CHANGING DIRECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY SYSTEM
The following documents identify how the National Fish Hatchery System is moving into new areas to enhance the contributions of National Fish Hatcheries in conserving wild stocks; maintaining the genetic integrity of stocks, propagating threatened and endangered fish species, evaluating hatchery products, aquaculture, technology development, and supporting aquatic ecosystem management:
• Hatcheries in Transition /7
• Role of Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Hatcheries in Captiv,9„, Propagation of Threatened and Endangered Fishes (Draft)
• Fisheries Action Plan
• Hatchery Subactivity Analysis Report
• Service Priority Objectives for FY 1994/
• Report of Fish Technology Centers,
• Helping Aquaculture Grow
• FY 1995 Program Changes (not part of FY 1995 Budget Justification)
• Drug and Chemical Use Update
Any questions you might have should be dire ted to Roger Schulz, Division of
Fish Hatcheries, at (703) 358-1715. • HATCHERIES IN TRANSITION
THE CHALLENGE
The role of fish hatcheries in fisheries management is receiving a great deal of attention. Hatcheries are being criticized for not responding fast enough to needs to protect wild stocks, conserve biological diversity, prevent species from being listed as threatened and endangered, and help recover species that are already listed. At the same time, the National Fish Hatchery System has a recognized backlog of $140 million for maintenance and construction, and a $5 million need in general operations.
The National Fish Hatchery System has been responding to the need to focus more attention on wild stocks, biological diversity, and threatened and endangered species, but this transition has been slow because current backlogs and needs do not provide much budgetary latitude. The Hatchery System is eager to meet the challenge, but requires additional budgetary resources to assist in accelerating the transition.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
The Fisheries Program proposes to initiate a program, called HATCHERIES IN TRANSITION (HIT), to help our Nation's fish hatcheries enhance its contributions to conserving biological diversity, wild stocks, and natural . ecosystems, while continuing to provide opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing. HIT emphasizes:
1. GENETICS MANAGEMENT/CONSERVATION BIOLOGY. HIT will ensure that hatchery fish are produced in accordance with sound principles of genetics management and conservation biology;
2. PRODUCT EVALUATION. HIT will ensure that hatchery fish contribute to identifiable management objectives for individual waterbodies or ecosystems;
3. WILD STOCK MANAGEMENT. HIT will ensure that stocking of hatchery fish is compatible with maintenance of wild stocks;
4. ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT. HIT will develop specific programs, principles, and practices to guide programs to propagate threatened and endangered species; and
5. DRUG AND CHEMICAL USE. HIT will develop new approaches for producing fish that reduce dependencies on drugs and chemicals.
ANTICIPATED BENEFITS
HATCHERIES IN TRANSITION will provide six major benefits for the National Fish Hatchery System and for America's fishery resources. HIT will: 1. Provide a complete genetic inventory of brood stocks and critical wild stocks, and an automated registry of strains to assist in producing quality fish that are compatible with wild and native stocks;
2. Provide a means of evaluating the effectiveness of major propagation programs in terms of their contributions to specific fishery management objectives, such as restoration of depleted stocks, and thereby provide a basis for reducing or adjusting programs that are not contributing sufficiently or properly, while enhancing others that are.
3. Provide a means of maintaining, enhancing, and restoring wild stocks by using propagated fish that do not contribute to deleterious hybridization, predation, or competition.
4. Establish clear policies, programs, and operational capabilities for propagating threatened and endangered species and aiding in their recovery.
5. Reduce hatchery dependency on drugs and chemicals by relying more on other means of controlling disease, aiding reproduction, and reducing stress.
6. Provide a clear example of how additional investments in State and Federal hatcheries can assist fishery administrators and managers in using the latest techniques for sound biological and environmental management.
The combined result of these six benefits will be greater protection of wild stocks, biological diversity, and natural ecosystems; more efficient and effective use of the National Fish Hatchery System, as a whole; and additional opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing.
BUDGET REQUIREMENTS
HIT is intended as a 5-year cross-program effort led by the Fisheries Program. In Year 1 (e.g. FY 1995), $4 million of new funding is needed and would be allocated over the five areas of emphasis as follows.
1. Genetics Management/Conservation Biology $500,000
2. Product Evaluation $2,000,000
3. Wild Stock Management $1,000,000
4. Endangered Species Management $500,000
5. Drug and Chemical Use $0*
* Funding is provided separately as part of DRUG/CHEMICAL component of FY 95 Fisheries Initiative. DRAFT
THE ROLE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH HATCHERIES IN CAPTIVE PROPAGATION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISHES
DIVISION OF FISH HATCHERIES U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C.
March 2, 1994 DRAFT
THE ROLE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH HATCHERIES IN CAPTIVE PROPAGATION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FISHES
INTRODUCTION
Many of the fishes of North America are moving toward extinction. At least 3 genera, 27 species, and 13 subspecies of North American fishes have become extinct in the past 100 years. One hundred of the species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Act) are fishes that occur in the waters of the coterminous United States. An additional 183 fish species have been proposed or are identified as candidates for listing. The American Fisheries Society considers another 250 species to be imperiled in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Other species that must be considered are species that one or more Regional Offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have designated as "special species of concern". Those species do not warrant listing under the Act, but are priorities within the Service. Many of them are being held in refugia or propagated at Service hatcheries and are the focus of restoration programs.
The rate of decline of our native species is also increasing. Over the past decade the number of aquatic species listed as threatened or endangered (i.e., "listed species") has doubled (See Figure 1). There are currently over 822 plants and animals on the list of threatened and endangered species that occur within the United States. Three hundred and forty-five of the animal species listed occur within the continental United States. One hundred are finfish. Those fish comprise 29 percent of the animal species listed within the continental United States (See Figure 2). If shellfish (i.e., mussels and clams) are included, the overall percentage of fish species increases to 46 percent.
As the number of listed and imperiled species has grown, so has the search for ways of reversing their declines and ensuring the long-term welfare of our Nation's ecosystems. Fishery managers and elected officials are increasingly being asked to protect and restore depleted fish stocks. Several pieces of legislation proposing to broaden the use of captive propagation in endangered species management have recently been introduced in Congress, in both the Senate and House of Representatives. This comes at a time when the Fish and Wildlife Service is focusing attention on FIGURE 1. TRENDS FOR LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISH SPECIES
120
100
80
60
40
20 NUMBERS OF LISTED SPECIES 0 ) ) 3 ct51' is' it?' 4 4 5115% 4b P
YEAR
FIGURE 2. ESA ANIMAL LISTINGS BY CATEGORY (Continental U.S.)
Fish Bivalves 29.0% 17.0%
Mammals 14.0% Other 12.0%
Birds Insects 12.0% Reptiles 8.0% 8.0%
2 DRAFT improving its management of fishery resources, particularly depleted interjurisdictional species and threatened and endangered species, in order to protect native fishes and the numerous recreational and commercial fishing activities associated with those resources.
This report is the first comprehensive effort to identify the extent to which the Service is using its National Fish Hatchery Systems (System) to propagate or provide refugia for finfish listed as threatened or endangered. In addition this report provides recommendations for improving propagation activities in the interest of more effective and efficient management and species recovery.
INFORMATION COLLECTION
In September 1992, the Service began a review of its involvement in propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes at National Fish Hatcheries. This review was intended to accurately determine the scope of those activities and identify ways of managing them more effectively and cohesively.
Existing internal reports and documents and management information systems were used to develop a preliminary overview of efforts to propagate and maintain listed fishes at National Fish. Hatcheries. Telephone surveys involving hatchery managers and associate managers in the Service's Regional Offices were subsequently used to verify existing information and solicit new data. Additional discussions with biologists and managers outside the System yielded information about other Service involvement in propagation and maintenance of listed species. Personnel at the Service's Fishery Cooperative Research Units, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, and Ecological Services Offices supplied additional information.
As its review progressed, it became apparent that the System Was devoting more effort to listed fishes than previously recognized. Consequently, a database was developed to catalog operational activities and generate summary information and statistics about the species and facilities involved. These summaries were subsequently distributed to the Service's Regional Offices for verification. Appendix
3 DRAFT
1 contains one of these summaries. Additional telephone surveys, inquiries and station visits were used to remove ambiguities from the data and ensure completeness of the database.
Available recovery plans for each threatened and endangered finfish in the coterminous United States were also obtained and reviewed. Attention was paid to determining the importance and priority those plans place on captive propagation and establishing refugia populations, and on specific roles the Service should play in those areas. This information was also entered into the database.
FINDINGS
FACILITIES INVOLVED IN CAPTIVE PROPAGATION
Endangered, threatened and candidate fish species are being handled at 33 of the Service's facilities. Included are 28 National Fish Hatcheries, two Fish Technology Centers, two Fishery Resource Offices, and one National Wildlife Refuge (Table 1). In addition, two facilities that were previously part of the Service and are now with the National Biological Survey are maintaining listed fishes. One is a Fisheries Research Laboratory and the other is a National Fish Technology Center. National Wildlife Refuges on which members of listed populations occur in native habitats are not reflected in these results.
Three hatcheries currently propagating or maintaining listed fishes are devoted entirely to those purposes. They are the Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center in New Mexico, Lahontan National Fish Hatchery in Nevada, and Bears Bluff National Fish Hatchery in South Carolina. Two other hatcheries, the Alchesay/Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery in Arizona and Orangeburg National Fish Hatchery in South Carolina, are also substantially involved in propagating and maintaining listed species. Approximately 30 and 12 percent of their respective budgets are used for these purposes. The remaining 23 hatcheries engaged in these activities spend no
4 DRAFT
TABLE 1. USFVVS FACILITIES THAT PROPAGATE OR MAINTAIN ENDANGERED/THREATENED FISHES as of August, 1993 Region 1 Region 4
Coleman NFH Bears Bluff NFH Lahontan NFH Bo Ginn NFH Northern Central Valley FRO Edenton NFH Mammoth Springs NFH Natchitoches NFH Orangeburg NFH Warm Springs NFH Welaka NFH Region 2 Region 5
Dexter NFH&TC Berkshire NFH Mescalero NFH Craig Brook NFH San Carlos FAO Richard Cronin NSS Uvalde NFH Greenlalce NFH Alchesay/Williams Creek NFH Nashua NFH Willow Beach NFH Pittsford NFH White River NFH Region 3 Region 6
Neosho NFH Bozeman FTC Creston NFH Gavins Point NFH Garrison Dam NFH Jackson NFH Ouray NWR (Colorado River Program) Saratoga NFH Valley City NFH
more than 5 percent of their funding on listed species. They are primarily engaged in meeting other goals of the System in the areas of fishery restoration and mitigation, Tribal fishery programs, and development of fish culture technologies. Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center propagates six listed species and maintains eleven others in refugia. Members of the six listed species that propagated are used for research and stocking within their historic range. Four of the nine species held in refugia are also used to develop successful feeding and reproduction technologies, in the event that those species need to be cultured for stocking or research purposes. The Bears Bluff National Fish Hatchery is also engaged in providing refugia for a listed species and developing
5 DRAFT developing technologies in anticipation of captive propagation. This contrasts with the Alchesay/Williams Creek and Lahontan National Fish Hatcheries, whose programs are aimed primarily at producing and stocking fish in numbers sufficient for recovery.
SPECIES INVOLVED IN CAPTIVE PROPAGATION
Twenty-nine of the 100 fish species listed by the Federal government as threatened and endangered in the coterminous United States are currently being propagated or held in refugia at Service facilities. Nine species that are recognized as candidates or are proposed as threatened or endangered are also under Service captivity. The Service holds these 38 species to ensure the survival of members of imperiled populations, produce seed stock to replenish declining natural populations, conduct research and development activities, or some combination of these. The listed and candidate species being propagated or maintained in hatchery refugia by the Service include seven species of chub, two species of salmon, six species of sucker, four species of pupfish, three species of sturgeon, seven species of trout, and nine other species in various families (Table 2).
CAPTIVE PROPAGATION AND RECOVERY PLANNING
Seventy-eight of the 100 finfish species listed as threatened and endangered in the coterminous United States have recovery plans of some kind. Most have approved recovery plans, but some have draft plans or partial plans, sometimes called "pending" plans. Although captive propagation is discussed in most of those plans, it is not necessarily included as a primary recovery objective or strategy in the recovery implementation schedule required in recovery plans. Captive propagation is usually cited in combination with habitat conservation and restoration as primary recovery strategies. Some recovery plans do not refer to or discuss captive propagation. This may reflect a deliberate decision to exclude captive propagation from consideration or it could be an oversight.
Captive propagation is identified as a viable recovery strategy in the approved recovery plans of 21 of the 29 listed fishes at Service facilities. Five species lack approved recovery plans, but are being
6 DRAFT
TABLE 2. T/E FISH SPECIES CURRENTLY BEING PROPAGATED AT SERVICE FACILITIES CHUBS STATUS PUPFISH STATUS Bonytail chub E Comanche Springs pupfish E Chihuahua chub T Desert pupfish E Humpback chub E Leon Springs pupfish E Pahranagat roundtail chub E Pecos pupfish C Sicklefin chub C Sturgeon chub C Virgin River roundtail chub E SALMON STURGEON STATUS Atlantic salmon C Gulf sturgeon T Winter-run chinook salmon E Pallid sturgeon E Shortnose sturgeon E SUCKERS STATUS TROUT - STATUS Blue sucker C Apache trout T June sucker E Bull trout C Lost River sucker E Colorado River cutthroat trout C Razorback sucker E Gila trout E Shortnose sucker E Greenback cutthroat trout T Warner sucker T Lahontan cutthroat trout T Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout C MISCELLANEOUS STATUS Big Bend gambusia E COlorado squawfish E Cui-ui E Gila topminnow E Guzman beautiful shiner T Montana Arctic grayling C Ozark cavefish T Woundfin E Yaqui catfish T
(C - candidate; E - endangered; T - threatened) propagated or held in refugia under the auspices of strategies that appear in draft recovery plans or partial recovery plans. Only 3 of the 29 listed fishes at Service facilities have recovery plans that do not identify captive propagation as a preferred recovery tool. In these cases, the need to take immediate actions to protect dwindling populations has exceeded Service capabilities to update or
7 DRAFT
revise recovery plans. These actions typically involve establishing refugia populations at hatcheries or beginning the process of developing propagation technologies and techniques (e.g., reproduction, diet, handling, etc.). Even though captive propagation is identified in an additional 24 fish recovery plans, these fish are not being propagated or held in refugia by the Service. This suggests that involvement of the System in their recovery could at least double if additional importance were placed on doing so and if other public and private aquaculture programs were unavailable or disinterested.
