active restoration was required to take full advantage of potential habitats. Through a scientific, careful and consistent restocking effort, native runs of naturally reproducing 

American and hickory shad have been restored to many tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Now, recovering populations in rivers like the Potomac are being utilized 

to gather eggs for further restoration work in the James and Rappahannock Rivers. 

Much of this work has occurred at the Harrison Lake National Fish Hatchery in 

Virginia. Similar success stories are unfolding on the Great Lakes with lake trout 

24

and coaster brook trout, in the Southwest, where endangered Apache trout populations in Arizona could become the first native fish species to be removed from the 

endangered species list, and in many other places around the United States. 

In addition to filling ecological niches once almost lost, these and other species 

support revived and growing recreational fisheries that provide real local economic 

benefits. In addition, recovering fish populations instill in anglers and other conservationists a sense of progress. Recovering fish populations reward difficult conservation choices and pave the way for continued commitment to cleaning up our 

waterways and protecting the integrity of watersheds all across the country. 

The current diversity of Federal fish hatcheries and facilities, functions and fish 

they produce appears to meet the intent of Congress—to conserve fishery resources 

for future generations of Americans. Healthy fisheries and aquatic ecosystems depend upon the diversity of species within a system to survive and thrive. Collective 

propagation efforts that solely focus on one end of the spectrum, without attention 

paid to other species critical to the system as a whole, will not recover and thrive 

to ensure healthy fish resources for generations to come. 

Prioritization of Fish Production 

The Association realizes the current fiscal challenges our Nation faces is great, 

and priorities need to be established to maximize every taxpayer dollar spent, which 

includes setting priorities for the Federal fish hatchery system. Some Federal fish 

hatcheries serve multiple purposes and multiple States, even in areas outside their 

Fish and Wildlife Service Region. This requires a more holistic evaluation and discussion about the future of our Federal hatcheries. By working together we can determine what changes are appropriate for warm and cold water Federal hatcheries 

when considering the fisheries needs of those areas. To avoid unintended consequences, efficiently use taxpayer dollars, smartly integrate State hatcheries when 

possible, and address the needs of the States, tribes and Federal agencies we must 

initiate a national dialogue across regions and borders to develop a well-informed 

plan for the future of our Nation’s State and Federal fish hatcheries and health centers and ultimately our Nation’s fisheries. Only by working together with our Federal partners can we find opportunities, solutions and overcome the challenges that 

face our current fisheries to conserve these precious resources for the benefit of our 

Nation’s future. 

Conveyance: Is It an Option? 

One apparent solution to some of our Nation’s Federal funding challenges and the 

Federal fish hatchery situation, in particular, is to convey some of the responsibilities to the States. While it may seem logical to transfer a Federal fish hatchery 

to State management control for continued operation, in reality it is not always an 

option. Some States may wish to assume responsibility of a Federal hatchery; others 

do not have the funds, capacity, or ability to do so. Because of the age of most of 

the Federal fish hatcheries, some States may wish to add to existing infrastructure 

of their own State hatcheries rather than assume the maintenance requirements of 

older Service facilities. Therefore, the option of conveyance from the Service to a 

State will vary from State to State. However, if a State does chose to assume management and production responsibilities of a Federal fish hatchery, the State and 

the Service must concur on the transfer specifications. 

The Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership 

The Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program (AADAP) of the Service 

serves an essential and unique Federal role in drug approvals for public and tribal 

activities in aquaculture and fisheries management. AADAP currently provides 21 

Investigational New Animal Drugs (INAD) that would not be otherwise available to 

control stress in our Nation’s fish hatcheries and in the wild, initiate spawning for 

key species, and reduce preventable disease outbreaks. The program provides services to 48 States including 237 public programs and 38 State fish and wildlife agencies. 

The national INAD program managed by AADAP is also essential to the restoration, recovery, and management activities of State, Federal and tribal fish and wildlife agencies for 40 threatened and endangered (T&E) species and numerous other 

native species of concern. For example, the States assist the Service in managing 

its Federal obligations under the Endangered Species Act and use drugs to treat 

federally-listed threatened and endangered species while they are propagated in 

State operated hatcheries and in field based fishery management. Federally recognized treaty tribes use drugs to manage fish production for subsistence and traditional uses. 

The State fish and wildlife agencies believe AADAP is an irreplaceable partner 

in a collaborative aquatic drug approval effort that includes State fish and wildlife 

25

agencies, the Service, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA–NMFS), 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), private aquaculture and numerous drug 

companies. 

In 2013, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council released its Strategic 

Vision for Fish and Aquatic Resource Conservation in the Fish and Wildlife Service

which reinforced the ‘‘essential and unduplicated services’’ AADAP provides to the 

FWS and its partners. 

The Association encourages the committee to ensure that any effort to maintain 

the hatchery system also maintains the drug approval program that is essential to 

Federal, State, and tribal hatchery production. 

CLOSING

In summary Mr. Chairman, the Association is very concerned about the potential 

divestiture of a major portion of the National Fish Hatchery program, and is concerned about the perceived retreat from sport fisheries partnerships with State 

agencies needing Federal hatcheries support. Major hatchery closures will seriously 

disrupt ongoing Federal-State cooperative fishery management programs, local 

economies, and the system of funding Sport Fish conservation itself. We also believe 

that this report provides a departure from the Federal responsibility to ensure mitigation for Federal water related development projects. 

If divestiture of hatcheries is required due to budget redirection or transfer of 

funds to other Service programs, these reasons must be openly discussed and defended. If closure is unavoidable, strong transitional support must be offered to 

States and tribes. The Association would like to work with the States, tribes, and 

Service on a national approach to our fish hatchery system as a whole, including 

fish health centers and AADAP, to ensure the collective structure meets the needs 

of current and future conservation efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the attention you are devoting to maintaining and 

enhancing a system crucial to fishery conservation work across the country. We 

strongly believe that the States, anglers, and the whole American public benefit 

from the good work of the national fish hatcheries. Thank you for the opportunity 

to share our perspectives with you today, and I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank you, Mr. Carter. 

At this point we will begin Member questioning of the witnesses 

to allow all Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from 

all of our witnesses today, Members are limited to 10 minutes for 

their questions. However, if Members have additional questions, we 

can always have another round. 

Therefore, I recognize myself for 10 minutes. 

Mr. Hoskins, I understand you have only been Assistant Director 

for Fisheries for the last 8 months. During that time, have you visited the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery in Louisiana? 

Mr. HOSKINS. No, I have not. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Are you familiar with the fact that for over 80 

years this warm water hatchery has provided Louisiana residents 

with millions of native channel fish, bluegill, largemouth bass, and 

sunfish? 

The stocking and the catching of these fish has generated tens 

of millions of dollars in economic activity. Under your workplace 

planning report, what happens to these recreational raised fish if 

hatchery funding is level in fiscal year 2015? 

Mr. HOSKINS. In the report, as you know, we did a breakdown 

of individual propagation programs, 291 in number, across our 70 

propagation hatcheries. The statistics in the report are that 18 percent of the production was for recovery of fresh water mussels at 

Natchitoches, 37 percent for alligator gar restoration, 29 percent 

for restoration of alligator snapping turtle, and the remaining 18 

26

percent was for the production of native non-mitigation, not fully 

reimbursed recreational fish. 

We are in the process right now of working to allocate the funding that we received from Congress this year, fiscal year 2014, out 

to our regions, and once we have provided them with those allocated funding amounts, then we would be working with the individual regions, including Region 4, to assess how we use those 

funds for the existing propagation programs across all 70 propagation hatcheries in the 291 propagation programs. 

Dr. FLEMING. But the question was specifically about the 

Natchitoches Hatchery. So what happens to it? 

Mr. HOSKINS. So as I tried to explain, we are providing the funding that we receive from Congress in the omnibus out to the individual regions, and then the regions would work within their region to decide how to best use that funding for the hatcheries within that region, including in this case Natchitoches. 

Dr. FLEMING. Do you have any specific plans downstream of 

what happens, how the funding gets to specifically Natchitoches 

and whether there will be adequate funds to keep Natchitoches 

open? 

Mr. HOSKINS. We do not have any intention of closing any hatcheries, the 70 propagation hatcheries that were the subject of the report in this year, and so we are going to be working with the regions to assess how we allocate the existing funding that has been 

substantially increased by Congress, for which we are very appreciative across the——

Dr. FLEMING. But now which year are we talking about? 

Mr. HOSKINS. 2014. 

Dr. FLEMING. All right, but the question was about 2015. 

Mr. HOSKINS. Well, at this point the President just sent up a request for increased funding above what Congress provided in 2014 

for 2015, and so depending upon how much funding the Congress 

appropriates in 2015, we would go through a similar process of allocating those funds out to the region and then making a case-bycase determination about how that affects individual propagation 

programs across our 70 hatcheries. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. What if the funding is decreased by, say, 5 

percent? How will that affect the Natchitoches hatchery? 

Mr. HOSKINS. Well, I cannot speak to the specifics of one hatchery, but as reflected in the report, as the amount of funding goes 

down, there is an increased effect with respect to our capacity to 

continue the existing propagation programs, and what the report 

tried to do is look at how, under five budget scenarios, 5 percent 

increase, level funding, 11 percent decrease, a 15 percent decrease 

and a 24 percent decrease. That would or could affect individual 

propagation programs on a hatchery-by-hatchery basis, and those 

are identified by hatchery in Appendix A of the report. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Did the Service undertake an economic analysis before it terminated the 50 year old rainbow trout stocking 

program at the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery in the State 

of Arizona? 

Mr. HOSKINS. My understanding is that the problems at Willow 

Beach are related to pipeline repair. We did get estimates on what 

27

it would cost to repair that pipeline, and we do not currently have 

the funding in our maintenance budget to make that repair. 

Dr. FLEMING. But was an economic analysis done? 

Mr. HOSKINS. It was not based on an economic analysis. It was 

based on the cost to repair the pipeline. 

Dr. FLEMING. So the answer is no. That is all I want to establish. 

Yes or no, was there an economic analysis done? You are telling me 

that it was not done. 

Mr. HOSKINS. No, there was an economic analysis insofar as we 

looked at the cost of repairs and our capacity to pay for it, but it 

did not look——

Dr. FLEMING. No, no. What I mean by that is an economic analysis of the impact on the community, not the pipeline. 

Mr. HOSKINS. The answer is no. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. That was what I was looking for. 

Does that mean that the Service will not consider the economic 

impacts to a State or local community before terminating any of 

the 47 propagation programs that raise native and non-native fish 

for recreational purposes? 

Mr. HOSKINS. The report, as you know, established five priorities 

based on the broader mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the need for the hatchery system to meet today’s conservation challenges. It did not expressly look at economic impacts of those 

changes on local communities. 

Dr. FLEMING. So basically the Service does not care what the economic impact is to the communities. 

