By Dick Rieman
Icicle Creek Watershed Council
On May 11, 1938, Congress passed the Mitchell Act. The Act is an exceptionally short document for an act of Congress — just one page. Its preamble says it is intended to:
“Provide for the conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River, establishment, operation and maintenance of one or more [‘salmon cultural’] stations in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, and for the conduct of necessary investigations, surveys, stream improvements and stocking operations for these purposes.”
The Act recognized that anadromous fish populations were in serious decline, and that the decline was caused by devastation of spawning and rearing habitat from deforestation, pollution, hydroelectric dams and diversion of water for irrigation.
In 1970 there were 25 Mitchell Act (MA) hatcheries, the majority of which were located downstream from Bonneville Dam. Today there are 17 MA hatcheries.
The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Complex was authorized by the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project on April 3, 1937 and re-authorized by the Mitchell Act on May 11, 1938. Today the Complex consists of three upper-Columbia River anadromous fish hatcheries constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation as fish mitigation facilities for the construction of Grand Coulee Dam. Although re-authorized by the Mitchell Act, funding was provided though a transfer of budget from the Bureau of Reclamation to the USFWS until 1945. After 1945 the USFWS assumed full responsibility for funding, operations and maintenance of the Complex. The Bureau of Reclamation reassumed funding in 1994; however, the USFWS continues to operate and maintain the Complex.
The Complex is unique because the hatcheries that make it up are the furthest upstream of all original Mitchell Act hatcheries on the Columbia River. Although the Leavenworth NFH is no longer considered a Mitchell Act hatchery, an economic study of MA-funded hatcheries provides relevant information on the efficiency of Columbia River hatcheries. The study was conducted by “The Research Group” in Corvallis, Oregon (TRG) and is titled, “Economic Effects and Social Implications from Federal Mitchell Act Funded Hatcheries”.
Most Mitchell Act Hatcheries have negative benefit-cost ratios because of their relatively low smolt-to-adult survival rates (SARs). In other words, it costs more to raise the smolts than the business they generate, even with the Pacific Ocean providing free nutrition to grow the smolts into adult salmon.
The total number of Leavenworth smolts that become adults is difficult to precisely count. Some Leavenworth fish are caught at sea in the Alaska fishery. Some are caught in the Columbia River in the river fishery. Some spawn with wild fish in the Wenatchee River. Many adult fish return to the Hatchery. Biologists consider these factors as well as coded wire tag reports to arrive at a smolt to adult ratio (SAR).
Researchers from the University of Washington estimate that the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery had an average SAR from 1974 to 2003 of 0.16%. The lowest SAR year was 1990 at .0016% and the highest SAR year was 1998 at 0.85%. An analysis of The Research Group economic study data indicates that the Leavenworth Hatchery would need an average SAR greater than .42% to bring their “Cost to Harvest Value Ratio” to a positive value. This would require an operational improvement by at least 162%. [Note: Just to clarify, the above figures represent percentages of 1 percentage point, not of 100.]
The Leavenworth Hatchery has been releasing 1.625 million smolts; a negotiated number between the Federal government and the Tribes. While the number of smolts released has recently been reduced to 1.2 smolts, the USFWS maintains that rearing fewer smolts (reduced rearing densities) will result in healthier released smolts without reducing the number of returning adults. The average adult Chinook salmon return to the hatchery was 5,649 for the period 1980 – 2005.
When the deteriorating infrastructure and antiquated technology at Leavenworth are considered along with the obstructions in the migratory path and the particular species reared, Leavenworth’s average low SAR of 0.16% is not surprising.
The Research Group points out that Mitchell Act hatcheries (here I include Leavenworth because of its historical connection to the Act) were built and operated to mitigate in a much more involved economic and social context. In other words, Mitchell Act hatcheries are not expected to generate positive benefit-cost results. TRG points out that the usefulness of benefit-cost analysis is to show economic efficiencies in different hatchery production or operation alternatives. Such an analysis helps alert managers to find better ways to produce sustainable fisheries.
The Research Group also touched on a relevant point associated with social and environmental justice rooted in federal environmental justice criteria. They point out that changes at a hatchery like Leavenworth may disproportionately affect socio-economic groups like American Indians who are particularly vulnerable to hatchery system alterations.
There is no question that the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery must change. It will not survive the 21st Century if it doesn’t.
Last year on June 9 the House Appropriations Committee agreed to approve Congressman Norm Dicks’ request to boost funding for the seventeen Mitchell Act funded fish hatcheries on the Columbia River. The Committee approved an increase of $10 million – from $16 million to $ 26 million – for Mitchell Act hatcheries in order to fund improvements to increase production. The Committee also recognized the added responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Congressman Dicks was quoted as saying that “the responsibilities of the ESA require smarter and more efficient operation of these hatcheries.”
As mentioned, the Leavenworth Complex is not listed as a Mitchell Act Hatchery. Leavenworth is in an odd position; it was born out of the Mitchell Act, it is treated as if it was a Mitchell Act hatchery, it has many of the responsibilities assigned to Mitchell Act hatcheries — but it cannot receive financial support from the House Appropriations Committee because it is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The counsel of Congressman Dicks applies directly to the Leavenworth Complex even though he was addressing Mitchell Act hatcheries.
Considering the social-economic conclusions of The Research Group and given the physical location of the Leavenworth Hatchery upstream of seven major dams on the Columbia, as well as its severance from the Mitchell Act, the Hatchery has no choice but to pull itself up by its own bootstraps and become as efficient and as environmentally responsible as new technologies will allow.
If this were any other time in history, improvements to the Leavenworth Hatchery would focus on maintaining the status quo. Improvements would not include the risk of new technologies. Instead, the focus would be on installing new fish ladders and dams. It might even include increasing the amount of water diverted to the Hatchery by building new reservoirs.
But this is a different time in history. It is a time when less water is the trend and the term “fish ladder” no longer fits with the term “stream ecology”. It is a time in history when advanced aquaculture technologies, including especially recirculation of water, can be applied to hatcheries to reduce their Sasquatchianly large environmental footprint. It’s a time when new technologies born out of the private sector to farm fish may actually lead hatcheries to a compatible relationship with natural systems and improved efficiencies.
It is in the best interests of everyone to accept the challenge put forth by Rep. Dicks. If the House Appropriations Committee agrees with the congressman about smarter and more efficient operation of Mitchell Act Hatcheries, then funding should be forthcoming to convert the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery to a more efficient facility whether it is a Mitchell Act Hatchery or not.
The nation may be able to absorb the negative benefit-cost results associated with a hatchery like Leavenworth. However, we who live here no longer need to absorb the Hatchery’s negative economic externalities of exhausted streams and degraded water, when available technologies can absorb them for us.