CAPTIVE PROPAGATION AND RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
Captive propagation has been used successfully to reverse the decline of several listed species, most of which occur in the western United States. Recovery has been completed or is progressing well for Cui-ui in Nevada, Pecos gambusia in Texas, Greenback cutthroat trout in Colorado, Apache trout and Yaqui chub in Arizona, and Lahontan cutthroat trout in Nevada. In the case of the latter two species, captive propagation was employed as a primary recovery tool even though approved recovery plans have not been developed.
Captive propagation has also been used to produce test animals needed to perform critical research on listed species. Apache trout, Gila trout, and Rio Grande cutthroat trout are examples. This research has helped find ways of producing threatened and endangered fishes in numbers sufficient for their recovery. In the case of Gila trout, captive propagation has been used to reintroduce this species into portions of its native habitat and increase its distribution and abundance to levels biologist believe are self-sustaining.
The Service's involvement in propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes has largely been the result of separate decisions and actions rather than the product of a National or agency-wide commitment to develop a cohesive approach to propagating listed fishes. With little National guidance, impetus, or special funding, Regional Directors have accepted responsibilities and seized opportunities to help protect and recover species faced with extinction. With the benefit of only a few guidelines and virtually no programs, policies, guidelines, or budgets specifically
8 DRAFT structured to support propagation of listed species, hatchery managers and fishery biologists have stepped in to fill an important void.
Technological and staffing improvements at hatcheries involved in propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes have generally been undertaken sparingly, especially in the case of hatcheries whose involvement with listed species consumes only 5 percent or less of their budgets. At many of those hatcheries, little in the way of new equipment, electrical, and water systems have been added to ensure that mechanical or electrical breakdowns do not cause the loss of listed species. Similarly, little funding has been available to ensure that threatened and endangered fishes can be held in isolated systems or in systems with redundant support capabilities, both of which would help ensure that occurrence of disease or system failures would not irreversibly compromise recovery programs.
DISCUSSION
The System has demonstrated flexibility and resourcefulness in adapting to needs to propagate and maintain threatened and endangered fishes. These contributions have not been without cost to the System, which has largely undertaken these challenges and responsibilities without the benefit of an overarching management framework, well-articulated organizational commitments, and specific appropriations for these purposes. Existing facilities, staff, and funds have been stretched, leaving many unmet needs in staffing, training, equipment, and facility maintenance. This has reduced the scope and effectiveness of captive propagation programs directed at restoring depleted fishery resources and mitigating the adverse effects of Federal water development projects.
The System is at a crossroads. Change needs to occur if the System is to continue to assist in conserving and recovering listed fishes and meeting its responsibilities in other areas of fishery management. Change must begin by developing a common understanding on ways the System can be used to meet the needs of listed fishes. This understanding must be accompanied by clear Servicewide policies that identify roles the Service will play in propagating plants and animals in general, and in culturing and maintaining listed fishes.
9 DRAFT
Change needs to occur in three broad areas:
• Development of a comprehensive management approach to supporting propagation and maintenance of listed fishes that recognizes and integrates needs for additional staffing, training, equipment, facilities maintenance, and technology development.
• Identification of captive propagation and maintenance of threatened and endangered fishes as a high priority in Service planning, management and budget documents.
• Implementation of a cohesive approach to managing propagation and maintenance of listed species through development of specific program direction, policy, and funding.
COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Development of a comprehensive management approach to supporting propagation and maintenance of listed fishes that recognizes and integrates needs for staffing, training, equipment, and facilities is needed. Specifically:
• The Fisheries Program needs to establish standards and requirements for designating facilities, personnel, equipment, and technologies that are suitable for propagating or maintaining listed species.
• Regional Directors need to ensure that facilities and personnel involved in propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes are sufficient for those purposes.
• The Fisheries Program needs to ensure that propagation and maintenance of listed fishes at Service hatcheries make best use of the System as a whole, eliminating needless duplication of effort while providing essential assurances against risks associated with disease, human error, and system failures at individual facilities.
10 DRAFT
CAPTIVE PROPAGATION OF LISTED FISHES AS A SERVICE PRIORITY
Clear identification of captive propagation and maintenance of listed fishes as a National priority of the Service is needed. Specifically:
• The Fisheries Program needs to ensure that captive propagation and maintenance of threatened and endangered fishes are specifically identified in the Budget Justification for FY 1996 and thereafter, and in other planning and management documents.
• The Director's Office needs to enlist support from the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Secretary of the Interior for captive propagation and maintenance of listed fishes.
• The Fisheries Program needs to identify current expenditures by the National Fish Hatchery System in propagating and maintaining listed fishes, and reflect them in a line-item fashion or as a separate program element in the Hatchery Operations and Maintenance Subactivity in Budget Justification for FY 1996 and thereafter.
COHESIVE IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of a cohesive Service approach to conducting and managing propagation and maintenance of threatened and endangered species through development of specific program direction, policy and funding is essential. Specifically:
• The Service needs to ensure that captive propagation and maintenance of threatened and endangered fishes are not used as substitutes for conserving listed species in the wild.
• The Service needs to establish overarching policy to guide its propagation of threatened and endangered plants and animals, and to serve as a framework within which specific policies can be developed for listed plants, fish, birds, etc.
11 DRAFT
• The Fisheries Program needs to establish policy to assist its Regional Directors in deciding when and how to use components of the National Fish Hatchery System to assist in recovering listed species.
• The Service needs to develop policies and mechanisms to ensure that responsibilities for captive propagation and maintenance of listed fishes are shared equitably among conservation partners, including Federal, State, and Tribal governments and private individuals, organizations, and institutions, such as zoos, aquaria, and universities.
• The Fisheries Program needs to encourage its Fish Technology Centers and Fish Health Centers to place priority on activities that will contribute to successful propagation and maintenance of threatened and endangered fishes and ultimately to their recovery.
• The Fisheries Program needs to work jointly with the National Biological Survey to identify and satisfy research needs associated with captive propagation and maintenance of listed fishes.
• Regional Directors need to ensure that facilities already involved in propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes are complying with applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act.
• Regional Directors need to ensure that recovery plans are developed and updated in a timely manner for all fishes propagated or maintained by the National Fish Hatchery System.
• The Fisheries Program needs to maintain an accurate record of all components of the National Fish Hatchery System engaged in propagating or maintaining listed fishes, including the species held and their uses.
12 DRAFT
APPENDIX 1. SUMMARY TABLE LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISHES PROPAGATED OR MAINTAINED AT USFWS FACILITIES.
ENDANGERED/THREATENED FISHES PROPAGATED/MAINTAINED AT USFWS FACILITIES as of August, 1993 REGION 1 Facility Species Status Recovery Plan Coleman NFH Winter-run chinook salmon T Pending Lahontan NFH Lahontan cutthroat trout T Draft Cui-ui E Yes Northern Central Valley FRO Winter-run chinook salmon T Pending REGION 2 Dexter NFH&TC Yaqui catfish T Pending Chihuahua chub T Yes Pahranagat roundtail chub E Yes Virgin River roundtail chub E Draft Big Bend gambusia E Yes Desert pupfish E Draft Leon Springs pupfish E Yes Beautiful shiner (Guzman) T Pending Colorado squawfish E Yes Lost River sucker E Yes Razorback sucker E Draft Shortnose sucker E Yes Warner sucker T Yes Gila topminnow E Yes Woundfm E Draft Humpback chub E Yes, revised Bonytail chub E Yes Mescalero NFH Gila trout E Yes San Carlos FAO Gila topmiimow E Yes Uvalde NFH Comanche Springs pupfish E Yes Pecos pupfish C C* Alchesay/Williams Creek NFH Apache trout T Yes Willow Beach NFH Bonytail chub E Yes Colorado squawfish E Yes Humpback chub E Yes, revised
13 DRAFT
ENDANGERED/THREATENED FISHES PROPAGATED/MAINTAINED AT USFWS FACILITIES as of August, 1993
REGION 3
Neosho NFH Ozark cavefish T Yes Pallid sturgeon E Draft REGION 4
Bears Bluff NFH Shortnose sturgeon E Yes, NMFS
Bo Ginn NFH Shortnose sturgeon E Yes, NMFS
Edenton NFH Shortnose sturgeon E Yes, NMFS
Mammoth Springs NFH Pallid sturgeon E Draft Natchitoches NFH Pallid sturgeon E Draft Orangeburg NFH Shortnose sturgeon E Yes, NMFS
Warm Springs NFH Gulf sturgeon T Draft
Welaka NFH Gulf sturgeon T Draft
REGION 5
Berkshire NFH Atlantic salmon C C*
Craig Brook NFH Atlantic salmon C C* Richard Cronin NSS Atlantic salmon C C* Greenlalce NFH Atlantic salmon C C* Nashua NFH Atlantic salmon C C* Pittsford NFH Atlantic salmon C C*
White River NFH Atlantic salmon C C*
REGION 6
Bozeman FTC Greenback cutthroat trout T Yes Pallid sturgeon E Draft Montana Arctic grayling C C* Creston NFH Bull trout C C* Gavins Point NFH Blue sucker C C* Pallid sturgeon E Draft Sturgeon chub C C* SicIdefm chub C C*
14 DRAFT
ENDANGERED/THREATENED FISHES PROPAGATED/MAINTAINED AT USFWS FACILITIES as of August, 1993 REGION 6 Garrison Dam NFH Blue sucker C C* Sicklefin chub C C* Sturgeon chub C C*
Jackson NFH Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat C C* trout -...,.., Ouray NWR: Colorado squaWfish - E Yes (Colorado River Program) J ellickei-=. E No azorback. sucker, E Draft Lost River, sucker E Yes Shortnose sucker,t-- E Yes Woundin.---- E Draft Warner sus.kel -- T Yes Saratoga NFH Gre ri‘k cutthroat trout T Yes olorado River cutthroat trout C C* Valley City NFH Pallid sturgeon E Draft Blue sucker C C* Sicldefm chub C C* Sturgeon chub C C*
C - Candidate E - Endangered T - Threatened *C - Candidate species are not required to have a recovery plan.
15 ACTION PLAN FOR FISHERY RESOURCES AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS PREFACE
"One of my goals is the restoration of America's aquatic ecosystems. In my view, fish are probably the best indicator of ecological health. If the fish are healthy, there's a good chance that the ecosystem is healthy. Unfortunately, in too many places today, the fish are not healthy.
Forty-five percent of our Nation's endangered and threatened species are aquatic. Hatcheries alone cannot bring them back
We must make a comprehensive effort to restore the natural support systems that allow healthy, self-sustaining fish populations to grow and thrive. We must restore our waterways, our wetlands, and our watersheds.
Our mission must be to provide the leadership to conserve, restore, enhance, and manage fishery resources and their supporting aquatic ecosystems, to perpetuate their many benefits for future generations. Proactive conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems will ensure a legacy of immense social, recreational. and economic well-being to all people, and will contribute to the maintenance of global biodiversitv."
Mollie Beattie Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service REBUILDING AQUATIC RESOURCES THROUGH ACTION
Protection of living resources dependent on the Nation's inland and coastal aquatic ecosystems has been a core responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and its predecessor agencies for more than 120 years. Although great effort has been directed toward this goal. the health and viability of many, if not most. of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems continue to deteriorate. For instance, important inland and coastal fishery 1 resources are declining at an alarming rate. An increasing number of aquatic species (fish, mollusks, invertebrates) are being listed under the Endangered Species Act. Nuisance non-indigenous aquatic species such as the zebra mussel and ruffe continue to be introduced into U.S. waters with major impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human activities.
o In the past 100 years at least 27 species and 13 subspecies of North American fishes have become extinct, primarily as a result of habitat loss or alteration. NearlY 100 other species, populations. or stocks are now listed as threatened or endangered.
o Declining fish populations have resulted in significant financial losses for the commercial and recreational fishing industries. The decline of Atlantic Coast striped bass populations was estimated to cost 7,500 jobs and $220 million between 1974 and 1980. Since 1990, economic losses in the Great Lakes recreational and commercial fishing industry have been estimated at $1.4 billion annually. Commercial harvest of Pacific salmon in Washington. Oregon, and California, valued at $200 million in 1980, dropped to only $120 million in 1990.
The Service's vision for the conservation, and sustainable use of America's fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems is based on sound scientific manazement, conservation of natural diversity, effective partnerships. and enhanced public awareness and stewardship. 'Inherent within this vision is the recognition that aquatic resources must be managed for long-term sustainability on an ecosystems basis. Intrinsic and ecological values are of primary importance and healthy fishery resources to meet the Nation's needs must be maintained within these guidelines. The Service believes that implementing this Fishery Resources and Aquatic Ecosystem Action Plan (Action Plan) will result in a future where:
• 30 pound naturally reproduced lake trout, free of contaminants, are routinely caught in the Great Lakes.
• No aquatic species are threatened with extinction and ecosystems are diverse and resilient.
• Aquatic habitats are recognized as important public assets and society is actively participating in the conservation, restoration, enhancement, and enjoyment of these habitats. • Fishery manazement costs are reduced due to self-sustaining populations.
• Atlantic salmon runs result in front page news in New England newspapers.
• International agreements and protocols are in place to exercise protection of aquatic ecosystems worldwide.
The Service recognizes that this Vision will only be accomplished through cooperative efforts and partnerships with others. The Service will focus its resources on those aquatic ecosystems where there is a National interest. These efforts will respect the jurisdiction of others such as States, local and Tribal Governments, and will build upon regional partnerships and joint ventures to accomplish common ecosystem restoration and management objectives.