Mr. HOSKINS. No, I did not say that. I said that the development 

of the priorities. 

Dr. FLEMING. So it is very low priority then or no priority, I 

guess. You said there is a group of priorities, and it is not in that 

group of priorities. To me the only way I can interpret that is that 

the Service either does not care or hardly cares what the impact 

is on the communities. 

Mr. HOSKINS. The Service is operating a hatchery system at the 

time that the report was written for which it did not have adequate 

funding, and because of that we were forced to take a look at the 

system, establish priorities, and begin to assess how we would 

bring the function and expenses in line with available funding. 

That meant that we needed to set priorities and look to implement those priorities across the system. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I mean, let us face it. Adequate funding is 

subject to perception. Obviously, there is no way Congress could 

ever give you unlimited funding. So whatever defined funding you 

have, and by the way, as I understand it, Congress has actually 

funded at higher levels than requested by the Administration in 

past years. So I think we are doing more than our share of work 

to make sure funding is there. 

So the question it comes down to is priority, and from what you 

are telling me I think you said five priorities, a list of five? 

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes. 

Dr. FLEMING. And is economic impact on the community, is that 

among that list of five priorities? 

Mr. HOSKINS. No. The priorities are focused on, in order, threatened and endangered species, restoration of imperiled species, trust 

28

and tribal responsibilities, production of native fish and production 

of non-native fish. 

Within those latter two categories we did place an emphasis on 

mitigation production to the extent that we also receive reimbursement from our partners, like the Corps and TVA, and as I mentioned in my testimony, we made great strides in receiving the 

funding that we need to produce those mitigation——

Dr. FLEMING. OK, OK. But, again, back to priorities, I mean, just 

to kind of end this question, I think we would have to both agree 

that impact, economic impact, on the community is at best a low 

priority. 

Number six here, I find that a remarkable answer in light of the 

fact that the Service frequently brags that National Wildlife Refuges are economic engines for local communities. In the case of the 

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery, and I suspect many other 

hatcheries, that is exactly true. They are economic engines. 

Yet unlike a refuge, a hatchery does seem to matter. Please explain this obvious disconnect in refuges versus hatcheries. 

Mr. HOSKINS. We are cognizant of the beneficial economic impact 

that production of fish generates for the community and in terms 

of recreational fishing. We are in the process right now of reaching 

out to our stakeholders, including the States, the tribes, local Federal agency representatives and nonprofit organizations to get 

input on the report, including the priorities in the report. We are 

going to take a look at where we go from here based on the input 

that we receive and the funding that we have not only this year 

but in future years. 

Dr. FLEMING. All right. What about Mojave County, Arizona? Did 

you reach out to them, their community, before shutting down the 

hatchery? 

Mr. HOSKINS. Did we reach out to Mojave County before shutting 

down the hatchery? 

Dr. FLEMING. Did you let them know? Did you contact them in 

any way and let them know what was coming? 

Mr. HOSKINS. We have not shut down the hatchery. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. You terminated the Rainbow Trout Program. 

Mr. HOSKINS. Because of a broken pipeline that did not provide 

us with the water that we needed to sustain the propagation of the 

trout. 

Dr. FLEMING. But did you tell them ahead of time is what I am 

asking. 

Mr. HOSKINS. No, I do not think we did tell them ahead of time. 

Dr. FLEMING. Apparently they found out in the newspaper. 

Mr. HOSKINS. The pipeline broke, and we do not have the funds 

to repair it. The hatchery continues to function and is producing 

other species under other propagation programs. 

I met with a representative from the county only yesterday to 

discuss where we were, and I have a follow-up meeting with an engineer from their county next week in Denver along with a representative from the State Fish and Wildlife Agency. We are interested in working with them to see whether we can fix the pipeline, 

but at this point we do not have the funds in the deferred maintenance account to cover it. 

29

Dr. FLEMING. OK. My time is up. I yield to Mr. Sablan for 10 

minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I go into some of my prepared questions, Mr. Hoskins, we 

have 72 Federal hatcheries. How many hatcheries throughout the 

country, Federal, State, tribal and so forth, do we have? 

Mr. HOSKINS. I do not know the number of State hatcheries. Perhaps Mr. Carter could answer that question better than I can, but 

your numbers on the Federal side are correct. 

Mr. SABLAN. Let me go through my questions first. Mr. Carter, 

good morning, sir. 

Mr. Roe and Mr. Collins earlier testified and cited a positive economic impact of Federal fish hatcheries. Do you agree with them, 

with my Republican colleagues that this kind of direct spending by 

the Federal Government can benefit businesses and the economy? 

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. There are several examples on both the 

State hatchery side and the Federal hatchery side that lends that 

credibility. 

Mr. SABLAN. And so while we have you here, we had a hearing 

last week, and I would like to ask you a question about a bill that 

was the subject of that hearing. It is H.R. 3105, the Aquaculture 

Risk Reduction Act. While the bill purportedly reduces some 

undemonstrated risk to the aquaculture industry, it seems to pose 

a very real risk to the States’ ability to protect themselves from 

invasive and injurious species. 

Does AFWA agree that H.R. 3105 would undermine the States’ 

prevention and enforcement efforts with respect to this species? 

Mr. CARTER. The Association has had some remarks and some 

conversations that dealt with the possibility of States’ authority if 

the bill were to go forward. We totally recognize the problems that 

exist in interstate commerce, especially where species are going 

across State lines, and even more so where there is a danger of 

some type of invasive species which all the States are battling in 

one way or another. 

So we recognize both sides of the issue and would like to have 

some ongoing dialog about ways that we could strengthen what the 

intent of the bill is. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. And you also noted, Mr. Carter, in your 

testimony that the Federal hatchery system has long been at minimum staffing and size necessary to fulfill service responsibilities, 

including support of recreational fishing, and that in some States 

any additional losses would be devastating. 

What level of funding do you think is necessary to support a fully 

functioning hatchery system? 

Mr. CARTER. I do not have an exact amount of money, and it 

would differ with each hatchery as to what their specific function 

would be. The ones that I am most familiar with in Tennessee, 

Dale Hallow and Erwin, both could operate at the level that they 

are currently operating if fully funded at the level that they are expecting from their partners or from other appropriations through 

the Congress. 

So I think with the amount that is there now, they could function. Obviously the part that would need some help is in the mainVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
30

tenance. Some of the facilities go back for many years, even some 

back to the CCC days. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right, and we have established that we have 72 

Federal hatcheries, Mr. Carter. Do you know the number, the additional number we have in terms of State, tribal and other hatcheries throughout the country besides the 72? 

Mr. CARTER. This is an estimate on my behalf. I cannot have an 

exact number, but I understand it is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 100, not necessarily equally distributed by each 

State. 

Mr. SABLAN. So 100 plus the 72, say, 200 hatcheries throughout 

the country? 

Mr. CARTER. I would say that is close. 

Mr. SABLAN. All right. And does anyone have any idea how much 

money is spent in all of these operations combined, Federal, State, 

tribal? Anybody have any idea? 

TVA also apparently spends money on these things, I understand. 

Before I go back to Mr. Hoskins, Ms. Parks, we have heard testimony numerous times before in this Committee that aquatic 

invasive species, including diseases, pose an enormous threat to 

fresh water ecosystems and fisheries. Can you please discuss the 

Corps’ experience with invasive species? 

Ms. PARKS. The Corps does have an invasive species program, 

but I do not have any specifics here with me today, but I can surely 

get that to you if you need it. 

Mr. SABLAN. Would you please provide the Committee with that? 

Ms. PARKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Back to Mr. Hoskins, Mr. Hoskins, do invasive species undermine the work being done by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 

hatchery system and elsewhere? 

Mr. HOSKINS. Yes, they do. Of course, the goal with respect to 

our top priorities are to recover threatened and endangered species 

and to restore species that are imperiled before they need to be listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

And in part, we depend on our propagation programs at our 70 

propagation hatcheries to help us with that, but we are also trying 

to combat the introduction and establishment of invasive species 

and work with our partners to improve habitat for fish and other 

aquatic organisms. 

Some examples of invasive species that can have impacts on populations of aquatic species that are being recovered through our 

propagation work include sea lamprey in the Great Lakes; that effect Service reared lake trout and landlocked Atlantic salmon; 

whirling disease caused by a parasite that can have impacts on 

hatchery-reared trout species; and of course, quagga and zebra 

mussels that can impact not only native mussels, but clog our systems, our water treatment systems that we rely on to operate our 

fish hatcheries, like Willow Beach in Arizona. 

Mr. SABLAN. Let me ask you. There is a shortfall, about a gap 

of shall we say $2 billion. The President’s budget includes the $2.1 

billion to close the short gap. If that was to be approved by ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
31

gress, you would not close any fisheries in fiscal year 2015, would 

you? 

Mr. HOSKINS. As you noted, the President’s budget asks for $48.6 

million for hatchery operations, but it also, I think, is reflected in 

the request, We believe that still may require us to assess individual propagation programs in line with the report and the input 

that we receive from our stakeholders, and we may move forward 

with making adjustments in individual propagation programs 

across our hatchery system even at that higher funding level. 

Mr. SABLAN. This is getting difficult, but you are going to have 

enough money to fix that pipe, Mr. Hoskins, will you not? 

Mr. HOSKINS. The funding as I understand it to fix the pipe 

would need to come from either the construction account or the deferred maintenance account, and the numbers that we have been 

discussing so far this morning are focusing on the operations account for the day-to-day operations of our hatchery, and so it is a 

separate question. 

Mr. SABLAN. Well, thank you very much. 

I yield my time back. Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. 

Mr. HOSKINS. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. The gentleman yields back. 

And I have a few more questions. Why do we not go back to 5 

minutes and we can pick up if Mr. Sablan wants to ask some more 

as well. Now I yield myself 5 minutes. 

Mr. Carter, I appreciate the role of State hatcheries. However, 

are we talking about a Federal statutory responsibility under the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, that they are trying to terminate? 

Mr. CARTER. That is a question that we have actually been looking at ourselves to try to determine what those statutory responsibilities are and whether or not they actually can be abdicated in 

some other way. 

We believe that some clarifying legislation or some kind of clarifying opinion would help greatly in knowing what role Fish and 

Wildlife Service can utilize as they go forward in their decisions to 

change their hatchery operations or in some cases to close or severely curtail their operations. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Parks, what is the total number of national fish hatcheries 

that has an Army Corps of Engineers presence? 

Ms. PARKS. Well, dam-wise, at the dams we have got about 37 

dams that are served by 17 fish hatcheries that are part of the 

combined program I spoke about. Out in the Pacific Northwest, we 

have four dams out there that are covered by—oh, that is right—

eight dams and four fish hatcheries. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you. 

Could the Corps of Engineers simply walk away from its mitigation responsibilities? 

