Salmo,
Do you have any idea how that number was derived. I would assume that a budget for a hatchery would be split into items like maintenance, operating equipment, water testing and purification, electricity, staff and feed. In non-government setting, all things would be aimed at the most productive output. Sometime capacity can allow for a double or triple output for a minimum cost of just perhaps feed, while at the same time adding just one more can double the cost. With all the reductions in plantings it would seem that we could be paying more and more per smolt. Knowing the department, they would just lump total out put with total production, and then get an average cost, not separating out expensive or non-productive programs. With all the factors playing into the numbers that can be planted, it is highly unlikely that many are actually functioning at the best and most productive number. A complete audit may be in order to see what best can be done. My gut feeling is that one reason the tribal hatcheries can pump out production like they do is that they are able to isolate costs to the one hatchery and produce output at the most productive number, not one determined by many different factors.

There is so much to consider. Finding out what the major limiting factors to returns is vital. It is possible that the Quinault and Salmon get the higher returns partially by overwhelming the predators. The Makah hatchery is right at the top of the tide water influence, about a mile or two from the ocean. Are the Skagit fish being overwhelmed by predators. Are they finding a lack of feed and not surviving. Or, perhaps the plant size as compared to the river size encourages them to stay in the river longer, exposing them to more predation or pollution. If we don't understand the limiting factors, all else becomes a guessing game that we will likely never be able to solve.