ACT/ON PLAN PRIORITIES
This ACTION PLAN presents a comprehensive ecosystem- and watershed-based conservation, restoration, and enhancement program. The program focuses on scientific management of native species, wild stocks, and other nationally significant fishery resources; and is complemented by an innovative propagation program that supports native species restoration, endangered species recovery, Federal mitigation responsibilities, recreational fishing, and National Wildlife Refuge and Tribal needs.
The Service will focus its efforts on areas where there is a Federal interest such as interjurisdictional waters, National Wildlife Refuges, Tribal lands and waters, Federal project mitigation areas, areas that contain listed threatened or endangered species, or that have declining native species that could be subject to Federal listing in the future.
The highest priorities to be addressed through implementation of this ACTION PLAN are:
• Conservation of self-sustaining native fish populations and the maintenance of productive fishery resources and aquatic habitats based on concepts of ecosystem diversity and management.
• Developing and encouraging partnerships between and among governments and the private sector to provide greater opportunities for conserving and enhancing aquatic ecosystems and for advancing fisheries stewardship.
• Increasing public education and outreach to develop an informed and involved citizenry.
• Maintaining healthy wild stocks through genetic diversity, harvest management, habitat improvements, and judicious use of hatchery products. • Serving as a catalyst ensuring that aquatic resource problems are quickly identified. zorrecti-:e steps are organized. and agreed to action is coordinated and addressed.
• Assuring long-term ecosystem health while supporting sustainable development of aquatic ecosystems and fishery resources.
These priorities are incorporated into ACTION COMPONENTS that will guide implementation of the ACTION PLAN. They represent priority areas of emphasis and new initiatives. They do not define all of the fishery resources and aquatic ecosystem activities of the Service. Where there are conflicts, the ACTION COMPONENTS will take precedence. Implementation of the ACTION PLAN will require that Service activities be reviewed periodically and reordered as necessary, both at national and regional levels. Additional actions will be implemented based on their relations to this ACTION PLAN and the mission it seeks to fulfill.
ACTION COMPONENTS
ECOSYSTEM AND WATERSHED CONSERVATION, RESTORATION, AND MANAGEMENT
Component 1. Partnership: With States, Native Americans, the private sector, and other Federal agencies, develop and implement common management goals and objectives.
Priority Actions:
A. Initiate and participate in stewardship programs that ensure restoration, conservation, and proactive management of major aquatic ecosystems and watersheds. Focus will be on major interjurisdictional waters such as the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, Missouri, Connecticut, and Yukon rivers. and Pacific and Atlantic salmon restoration.
B. Initiate actions to determine limiting factors in an effort to reverse declining fish populations, with special emphasis on species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates.
C. Form partnerships to prevent aquatic ecosystems and watersheds from being impacted by the harmful effects of nonindigenous species (e.g., zebra mussels, ruffe), and to control and reduce aquatic nuisance species.
D. Assist Tribal governments in managing on-reservation fishery resources and trust-held fishery resources off-reservation.
Component 2. Habitat Conservation and Restoration: Develop policies and mechanisms to reduce degradation of riparian, freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats. • Priority Actions:
A. Develop national policies on f'shery mitigation :hat protect natural habitats and wild stocks. zescore or maintain aquatic ecosystem diversity, ensure consideration of fishery resources in water development project planning, and include fishery resource evaluations as a critical part of mitigation follow-up studies.
B. Develop guidelines for riparian zone protection. instream flows, and habitat restoration.
C. Identify nationally significant aquatic ecosystems. watersheds. fishery habitat, and associated riparian areas as Service priority for conservation and protection.
D. Focus fishery technical assistance on conservation. restoration. and enhancement of habitats essential to declining, candidate, and listed aquatic species.
Component 3. Water Quality and Quantity: Protect the quality and quantity of water available for fishery purposes and aquatic ecosystems integrity.
Priority Actions:
A. Define water quality, quantity, and instream flow requirements for aquatic species.
B. Maintain and protect instream flows in important fishery habitats.
C. Implement effective approaches for fish passage for hydroelectric and. other water development projects.
FISHERY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Component 4. Program Evaluation: Ensure that Service hatchery and management programs are based on approved management plans and are compatible with the preservation of native stocks. Initiate comprehensive evaluation of Service fishery restoration, mitigation, and enhancement programs.
Priority Actions:
A. Ensure that production of hatchery fish and associated management are based on sound principles of genetics management and conservation biology.
B. Develop and implement monitoring, sampling, and reporting systems. CO evaluate effectiveness of (1) fishery restoration, mitigation, and enhancement programs, and (2) hatchery programs in achieving specific management obiectives, especially in conserving wild stocks maintaining the diversity of native fish communities, and contributing to stable, productive fisheries. Develop Fishery and Aouati: lzosystem Hanazemenc Plans that outline' specific strategies and objectives :1-lac consider genetic. ecological. and economic characteristics of fishery resources. especially wild stocks and those in decline or in threat of decline.
D. Develop and implement a Service genetics management policy to ensure hatchery programs contribute to: 1) national fishery objectives. 2) fishery management objectives for specific ecosystems. and 3) maintenance of genetic diversity.
E. Develop and use captive propagation techniques for fishes and other aquatic species listed as threatened. endangered. or candidate under the Endangered SpeCies Act, when specifically prescribed in recovery plans or otherwise approved by the Director.
Component 5. Technology Development: Increase investigations to improve understanding of fish genetics, disease, depredation, nutrition, contaminant impacts, habitat losses, culture techniques, and control of non-indigenous nuisance species.
Priority Actions:
A. Design and implement innovative fishery technology development activities (e.g., husbandry, habitat restoration, fish passage, contaminants) to support restoration and management of aquatic ecosystems.
B. Establish fish health programs and protocols to protect wild and hatchery stocks from diseases. Develop technologies and procedures to minimize risk of pathogen transfer, to avoid/minimize epizootic outbreaks.
C. Develop predictive capabilities to determine the cumulative effects of habitat degradation and alteration on fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems.
D. Develop assessment and predictive capabilities to determine methods of preventing introductions of aquatic nuisance species and well as determining their effects on aquatic resources.
Component 6. Fishery Management on National Wildlife Refuges: Develop and implement comprehensive fishery management plans and assessments on all applicable refuges.
Priority Actions:
A. Develop and implement comprehensive fishery management plans to restore native fish communities for: preservation of biodiversity, public education, and compatible recreation opportunities on appropriate National Wildlife Refuges. Evaluate siznificant fishery .7.abitat and watershed areas. important aquatic ecosystems. and associated riparian areas for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuze System.
PUBLIC SUPPORT. OUTREACH, AND EDUCATION
Component 7. State Fisheries Grants (Federal Aid): Increase responsiveness and efficiency of the Federal Aid program by improving partnerships with the States, private industry, conservation organizations, and the public to protect and restore fish and aquatic habitats so that the needs of recreational users are met.
Priority Actions:
A. Encourage States to develop goals for restoration of native fish populations and to manage nonindigenous sport fisheries in a manner compatible with conservation of native fish communities.
B. Encourage and emphasize Federal Aid projects that address interjurisdictional fisheries issues, aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement. and natural resource damage assessment.
C. Encourage promotion of diverse fishing opportunities that meet the public need while adhering to sound principles of biodiversity conservation and management.
Component 8. Aquaculture: Establish partnerships with the private aquaculture community to ensure industry development that is economically viable and compatible with protection of wild fish stocks.
Priority Actions:
A. Develop and implement protocols to ensure that fish, fish pathogens. and fish products available from private aquaculture operations do not pose unacceptable risks to natural ecosystems.
B. Provide fish culture information, results of fish health research, technical training, and technical assistance to private aquaculture consistent with Service fishery stewardship objectives.
Component 9. Public Education and Outreach: Establish environmental awareness and outreach programs to develop an informed and involved citizenry that supports aquatic ecosystem conservation and fishery stewardship.
Priority Actions:
A. Increase educational outreach to improve understanding of the status and value of healthy fish populations and to broaden public awareness of the importance of conserving America's diverse fishery and aquatic ecosystems. , 3. Use the Service's Challenge Grant Program and Programs such as those of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.' :o catalyze fishery conservation, enhance private sector involvement, and foster increased public awareness and stewardship for fishery and aquatic ecosystems programs.
Component 10. Law Enforcement: Enforce Federal laws to ensure that no species is threatened by illegal take, transport, commerce, or habitat destruction.
Priority Actions:
A. Focus fishery law enforcement efforts on illegal activities having the greatest impact on nationally significant fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems.
B. Prevent and reduce unintentional violations through increased efforts to inform the public about Federal fishery laws and regulations, and the consequences of violating these regulations. Emphasize preventive enforcement and educational programs that promote fishery and aquatic ecosystem conservation ethics. HATCHERY SUBACTIVITY ANALYSIS REPORT November 1991 Team Members Dan Diggs - Region 1 Dan Bumgarner - Region 3 Dave Allen - Region 4 Larry Visscher - Region 6 Larry Ludke - Region 8 Steve Brimm - Region 9 Ron Lambertson - Region 5 Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRODUCTION MAINTENANCE FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS ii FISH HEALTH ...... ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/PUBLIC OUTREACH iii ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT iii Directorate Response to Report Recommendations iv INTRODUCTION 1 PRODUCTION 5 Current Situation 5 Problems/Causes 5 Desired Situation 7 Recommendations 8 9 MAINTENANCE 10 Current Situation •10 Problems/Cause 10 Desired Situation 10 11 FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS 12 Current Situation 12 Problems/Causes 14 Desired Situation 14 Recommendations 14 16 FISH HEALTH 17 Current Situation 17 Problems/Causes 17 Desired Situation 17 Recommendations 17 18 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/PUBLIC OUTREACH 19 Current Situation 19 Problems/Causes 20 Desired Situation 21 Recommendations 22 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 23 Current Situation 23 Problems/Causes 24 Desired Situation 25 Recommendations 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PRODUCTION
Recommendations
1. Unclear Management Goals and Direction
A. Given that the Vision strategies provide the framework for Fisheries' activities, the Service should undertake a comprehensive effort to define Fisheries' national direction and priorities. This effort should use the R&R as the point of departure and evaluate changing biological, technological, and societal, trends and perspectives. It should be patterned after the Refuges 2003 initiative that uses a broad base of public and constituency input in order to create a program that meets customer expectations.
B. Regions should determine if hatchery production programs are adequately guided by associated fishery management objectives. Management objectives should be contained in comprehensive fishery management plans (joint plans if state, tribal, or Federal cooperators are involved).
2. Lack of Comprehensive Hatchery Product Evaluation Program
A. Regions should develop comprehensive hatchery product evaluation programs for each fish production program (there may be more than one program at an individual hatchery). The evaluation program should begin with broodstock management and end with performance of hatchery stocked fish. It should reflect measurable, fishery resource objectives and benefits. -
B. The Service should immediately begin identifying current hatchery product evaluations as a separate project element under the Hatchery O&M and Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance subactivities. Then each Region should develop budget initiatives to phase in a complete hatchery product evaluation program over a three year period.
3. Genetic Resources Conservation
Fisheries should complete its draft Genetic Resources Conservation Policy. This policy should be designed to maintain appropriate genetic integrity and diversity of the production stocks and must be aligned with fishery management programs that protect the genetic integrity of natural and wild stocks. It should include more precise data on the genetics and performance information on strains of wild and captive broodstocics used in achieving common management goals.
4. Endangered and Imperiled Species
A. The Service should ensure that.fish hatcheries are included in the analysis of the use of captive broodstock programs for species recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act. At a preventative level, Fisheries should define activities appropriate for hatcheries in preserving imperiled species through artificial propagation.
B. Each Region should review its Cyclical Maintenance priorities relative to rehabilitating endangered species hatcheries in order to provide optimum protection for these species when brought into the hatchery environment. MAINTENANCE
Recommendation 1. The Assistant Director-Fisheries in cooperation with the Division of Engineering should continue to prepare a report for Congress, summarizing Maintenance Management System (MMS) information, including major rehabilitation needs. The Service should establish a separate funding source for major rehabilitation projects (separate from the hatchery maintenance account), so that the entire hatchery maintenance backlog can be addressed.
2. Funding amounts included in the two separate accounts (i.e. hatchery maintenance and major rehabilitation) should be consistent with project needs identified through MMS. The new major rehabilitation account should be established to assure adequate time for planning, designing, and contracting of major rehabilitation projects identified and prioritized in MMS.
3. Regional Directors should ensure that cost estimates for major rehabilitation projects include sufficient funding for engineering planning, design, and contract management. FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Recommendations 1. The Production analysis section has recommended the Service initiate a comprehensive effort to define Fisheries National direction and priorities. As part of this effort, the Technology Centers must establish a method or process to define National priorities and future project emphasis. This effort must embrace the Total Quality Management Concept. .r 2. The maintenance analysis section identified the need for a separate category for major rehabilitation projects. This is extremely critical for the Technology Centers. Each Center also needs to develop a comprehensive construction initiative which would identify new construction needs. The combination of the major rehabilitation and new construction initiatives should address all future needs of the Centers, regarding water supply, effluent treatment, office, laboratory, storage, and special facilities.
3. The Centers need the resources to initiate and maintain a positive aquaculture outreach program. This would include the development of cooperative partnerships with the aquaculture industry in the areas of technology transfer, cooperative studies, extension services which will all benefit the Nations fishery resources. 4. The Centers need to emphasize coordination, communication, and information transfer. This will require the Centers' Directors remaining in close communication with one another. They would also work closely with Service and State Research laboratories, private aquaculture and consulting engineering firms.
5. Project selection and review must be a coordinated effort involving all the Technology Centers, Washington Office, Regional Offices and specific Service Research Offices conducting studies in similar areas of the project.
ii FISH HEALTH
Recommendations
1. Fisheries should develop a plan which specifically identifies how the Service will assist the developing aquaculture industry with our fish health services capability so as not to jeopardize the Nation's fish resources.