Ms. PARKS. Not that I know of, sir, no. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Am I reading your testimony correctly that as 

a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, the Corps 

of Engineers has now met its 100 percent mitigation responsibility 

for the current fiscal year? 

32

Ms. PARKS. Yes, sir. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Well, that all the questions I have. I will be 

happy to yield to the gentleman. 

He says he has no further questions. If not, I would like to thank 

you for your valuable testimony today, panel. Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we 

ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be 

open for ten days to receive these responses. 

Before closing, I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the 

hearing record statements by the Chairman and District 3 Supervisor of the Mojave County Board of Supervisors on the sudden and 

unjustified end of the Rainbow Trout Program at the Willow Beach 

National Fish Hatchery and its devastating impact on their county. 

[Letters submitted for the record by Dr. Fleming from the Mojave 

County Board of Supervisors follow:]

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM THE MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS

P.O. BOX 7000, 

700 WEST BEALE STREET, 

KINGMAN, ARIZONA, FEBRUARY 27, 2014. 

The Honorable JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN FLEMING:

On behalf of Mohave County, Arizona, I wish to sincerely thank the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs for 

allowing us to voice and commit to record, in writing, Mohave County’s most vehement objection to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s unilateral decision to terminate production of rainbow trout at the Willow Beach National Mitigation Fish 

Hatchery. In voicing our objection, Mohave County wishes to bring to this Committee’s attention the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s efforts to disingenuously refuse 

to recognize the Willow Beach Hatchery as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery’’ and to put forth 

other false, misleading or misrepresented information to further justify the trout 

hatchery’s closure. Lastly, Mohave County wishes this Committee to take into consideration the severe economic impact the closing of the Willow Beach trout hatchery will have on the State of Arizona, Mohave County and to our river communities 

who have built a substantial amount of their economies around sports fishing and 

related recreational activities along the Colorado River. 

In a letter to The Honorable United States Senator John McCain dated February 

14, 2014, David Hoskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Assistant Director, stated 

the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery was established as a ‘‘non-mitigation 

hatchery’’. On that same date, during a public Board of Supervisor’s meeting, Stewart Jacks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Assistant Regional Director, also referred 

to the Willow Beach as a ‘‘non-mitigation hatchery.’’ Mohave County believes these 

statements represent a concerted effort to rewrite history to avoid the Service’s mitigation obligations to our river communities and to the State of Arizona. 

The Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery was established as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery’’ to produce a fishery in the cold water habitat created by the construction of 

Hoover Dam. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated April 

24, 1959, established the fish-cultural station for the propagation of trout in the Willow Beach section of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area of Mohave County, 

Arizona. This mitigation measure was undertaken to contribute to the overall economic development of the area and increase the recreational opportunities in the region, Authority was provided by Public Land Order No. 1941 of August 12, 1959. 

In addition to the 1959 Memorandum of Understanding, a non-exhaustive search of 

33

1Such as their January 2006, report on the Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production 

by the National Fish Hatchery System. 2 And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Station Profiles of Willow Beach National Fish 

Hatchery. 3Such as H.R. 4383, ‘‘To ensure the continuation of successful fish mitigation programs’’ in 

the House of Representatives May 18, 2014. 4To the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives on 

National Fish Hatcheries. 5 Net Worth, The Economic Value of Fisheries Conservation, Fall 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service profiles and reports found documents,1 2 which identified the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery.’’ Additionally, we found Congressional Bills 3 which specifically identified the Willow Beach 

National Fish Hatchery as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery,’’ Possibly the most interesting 

find was from the U.S. General Accounting Office, June 2000 report,4 which also 

specifically identified the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery in Arizona as a 

‘‘mitigation hatchery.’’ Not all that surprisingly, there does appear to have been 

modifications of 2013 and later U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service information to remove 

the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery ‘‘mitigation’’ designation from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Web site, reports and maps. 

Regarding the cost estimates to make the trout hatchery operational, when first 

approached by Mohave County, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported those 

costs to be $2.5 million. It should be noted; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had 

knowledge of the damage to the one inlet pipe at least in 2010 and possibly earlier. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service actually had plans to repair the pipe in 2011. 

The engineering plans for the repair of the inlet system are dated 2012. In the letter 

referenced earlier to Senator McCain, the $2.5 million figure grew to between $3 

and $9 million. Contrary to Mr. Jacks’ presentation to the Board, another U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Member confirmed the project was not competitively bid on the 

open market and no formal solicitation was issued. Instead three proposals were obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts. These proposals came in between $1.37 and $2.44 million, however 

were not evaluated due to the existing repair budget being $400,000. 

In reviewing the plans and proposals, our engineer believes the 2012 plans to not be relevant today, containing large price tag bid items such as a $314,000 line item 

from one of the venders for supplying water to the currently nonexistent trout 

hatchery. Additionally, it did not appear that less expensive engineering solutions 

were even considered. Instead, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service utilized high repair estimates and claims of low water levels starving the inlet pipe causing the 

trout kill as an excuse to discontinue their trout stocking program. The low water 

levels were actually artificially created for the purpose of allowing the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to harvest bony tail chubs and/or razorback suckers from the backwaters of Lake Mohave. Coupled with the $25 million investment by the National 

Park Service in 2011 to improve the recreational facilities at Willow Beach in support of sports fishing and other related recreational activities, without consideration 

for insuring the fishery was preserved, and in light of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service having knowledge of the damage to the Hatchery’s inlet system in 2010, this 

makes absolutely no sense. 

Finally, why would the Federal Government discontinue an operation which has 

been in existence for over 52 years and is such a large and important economic driver? According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s 2001 Study, direct economic impacts of fishing expenditures in Mohave County total $74.5 million annually, support 1,682 full-time and part-time jobs, and creates $3.9 million dollars in 

Arizona Tax Revenue, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s own 2011 study 5 stated, 

for every $1 of rainbow trout budget expenditures, $32.20 of retail sales and $28 

of net economic returns. The study goes on to highlight $3.6 billion to the U.S. economy by the Fisheries Program which if it were a private company would rank 

No. 41 on the Fortune 500 of America’s Most Profitable Corporations. 

In closing, Mohave County and our Communities respectfully request your consideration to acknowledge and direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recognize 

the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery.’’ We ask that 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be funded and directed to make the Willow Beach 

National Fish Hatchery functional for the propagation of rainbow trout to fulfill its 

intended purpose as a ‘‘mitigation hatchery’’ to contribute to the overall economic 

development of the area and increase the recreational opportunities in the region. 

We further request the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be directed to immediately 

purchase and begin stocking rainbow trout along the Colorado River. It is our understanding funding is currently available through $46.528 million already approved 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act Omnibus spending bill and the Energy and 

34

Water Development Appropriations Act of 2014 which includes $4.7 million appropriated to the Corp of Engineers to reimburse the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to continue to operate ‘‘mitigation hatcheries.’’

Respectfully submitted, 

HILDY ANGIUS, CHAIRMAN, 

Board of Supervisors. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM BUSTER D. JOHNSON, SUPERVISOR

DISTRICT 3, MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

2001 COLLEGE DRIVE, SUITE 90, 

LAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ, 86403, 

FEBRUARY 25, 2014. 

HONORABLE CHAIRMAN FLEMING AND MEMBERS, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. 

I am Buster Johnson, Mohave County Supervisor, District 3 and I would like to 

comment for the record regarding the hatcheries across the U.S. discontinuing the 

raising of sport fishes. The hatchery programs have brought in billions of dollars 

in revenue for the sport fishing industry all across the U.S. 

I would like to comment on a particular hatchery in Mohave County. Since 1962, 

Willow Beach Hatchery has been raising rainbow trout to stock lakes and rivers in 

Arizona. As a matter of fact, raising rainbow trout was the reason the hatchery was 

built. 

Based on the investment of taxpayer dollars, a vital eco-system was created all 

along the Colorado River by providing stripper bass with a food source so that other 

species of fishes, including endangered species, could survive their ravenous appetite. 

The investment also created a huge economic driver in that sport fishing and the 

supporting industries grew strong along the river. These industries created many 

jobs in Arizona, Nevada and California. It is estimated that this industry contributes $74 million to the economies of those States. In my community of 50,000, there 

are 30 bass tournaments scheduled for this year alone. That is income that cannot 

be replaced without the Willow Beach Hatchery’s rainbow trout program. 

Willow Beach Hatchery was never intended to be a mitigation hatchery; however, 

they were raising bony-tail chub and razorback suckers alongside the rainbow trout. 

I see no reason why both programs can survive at that hatchery. Why would the 

USFWS invest $1.9 million in unnecessary upgrades and not maintain the very apparatus that is needed to keep the fish (all fish) alive? The sport fishing industry 

not only adds to the economy of our community but it also strengthens the recovery 

of endangered species. 

I respectfully request that the raising of rainbow trout be brought back to Willow 

Beach Hatchery and all necessary repairs be made in order to keep all the fish 

healthy. 

Dr. FLEMING. I would also like to enter into the record a letter 

by the Senate Western Caucus to Director Ashe about the cost of 

environmental regulations to the hatchery system. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Dr. Fleming from the Senate Western Caucus follows:]

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE SENATE WESTERN CAUCUS

Congress of the United States 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

FEBRUARY 24, 2014

The Honorable SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

1849 C Street, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL:

35

We are writing to express serious concerns with the proposed direction of the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS). In November, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a report titled ‘‘2013 Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report’’ that outlines the end of over 100 years of sport fish stocking operations 

across the Nation. 

As you know, angling has been a part of the NFHS mission since its inception, 

and today it plays a significant role in rural and tribal economies. Around the country, the NFHS supports roughly 68,000 jobs and has an annual economic impact of 

$3.6 billion. For every tax dollar invested in the NFHS, there is a return of $28 to 

our national economy—largely thanks to sport fishing. 

Unfortunately, the USFWS proposed to overturn this record of success by essentially eliminating sport fish stocking and instead focusing almost entirely on stocking endangered species. Over the past few months, our respective States have experienced the initial impact of this mission shift, and the results are not benefiting 

the NFHS or the American people. 

In Arizona and Nevada, the USFWS recently announced a decision to end a 50-

year trout stocking program at Willow Beach NFH within Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area. According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the loss of 

rainbow trout and striped bass could remove $7.7–$11.9 million from the area’s 

economy. 

Likewise, in New Mexico, wildlife officials were abruptly notified that Hotchkiss 

NFH would reduce its trout stocking by 25,000 in the Navajo Reservoir, the second 

most heavily fished body of water in the State. It is expected that other important 

sport fish populations will decline as a result of this decision. This will ruin angler 

satisfaction, harm economic activity, and reduce the area’s biological quality. Similarly, several tribal governments around the country have been notified that 

USFWS may soon downgrade its trust responsibility to deliver sports fish at certain 

tribal recreational lakes and rivers. 

We appreciate the difficult choices Federal agencies must make given the current 

budget climate. However, the NHFS’s mission to help ensure sufficient fish stocks 

for sport fishing purposes is important to the Nation’s economy and is vital to sustaining jobs in areas throughout the country. In support of that mission, NHFS’s 

budget has remained steady since FY 2012 at $46.1 million for operations and $17.9 

million for maintenance with only 10 percent allocated for non-native sport fish 

propagation. The drastic mission shift away from trout stocking and sport fish production to one that focuses solely on native fish production betrays the historical 

success of the NFHS in maintaining an important aspect of our economy. 

Against this backdrop, we urge you to (1) reevaluate how you propose to realign 

this important mission to help ensure that the negative economic impacts of the proposed alignment are mitigated as effectively as possible; (2) explain how you intend 

to consult and coordinate with State and tribal wildlife agencies and affected communities to ensure that the NFHS’ sport fishing mission can be furthered by State 

and local partners wherever possible; (3) define specific targets that meet the angling public’s needs for recreational fishing in a way that is mindful of its economic 

impact to State and local economies; and (4) explain how you intend to better utilize 

the resources provided to you by Congress to help ensure that the NFHS’ sport fishing efforts are executed as comparably as possible to its focus on endangered species 

production. 

We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

Senator John McCain. Congressman Paul A. Gosar. 

Senator Dean Heller. Congressman Joseph J. Heck. 

Congressman Trent Franks. Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n. 

Congressman Ann Kirkpatrick. 

Dr. FLEMING. After hearing the testimony of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I am perplexed by several of the statements. While it 

is good to hear that the Service’s planning report is ‘‘not a decision 

document,’’ this stands in stark contrast to a memo distributed on 

September 25th, 2013, by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in which he tells his Regional Directors that there must be 

‘‘hard decisions to close lower priority facilities.’’

36

In short, the Service is preparing to abdicate its statutorily mandated responsibilities. Furthermore, that the ‘‘Service has made 

great progress toward full reimbursement,’’ but that ‘‘funding is 

still not sufficient to fully cover our operational costs for all of our 

propagation programs at current levels.’’

Congress is constantly fielding requests from Federal agencies 

with an insatiable appetite for more funding. In this case it is not 

insufficient funding but the wrong priorities that is leading the 

Service to abandon its statutorily mandated mission. I hope the 

testimony from other Members and questions raised in this hearing 

will cause the Service to reconsider its priorities going forward. 

I want to thank Members and staff for their contributions to this 

hearing. If there is no further business, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional Matieral Submitted for the Record]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recognize the important economic benefits of Federal Fish Hatcheries for communities throughout the Nation. By the Fish and Wildlife Service’s own estimates, the National Fish Hatchery System returns $28 to the 

economy for every dollar spent. That’s an excellent return on our investment and 

while the USFWS is looking at closing hatcheries throughout the Nation, there is 

plenty of taxpayer dollars being wasted elsewhere in our Federal budget that we 

can reprioritize to fund these important economic engines.The fact that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service does not recognize and consider these economic impact is shortsighted and misguided. 

Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to 

discontinue the Rainbow Trout Stocking Program at Willow Beach. 

For over 50 years, the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery has successfully 

raised and planted Rainbow Trout in the lower Colorado River. 

The arbitrary decision to discontinue this important program will have significant 

consequences for local communities along the river as well as sportsmen and anglers 

throughout the Nation. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has estimated that $7.5–$12 million flow 

into the Willow Beach region annually as a result of the economic activity associated 

with rainbow trout and striped bass anglers. A report done by Arizona State University found that more than a quarter million fisherman visit Arizona each year and 

spend more than $800 million on sporting goods and other tourism expenses. 

Terminating the annual production of 150,000 rainbow trout at that the Willow 

Beach Hatchery will stifle Arizona’s multi-million dollar fishing industry as well as 

cause considerable harm to small businesses, local governments and our citizens 

who depend on the financial benefits associated with sports fishing. 

The Wallow Beach Hatchery will not be closing with the termination of the trout 

stocking program, even though the sole reason the hatchery was created in the first 

place was to produce rainbow trout for the sport fishing community. 

Rather than raising and planting rainbow trout that drive tourism and yield economic growth, the Fish and Wildlife service has instructed the hatchery to focus on 

producing suckers and other fish that don’t attract anglers or benefit our economy. 

I commend Chairman Fleming for recognizing the danger of this short-sighted decision and continuing to spread awareness through this important hearing. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Question. What were the original reasons that the National Fish Hatchery System 

was established in 1871? 

Answer. The United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries (more commonly 

known as the U.S. Fish Commission) was authorized by a joint Congressional resolution on February 9, 1871. President Ulysses S Grant then established the U.S. 

37

Fish Commission and appointed Spencer Fullerton Baird as the first Commissioner. 

The U.S. Fish Commission was established to investigate the causes of declines in 

stocks of commercial fish in U.S. coastal and inland waters, to provide recommendations to Congress and the States for reversing these declines, and to oversee implementation of restoration actions. This includes the propagation efforts of the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS). Numerous laws enacted over the years have 

directed the Service to use the NFHS to carry out actions such as providing food 

fish, farm pond stocking, mitigation, and restoration and recovery of imperiled species. 

Question. Isn’t it true that one of the fundamental goals of the hatchery system 

was to compensate or mitigate for the loss of fish and recreational opportunities because of Federal water projects? 

Answer. One of the fundamental responsibilities of the NFHS over the years has 

been to seek and provide for mitigation of fishery resources that were impaired due 

to Federal water-related development. Mitigation for Federal water projects is still 

an important goal of the NFHS, but not at the expense of higher priorities such as 

the restoration or recovery of threatened and endangered species, or fulfilling tribal 

trust responsibilities. With full reimbursement, the NFHS will continue its mitigation programs. 

Question. Since the vast majority of the Federal water projects are still in place, 

how has the statutory responsibility for this mitigation been removed? 

Answer. Over the past 40 years, our many partners, Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of the Interior (DOI), have directed the Service to secure mitigation reimbursement from the entities responsible 

for the respective water development project. Over the past decade, Congress, OMB, 

DOI, and our partners have asked the Service to intensify our efforts to obtain reimbursement for fish mitigation production from these agencies. The Service is making 

every effort to comply with that direction and to shift the funding for this mitigation 

work to the responsible party. We understand that the fish supplied by our hatcheries provide important economic opportunities to the States and the recreational 

community in general, and we support the continuation of mitigation work on a reimbursable basis. 

Question. When did the primary focus of the hatchery system change from stocking and mitigation of Federal water projects to the recovery and restoration of federally listed species? 

Answer. Since the inception of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, there has 

been an increasing need to attempt to prevent the loss of native species through 

captive rearing and subsequent stocking, as identified in approved recovery and restoration plans. Although Congress provided the Service with $46,528,000 to operate the NFHS 

in the recently enacted FY 2014 Omnibus, a significant increase compared to FY 

2013, funding is still not sufficient to continue all existing propagation programs at 

current levels. The Service is using the National Fish Hatchery System Strategic 

Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report (Report) to engage stakeholders (Congress, 

State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and other partners) to discuss the Report 

and its findings, as well as our budget challenges. We’re seeking input on how we 

should operate the NFHS more efficiently and within available resources into the 

future. Working together, we would like to chart a course forward for the NFHS 

that is financially sustainable, addresses today’s most pressing conservation challenges, and, in collaboration with our partners and stakeholders, continues to serve 

the public interest. 

Question. Of the 140 million fish that are propagated by the hatchery system each 

year, how many are used for the recovery and restoration of a federally listed species? 

Answer. In 2013, nearly 80 million eggs were transferred to Federal, State, and 

tribal hatcheries by the NFHS, and approximately 128 million fish were released 

into the wild. Of those fish released, 13.3 million were classified as threatened or 

endangered. 

Question. At the Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery in Maine, how many Atlantic salmon, which is a listed species, are propagated and released each year? What 

is the cost of this program? 

Answer. Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is entirely focused on recovery and preventing extinction of Atlantic salmon. As part of the recovery program 

for the Penobscot River, Craig Brook NFH receives sea-run adult Atlantic salmon 

trapped from the Penobscot River for use as broodstock. These adults are spawned 

in the fall of every year and produce approximately 3 million eggs. Eggs are then 

transferred to Green Lake National Fish Hatchery for Penobscot River smolt production. The rest of the eggs are raised at Craig Brook NFH and released as fry. 

38

In addition, Craig Brook NFH supports the recovery of six Atlantic salmon populations within the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) that were listed 

as an endangered species in 2000. Juvenile Atlantic salmon are captured from the 

Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Narraguagus, Pleasant, and Sheepscot rivers annually and brought to Craig Brook NFH for captive rearing. These juveniles are reared 

at Craig Brook NFH to sexual maturity and spawned to produce fry that are 

stocked back into the same river where the parents were captured. 

An important component of both programs at Craig Brook NFH is the genetic 

screening of broodstock. All broodstock, both Penobscot sea-run adults and DPS juveniles, are genetically characterized through DNA analysis to ensure that no undesirable genes are inadvertently introduced into the broodstock population. Total cost for the Craig Brook NFH program is $958,607, which includes operations and salaries for Craig Brook NFH and the genetic and fish health costs associated with running the program. That does not include cost for smolt production 

at Green Lake NFH. 

Question. How many of these fish are counted toward the recovery goals of this 

species? How many survive to adulthood after their release? 

Answer. Attached is a summary of all adult returns from 1970 until 2013 and it 

includes a breakdown of natural reared and hatchery origin fish. 

The recovery goals are still being developed and a revised Atlantic salmon recovery plan is expected to be released soon for the entire DPS. 

Question. During the past 5 years, why has the Obama Administration requested 

less money for the operation and maintenance of the hatchery system? 

Answer. At the direction of Congress and several Administrations, the Service has 

asked that responsible Federal agencies fund their share of the expenses of mitigation hatcheries. The Service has been successful in engaging these agencies. In the 

face of declining budgets, the Service reduced the amount requested for hatcheries, 

relying on the reimbursements as offsets. For FY 2015, the Administration has requested $48,617,000 for National Fish Hatchery Operations, approximately $2 million more than Congress appropriated in FY 2014. 

Question. Since the Congress has appropriated more money than the Obama Administration requested for the operation, maintenance and equipment of the hatchery system over the past 5 years, why is it not fair to conclude that the Congress 

places a higher priority on the system, than the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Answer. The Service appreciates the support for the National Fish Hatchery System provided by Congress. In requesting funding to operate the National Fish 

Hatchery System, the Service is complying with Congressional direction to seek reimbursement for fish production operations to mitigate for the impacts associated 

with Federal water development projects. Over the past several years, the Service 

has successfully negotiated reimbursement or developed agreements with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and others, to help cover 

the costs associated with mitigation fish production. The Service has also conducted 

a review of our 70 propagation hatcheries and is using that report as a basis for 

discussions with stakeholders on how best to operate the system in a more sustainable manner while supporting the highest priority fish and aquatic conservation programs. Implementation of the report will be phased and carried out in consultation 

with Congress, States, tribes, and other partners. 