2. Fisheries needs to identify the areas of potential conflict between the Service programs and mission with that of aquaculture and work directly with the States and industry representatives to fmd solutions.
3. The Service should develop a National Fish Health Management Plan to address inadequate and inconsistent laws and regulations for fish disease control, standards for diagnosis and certification, and training requirements of fish health professionals.
The primary thrust behind -these recommended actions is to seek sound and effective measures for fish health management in this country primarily through cooperation with the aquaculture industry and with a minimum of regulation.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/PUBLIC OUTREACH Recommendations
1. Fisheries, in cooperation with OTE, should develop opportunities offered by hatcheries into a Service-wide program with established goals, priorities, and operational plans stepped down to the field level.
2. The Service should develop coordinated plans and initiatives to obtain new resources to initiate and enhance education and outreach that will include hatcheries.
3. Fisheries should identify cyclical maintenance projects that will update and rehabilitate hatchery facilities targeted for public outreach activities. Legacy '99 anticipated maintenance increases should be used to fund facility improvements required to upgrade environmental education activities.
4. Fisheries should identify opportunities and recruit professionally trained personnel into positions at national, regional and local levels to implement environmental education programs nationwide.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Recommendations
1. The Regions should evaluate existing organizational structures and strongly consider geographical (versus functional) alignment for directing and evaluating programs.
2. Regional Offices should evaluate existing staff capabilities in relation to span of control and unmet responsibilities (e.g. timely and effective review and/or input into Washington Office information requests, participation on interagency task forces and committees, and participation on interagency resource management committees) and take steps to effectively address unmet needs.
3. The developing Fishery Information System, should be re-evaluated to see if it can be reconfigured, at least in part, to allow for easy compilation of the type of data called for by CSMS. However, this process should not be done until the CSMS reporting requirements have been finalized and determined to be related to the Service implementation of the Strategies. Directorate Response to Report Recommendations Comments to the Draft report were received from all Regions and many other members of the Directorate. They are included in their entirety as an Appendix. An effort was made to summarize the written responses in relation to expressed or implied agreement (A) or disagreement (D) with each of the recommendations. If no clear indication was given, no judgement was made. In some instances a member specifically noted that if they did not comment otherwise, then they did agree with a recommendation. This statement accounts for some Regions showing substantial agreement compared to other Regions.
No specific attempt was made to rewrite the document, given that the majority of members indicated general or strong support for the essential content of the report including its recommendations. These letters of comment will be brought to the attention of AFas they proceed to implement the approved recommendations.
DIRECTORATE RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTORATE RECOM t R1 R2 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 R9-F DD FWE RW EA R5-PAO
PROD-1A A A A A A A A A A A A PROD-18 A A A A A A A A PROD-2A A A A A A A A A PROD-2B A D A A A A PROD-3 A A A A A A A A A .0 PROD-4A DAAA A A D PROD-48 A A A A A A MAIN-1 D A A A A A A MAIN-2 A A A A A MAIN-3 A A A A A TECH-1 A A A A A A TECH-2 A A A A A TECH-3 A A A A TECH-4 A A A A A A TECH-5 A A A A A A .HEAL-1 A A A A A A A HEAL-2 A A A A A A HEAL-3 A A A A A EEPO-1 A A A A A A A A EEPO-2 A A A A A A A A A EEPO-3 A D A A A A A A EEPO-4 A A A A A A A A A ADMN-1 A D D A A A .D ADMN-2 A A A A. ' - D ADMN-3 D A A A A A
The following code was used to develop the Table. If the Directorate member specifically agreed with a recommendation, or statements pertaining to the section's recommendations clearly implied agreement this is noted by an (A). Disagreement, denoted by a (D) vras similarly defined. If comments were more of a content or editing nature, or did not clearly state or infer agreement (A) or disagreement (D), the column is left blank.
iv Production Recommendations 1A. 1B, and 2A were generally or specifically supported by a majority of the directorate. The primary caveat, was concern that in going to our customers, the Service maintain some control/oversight of the process as opposed to having a totally outside-the-Service process. On Recommendation 2B, Region 4 only disagreed with the concept of a new "project element", for Hatchery product evaluation. They, as with others, agreed that this was an important task and indicated that Hatchery O&M funds should be considered for this purpose (by Management Assistance Offices) if FWMA funds were insufficient. Recommendation 3 was broadly supported. Recommendation 4A was disagreed to by two members. Their concerns were that Endangered Species should have the lead or be strongly involved in defining appropriate roles for hatcheries in the protection and recovery of endangered species. Maintenance Region 1 disagrees with the recommendation to establish a second category of cyclical maintenance for major rehab projects. They believe even large projects can be handled if the program is administered proactively in the Regional office, particularly for engineer design and support. Otherwise, the recommendations were generally aereed to with some comments that a similar approach should be taken for Refuges and Research for their cyclical maintenance major rehab projects. Technology Centers There was general support for the recommendations in this section. Region 8 expressed strong interest in this section and noted obvious concerns that some Centers were doing research and that a clear definition of the function of the Technology Centers was needed. This concern seems to be addressed by the recommendations in this section. The Deputy Director expressed concern that the recommendations had existed from an earlier effort and wondered why none had been implemented. Fish Health General support was expressed for the recommendations in this section and no known disagreement. One Region suggested that issues were significantly more complex than is suggested by the section, but did not express or imply disagreement with the recommendations. Environmental Education/Public Outreach . With the exception of Region 4 regarding recommendation 3 in this section, all recommendations received broad support, strongly so in several instances. Region 4 did not disagree with the desire to rehab and upgrade public use/public education facilities at hatcheries, but felt that a totally separate budget initiative should be undertaken to implement the recommendation. Administrative Support Two Regions and the Deputy Director disagreed with the first recommendation. They all felt that organizational alignment should be left to the discretion of the RD. The Deputy Director also felt that Regional Directors also disagreed with recommendation 2 believing RD's have sufficient latitude now to deal with the issue. One Region also disagreed with the third recommendation suggesting that the recommendation was trying to justify the Fishery Information System and that it may be inappropriate to report accomplishments under CSMS. AF will be apprised of this concern as they develop an implementation process for the approved recommendations. HATCHERY SUBACTIVITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The Service's hatchery efforts date back to the late 1800's. National Fish Hatcheries were built as a response to declining fish stocks. Early declines such as documented in the Columbia Basin in the late 1800's were a result of overharvest. It was not long before environmental impacts of land and water development began having equally adverse effects on aquatic systems and fisheries. Hatchery development continued in earnest to help "replace or mitigate" for the damages. In most cases, throughout the first 100 years of hatchery construction and operation, their purpose was to provide fish for lost or negatively impacted fisheries. Early Federal hatcheries were designed specifically to support commercial fisheries. As recreational fishing expanded and became an equally important use of fishery resources in the 20th century, sport fishery restoration was added as a purpose of Federal hatcheries as mitigation facilities were built for Federal water development projects across the country. In recent years, the function of hatcheries within the National Fish Hatchery System has grown to include providing fish for treaty assured Native American fisheries and rearing of endangered species for recovery efforts.
The Hatcheries subactivity was chosen as one of the first four subactivities to be analyzed as the Service begins implementation of the new Vision document, focusing on Total Quality Management (TQM) and a Common Sense Management System (CSMS). The Team, chaired by Region 5 Regional Director Ron Lambertson consisted of the following members:
Dan Diggs - Region 1 Dan Bumgarner - Region 3 Dave Allen - Region 4 Larry Visscher - Region 6 Larry Ludke - Region 8 Steve Brimm - Region 9
The Team was ably assisted by Steve Rideout from Region 5.
The Team agreed at the initial meeting to focus its attention on six basic areas of the Hatchery subactivity. These were 1) Production, 2) Maintenance, 3) Fish Technology 4) Fish Health, 5) Public Outreach and Education, and 6) Administration. Additionally, the Team chose not to undertake an extensive visit to selected facilities and/or Regional offices. This decision was based on several factors, including:
o recognition that a significant amount of information was collected for a recent and extensive management review of Hatcheries and a draft report prepared. Fisheries already has an extensive reporting system that allows .analysis of production, distribution, and maintenance data at the Washington Office level. o A recent nation-wide survey of public outreach activities at all Service facilities had just been completed. o Regional representatives on the Team (Region 9 maintained liaison with Region 2) had strong knowledge of the role that Hatcheries played in their regions in relation to the Goals and Strategies of the Vision document. Much of the data used by the Team to define the Hatchery subactivity is attached in the "Support Data for the Hatchery Subactivity Analysis" document.
1 The Fisheries Activity represents 18% of the Resource Management appropriations directed to the Service for non-research programs (Figure 1). The Refuges and Wildlife component does not include appropriations for law enforcement or migratory birds, and the Fisheries component does not include the Lower Snake Compensation Plan subactivity since funds are totally reimbursed by revenues from the Bonneville Power Administration. Fisheries is the smallest of the Service's three major non-research programs.
The Hatchery subactivity is one of two major components of the Fisheries Activity and comprises 80% of appropriated funds for the two major subactivities (Figure 2). Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance is the remaining 20%. The Hatchery Subactivity is composed of four major functions. Operations accounts for 69% of the appropriated funds while Maintenance, Technology Centers and Health Centers accounted for 20%, 6% and 5% of the budget respectively (Figure 3). While Maintenance is managed as a separate subactivity fund, the technology centers and the fish health centers derive their funds directly from hatchery operations.
Figure 1 Service budget for three major non-research program areas for FY 1990 not-including law enforcement, migratory birds, and Lower Snake River Comp. Plan.
2 ,—‚ - I , 1 ) L
Hatchenes 80%
F henesAsstance 20%
Figure 2 Total Fisheries Budget FY 1990 less the Lower Snake Comp. Plan.
.Hatcrienes Budaet (FY 19 90) $31, -25'4,000
ODerations E9%
Health Centers 5% Tech Centers 6%
Maintenance 20%
Figure 3 Per cent funding received by various components of the Hatchery subactivity during FY 1990.
3 The Team addressed each of the six major components of the Hatchery subactivity (the four shown in Figure 3 plus public outreach/education and administration) following the general guidelines proposed for each analysis. The following format was followed: o Current Situation o Problems/Causes o Desired Situation o Recommendations Recommendations, for each of the six sections were designed to address identified problems and, if implemented, lead to the desired situation. The desired situation is believed to more directly implement the Strategies of the Vision document and fulfill the intent of a true Total Quality Management program.
.•
4 PRODUCTION Current Situation
The Hatchery Subactivity Analysis Team (Team) has evaluated the current fish production activities of the National Fish Hatchery System and found their activities to be aligned with several of the "Vision For The Future" (Vision) strategies. As we examined each program area, concentrating on major species of production, we found that every program can be aligned with one or more of our Vision strategies (see attachments). However, Regions are having difficulty in prioritizing hatchery work in regards to the various strategies of the Vision document and the Responsibilities and Role Statement (R&R). There remains a sense of shifting directions but without guidance on priorities.
This review found that the Service has been consistent in developing partnerships with the states, Native Americans, the private sector, other Federal agencies and nations, to develop and achieve common fishery management goals and objectives. Some programs are site specific mitigation projects where a hatchery is assigned a fish production goal to meet for a specific body of water. Other programs are large cooperative fishery management efforts that are basin-wide in scope and involve comprehensive fishery restoration efforts of which hatchery production is one fishery management tool being used to restore, mitigate, or preserve fishery resources.
Many of these cooperative management programs do not identify the specific roles and guidelines for hatchery production that are necessary to meet management objectives. This creates planning problems as cooperating agencies review the programs and may change goals according to public pressures that may or may not be in line with the original program goals or Service policies. In reviewing the Hatchery O&M Subactivity relative to the Common Sense Management System (CSMS) and Total Quality Management (TQM) principles, we found a glaring and universal shortcoming across the Regions in the lack of a comprehensive hatchery product evaluation program. A program that monitors both the quality of fish throughout the hatchery rearing cycle and maintains follow-up evaluations on their post-release performance relative to the appropriate management goals and objectives.
It is important to understand that this evaluation function is largely a Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance (FWMA) function and should be conducted by Fisheries Assistance Offices. Even though the FWMA subactivity was not intended for this review, the review team found it necessary to discuss the evaluation program linkage between these subactivities. A comprehensive hatchery product evaluation program will be the key to providing improvements in the achievement of both National Fish Hatchery and the over all Fisheries Activity goals.
In regards to the recently emerging issues related to hatchery roles in preserving wild fish stocks, endangered species, and genetic resources conservation, we found no uniformity in Regional efforts in these areas.
Problems/Causes
1. Unclear Management Goals and Direction
The result of over 100 years of Federal hatchery development in response to increasingly varied land and water impacts across the country has resulted in National Fish Hatcheries having no single, all-encompassing piece of legislation that guides their purpose and function. Hatcheries have been developed ad hoc by numerous pieces of legislation or appropriations in response to regional and site specific fisheries management needs. The long-term result has been unclear and changing national goals and direction. We identified three reasons for this problem.