Question. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Workforce Planning Report, 

there are 291 propagation programs within the hatchery system. Of these, 171 are 

for ESA recovery and restoration efforts, 56 are for tribal interests, and 70 are for 

native and non-native fish mitigation. By my count, the last category represents less 

than 25 percent of the programs and less than 10 percent of the money being spent. 

Are my figures correct? 

Answer. When the team was evaluating each and every propagation program individually, they classified propagation programs that covered more than one category 

into the highest priority category. For example, if a propagation program is both 

restoration and mitigation, it is classified as restoration. Based on our counts, there 

are 30 propagation programs that are classified as native and non-native mitigation. 

Fewer than 25 percent of the propagation programs fall into the native and nonnative species categories, and approximately 10 percent of the FY 2012 hatchery operations and annual maintenance funding supported native and non-native species 

programs. 

Question. Why would a 5 percent increase in funding for the operation and maintenance of the hatchery system result in the termination of programs and personnel 

in your Southeast Region? 

Answer. The National Fish Hatchery System: Strategic Hatchery and Workforce 

Planning Report (Report) is not a decision document. It offers management options 

and recommendations under different funding scenarios. As stated in the Report 

39

under the 5 percent increase scenario, ‘‘The Review Team chose to allocate the additional funding to the regions based on existing allocation formulas, such that each 

region with propagation facilities received a portion of the funding.’’ The Southeast 

Region was already struggling with a $2.1 million shortfall in FY 2012 when the 

Report was developed. If a 5 percent increase was distributed based on existing allocation formulas, the Southeast Region would still be facing a deficit under that scenario in FY 2012. 

Question. What is the average per unit cost to operate a national fish hatchery? 

Answer. As shown in Appendix B of the Report, hatcheries vary greatly in size, 

staffing levels and complexity. The average cost by category is as follows:

• $3,561,303 for a large multi-station complex • $906,271 for a complex of at least 2 facilities • $848,500 for a large stand alone hatchery • $532,182 for a small stand alone hatchery

The report can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2013/pdf/

NFHSReviewCoverPageandReport.pdf. 

The appendices can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2013/pdf/

NFHSReportAppendices.pdf. 

Question. What is the current operations backlog within the National Fish Hatchery System? 

Answer. To answer this question, the Service queried unfunded projects that were 

entered into our Fisheries Operational Needs database between 2008 and 2012. On 

this basis alone, we identified 135 outstanding projects totaling $14.5 million at our 

National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers and Fish Health Centers. 

Question. What is the current maintenance backlog within the National Fish 

Hatchery System? 

Answer. Our deferred maintenance backlog numbers are calculated at the end of 

every fiscal year (FY). At the end of FY 2013, the National Fish Hatchery System 

(NFHS) had 4,602 assets valued at $2,328,078,720. The Deferred Maintenance backlog for the NFHS totaled $167,364,849. 

Question. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton Administration decided it wanted to get 

out of the hatchery business and the Fish and Wildlife Service supported legislative 

efforts to transfer, at no cost, a number of Federal fish hatcheries to various States 

and local governmental entities. Would the Service support the transfer of some, or 

all, of the so-called mitigation hatcheries to the various states? 

Answer. The Service has not entered into discussions regarding hatchery transfers. However, if a State were to contact us, we may be willing to discuss a transfer 

depending on the hatchery. 

Question. How much of the work being performed within the Federal fish hatchery system is the result of unpaid volunteers? How many hours are being volunteered, how many individuals volunteer their time in 2013 and what is the financial 

value of their efforts? 

Answer. Whether they want to give back to communities, want to be good stewards of the land, set examples for future generations, or want to share their wealth 

of knowledge, volunteers are critical to the operation of national fish hatcheries 

across the country. In FY 2013, National Fish Hatchery System facilities recorded 

98,265 hours by adult volunteers valued at $2,215,876. The National Fish Hatchery 

System also recorded 12,618 hours by youth volunteers. 

Question. When will the Service make a decision on the future of its National 

Broodstock Program? What is the annual cost of keeping this program? 

Answer. The Service has deferred a decision on the National Broodstock Program 

until we can conduct a similar analysis of all egg requests made of our broodstock 

facilities. We have not established a timeframe for our decision. The total amount 

of Service funding that was spent at Ennis, Erwin, and White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatcheries specifically for the National Broodstock Program in FY 2012 

was $928,577. Reimbursement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in FY 2012 

for the three hatcheries totaled $548,841. These costs do not include associated fish 

health costs. 

Question. Is it fair to say that the Service does not intend to terminate the 

broodstock programs at the Ennis, Erwin and White Sulphur Springs National Fish 

Hatcheries which are producing millions of rainbow trout fish eggs which the Service indicates can no longer be obtained from the wild? What is the cost of these 

three programs? What is the value of this work? 

Answer. The Service does not intend to terminate broodstock programs at Ennis, 

Erwin and White Sulphur Springs National Fish Hatcheries in the near-term. We 

have deferred a decision on the National Broodstock Program until we can conduct 

a similar analysis of all egg requests made of our broodstock facilities. The total 

40

amount of Service funding that was spent at the three hatcheries specifically for the 

National Broodstock Program in FY 2012 was $928,577. Reimbursement from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in FY 2012 for the three hatcheries totaled $548,841. 

These costs do not include associated fish health costs. 

Question. Why did the Fish and Wildlife Service terminate the rainbow trout production program at the Willow Beach National Fish Hatchery in Arizona? Hasn’t 

this hatchery been propagating and releasing these fish for over 50 years? 

Answer. The Service terminated trout production at Willow Beach NFH in fall 

2013 due to a failure in the water supply line. The river intake system for trout 

production at Willow Beach NFH is a dual pipeline combination, and has been compromised by structural and biofouling issues. Half of its flow capacity was eliminated when one pipeline collapsed. The intake to the remaining half was clogged 

with vegetation this past summer to the point where flows were stopped, resulting 

in loss of trout. The intake was dewatered this fall as water levels were drawn down 

in Lake Mohave, causing mortalities in half the hatchery raceways. Each failure of 

the intake resulted in the loss of the fish that were dependent upon the water flowing to the raceways, culminating in the last incident that killed thousands of trout. 

The remaining trout were only saved because hatchery staff worked well into the 

night to immediately release them to the river. 

Question. Why weren’t locally elected officials informed prior to the termination 

of this program? 

Answer. This was not a planned termination. Local officials were not informed in 

advance because it was an emergency and hatchery staff had to respond in an urgent manner to save as many fish as possible. 

Since the collapse of the deeper water supply line, Willow Beach NFH has had 

to rely on the shallower water line to maintain trout production. Fish were lost in 

the summer of 2013 when the remaining water line became clogged with vegetation. 

When the Lake Mohave water levels were drawn down last fall, there was no water 

available to keep the fish alive. Hatchery staff saved as many fish as they could by 

releasing them into the river. 

Question. It is my understanding that the Service has told the affected communities that they stopped rainbow trout production because of a broken hatchery pipe. 

What is the cost to replace this pipe and how long would it take to get this production back on line? 

Answer. The Service requested contractor bids in 2012 for repair of the existing 

pipeline. Even without a system to remove quagga mussels from the river water, 

contractor bids ranged from $1.37 to $2.43 million to repair the existing pipeline. 

The Service developed an engineering estimate in 2011 to construct a system to 

deliver clean water from the river in sufficient quantities to rear both the endangered species and the trout. That estimate totaled $8.46 million, with a significant 

increase in operational costs to then maintain the new delivery and treatment systems. 

The Service lacks sufficient funding in both our Construction and Hatchery Deferred Maintenance accounts to repair or replace the existing pipeline or to construct a new system. 

Question. How many other stocking programs throughout the United States have 

been terminated in the last 12 months? Please provide a complete list of those propagation programs and the reasons they are no longer producing fish. 

Answer. In Region 3, the Service discontinued two propagation programs at Neosho NFH (MO): (1) rainbow trout that were surplus to our mitigation needs; and 

(2) rearing of walleye fry obtained from the Missouri Department of Conservation, 

an in-kind exchange program that last produced fish in 2008

In Region 4, the Service discontinued several lower priority propagation programs 

at the following hatcheries: cobia at Bears Bluff NFH (SC); largemouth bass and 

bluegill at Edenton NFH (NC); smallmouth bass and walleye at Mammoth Spring 

NFH (AR); largemouth bass at Natchitoches NFH (LA); largemouth bass and 

bluegill at Orangeburg NFH (SC); and largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, 

and channel catfish at Private John Allen NFH (MS). 

41

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NW., SUITE 725, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 20001, 

MARCH 20, 2014. 

THE HONORABLE DR. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

THE HONORABLE GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, RANKING MEMBER, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515.

Re: USFWS Fish Hatchery System Report and Direction

Dear Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan:

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) is writing to alert you to 

a significant direction change in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Fish Hatchery Program and its associated programs that will have adverse 

effects on State fisheries programs and regional economies. 

Based on recent conversations and direct interactions with USFWS personnel, it 

appears that USFWS is intending to abandon fisheries programs that would benefit 

sport fishing including the production of key hatchery fish and the oversight of new 

aquaculture drugs that the USFWS, tribes, and States all depend upon in their 

hatcheries to ensure the efficient production of essential fish. We are particularly 

concerned as these decisions were made in absence of input from USFWS’ long 

standing State partners, many whom have been close partners in fish production 

since 1870 when the U.S. Fish Commission, the progenitor organization of the 

USFWS, was first established. 

With respect to the USFWS Fish Hatchery Program, the USFWS in 2013 developed a strategic hatchery and workforce planning report. The report laid out a new 

desired direction without any direct input from the any State partners who all have 

vested interests in the management and production of fish from the National Fish 

Hatchery System. The report expressly indicates that the USFWS will move away 

from producing fish that benefit of all of our Nation’s sport fisheries and will focus 

on only producing fish that are federally listed, or Federal trust species and imperiled aquatic species. This shift completely disregards the recent 2011 USFWS study 

that documents the annual economic benefit of approximately $3.6 billion to the Nation’s economic activity from Federal fish hatcheries, a cost-benefit ratio of 1:26 

which is unlikely rivaled in any Federal program. It is AFWA’s opinion that the new 

USFWS Hatchery Report and its associated budget priorities and implications do 

not reflect needs of the Nation’s aquatic resources or economy and will greatly harm 

our Nation’s fisheries. 

Another area of deep concern to our member States is a significant shift in how 

USFWS mitigation hatcheries are operated. These Federal hatcheries were built to 

offset losses to public trust resources owned by States from Federal water and other 

infrastructure projects and are vital to replacing lost fisheries values. It appears to 

our members that the USFWS has little interest in continuing to meet the Federal 

obligations for mitigation unless they are completely compensated for the costs of 

operation and maintenance by the Federal agency responsible for these damages to 

State property. While our members have always been supportive of USFWS seeking 

due compensation from Federal project owners and operators, it does not make a 

difference to our members who in the Federal Government pays for these facilities 

as long as the mitigation for our lost fisheries resources is fully compensated. 

Additionally, it has been communicated to AFWA that the USFWS Directorate 

wants to use only ‘‘native’’ fish species in any type of mitigation hatchery work. This 

position completely ignores that most of the ‘‘non-native’’ fish produced in Federal 

and State hatcheries are essential to the management of our Nation’s fisheries and 

are now naturalized species in the United States. It also assumes that our Nation’s 

fish habitat can support all native species which is frequently incorrect as much of 

the Nation’s aquatic habitats have been altered beyond the capacity of some native 

species to survive in them. Further, the States already have active long-term native 

fish management programs in place that have been developed in partnership with 

the USFWS. If the USFWS switches their aquaculture operations to focus primarily 

42

on Federal trust and imperiled species and then only native fish, it will add an unnecessary level of redundancy, require additional infrastructure improvements, cost 

billions in economic activity, and waste Federal funds. 

The USFWS also proposes reducing funding for the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership (AADAP), an associated Federal fish hatchery program and converting it to a completely user-pay system. The program is responsible for gaining 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approval of aquaculture drugs to meet 

increasing fish health needs. This small, although highly essential, program once 

had an annual budget of $1.2 million dollars but is now funded at $800,000 with 

a loss of three full time employees. The drugs that are researched through this program are essential for the production of our Nation’s sports fish as well as imperiled 

native species and have saved State and Federal hatcheries approximately 10–30 

percent of their yearly production costs, approximately $50 to $150 million annually. 

This unique partnership, administered by the USFWS AADAP staff, has State and 

tribal hatcheries pay an annual fee to use investigational new animal drugs (INAD) 

under USFDA permit, and then in turn provide essential data that allows the 

USFDA to ultimately register these drugs for use. By moving this program to strictly user-pay for the national INAD portion of the program, the program costs likely 

will exceed the State and outside funding sources available for the staffing and associated research required by USFDA, resulting in elimination of this amazing program. The USFDA has indicated if financial resources to support the INAD portion 

of the program are insufficient, they may shutter the program. The loss of this program will cost our members significantly and reduce the ability of our Nation’s 

hatcheries to support the approximately $30 billion annually that Federal, State 

and tribal hatcheries contribute to our national economy. 

Given the importance of the USFWS Hatchery System’s production of sports fish 

and national oversight of the AADAP program and the potential conversion of these 

assets to other programs, AFWA is requesting the assistance of the Chair and Ranking Member of the Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of 

the House Natural Resources Committee to: (1) Request the USFWS Directorate to 

put any of the proposed policy changes to the USFWS Hatchery and AADAP Programs in abeyance and immediately begin discussions and consultations with our 

membership on the future direction of these programs; (2) require the USFWS Directorate to meet all of their current Federal obligations for mitigation, regardless 

of whether they are successful in receiving funds from Federal project owners, with 

no concurrent reduction to other fish production; (3) stop any potential policy change 

to require USFWS hatcheries to produce only ‘‘native’’ fish; and (4) request your 

support and assistance with the appropriators to ensure, at a minimum, the base 

funding of $800,000 continues for AADAP. We welcome the opportunity to discuss 

with you how USFWS mitigation responsibilities are met while not putting the 

sport fishing recreational economy at risk by underfunding fish hatchery production 

in favor of shifting USFWS priorities to Federal trust and imperiled species. 

We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter which has huge implications for our Nation’s fisheries and the economies that depend on them.

Sincerely, 

DAN FORSTER, 

President. 

COLORADO STATE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION FROM THE 2014 SESSION, SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

Second Regular Session

Sixty-ninth General Assembly

STATE OF COLORADO 

BILLPAPER

LLS NO. R14–0913.01 Kurt Woock x4349 SENATE Joint Resolution 

SENATE SPONSORSHIP 

Schwartz,

43

HOUSE SPONSORSHIP 

Hamner,

Senate Committees House Committees

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 

Concerning national fish hatcheries in Colorado. 

WHEREAS, Sport fishing routinely draws more than 725,000 participants in 

Colorado annually, constituting an important component of Colorado’s economy, 

with angler expenditures exceeding $645 million in 2011; and

WHEREAS, Colorado Parks and Wildlife received more than $13 million of revenue from the sale of fishing licenses in fiscal year 2012–13, a significant portion 

of the agency’s budget; and

WHEREAS, Trout produced in both state and federal hatchery systems and 

stocked into waters throughout Colorado are important in maintaining sport fishing 

and its economic benefits; and

WHEREAS, The continued operation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery 

and the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery is essential for the Bureau of Reclamation to fulfill its ongoing obligation to mitigate the negative impacts on fish, wildlife, 

and recreation created when federal reservoir storage facilities were constructed; 

and 

WHEREAS, The greenback cutthroat trout, Colorado’s state fish, was listed by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 1973 and downlisted 

as a threatened species in 1977 due to the successful conservation efforts by state 

and federal agencies; and

WHEREAS, In 2009, following a 5-year review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the greenback cutthroat trout remains a threatened species due 

to new threats to the species, including: The effects of fire and chemical retardants 

used in firefighting; increased human population growth within the range of the 

subspecies; the introduction of nonnative species; the fragmentation and genetic isolation of small populations; and the effects of global climate change; and

WHEREAS, Based on current scientific evidence, only one natural greenback 

cutthroat trout population exists in Colorado, and greenback cutthroat trout management relies on efforts by the state and the Leadville National Fish Hatchery; and

WHEREAS, The Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery produces trout to fill needs 

for federal water development projects throughout western Colorado and northern 

New Mexico and plays an important role in fulfilling the mitigation responsibility 

from the construction of federal reservoir storage facilities such as Blue Mesa Reservoir; and

WHEREAS, The Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery stocks rivers and reservoirs 

throughout Colorado’s Western Slope with more than 342,000 fish per year, yielding 

171,000 angler recreation days; and

WHEREAS, The Leadville National Fish Hatchery, established in 1889, has 

stocked waters in Colorado, including military establishments on the Front Range, 

and in 2011 such stocking created an estimated economic benefit of $3.5 million 

from recreational fishing; and

WHEREAS, The Leadville National Fish Hatchery has been successful in 

rearing and propagating cold-water fish, including the threatened greenback cutthroat trout, and serves a key role in returning this fish to its home waters; and

WHEREAS, The United States Fish and Wildlife Survey recently completed a 

study predicting that the closure of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery, coupled 

with funding cuts to the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery, will curtail the stocking 

of Colorado’s waters, entailing a loss of associated economic benefits; and

WHEREAS, The continuation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery’s role as 

a trout production and recovery facility and the extension of current funding levels 

44

for the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery are extremely important to Colorado’s 

economy, sport fishing, and the greenback cutthroat trout’s recovery; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-ninth General Assembly of the State 

of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein:

(1) That the General Assembly supports the continued operation of the 

Leadville National Fish Hatchery and urges the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in partnership with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, to maintain its current 

mission of stocking Colorado waters for recreational fishing and the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species.

(2) That the General Assembly supports the operation of the hatchery and adjacent federal lands in a manner that promotes public recreation and scientific research and educational activities.

(3) That the General Assembly urges the Bureau of Reclamation to honor its 

obligation to mitigate the impacts resulting from federal water projects.

(4) That the General Assembly urges the Department of Natural Resources and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the operation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery and the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery.

Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent to all members of the Colorado delegation to the United States Congress, the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Governor 

John Hickenlooper.

Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment.

Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute.

Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute. 

COLORADO STATE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION FROM THE 2014 SESSION, SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

STATE OF COLORADO 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 14–017

BY SENATOR(S) Schwartz, Aguilar, Brophy, Crowder, Guzman, Harvey, Heath, 

Herpin, Hodge, Jahn, Jones, Kefalas, King, Newell, Nicholson, Roberts, Scheffel, 

Tochtrop, Todd, Ulibarri, Zenzinger, Carroll; 

also REPRESENTATIVE(S) Hamner, Becker, Buckner, Conti, DelGrosso, Dore, 

Duran, Exum, Fields, Garcia, Gardner, Gerou, Ginal, Holbert, Hullinghorst, Humphrey, Kraft-Tharp, Labuda, Landgraf, Lawrence, Lebsock, May, McCann, 

McLachlan, Melton, Mitsch Bush, Moreno, Murray, Navarro, Nordberg, Pettersen, 

Primavera, Priola, Rankin, Rosenthal, Ryden, Salazar, Schafer, Singer, Sonnenberg, 

Stephens, Tyler, Vigil, Waller, Williams, Wilson, Young, Ferrandino.

CONCERNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES IN COLORADO.

WHEREAS, Sport fishing routinely draws more than 725,000 participants in 

Colorado annually, constituting an important component of Colorado’s economy, 

with angler expenditures exceeding $645 million in 2011; and

WHEREAS, Colorado Parks and Wildlife received more than $13 million of revenue from the sale of fishing licenses in fiscal year 2012–13, a significant portion 

of the agency’s budget; and

WHEREAS, Trout produced in both state and federal hatchery systems and 

stocked into waters throughout Colorado are important in maintaining sport fishing 

and its economic benefits; and

WHEREAS, The continued operation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery 

and the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery is essential for the Bureau of Reclamation to fulfill its ongoing obligation to mitigate the negative impacts on fish, wildlife, 

and recreation created when federal reservoir storage facilities were constructed; 

and

45

WHEREAS, The greenback cutthroat trout, Colorado’s state fish, was listed by 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered in 1973 and downlisted 

as a threatened species in 1977 due to the successful conservation efforts by state 

and federal agencies; and

WHEREAS, In 2009, following a 5-year review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the greenback cutthroat trout remains a threatened species due 

to new threats to the species, including: The effects of fire and chemical retardants 

used in firefighting; increased human population growth within the range of the 

subspecies; the introduction of nonnative species; the fragmentation and genetic isolation of small populations; and the effects of global climate change; and

WHEREAS, Based on current scientific evidence, only one natural greenback 

cutthroat trout population exists in Colorado, and greenback cutthroat trout management relies on efforts by the state and the Leadville National Fish Hatchery; and

WHEREAS, The Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery produces trout to fill needs 

for federal water development projects throughout western Colorado and northern 

New Mexico and plays an important role in fulfilling the mitigation responsibility 

from the construction of federal reservoir storage facilities such as Blue Mesa Reservoir; and

WHEREAS, The Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery stocks rivers and reservoirs 

throughout Colorado’s Western Slope with more than 342,000 fish per year, yielding 

171,000 angler recreation days; and

WHEREAS, The Leadville National Fish Hatchery, established in 1889, has 

stocked waters in Colorado, including military establishments on the Front Range, 

and in 2011 such stocking created an estimated economic benefit of $3.5 million 

from recreational fishing; and

WHEREAS, The Leadville National Fish Hatchery has been successful in 

rearing and propagating cold-water fish, including the threatened greenback cutthroat trout, and serves a key role in returning this fish to its home waters; and

WHEREAS, The United States Fish and Wildlife Survey recently completed a 

study predicting that the closure of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery, coupled 

with funding cuts to the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery, will curtail the stocking 

of Colorado’s waters, entailing a loss of associated economic benefits; and

WHEREAS, The continuation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery’s role as 

a trout production and recovery facility and the extension of current funding levels 

for the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery are extremely important to Colorado’s 

economy, sport fishing, and the greenback cutthroat trout’s recovery; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-ninth General Assembly of the State 

of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein:

(1) That the General Assembly supports the continued operation of the 

Leadville National Fish Hatchery and urges the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in partnership with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, to maintain its current 

mission of stocking Colorado waters for recreational fishing and the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species.