5 A. There appears to be a lack of,, focus and direction within the Fisheries Activity that results in a poor understanding of the roles and priorities for National Fish Hatcheries. Numerous Service planning and policy documents have been developed over the years to help provide national guidance for fish hatcheries. A proliferation of these documents in recent years has given a sense of unclear management goals and direction. These documents include: Regional Resource Plans (RRPs) in the 1970's and early 1980's; the 1985 Service Statement of Responsibilities and Role (R&R); a follow-up implementation plan to the R&R document written in 1988 that was never comprehensively implemented; the Service's leadership in developing a "National Recreational Fisheries Policy" in 1988 and the subsequent Service recreational fisheries policy "Fisheries USA" in 1990. To many Service employees, there seems to be conflicts in direction between these documents. B. State and Tribal rights in cooperative management programs often give confusing impressions to hatchery managers. The questions of "who is in charge" and "to whom do I listen can be heard often." Since the Service, in most situations, lacks fisheries management authority, the states and tribes are often provided equal decision-making power to the Service on the use of Federally-reared fish. While there are many areas where this cooperative relationship works well and consensus is attained between all partners, the process does break down at times in the argument of "who makes the final decision ... the Service or the State/Tribe". For example, we have Federal water development projects with Federal mitigation hatcheries, operated by Federal employees and Federal dollars with Service accountability to Congress for their operations and success that are guided by non-Federal management plans that may or may not agree with Service policy or biological principles. A related problem is that hatchery operational programs are not always guided by an adequate supporting fishery management plan that provides appropriate biological rationale and guidance needed for production planning. As an example, a reservoir mitigation program may instruct that a given poundage of rainbow trout be reared without any further definition to appropriate stock, strain, size, time, or area of release or considerations for genetic issues. C. Finally, and very importantly, the pace of change of biological and social factors affecting hatchery programs and fishery resources is so rapid that three-year Federal budget and planning cycles have kept us behind the changes. A good example is the recent concern over hatchery operations relative to protecting wild stocks of fish. This will demand changes to hatchery operations that even one year ago were not being considered. 2. Lack of a Comprehensive Hatchery Product Evaluation Program As noted under the Current Situation discussion above, there is no comprehensive program within the Fisheries Activity to provide evaluation of hatchery fish performance and quality control. This is probably a result of past National Fish Hatchery reporting efforts that measured outputs and accomplishments in pounds and numbers rsf fish, not in terms related to the true management purpose for which the fish were used, such as contributing to fisheries. This has built an erroneous perception to many, including Congress, that "pounds of fish" is what is important. As a result, the impression is that hatchery evaluation is a simple accounting procedure that reports numbers and pounds not the complex process of evaluating quality and performance of the hatchery product from the day it is spawned to the day it fulfills its management purpose.
6 3. Genetic Resources Conservation
There are no national standards or operational guidelines for hatchery operations relative to the array of issues involved in genetic resources conservation. These issues range from maintaining appropriate genetic viability of broodstocks. to recommendations on hatchery operational and fish stocking practices that maintain the integrity of native and wild fishes in the natural environment. Part of the dilemma is the conflicting or absence of genetic data and research that can provide complete guidance. Although Regions have been modifying operational practices for years in response to increasing understanding and concern over genetic resources conservation, no comprehensive set of guidelines exists.
4. Endangered and Imperiled Species
The role of National Fish Hatcheries in endangered species recovery efforts is not clearly defined and remains an area of controversy in some cases. The issue is two fold. First, what is the appropriate role of hatcheries in captive broodstock programs for endangered species? The second issue is more practical. While hatcheries are increasingly being called upon to protect and preserve threatened and endangered fish species through egg banking and production programs, they are not presently physically constructed to accommodate the fail-safe environment needed to protect fish stocks that literally may only number in the hundreds or dozens. Any system failure, and these occur regularly, is then a threat to an entire species or stock of fish.
Desired Situation Fish production evaluations should cover a diverse range of factors that measure fishery management program success such as: contribution rates of fish to recreational creels; exploitation rates of hatchery fish in commercial fisheries; smolt to adult survival and return rates on anadromous fishes; and measurements of genetic suitability of hatchery fish stocked into natural stream situations.
Fish production at National Fish Hatcheries should be guided by fishery management programs and objectives that are based upon the Vision strategies that have been translated into Regionally specific priorities. The flexibility of allowing each Region to build their hatchery programs somewhere within the framework of the Vision strategies is a more pragmatic approach to a National Fish Hatchery activity. The habitat, biology, species, and political environment dealt with on a Region by Region basis will require different approaches and different solutions to fisheries management problems. Rigid adherence to a strict set of priorities detracts from our ability to manage change; and change is the keyword of the 1990's.
Fisheries programs would be based on comprehensive fishery management plans and when including needed Hatchery support, would insure that: o Stocking rates are based on carrying capacity of the habitat involved or a desired exploitation rate for harvest enhancement programs;
o Inappropriate gene flow into, - wild fish populations is minimized; o Appropriate stocks that provide optimum performance benefits for the management purpose (harvest, endangered species restoration, etc) are used, and; o Fish are stocked into areas where original causes of population decline have a high probability of solution and will not be a continuing limiting factor in meeting the prescribed fishery management objectives.
7 As a governmental organization, our activities reflect public values and needs. With the rapid societal changes in demographics, advancing fisheries technology, and changing public perspectives on conservation, we need the flexibility to adapt. Each Region should maintain its ability to change and adapt to resource needs as they arise. If there is one underlying guiding principle to provide national continuity in the Hatchery subactivity it should be that each program is founded on sensible stewardship principles which include first of all sound biology, ana all the elements of public responsiveness such as good communications and partnerships, public outreach and education, and public use opportunities. In short, the subactivity would be guided by the principles and practices of a true Total Quality Management program. Each hatchery production program should have a comprehensive hatchery product evaluation program that begins with broodstock management and continues through a performance evaluation of hatchery-stocked fish. A comprehensive evaluation program measuring the quality and performance of the hatchery product is key to ensuring management goals are met, providing a system of operational feedback to define successful versus unsuccessful techniques and practices, and ensuring hatchery operational practices are compatible with management needs. The maintenance of biodiversity, preservation of genetic resources, and protection of native species are key elements of the Service's Vision For The Future that can not be attained in the Fisheries activity unless the commitment is made to initiate a comprehensive hatchery quality and product evaluation program. It should be recognized that hatchery fish stocking is but one tool that fisheries managers will use in achieving larger fishery management goals. In addition, fisheries management programs may utilize habitat restoration, fishery harvest management, or other actions. The key point is, each hatchery should have an operational plan that is linked to a fishery management plan/goal and the specific role of the hatchery production in that plan identified along with how success will be measured. In addition, an integral part to both the hatchery operational plan and its guiding fishery management plan is an assessment that addresses salient issues of genetic resources conservation. This would include broodstock management practices that maintain the appropriate genetic integrity of the production stock and considerations for protecting the genetic integrity of the natural or native stocks in the areas where the hatchery fish are stocked.
Recommendations 1. Unclear Management Goals and Direction A. Given that the Vision strategies provide the framework for Fisheries' activities, the Service should undertake a comprehensive effort to define Fisheries' national direction and priorities. This effort should use the R&R as the point of departure and evaluate changing biological, technological, and societal, trends and perspectives. It should be patterned after the Refuges 2003 initiative that uses a broad base of public and constituency input in order to create a program that meets customer expectations. B. Regions should determine if hatchery production programs are adequately guided by associated fishery management objeCtives. Management objectives should be contained in comprehensive fishery management plans (joint plans if state, tribal, or Federal cooperators are involved).
2. Lack of Comprehensive Hatchery Product Evaluation Program A. Regions should develop comprehensive hatchery product evaluation programs for each fish production program (there may be more than one program at an individual hatchery). The evaluation program should begin with broodstock management and end with performance of hatchery stocked fish. It should reflect measurable, fishery resource objectives and benefits.
8 B. The Service should immediately,begin identifying current hatchery product evaluations as a separate project element wider the Hatchery O&M and Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance subactivities. Then each Region should develop budget initiatives to phase in a complete hatchery product evaluation program over a three year period.
3. Genetic Resources Conservation
Fisheries should complete its draft Genetic Resources Conservation Policy. This policy should be designed to maintain appropriate genetic integrity and diversity of the production stocks and must be aligned with fishery management programs that protect the genetic integrity of natural and wild stocks. It should include more precise data on the genetics and performance information on strains of wild and captive broodstocks used in achieving common management goals. 4. Endangered and Imperiled Species A. The Service should ensure that fish hatcheries are included in the analysis of the use of captive broodstock programs for species recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act. At a preventative level, Fisheries should define activities appropriate for hatcheries in preserving imperiled species through artificial propagation. B. Each Region should review its Cyclical Maintenance priorities relative to rehabilitating endangered species hatcheries in order to provide optimum protection for these species when brought into the hatchery environment.
9 KI MAINTENANCE
Current Situation Over the past several years, hatchery maintenance funding (Program Element 1313) has increased substantially—from $2.4 million in 1985 to $8.5 million in 1991. This increase is the result of a recognition that the Hatchery System infrastructure is in dire need of repair and rehabilitation. As of March 1991, hatchery maintenance needs totaled $116 million. This total includes $51 million in major rehabilitation projects that cannot be accomplished with hatchery maintenance (one-year) funding. Over the last 30 years, Hatchery System facilities have received only limited or piece-meal major rehabilitation. Many facilities are in a state of disrepair and require complete rehabilitation or reconstruction utilizing the latest technologies. Hatcheries dealing with endangered and/or threatened species recovery programs are utilizing old production facilities that are not well suited for specific recovery efforts or protection of imperiled or endangered species. Construction funding for these types of projects has not been forthcoming, and. by definition, hatchery maintenance funds cannot be utilized for major rehabilitation projects; therefore, the major rehabilitation backlog continues to grow. Current hatchery maintenance funding is probably approaching an adequate level to accomplish necessary cyclical maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation, .and capitalized equipment replacement needs. There remains, however, an inadequ.ne funding mechanism to address the major rehabilitation needs of the Hatchery System. Without a .!chanism to address major rehabilitation needs, Secretary Lujan's "Legacy 99" initiative may not succeed. Problems/Cause Construction funding within the Service has been directed primarily to safety, health, and dam problems. This has forced the Regions to undertake major rehabilitation projects with one-year, Resource Management Account funding. Undertaking construction-type projects with one-year funding can lead to inefficiencies as inadequate time is allowed for design, contracting, and construction. Existing Regional engineering and contracting staffing is inadequate to handle the increased amount of planning, designing, and contracting required to obligate major rehabilitation projects within the one-year constraint of Resource Management Account funding. There is also the problem in complying with Congressional and Service policy regarding the distinction between Resource Management Account projects and Construction Account projects. This situation has developed because the Service lacks a specific plan of attack to eliminate the major rehabilitation backlog that has accumulated. Desired Situation The Service should have two separate accounts to address hatchery maintenance needs. The current hatchery maintenance account would be u‘ed to address cyclical maintenance, repair and minor rehabilitation, and capitalized equipment replacement needs. A new account would be established to address major rehabilitation needs of the Hatchery System. The Service's Maintenance Management System would continue to be used to identify and prioritize projects for both maintenance accounts. The new account for major rehabilitation should be funded in a manner that will allow sufficient time for planning, designing, and contracting of projects.
10 Recommendation
1. The Assistant Director-Fisheries in cOoperation with the Division of Engineering should continue to prepare a report for Congress, summarizing Maintenance Management System (MMS) information, including major rehabilitation needs. The Service should establish a separate funding source for major rehabilitation projects (separate from the hatchery maintenance account), so that the entire hatchery maintenance backlog can be addressed.
2. Funding amounts included in the two separate accounts (i.e., hatchery maintenance and major rehabilitation) should be consistent with project needs identified through MMS. The new major rehabilitation account should be established to assure adequate time for planning, designing, and contracting of major rehabilitation projects identified and prioritized in MMS.
3. Regional Directors should ensure that cost estimates for major rehabilitation projects include sufficient funding for engineering planning, design, and contract management.
11 FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Current Situation The Fish Technology Centers (Centers) are the smallest identifiably sub-unit within the Hatchery subactivity. Their relative importance, however, is significant in proportion to other activities. The Centers provide technical leadership and technical assistance in fish culture, nutrition, broodstocks, water quality/effluent, and many other areas of hatchery activities. The primary purpose for the Centers is to improve day to day hatchery operations, by improving efficiency, and fish quality to meet the Service's fish production goals and objectives. Only through an aggressive and quality oriented technology program can the hatchery system be improved, and made more effective and efficient. Fish Technology Centers should be a top priority of the National Fish Hatchery System. The Centers were created in 1965 to evaluate fishery research information, and emerging technologies for use in fish culture. Today, there are five Centers in operation with an additional site proposed (Attachment A). The Centers are: Region 1 Abernathy Fish Technology Center, Longview, Washington
Region 2 San Marcos Fish Technology Center, San Marcos, Texas Dexter Fish Technology Center, Dexter, New Mexico
Region 4 Warm Springs Fish Technology Center, Warm Springs, Georgia (Proposed) Region 5 Lamar Fish Technology Center, Lamar, Pennsylvania Region 6 Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, Montana Each Center has been identified as a "Center of Excellence" for a certain subject area. The lead Center has the responsibility to maintain up-to-date information on the subject, develop and maintain close communication with Research Centers, and advise and support other Centers. The lead Center has the responsibility to assist others as a source of leadership on a particular subject. It is recognized that the designation of lead responsibility does not cover all the expertise, physical facilities, geographic location, species or species groups of interest to the entire Service.
12 The following table reflects the current scope of activity for each Center.
Facility Budget FTE's Geographic Major Lead Area Species Responsibilitt 1. Abernathy 602.2 10.0 West Pacific Salmonid Anadromous Nutrition
2. San Marcos 460.9 8.0 Southern Warmwater Fish Distribution
Extensive fish culture/pond management
3. Dexter 395.0 8.3 Southwest Endangered Endangered Species Species
4. Lamar 284.7 6.0 East Atlantic Water Quality Anadromous / Effluent and Lake • Trout
S. Bozeman 535.0 11.0 Central Trout and Non-Salmonid coolwater Nutrition
Broodstock Development
Histology
All the Centers maintain active programs involving: 1) fish culture techniques, 2) information transfer, and 3) aquaculture-private sector. In these areas, all Centers must keep open lines of communication to ensure Regional considerations are included in actions taken by a particular Center. The Centers were established by the Regions to conduct specific fish culture development activities. The Regions changed the function of existing Service hatcheries from fish production to technology/evaluation. In many cases, fish production requirements remain a component of their current operations. Facilities, equipment, staffing to conduct professional quality studies are not always adequate. The Centers are administered on a RegiOnal bases but address issues which are both Regional and National in scope. The Centers have been assigned a lead responsibility to assist the Centers in understanding what their focus should be. No clear process exists, however, for the Centers' Directors to develop priorities and define future program direction or emphasis.