(2) That the General Assembly supports the operation of the hatchery and adjacent federal lands in a manner that promotes public recreation and scientific research and educational activities.

(3) That the General Assembly urges the Bureau of Reclamation to honor its 

obligation to mitigate the impacts resulting from federal water projects.

(4) That the General Assembly urges the Department of Natural Resources and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the operation of the Leadville National Fish Hatchery and the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery.

Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent to all members of the Colorado delegation to the United States Congress, the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Governor 

John Hickenlooper.

46

Morgan Carroll Mark Ferrandino 

PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

Cindi Markwell Marilyn Eddins 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE FRIENDS OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE

FOREST NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY

4730 ROCK CREEK ROAD, 

SUCHES, GA 30572, 

DECEMBER 17, 2013. 

Honorable SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, 

Department of the Interior, 

Main Interior Building, 

1849 C Street, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL: 

The Friends of the Chattahoochee Forest National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to support the mission of the Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH, promote conservation ethics, education, and encourage the sport of 

trout fishing. We have over 100 members as well as a number of Trout Unlimited 

chapters. 

I am writing you to express the concern of our Friends Group regarding the recent 

release of a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entitled ‘‘National Fish 

Hatchery System—Strategic Hatchery and Workforce Planning Report.’’ The report 

realigns the priorities of the National Fish Hatchery System with its lowest priority 

being trout mitigation hatcheries (recreational fishing) and its highest being the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The Service plans to implement the 

recommendations of the report in FY 2015 and one option is to close the Chattahoochee Forest NFH, even though the hatchery receives reimbursement funding for 70 

percent of its operational budget from the Corps of Engineers. The Chattahoochee 

hatchery stocks over 1 million fish annually in waters throughout Georgia and the 

Southeast. The hatchery provides an enormous economic impact to local, regional 

and State economies. In a recent economic study (Caudill and Charbonneau, updated 2013), the total economic output from the hatchery came to $30.3 million annually, a return of more than $40.00 for every dollar spent to operate the hatchery. 

Retail sales associated with angler expenditures as a result of stocking trout by the 

Chattahoochee hatchery amounted to $16 million annually. 

In reviewing the report, I have a number of concerns:

• The Service Directorate who set the priorities in the report is made up of employees whose background and experience is predominately Ecological Service 

and Endangered Species. A quick review of these folks shows that 95 percent 

of the Directorate came from the Ecological Service program. 

• The report is very biased against mitigation trout hatcheries. The end product 

of the report was identified before the report was fully developed. 

• No one with any project leader field experience was part of the group that developed the report. No one with a Fisheries background was part of the team 

that developed the report. 

• Our State partners and groups such as the Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Council have been excluded from having any input into the report. A recent report by the Sportfishing and Boating Partnership Council recommends 

that trout mitigation is a Service responsibility. 

• The Director of the Service has totally ignored Congress and the House and 

Senate language that has been very positive of the Service’s trout mitigation 

program. 

• The Director has shown little respect for the Service’s Fisheries Program and 

its employees by his actions and wordage.

47

I encourage you to get involved in questioning the actions and the direction that 

Director Ashe is taking. The Service has become an agency that does not want to 

communicate with its State Partners, has little respect for anyone in the Fisheries 

Program , does not care what Congress says, and is ignoring those folks in this 

country that value recreational fishing and hunting. 

Please feel free to contact me regarding my concerns.

Sincerely, 

ROGER SCHULZ, 

President. 

LETTER SENT TO SECRETARY JEWELL FROM THE TENNESSEE/ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL

SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013. 

The Honorable SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

1849 C St. N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240.

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL:

We write today with grave concerns over the future of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s mitigation hatchery program. As you know, the mitigation hatcheries are 

vital to the economic health of communities impacted by the construction of powergenerating and flood control water development projects. Mitigation hatcheries replace fisheries destroyed by the construction of these Federal water development 

projects, and guarantee that the vital economic benefits from world-class fisheries 

will not be lost or interrupted. The vital economic benefits gained from fisheries, 

both prior to construction of water development projects and after mitigation, mean 

thousands of critically-needed jobs and tens of millions of dollars of irreplaceable 

economic activity in rural communities. 

It has come to our attention that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) recently completed an internal propagation hatchery review study that examined allocations for the hatchery program based on several budget scenarios. News of the existence of this study, and the insufficient communication from the Service regarding 

its intent and goals, have caused a great deal of concern in communities near mitigation hatcheries and along the rivers and streams served by mitigation hatcheries. 

It is our understanding that this study is soon to be released, along with decisions 

about hatchery closures. We are gravely concerned that Congress has not been consulted on the matter. 

Given that any cuts or consolidation within the mitigation hatchery program pose 

the very real potential for significant negative economic impact in our communities, 

we are formally requesting that the Service grant at least a 60-day review period 

between the public release of the study, or any reorganization plan arising from it, 

and the initiation of any action, or preparation for action, arising from or recommended by the study or related reorganization plan. We believe it is critical that 

all Federal, State, local, and private stakeholders be granted this time to both fully 

evaluate the study and its findings, and to adequately prepare for recommendations 

that may threaten our local economies. 

We look forward to reviewing such a plan, discussing its findings and recommendations with our constituents, and providing the Service with valuable feedback. In the unfortunate circumstance you are unwilling to grant this requested 60-

48

day public review period, please immediately contact our offices. We hope to have 

your response by 5 p.m., Thursday, September 12th.

Sincerely, 

Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator. Mark L. Pryor, U.S. Senator. 

John Boozman, U.S. Senator. Rick Crawford, Member of Congress. 

Doug Collins, Member of Congress. Tom Cotton, Member of Congress. 

Tim Griffin, Member of Congress. Phil Roe, MD, Member of Congress. 

Steve Womack, Member of Congress. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH

AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

NOVEMBER 22, 2013

The Honorable SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, 

Department of the Interior, 

Main Interior Building, 

1849 C Street, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

Dear Secretary Jewell, 

I am writing on behalf of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies regarding our concerns over the future of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(Service) fisheries program in general and the National Fish Hatchery System, particularly the mitigation hatchery program. Director Dan Ashe sent a letter in October 2012, informing conservation partners that the Service planned to assess its National Fish Hatchery System workforce, organizational structure and assets to ensure that the Service was positioned to address current and future aquatic resource 

needs. Director Ashe further identifies in this letter the importance of coordinating 

with stakeholders and partners, stating that ‘‘coordination with stakeholders and 

partners is essential to achieving our mutual and individual conservation goals’’. 

The report, titled National Fish Hatchery System, Strategic Hatchery and Workforce 

Planning Report, March 2013, was released by the Service on November 15. The National Fish Hatchery System assessment was precipitated by a broader assessment 

by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council) in 2010 of the Service’s Fisheries Program. While the Council and State resource partners were actively and openly engaged with the Service in developing the recently released Strategic Vision/or Fish and Aquatic Resource Conservation in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service: A Partnership Perspective (Vision), both the Council and State resource 

partners have been noticeably excluded from Service discussions and evaluations of 

the National Fish Hatchery System, and particularly the mitigation hatchery program. 

The Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies consists of Directors 

of fish and wildlife resource management agencies from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico 

and the Virgin Islands. Our member States and territories have a long history of 

effective collaborative partnering with the Fish and Wildlife Service to recover and 

maintain sport fish populations. Recovery projects include gulf coast strain striped 

bass, mitigation trout stocking, alligator gar, lake sturgeon and redbreast sunfish. 

These efforts have resulted in positive improvements in fish populations across the 

southeast region and would not have been possible without the active participation 

of the Service and their National Fish Hatchery System. 

Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies member States and territories are concerned that the Service, through their internal comprehensive workforce analysis are preparing to move forward with substantial changes to their National Fish Hatchery System without consideration or input from partner States 

that will be affected by operational decisions. We certainly understand and appreciate the difficulties of maintaining programs during stagnate budgets and changing 

priorities. However, the Service has worked for many years to foster collaboration 

with the States and the States now have many programs dependent on the National 

Fish Hatchery System. We ask that the Service work collaboratively with the States 

to seek solutions to the National Fish Hatchery System budgetary and operational 

issues before any final decisions are made to adjust fish production or close facilities. 

49

The Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Directors at their October 15, 2013 annual business meeting in Oklahoma City, OK, unanimously adopted the attached resolution encouraging the Service to engage the States in an appropriate manner that reflects our longstanding, cooperative partnership prior to making final policy and budgetary decisions on key activities, especially those related 

to the National Fish Hatchery Comprehensive Workforce Analysis and Implementation Planning and mitigation hatchery operations. Our hope is that we can work together with our Service partners and the Service Directorate to develop a comprehensive strategy to meet historical Federal funding obligations relative to mitigation hatcheries. 

Thank you for taking time to hear and consider our concerns. The Southeastern 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Directors look forward to working with 

you and the Service Directorate to address our concerns. 

Sincerely,

ED CARTER, 

President, Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

AGENCIES 

RESOLUTION 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISHERIES OBLIGATIONS, FUNDING AND PLANNING

WHEREAS, sport fishing is a 115 billion dollar economic driver and provides 

828,000 jobs in this country: and

WHEREAS, sport fishing is a critical gateway for public support of conservation; 

and

WHEREAS, the southeastern states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

have a history of a cooperative partnership that has integrated federal and state 

hatchery operations for the betterment of sport fish recreation and native species 

conservation; and

WHEREAS, supplemental fish stocking is essential to maintaining our Nation’s 

sport fishing capacity and native species conservation efforts; and

WHEREAS, the public has benefitted from cooperative efforts between the states 

and the Service through the development and sharing of brood stocks. egg sources. 

fish health support, drug approval. and fisheries conservation research programs: 

and

WHEREAS. the Service and states have a history of effective partnership in meeting the public’s expectations for the use and enjoyment of aquatic resources: and

WHEREAS. the use or cultured fish is an important practice for maintaining and 

enhancing angler recruitment and retention, and fisheries have been established 

and enhanced primarily using fish stocked from recreational fish egg sources developed and maintained jointly through state and Service efforts; and

WHEREAS, in these times of diminished budgets the states are concerned about the 

Service Directorate redirecting funds away from programs that support fisheries 

management activities with proven successful track records and public benefit; and

WHEREAS, the states cannot afford nor should they be expected to take on the statutory responsibilities of the federal government, especially related to mitigation for 

water development projects. and are further concerned with the closed process being 

used by the Service Directorate to conduct their comprehensive hatchery and workforce analysis: and

WHEREAS, fisheries program priority decisions that impact state trust species are 

being made by the Service Directorate without consultation with the states.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southeastern Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies strongly encourages the Service to engage the states in an appropriate manner that reflects our long-standing, cooperative partnership prior to 

making final policy and budgetary decisions specifically related to the following fisheries activities;

50

a. National Fish Hatchery Comprehensive Workforce Analysis and 

ImplementationPlanning;

b. Aquatic Drug Approval Program Budget Cuts;

c. Guidance for fish stocking, angler access, and fisheries management on National Fish and Wildlife Refuges: and

d, Implementing the USFWS Fish and Aquatic Resources Strategic Vision and 

NeedsAssessment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Service Directorate and the states work in 

a coordinated and strategic fashion with federal appropriators to meet historical federal funding obligations relative to mitigation hatcheries.

ADOPTED by the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in official 

session at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on October 15, 2013. 

SR 16—ARIZONA STATE RESOLUTION FROM THE 2014 SESSION, SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

State of Arkansas 

89th General Assembly 

Fiscal Session, 2014

SR 16

By: Senators Irvin, Maloch

SENATE RESOLUTION 

TO ENCOURAGE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO DEVELOP A 

LONG-TERM FUNDING SOLUTION FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE NORFORK AND GREERS FERRY NATIONAL FISH 

HATCHERIES IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY 

OF COMMUNITIES DEPENDENT UPON THE COLD WATER FISHERIES THEY PROVIDE AND THE PERPETUATION OF ARKANSAS’ 

WORLD-CLASS FISHERIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF 

ARKANSANS.

Subtitle 

ENCOURAGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO FIND A 

LONG-TERM FUNDING SOLUTION TO SUSTAIN THE 

ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE AND THE CULTURAL HERITAGE 

OF ARKANSAS’S FISH HATCHERIES.

WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers created large impoundments on many of Arkansas’ major rivers and streams decades ago, irreparably 

harming or displacing native fish stocks downstream of the dams; and

WHEREAS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service constructed the Greers 

Ferry National Fish Hatchery and the Norfork National Fish Hatchery to mitigate 

the loss of pristine rivers and their fish populations for the people of Arkansas by 

replacing native sport fish with trout, a species more suitable for the conditions of 

many of the new reservoir tailwaters; and

WHEREAS, the trout fishery created by, and annually produced from, these 

mitigation hatcheries has grown into a world-renown sport fishery, annually providing upwards of $175,000,000 in economic impact to the State of Arkansas from 

anglers; and

WHEREAS, the Norfork and Greers Ferry national fish hatcheries return $89 

and $95 respectively, to the State of Arkansas for every dollar spent to operate the 

51

facilities, providing a unique example of government efficiency and return on investment to the taxpayers of Arkansas and the United States; and

WHEREAS, the significance and importance of the Norfork and Greers Ferry 

national fish hatcheries continue to be overlooked by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service in their efforts to close the hatcheries to sport fish production and 

divert the operating funds to other programs; and

WHEREAS, the state cannot afford nor should it be expected to take on the 

statutory responsibilities of the federal government, especially responsibilities related to mitigation for water development projects, and is concerned with the closed 

process used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Directorate to conduct 

their comprehensive hatchery and workforce analysis; and

WHEREAS, the State of Arkansas and its 160,000 trout anglers, who spend 

1,900,000 hours annually pursuing trout in the state’s rivers and streams, are in 

perpetual danger of losing this incredible fishing asset,

NOW THEREFORE, 

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE EIGHTY-NINTH GENERAL 

ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

THAT the Senate urges the United States Congress to direct the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, working cooperatively with state agencies, federal water 

management agencies, federal land management agencies, anglers, the angling industry, and local chambers of commerce, to determine the viability of each fish 

hatchery owned and operated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the hatcheries determined to be economically, recreationally, and culturally significant, including Greers Ferry and 

Norfork national fish hatcheries, the United States Congress and the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service develop a sustainable federal funding source to keep the 

hatcheries operating and providing in sport fish production for future generations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate urges the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service to keep the mitigation hatcheries open and funded at levels 

equal to or greater than Fiscal Year 2014 until such time as a study of the solvency 

of the mitigation hatcheries is completed and future funding needs are resolved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon adoption of this resolution, the Secretary of the Senate send a certified copy to each member of the Arkansas congressional delegation and Daniel M. Ashe, Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

TENNESSEE STATE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION, MARCH 2011, SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 202

BY KEISLING

A RESOLUTION relative to federal funding for the Erwin and Dale

Hollow National Fish Hatcheries.

WHEREAS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service plans to cut the budgets for the Erwin and Dale Hollow National Fish Hatcheries; and

WHEREAS, these fish hatcheries provide the foundation for Tennessee’s worldrenowned trout fishery waters, which produce a total economic impact of well over 

seventy-six million dollars ($76,000,000) annually while only costing taxpayers approximately one-million-four-hundred-thousand dollars ($1,400,000) annually to operate. The hatcheries at Erwin and Dale Hollow alone generate two-million-sevenhundred-thousand dollars ($2,700,000) in federal tax revenues, returning roughly 

two dollars ($2.00) for every one dollar ($1.00) invested; and

WHEREAS, seventy-five (75) years ago, the rivers in Tennessee were arguably 

some of the best warm/cool water fishing waters in America. Fisherman came from 

all over the country to experience once-in-a-lifetime fishing opportunities on Tennessee’s beautiful river systems; and

WHEREAS, as a series of dams were being built within the State of Tennessee’s 

river basins, the federal government assured the state’s citizens that mitigation efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:31 Jun 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\02FISH~1\02MA05~1.PRI\87010.TXT MARK
52

forts would be included to offset the loss of the rivers’ incredibly productive native 

fishery. The key component of this commitment was the construction of Dale Hollow 

National Fish Hatchery in 1965 near Dale Hollow Dam and the establishment of 

world-class trout waters below federal water development projects throughout the 

State of Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, Erwin National Fish Hatchery, established in 1897, supplies nine 

million (9,000,000) eyed rainbow trout eggs annually to support mitigation efforts 

by five (5) hatcheries in Tennessee and ten (10) hatcheries in six (6) other states; 

and

WHEREAS, Erwin National Fish Hatchery annually stocks thirty thousand 

pounds (30,000 lbs.) of spent rainbow trout brood stock, each weighing in excess of 

two-and-one-half pounds (2.5 lbs.), below federal water development projects and 

other waters throughout East Tennessee thus providing trophy class fisheries that 

attract fishermen from around the world; and

WHEREAS, these modest projects rank among the all-time success stories of 

our federal government, because of the overall economic impact and return on investment they produce; and

WHEREAS, fish and egg production at the Dale Hollow and Erwin National 

Fish Hatcheries employs eight hundred and forty-three (843) individuals in private 

sector jobs that provide goods and services to fishermen; and

WHEREAS, hundreds of small and large businesses employing thousands of individuals have been established in these world-class fishing areas because of the increase in tourism; and

WHEREAS, investment in the Dale Hollow and Erwin fish hatcheries has consistently demonstrated positive returns for more than a century. The federal government’s goal to reduce the federal deficit and increase economic growth would be 

damaged, not enhanced, if funding for trout programs is reduced or eliminated to 

the detriment of its promise to Tennessee and the Nation, and to these small towns 

whose livelihood depends on the fish hatcheries; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE 

HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, 

THE SENATE CONCURRING, that this General Assembly hereby memorializes the 

President and the Congress of the United States to continue the immediate and future funding of the national fish hatcheries at Erwin and Dale Hollow, and allow 

the investment in these hatcheries to continue to contribute to the economic vitality 

of these towns, the State of Tennessee, and the entire country.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives is directed to transmit certified copies of this resolution to the President of 

the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President 

of the Senate of the United States Congress, and to all the members of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, with the request that this resolution be officially 

entered in the Congressional Record.

TENNESSEE STATE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION, APRIL 2011, SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMAN’S FOUNDATION

HOUSE RESOLUTION 60

BY HAWK

A RESOLUTION relative to funding for the Erwin Fish Hatchery.

WHEREAS, the Erwin Fish Hatchery was created by an Act of Congress in 

1894 and opened in November 1897; and

WHEREAS, for these 113-plus years, the Erwin Fish Hatchery has played a 

vital role in the development and growth of Erwin and Unicoi County by producing 

high quality, disease-free rainbow trout eggs that support fishery mitigation stocking, tribal stocking, and stocking of federal and state waters; and

WHEREAS, the Erwin Fish Hatchery provides tours for thousands of tourists 

annually, provides a home for Unicoi County’s Heritage Museum, and partners with 

the Town of Erwin and TWRA to sponsor the annual Youth Outdoor Fishing Adventure for over 300 kids; and

53

WHEREAS, the Erwin Fish Hatchery creates a tremendous economic impact for 

the Town of Erwin, generating seventeen jobs, producing state and local tax revenue 

of $48,294.00, and a total local economic output of $1,531,934.00; and

WHEREAS, 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 the amount of funds necessary to operate 

these hatcheries; and

WHEREAS, these funds are used to fund beneficial federal programs that do 

not pay for themselves, so continuing to operate these six hatcheries makes good 

business sense; and

WHEREAS, eyed egg production and distribution from the Erwin National Fish 

Hatchery and the resulting trout stocking across the Southeast region generate employment for 3,277 people with a total economic output of $298 million, a return of 

$67.00 for every tax dollar spent; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE 

HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, 

that this body hereby opposes any reduction of funding for the National Fish Hatchery Operations that would result in the closing of Erwin National Fish Hatchery 

and encourage Tennessee’s Congressional delegation, and especially Senator Lamar 

Alexander, Senator Bob Corker, and Congressman Phil Roe, to support federal funding for the National Fish Hatchery Operations-Mitigation for the 2012 fiscal year 

budget and strive to continue funding this worthwhile federal program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Honorable Barrack Obama, President of the United States; the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives; the President and 

the Secretary of the United States Senate; and each member of Tennessee’s Congressional delegation.

Æ