The Service has taken steps to work cooperatively and more effectively with the private aquaculture industry. The effort focuses on fish health, extension services, and technology/information transfer. No new resources have been provided to the Technology Centers to implement this effort. The Centers' Directors have taken actions to improve communication and coordination
13 between the Center, with Service and State 'i.e.:search labs and other outside interests. This has resulted in improved understanding among all the parties. This effort has not corrected all the issues and additional effort is necessary.
ProblemsLCauses The problems described below must be addressed by the Division of Hatcheries and Fisheries Resources as a whole in order to elevate and/or maintain the Centers at a level of productivity, and professional quality everyone has come to expect. These issues are affecting all the Centers and they need to be dealt with on a National as well as a Regional bases. The Centers have no clear method or process for establishing new areas for investigation and setting priorities. The Regions and Centers have therefore, established their own methods for selecting projects and establishing priorities. This can result in Center's effort being directed at issues which are not necessarily the highest national priorities. Centers physical facilities and equipment are not adequate to meet the highly technical aspects of today's investigations. Old fish production hatcheries do not make good fish technology centers. This has affected the Centers' ability to study many highly technical aspects of tomorrow's fish culture methods.
The Centers are not able to provide needed extension services and technology/information transfer to the aquaculture industry. This will delay Service involvement in aquaculture and the Service will appear to not be supporting the initiative.
Intra-Service communication and coordination between Center's and Research has affected the Centers' ability to meet Service priorities. Centers' Directors have not always been given adequate guidance to know just what they were to investigate. The Centers and Service Research laboratories were not always working cooperatively to maximize benefits. The Centers seem to have been operating in their own small world.
Desited Situation The Fish Technology Centers have a critical role to play in providing Federal, State, and private aquaculture the best available information regarding new technologies. This can only be done if the Centers have the facilities, equipment, and professional staffs to conduct the investigation. The Centers' Directors need to have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, future program direction, and project selection process. A strong Centers involvement with the aquaculture industry should be initiated immediately. This would include working with growers to provide needed assistance regarding fish culture practices, new technologies, and basically being a good partner in aquaculture. This would mean a stronger involvement with the entire aquaculture industry. Over the past two years, the Centers have made significant progress at improving communication and coordination both inside and outside the agency. Improved communications and coordination will reflect the Service's commitment to techno!ogy developmer.z -valuation. The information derived from these studies will be disseminated bulletins and professional publications. Only through a complete communication, and information transter program, can the Centers maintain their identity as "Centers of Excellence'. Recommendations 1. The Production analysis section has recommended the Service initiate a comprehensive effort
14 to define Fisheries National direction and priorities. As part of this effort. the Technology Centers must establish a method or process to define National priorities and future project emphasis. This effort must embrace the Total Quality Management Concept.
2. The maintenance analysis section identified the need for a separate category for major rehabilitation projects. This is extremely critical for the Technology Centers. Each Center also needs to develop a comprehensive construction initiative which would identify new construction needs. The combination of the major rehabilitation and new construction initiatives should address all future needs of the Centers, regarding water supply, effluent treatment, office, laboratory, storage, and special facilities.
3. The Centers need the resources to initiate and, maintain a positive aquaculture outreach program. This would include the development of cooperative partnerships with the aquaculture industry in the areas of technology transfer, cooperative studies, extension services which will all benefit the Nations fishery resources.
15 4. The Centers need to emphasize coordination, communication, and information transfer. This will require the Centers' Directors remaining in close communication with one another. They would also work closely with Service and State Research laboratories, private aquaculture and consulting engineering firms.
5. Project selection and review must be a coordinated effort involving all the Technology Centers, Washington Office, Regional Offices and specific Service Research Offices conducting studies in similar areas of the project.
16 FISH HEALTH
Current Situation
Fish health management (or fish disease control) of the Service's fish rearing and stocking programs is done to protect not only it's investment in these programs but also to prevent unwanted introduction of diseases to wild fish populations. The Service is guided in these programs by its Fish Health Policy and Implementation Guidelines, and by program specific compacts or agreements such as those developed for Great Lakes salmonid management and Atlantic salmon restoration.
While theses policies and agreements go a long way in managing fish health in Service hatcheries and many of those in States, they have little or no impact on fish health management in the aquaculture industry. Furthermore, laws for the purpose of regulating fish health in either public or private fish rearing operations in the United States are very limited. For example, there is no. Federal law which regulates any fish rearing activity in this country for the purpose of controllinethe unwanted spread of fish diseases between States. There is, however, one Federal regulation preventing the importation into this country of just two diseases of salmonids. Also, States with laws governing the control of fish diseases vary widely in scope, from those States with no laws to a few States with laws which are moderately effective.
The Service has 9 Fish Health Centers providing inspection, diagnostic, and extension services to its 78 broodstock and production fish hatcheries and to State hatcheries and private hatcheries as well. Fish health services to private hatcheries are provided only to the extent possible after all Service and State cooperator needs are met.
In the "Statement of Position Regarding Aquaculture" Director Turner has committed the Service to using its existing capabilities to assist in the development of the aquaculture industry. The Service's fish health management capability is one that can provide immediate benefits to the industry. At the present time, significant resources from the Service's 9 Fish Health Centers are already being made directly available at no cost to the aquaculture industry. Also, indirect support of the industry is being provided by training private veterinarians in fish disease diagnostic techniques. All of these services are being provided in the absence of specific objectives by the Service to assure that the industry develops in a manner compatible with its primary mission to protect and conserve the Nation's fishery resources.
Problems/Causes
There is growing concern that the lack of specific Service objectives for assisting aquaculture development coupled with the lack of strong or consistent regulatory control of fish diseases in the United States is a formula for serious conflict in the future between the Service, the States and the aquaculture industry. More importantly, lack of leadership from the Service poses a serious threat to sound fish health management in this country., •
Desired Situation •
Continue to provide high quality fish health services in accordance with the Service's fish health policy and implementation guidelines and in support of the goals and strategies for Fisheries in the "Vision for the Future." In doing so, work toward strengthening our relationship with States and the private aquaculture industry through the development of a strategy specific to merging of all interest into a sound fish health management plan for this country.
Recommendations
17 1. Fisheries should develop a plan which specifically identifleL how the Service will assist the developing aquaculture industry with our fish health services capability so as not to jeopardize the Nation's fish resources.
2. Fisheries needs to identify the areas of potential conflict between the Service programs and mission with that of aquaculture and work directly with the States and industry representatives to find solutions. 3. The Service should develop a National Fish Health Management Plan to address inadequate and inconsistent laws and regulations for fish disease control, standards for diagnosis and certification, and training requirements of fish health professionals. The primary thrust behind these recommended actions is to seek sound and effective measures for fish health management in this country primarily through cooperation with the aquaculture industry and with a minimum of regulation.
Table 1
Number of Inspections, Diagnostic and Extension Services Provided Budget righ Health Center ($0001 FIE Fed State Pvt Other
Columbia River (R-1) 188.1 4 145 2 15 0 Olympia (R-1) 206.7 5.2 217 o o o Anderson (R-1) 54.2 1 79 14 3 0 Dworshak (R-1) 175.0 4 224 3 0 o Pinetop (R-2) 77.1 1 70 5 10 0 La Crosse (R-3) 221.0 5 16 22 32 o Warm Springs (R-4) 178.9 4 45 12 526 o Lamar (R-5) 284.3 7 147 146 31 1 ?oft Morgan (R-61 214.0 6.2 46 110 92 8
TOTAL 1,599.3 37.4 989 341 709 9
The tabulation of inspections, diagnostic and extension services range from very complex and time consuming procedures to simple advice over the telephone. The table is not an accurate reflection of the portion of resources (dollars and man power) allocated to Federal, State and private fish hatcheries. The table does, however, portray the relative frequency for which these services are provided to the primary users. In Region 4 most of the assistance to private hatcheries that is reported is do the inspection of triploid grass carp.
18 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION/PUBLIC OUTREACH Current Situation Public use on National Fish Hatcheries has been in a catch as catch can mode for more than 20 years. During the late 60's an effort was undertaken to increase hatcheries activities in public use and information. Increased attention to the environment resulted in greatly improved public awareness and led educational systems and institutions to seek training and field based presentations on environmental issues. Responsibilities to develop and assemble public presentations were left up to field staff as collateral duties added to an already full schedule. In some cases, input or assistance was provided from public affairs offices and refuge public use staff. Program Management created an activity called Interpretation and Recreation (I&R) to provide the necessary staff to assemble and make available high quality public information programs. Though good products resulted, field staff still were responsible for implementing the program without additional resources. In fact, hatchery operating resources identified to support this activity were redirected to the I&R program. When the Program Management System was terminated, this source of technical assistance was lost and most of the resources were moved from hatcheries into the I&R function. Then during the 1980's, hatcheries were closed and survival became highest priority. Public Use activity was at its lowest level with funds and staff for Public Use a thing of the past. Resurgence of the philosophy that the Service emphasize environmental education has revived the need to provide quality Environmental Education/Public Use programs and materials. Project leaders recognize and support this need and are attempting to update displays and presentations; however, new funds and staff have not been made available. Old materials and equipment (slides, brochures, projectors, dilapidated aquarium facilities, 20+ year-old visitor stations, display panels, etc) do not meet current day needs and fall sadly short of the quality the public expects of the Service. According to a survey conducted by the Office of Training and Education (OTE), over $52,000,500 are needed to upgrade public use facilities at hatcheries in the Service. Hatchery personnel are desperately trying to assemble programs with little funding or professional guidance. There are a few notable accomplishments and isolated cases where displays, kiosks, aquaria, publications, etc. have been supported from operational funds or other sources. A survey conducted by this task group revealed that 100% of the 75 hatcheries that responded indicated that they would either increase or initiate new public outreach efforts if provided the resources needed to do so. None, who were contacted, opted to decrease or cease their public outreach activities. All of the Hatchery facilities carry on at least some kind of public outreach activity.
19 Summary of current hatchery participation in selected outreach activities (Total of 6 regions and 75 hatcheries surveyed). REGION/Hatcheries
Activity 1/17 219 3/6 4118 5113 6/12 Totalt751 %
Trails 2 1 0 6 2 3 14 19
Tours and presentations 16 9 6 18 11 2 72 96
Brochures, Leaflets, etc. 15 9 6 16 8 12 66 88
Aquarium 2 1 2 12 3 3 23 31
Fishing (general) 7 3 0 15 1 3 29 34
Fishing (disabled) 0 2 0 3 0 3 8 11
IAA displays 5 1 3 15 0 12 36 48
Special occasion emphasis 11 7 0 11 5 12 46 . 61
National Fishing Week 8 8 6 15 6 11 54 72
Visitor Center 9 0 3 14 5 7 38 51
Picnic 7 8 2 10 2 11 40 53
Public media outreach 6 5 3 14 5 12 45 60
Volunteer program 5 3 3 7 3 9 30 40
Off-site presentations 11 0 6 18 11 12 58 77
Most hatcheries participate in activities that involve staff time, but require minimal capital investment, maintenance, and facility or program development. Other activities (fishing, trails, volunteer programs, aquarium, and I&R displays) that are dependent on facility development and maintenance, or are manpower intensive, have less than 50% participation among hatcheries. Data indicate that there is staff willingness and public interest, but a lack of resources to support the full range of oppor.:nities and possibilities. problems/Causes
o The Service has failed to recognize the public as its customer (user) and has consequently failed to recognize or capitalize on the opportunities that hatcheries present as a public education tool.
o There is a history of inconsistency in the commitment to, and management of public outreach/education within the Service. This is evident among regions and across programs/activities; it has vacillated in stariis from a high emphasis to no support by different Directors over the past 30 years.
20 o Hatcheries are unable to initiate and support a quality public outreach/environmental education program because they lack human resources, funding, modern information technology, and educational program development. Desired Situation The following statement is taken from the Service's Vision for the Future: "Public support and awareness is absolutely essential to the conservation and continued viability of our Nation's fish and wildlife resources". No statement could better encapsulate the "desired situation" insofar as hatcheries, or any other Service component, in furthering public outreach. An information and public education program for the general public and special interest groups will provide the foundation upon which a wise conservation ethic is realized and partnerships are formed. The capability to present programs to all types and levels of audiences under any circumstance is most desirable. Additional resources are needed (I. h's and dollars) to effectively use state of the art technology to design, develop, and support these programs. We must be prepared to show all walks of life the wonderful opportunities to enjoy fish and wildlife in harmony with the environment made possible by the work of fisheries professionals. Fisheries has partners in all phases of conservation at the local, state, federal, and world level. The following are examples of tools that are available to each hatchery to assist in supporting their Environmental Education/Public Outreach programs. Each office will have different needs and potentials and would use only those activities best suited to meeting their program goals. - Outdoor programs and activities: 1. Displays (kiosks, information boards, nature signs, etc.) 2. Tours 3. Outdoor classrooms 4. Fishing for all ages and abilities including handicapped 5. Trails 6. Picnic areas 7. Hunting where land base will safely accommodate such use Indoor activities: 1. Displays; static and interactive 2. Aquariums 3. General information and outreach such as local events and attractions 4. Classroom areas for presentations or formal classes, (this concept can be expanded to teaching a formal class for high schools or colleges) Outreach and awareness emphasis: 1. Spacious, well maintained acconmiodations for visitors 2. Quality brochures 3. Special occasion emphasis such as National Fishing Week, new duck stamp release, media specials, visits by dignitaries, new program releases 4. Volunteer programs Scope and implementation of these programs would benefit from central coordination and assistance to provide a source of state-of-the-art technology skills, priorities, emphasis, and consistency. Hatcheries outreach would be made more effective by sharing technical assistance, expertise, and technology currently available and in use by other Service activities. The fisheries story is an integral part of the complete Service story. Comprehensive environmental
21 education/public outreach activities can best be accomplished by preparation of public use plans for each station within the context of Service-wide priorities and plans.
Recommendations 1. Fisheries, in cooperation with OTE, should develop opportunities offered by hatcheries into a Service-wide program with established goals, priorities, and operational plans stepped down to the field level. . The Service should develop coordinated plans and initiatives to obtain new resources to initiate and enhance education and outreach that will include hatcheries. 3. Fisheries should identify cyclical maintenance projects that will update and rehabilitate hatchery facilities targeted for public outreach activities. Legacy '99 anticipated maintenance increases should be used to fund facility improvements required to upgrade environmental education activities.
4. Fisheries should identify opportunities and recruit professionally trained personnel into positions at national, regional and local levels to implement environmental education programs nationwide.
22 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Current Situation
Administrative support is provided by a line/staff organization within the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Assistant Director-Fisheries serves as staff to the Director, while the Assistant Regional Directors are line managers through their respective RD's. The Regional Offices provide line supervision to the Field Stations (e.g. Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers and Fish Health Units that are funded by the Hatchery Subactivity).
The Washington Office is organized into three Divisions, one for Hatcheries, one for Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, and the third for Administration. The Regions are generally organized in one of two configurations. In one case, typified by Region's 1, 5, and 6, the Region is divided geographically, and line supervision, through one or two associate managers, covers both Hatchery and Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Field Stations. In the other case, organization and supervision is divided along Subactivity lines similar to the Washington Office. According to the final Washington Office WAG for FY 1990, Hatchery Subactivity funds were allocated to the Regions as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of Total Funds and FTE's Supported in Each Region by the Hatchery Subactivity (1310), the Funds and FTE's That Each Region Devotes to Line and Staff Functions, General Assessments Made Against the Subactivity and Direct Charges.'
REGION REGION LINE STAFF GENERAL DIRECT REGION TOT $S TOT FTE $$$ FTE $$$ FTE ASSESS CHARGE 1 $7,614 110 $303.0 4.0 $660.0 13.0 $321.0 $92.0 2 $3,471 64 $104.9 1.5 $132.1 3.8 $54.0 $65.0 3 $3,483 49 5135.5 1.6 $93.4 2.0 $123.0 $26.7 4 $6,057 111 $175.8 3.0 $145.2 6.0 $108.0 $200.0 5 $5,083 89 $227.4 4.0 $100.4 4.0 $53.7 $202.0 6 54,431 73 $160.0 2.5 $300.0 5.5 $52.0 $100.0 TOTALS $30,139 519 $1,106.6 16.6 $2,825.3 42.1 $711.7 $685.7
The role of the Regional Office, as noted by Region 1, is to provide direction, guidance and support to field offices. Policy development and implementation are generally initiated at the Regional or National levels.
Within the operating Regions, the dollars allocated for the Hatchery Subactivity range from $7.6 million in Region 1 to $3.5 in Regions 2 and 3 (Table 1). Each Region varies somewhat as to the proportion of these funds used to support personnel (both line and staff). For example, Region one uses $963 thousand to support Regional Office personnel and $413 thousand for other Regional Office activities including assessments made by ether offices and programs while comparable figures for Region 4 are $321 thousand and $308 thousand respectively. Figure 1 translates these amounts, by Region, to percentages. The range of percentages used by the Regions for total operations ranged from 10.3% in Region 2 to 18.1% in Region 1.
1 Each Region varies in whether it covers some costs such as awards, Regional Project Leaders meetings, and similar region-wide costs. Some Regions retain these funds in the Region, others allocated to the Field for these types of activities.
23 Figure 4 Percentage of Hatchery Subactivity Appropriation used to support Regional Office activities in dollars and FTE's.
Problems/Causes Regions have inconsistent organizational structures. Those that are functionally aligned (e.g. Hatcheries, Management Assistance) are not well suited to evaluate progress in achieving various objectives related to the goals and strategies of the Vision. Several Regions' ability to effectively pursue high priority strategies may be hampered by current staff capability (both size and expertise). Most Regions are capable of fulfilling only limited portions of their responsibilities such as program management and supervision; timely and effective input into Washington Office information requests; participation on inter-agency task forces and committees; and interagency resource management committees, despite delegating many of the responsibilities to project leaders. Very few of the existing reporting requirements for the Hatchery Subactivity (e.g. Fishery • Information System), such as numbers and pounds of fish produced or stocked or eggs shipped, readily fit into the proposed reporting requirements for the CSMS system (e.g. Accomplishment Units such as Plans arreed to by participating parties, Decimating or limiting factors determined or resolved, and New culture techniques employed. The most recent Service-wide analysis of the Fisheries program occurred with the publication, in 1985, of the Responsibilities and Roles document. Subsequently, in 1988 a report entitled "Implementing the Fish and Wildlife Service's Fisheries Responsibilities" was prepared. To date, only modest progress has been made on the 10 initiatives proposed in that report. Many of those initiatives are consistent with the Goals and Strategies described in the Vision document. Completion of the 1985 Responsibilities and Roles document, and subsequent completion of
24 the implementation report in 1988 occurred during some significant changes in the Service. For example, the Program management System was replaced with a line/stafforganization, and several personnel changes occurred at the Directorate level. Collectively, these actions may have contributed to the incomplete implementation of the tasks described in the 1988 report. Now we are seeing many of these ideas revisited in the form of the Strategies in the Vision document. Desired Situation The desired situation for Administrative support would be to have a structure and adequate staff to direct the resources from the Hatchery subactivity to the priority areas of the Vision document. The structure and staffing would allow for efficient and timely assessment of progress towards goals for the Fisheries Activity. Objective data would be routinely available to evaluate successful implementation of the priority strategies. The Goals and Strategies of the Vision document are directed at broad "programs" or areas (e.g. development of plans and agreements for conservation of stocks and habitats). As such, the monitoring of financial expenditures on the "tools" of Hatcheries, and Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, may not be the best means of measuring progress towards achievement of the goals. A Regional management structure (e.g. geographic vs. functional) that uses one or both of these "tools" to achieve program objectives may be better suited to implement the strategies and achieve the goals set out in the Vision document. Recommendations
1. The Regions should evaluate existing organizational structures and strongly consider geographical (versus functional) alignment for directing and evaluating programs.
2. Regional Offices should evaluate existing staff capabilities in relation to span of control and unmet responsibilities (e.g. timely and effective review and/or input into Washington Office information requests, participation on interagency task forces and committees, and participation on interagency resource management committees) and take steps to effectively address unmet needs.
3. The developing Fishery Information System, should be re-evaluated to see if it can be reconfigured, at least in part, to allow for easy compilation of the type of data called for by CSMS. However, this process should not be done until the CSMS reporting requirements have been finalized and determined to be related to the Service implementation of the Strategies.
TO: R1 RDT FYI FROM: SRD 2/4/44 VOI UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AAM=IF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE • WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240 ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Effective: October 1, 1993 Expires: September 30, 1994 NATIONAL POLICY ISSUANCE #94-03
SUBJECT: Service Priority Objectives for Fiscal Year 1994
A. POLICY: The Service will direct its resources during fiscal year 1994 to meet the Director's priority objectives. B. SCOPE. Servicewide.
C. OBJECTIVES: The Director's priority objectives for fiscal year 1994 are listed in the Appendix, and are presented in the format of' the Service's Strategic Plan (NPI #91-03). D. IMPLEMENTATION. 1. Regional and Assistant Directors will prepare further guidance assigning these and their own supplemental or additional objectives to subordinate managers. 2. Accomplishment of the Director's objectives will be considered in evaluating managers' performances. In this regard, Regional and Assistant Directors will submit progress reports of their accomplishments for each assigned objective on June 30. 3. Any appeals by Regional or Assistant Di rs should be made in writing to the Deputy Director and submitted as early as practicable. Appeals submitted after due dates will only be accented in unusual circumstances. E. INCORPORATION. This issuance incorporates the Service's priority objectives for fiscal year 1994 into the National Policy Issuance System.
FEB - 7 1994 Date
Appendix
NPI #94-03 Appendix A. FISHERIES Goal: To restore, enhance, manage, and protect fishery resources. Strateav Action Item A.1 In partnership with the states, Native Americans, the private sector, other federal agencies and appropriate countries, develop and achieve common management goals and objectives. (1) Finalize a comprehensive fishery resources plan by March 31. [FHSA Production 1 and MASA Priority Setting 1] (AF) (2) ' Implement FY 1994 Interjurisdictional Rivers initiatives; submit accomplishment report September 30. (RD3, RD4, RD 6) (3) Implement FY 1994 Fisheries Stewardship initiatives; submit accomplishment report September 30. (RD 1-7) (4) Develop agreement with NMFS clearly delineating roles and responsibilities of Service and NMFS for anadromous, estuarine and marine resources by June 1. (AF and AES) (5) Develop an agreement with NMFS'and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for a program to support the interstate fishery management efforts of the Commission. Provide progress report by May 1. (AF with RD 4, RD5) (6) Submit FY 1992-93 Report to Congress on implementation of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act by March 1. AF with RD3 and RD5) A.2 Develop formal agreements and processes with other agencies that reduce degradation of riparian, freshwater, marine and estuarine habitats. (0) See Strategy D.10. A.3 Increase responsiveness and efficiency of the Federal Aid program by improving partnerships with the states, manufacturers, conservation organizations, and public to protect and restore fisheries and meet the needs of recreational users.
( o) See also Strategy D.2. (1) Develop an MOU with the SOBA to improve and share boating access information among States, FWS and conservation organizations through a computerized information system by June 30. (AES)
(2) Develop final technical and grant guidance for implementing the provisions of the Clean Vessel Act ny June O. .AES) A.4 Cooperate with other federal, state, Native American and local entities to protect the quality and quantity of water available for fishery purposes. (V) 156.1 At% (0) See Strategies and D.9. A.5 Develop and implement comprehensive fishery management plans and assessments on all applicable refuges.
(1) Develop or update Fishery Management Plans on a minimum 4(7 of five National Wildlife Refuges in each Region. Accomplishment report due to AF and ARW by September 15. (RD 1-7)
(2) Develop Wildlife Management Plans for all hatcheries, technology centers, and health centers with wildlife resources by August 31. (RD 1,3,4,5)
(3) Provide status report for projects funded with competitive Recreational Fisheries funds in FY 92 and93. Those projects funded and not completed in FY 92 will be completed as approved using base dollars in FY 94. Accomplishment report due September :O. (RD 1-7) A.6 Ensure that Service hatchery operations and management programs are compatible with the preservation of existing native stocks and utilize Service expertise to arrest declining fish stocks
(1) Identify approved fishery management plans for all stocking programs that use fish or fish eggs produced at Service hatcheries. If no plan is in place, identify specific actions and timetables for either . stablishing a plan or discontinuing stacking. Reports by March 31. [FESA Production 2] (RD 1-6)
(2) Develop a Servicewide genetics policy by Septer. er 3 to guide fish propagation and stocking activities t4. :ou .-.out the Service, focusing attention in conservl .1.1d stocks. CFHSA Production 5] (AF)
2 (3) Develop National propagation guidelines for propagating and maintaining threatened and endangered fishes, focusing on the role of Service hatcheries, cooperators, and private aquaria facilities. Draft report due by March 1, and final by June 30. (FHSA Production 6] (AF) (4) Continue implementation of the Framework for Management and Conservation of Paddlefish and Sturgeon. Develop regional strategies on how future objectives will be achieved. Report on activities (including- strategies) by September 30. (RD 1-6) (5) Negotiate an agreement with the SPA that establishes an offsetting collections funding mechanism for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Program in FY 95. Agreement due by July 1. (RD 1) (6) Negotiate an amendment to the current agreement with the BuRec to meet maintenance 'needs at the Coleman and Leavenwsorth NFHs, beginning in FY 95. Amendment due by July 1. (RD 1)
(7) Review, evaluate, and recommend the appropriate role, responsibilities, and operation of the National Fish Hatchery System. Final report due by August 31. (AF) A.8 Increase investigations to better understand fish genetics, disease, depredation, nutrition, contaminant impacts, habitat losses, culture techniques and control of nuisance exotic to restore depleted and endangered fishes to desirable levels. (1) Continue implementation of the Nonindiaenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control Act. Provide final proposed Program by January 31. Provide final Report to Congress by May 31. (AF) (2) Designate a coordinator and implement the AquatiC Nuisance Species Program, pursuant to guidance from AF to be provided by March 1. Provide accomplishment report on September 30. (AF and RD 1-7) (3) Implement provisions of the Zebra Mussel Western Spread Feasibility Study, and finalize partnership MOU with Bureau of Reclamation. Provide accomplishment report by September 30. (RD-6 w/RD 1, RD 2, AF) (4) Develop a work plan by February 1 outlining specific objectives and tasks to protect sensitive native mussels in the southeast U.S. from zebra mussel infestation. Begin implementation and report accomplishments by September 30. (RD-4) 3 (8) As part of the Ruffe Control Program in Lake Superior, provide preliminary draft -Environmental Assessment by February 1. (RD 3)
(6) Evaluate management of fish health, fish pathogens, and fish diseases at Service hatcheries, as they relate to current fish health policies affecting broodstock and stocking. Report due September 30. (AF, RD 1-6)
.(7) Establish pilot programs for using cryopreservation to enhance management of broodstocks and conservation of T&E species. Status report due September 1. (AF, RD 2, RD • 6)
(8) Develop plans for consolidating and providing fish health services at the LaCrosse and Fort Morgan stations. Plans due by April 1. (AE', RD 3, RD 6)
A.9 Initiate comprehensive follow-up evaluation of survival, and quality control programs for Service hatchery-stocked fish, fishery restoration, mitigation, and enhancement programs.
(1) Evaluate all National Fish Hatcheries' stocking programs to determine their effectiveness in achieving their established objectives. For those with no program or those that have not been evaluated in the past s years, identify specific actions and timetables for either establishing evaluation programs or a plan to discontinue stocking. Regional reports due by June 30. (FHSA Production 3] (RD 1-6)
(2) Sponsor workshop on hatchery product evaluation by June 30 to develop standard criteria to ensure that multiple site product evaluations are comparable and establish partnerships to assess impact of the release of hatchery fish on wild populations. (AF, RD 1-6)
A.10 Establish partnerships with the private aquacultural community to ensure industry development that is economically viable and compatible with protection of wild fish stocks.
(1) Develop a National Fish Health Manac.ment Plan by March 31; (FHEA Fish Health 3] (AF)
(2) Establish a Servicewide quality control program/procedures for all Service Fish Health Centers. Draft to Director for review by August 31. (AF)
4 (3) Conduct "mini-Summit" with committee on National Aauatic Animal Health Strategy for purposes of completing the Strategy by June 30. (AF)
A.11 Establish an environmental awareness and outreach program to develop an informed and involved citizenry to support fish conservation.
(1) Conduct a National Fishing Week activity on every National Fish Hatchery open to public access, every National Wildlife Refuge open to sportfishing, and on at least two Ecological Services and two Fishery Assistance field offices per Region. -In addition, conduct at least two "Pathway to Fishing" events. Submit report by August 1. (RD 1-7) (2) Ensure completion of educational leaflet and video on intentional introductions of nonindigenous aquatic organisms under cooperative agreement with Oregon State Cooperative Extension Service by July 31. (AF) By June 30, fund at least one Regional initiative to establish cooperative programs between National Fish Hatcheries and secondary schools that provide instruction in fish biology, aquaculture, fishing and ecosystem stewardship. (AF with OTE, RD 1-6) Inventory environmental education/ interpretation and recreation activities at fishery field stations nationwide and identify opportunities to expand activities by September 30. (AF with OTE) Develop and submit to ARW by February 28 for FY 1994 consideration watchable wildlife projects on at least two fishery field stations. (RD 1-6 with AF/ARW)
5 REPORT ON FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Prepared by Division of Fish Hatcheries Fisheries Program U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Washington DC 20240 03 Mar 93 Table of Contents
Page
Introduction ...... 1
Current Status ...... 1
Discussion ...... 2
Summary ...... 3 Administrative Findings:
1. Studies should be prioritized and coordinated ...... 4
2. Communications should be improved ...... 4
3. Technology Center studies should extend research findings ...... 5
4. Center resources should accommodate positive outreach efforts .....
5. Technology Center productivity should be measured ...... 6
6. Position upgrades can lead to "Centers-of-Excellence" ...... 7 •
7. Facilities & equipment should be improved ...... 7
Programmatic Findings:
8. Scope of Technology Center activities should expand ...... 8
9. Hatchery fishes can be used effectively ...... 8
10. Fish quality and genetic integrity should remain a concern ...... 9
11. Drug registration studies require coordination ...... 10 ,
12. T & E species require specialized attention ...... 10
13. Studies of estuarine fishes should be considered ...... 11
14. Water conservation methodologies should be evaluated ...... 11
15. Fish culture waters and wastes should comply with regulations .... 12
Appendix List:
A. Fish Technology Center Advisory Group ...... 13
B. Fish Technology Center Director's VISIONING ...... 21 REPORT ON FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
INTRODUCTION
The need for Fish Technology Center re-evaluation stemmed from previous findings, thoughts, and recommendations from the Washington Office, Regional Service representatives, and Fish Technology Center Directors. All had perceived that the Fish Technology Centers would benefit from having more centralized focus, direction, and strong administrative support. All had concluded that more efficient use of Service facilities and monies might be possible. Accordingly, the Fisheries Program personnel in the Washington Office worked in concert with the Technology Center Directors, and initiated a review of the Fish Technology Center program, focusing on its accomplishments, mission, priorities, and organization. Results of this effort are highlighted in this report, with each finding being followed by a corresponding recommendation. The overall consensus is that the Service needs to implement several changes in order for the Fish Technology Centers to realize their full potential, and that these changes should be a top priority of the Fisheries Program, particularly the National Fish Hatchery System. The most critical change would be the formation of an Advisory Group to address Technology Center planning, direction, and coordination.
CURRENT STATUS
The Centers were established in 1965 to provide leadership and guidance to the aquaculture community. Their objective was to take fish culture research findings, which were often conceptual and theoretical,. evaluate them through field application, and provide concise technical information to fish culturists to assist them in their day-to-day activities. Today, there are six Centers in operation (Longview, WA; San Marcos, TX; Dexter, NM; Warm Springs, GA; Lamar, PA; and Bozeman, MT), with additional stations under consideration (Mora, NM; and Bears Bluff, SC). Roles and responsibilities have grown as technology advanced, and areas of specialty now include water quality, broodstock selection, threatened and endangered species, nutrition and diet development, waste treatment, fish health, anadromous and estuarine fishes, fish husbandry, and hatchery management practices that can improve the performance of fish hatchery operations. Each Center has been identified as a "Center of Excellence" for at least one specialized area of technology, with the responsibility to assume a leadership role within the Service, and the fish culture community as a whole. While some overlap occurs among the Centers' activities, this is necessary to take full advantage of available expertise, to reflect geographic differences in climates and fish species, and to ensure that 2
4 findings are applicable to a broad spectrum of the fish culture community. Related studies are coordinated through the lead Center, which ensures that efforts are not fragmented, duplicative or wasteful, and are focused on near-future applications consistent with the objectives of the Service's VISION.
DISCUSSION
The Fish Technology Centers provide the capability to evaluate and improve those practices and techniques most critical to fish culture. Studies are focused on reducing manpower and costs, enhancing fish quality, and improving overall fish culture operations. Although the Centers do propagate and maintain fish, these fish are primarily used for experimental purposes.' The Abernathy Center is an exception, since it must produce fish for release under the mandate of the Mitchell Act. Recognizing that the greatest percentage of the Service's Fishery budget goes to hatcheries, improvements in hatchery operations and products can have a substantial positive impact on the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the hatchery program. In this respect, funds made available to the Technology Centers are viewed as an investment in the future of the hatchery program. • Allocation of funds to Technology Centers often produces benefits in excess of those that would occur from allocating the same level of funding to an individual production hatchery.
The role of Technology Centers has become more important as fisheries scientists and managers have become increasingly aware of the need to produce fish that are healthy, genetically diverse, and well-adapted to their receiving waters, and well-suited to meeting fisheries management objectives. Technology Centers have been relied on more-and-more to compare culture strategies and recommend alternative approaches to improve the performance of hatchery fish both in the hatchery and after stocking. Technology Centers have been called upon to develop cost-effective techniques for producing fish from strains that have desirable characteristics, but which have been difficult or costly to raise in captivity. Technology Centers have also led the charge in the development of culture technologies for threatened and endangered species of fish, and to a lesser extent, the evaluation of the performance of these hatchery- reared fishes. At present, three Technology Centers maintain 23 of the 91 species of threatened fishes listed in the United States. Their role in this function has not been to mass produce the species, but rather, to maintain the species through non-selecttve culture techniques that will preserve the genetic integrity.
Fish Technology Centers will continue to play a major role in the management of interjurisdictional fishes like sturgeon, American shad, paddlefish, and striped bass. Proper management will require stock enhancement, and corresponding broodstock handling techniques to maximize the spawning potential of the large, very long-lived species. Should the supply of broodstock diminish with the loss of critical spawning habitat 3 and nursery waters, the status of the species may rest in the hands of the Technology Center Directors. Their vision, persistence, and abilities to develop new culture techniques may be the difference between the continued presence or eventual stock depletion of these "high visibility" fishes.
Fish Technology Centers will also become increasingly important to Service efforts to evaluate the performance of hatchery products in relation to fishery management objectives. Two of the more important objectives that will lend themselves to involvement with Fish Technology Centers are the conservation of ecologically compatible genetic material within native and naturalized fish communities and the enhancement of specific fisheries to match fisheries management objectives. Fish Technology Centers can be valuable collective participants, along with fishery/resource management offices and Region 8 (Research), in the development of new technologies for maintaining genetic integrity and evaluating the performance of hatchery- reared fishes.
SUMMARY
Fish Technology Centers are cost effective. Their primary customers are fish hatcheries and those people/programs with a vested interest in fish culture technologies. Through coordination with the National Fish Hatchery system, Fish Technology Center development activities continue to reduce production costs at fish hatcheries, and help to ensure the effectiveness of fish stocking programs. Hence, they provide for long-term payback as an investment in the future. Through their partnership role with other Service arms,.the states, and the private sector, the Fish Technology Centers continue to provide a vital link in the Service's commitment to our Nation's fishery resources. By doing so, they offer the Service a mechanism to maintain its leadership role in fish culture, as it relates to fisheries science and resource management.
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings and recommendations are grouped under two section headings --- Administrative and Programmatic. Matters involving the overall misssion and direction of the Fish Technology Centers and their relationship with other programs of the Service are disdulsed under the administrative heading. This section also addresses staffing, budgetary, and physical needs of the Fish Technology Centers. The second section covers programmatic issues, and focuses heavily on specific changes that should or could be made in the activities of Fish Technology Centers. Areas of opportunity and future emphasis ate also identified in this section. Findings and recommendations engaged in both administrative and programmatic aspects are discussed under the section consistent with the majority of the findings and recommendations as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS:
1. The Centers, as a whole, would benefit from using a National approach to establish priorities for potential areas of investigation. Participation in a more coordinated and centralized process would help ensure that available resources would be applied to the highest priority needs, both Nationally and Regionally, and used in a coordinated fashion among the Centers.
The current organizational structure requires attention by fisheries managers to ensure that Technology Centers both operate in a coordinated fashion and focus on high priority issues. Until recently, coordination had been dependent on individual Technology Center managers and personnel. Individual Technology Centers and the Regional Offices had often set priorities and conducted studies without much coordination among Regional Offices or other Technology Centers. However, through a process of Technology Center Director meetings, the Centers have established the capability to coordinate research initiatives. Nevertheless, the incorporation of a mechanism to evaluate and select emerging National priorities has yet to be achieved. This aspect has been addressed in Technology Center reviews, and Center Directors recognize its importance. Recent discussions (July '92; Bozeman, MT) suggested the possibility of an "Advisory Council" or "Board-of-Directors" to evaluate emerging issues and provide a perspective of where technological development and evaluations should be headed in the year 1995, 2000, and beyond. Such an approach would provide leadership and direction. And accordingly, a National Fish Technology Center Advisory Group has been addressed as a recommendation (see Appendix A ) by the Washington Office. Embracing the Service's VISION document, the Advisory Group would provide both guidance and funding recommendations for future initiatives.
2. Communication and coordination between Fish Technology Centers continues to meet desired objectives; however, additional effort, directed at a communications process that includes the Service's Research operations, could provide a framework for better project coordination and feedback.
Through periodic Fish Technology Center Director Meetings, the Center Directors discuss their ongoing and planned Center projects, and other interests; however, additional coordination involving Service Research personnel would enhance the Centers' ability to achieve their full potential. In this regard, additional communications between Technology Centers and Research facilities should be promoted. Research Center staff who had developed the technologies and methodologies under J
investigation by the Technology Centers should be apprised of any "field trial" test, and also provided with subsequent study results, by the specific Fish Technology Center Director that had the lead role in the specific technical area. In return, Research staff would review the findings, and based on their current studies, offer insight with respect to new approaches. Such a dialogue process would ensure positive feedback and mutual ownership. Fish Technology Centei. Directors with the responsibility for some specific technical evaluation should be encouraged to lead and coordinate related studies among the other Fish Technology Centers. They should both foster innovative regional . approaches to broaden the knowledge base, and welcome concurrent testing protocols to validate a specific study hypothesis. To facilitate this process, the Washington Office recommends that Center Directors need to be given a clear understanding of their immediate responsibilities, short and long-term project selections, and future program direction. This should be accomplished by a periodic project review process, administrated by Service representatives from both the Washington and Regional Offices (See Advisory Group, Appendix A). 'Moreover, to ensure a two-way exchange of technical information, the Washington Office further recommends that the proposed Advisory Group include representation from the Service's Research Program.
3. Technology Centers should continue to conduct studies that expand the findings of other research facilities into applied operational strategies.
The primary objective of the Fish Technology Centers is to transpose Service and other research findings into functional applications to improve operational efficiencies at various Service facilities. Technology Center applied research efforts should be focused on short- term projects, and directed at "real world" issues that can impact our Nation's fishery resources. The primary objectives of the applied research should entail the improvement of fish quality, with an increase in hatchery efficiency and effectiveness. The Washington Office recommends that a formalized communications link be established that would allow both Technology Center Directors and Research Directors the opportunity to review each others project proposals and reports. To maintain its partnership role with Research, the "lead" Fish Technology Center Director would report any further findings to the appropriate Research Center Director, where the original technology or methodology may have been developed. In turn, Service Research Center Directors would be asked to reciprocate with'i- report of their continued findings, with clear recommendations on those studies that lend themselves to further field investigations. 6
4. Fish Technology Centers need the resources to maintain a positive fish culture technology outreach program.
Philosophical changes in fisheries resource management, that includes the role of hatchery-produced fishes, clearly demonstrate the necessity for non-agency aquaculture groups to understand the role of fish culture in fisheries management. Accordingly, Center and other Service staff must continue to interact with other public and private fish culture entities. This relationship must be based on trust and understanding of the role and contribution of each fish culture facility. If the Fish Technology Centers are to achieve this outreach function, facility and staffing resources must be approved at a level that would permit the technology transfer objectives to be met. Necessarily, budgetary constraints must be recognized and reconciled with long-term objectives. Fish Technology Center operations and outreach plans should be pre- approved at sufficient funding levels to ensure that publication costs will be included in the project proposal, as well as enough money to meet the costs of presenting appropriate research findings at a national technical conference.
A strong involvement within the fish culture community establishes the Service as a "partner" in the industry. In this respect, initiative coordinated from Fish Technology Centers should include work with both state and private fish culturists, to provide assistance in the modification of fish culture practices, use of specific strains of fish, adaptation of new technologies, and explanation of changing regulations. If the message of the Fish Technology Center does not reach out to state and private aquaculture, the Center will never achieve the status of a "Center-of-Excellence." The Washington Office therefore recognizes and approves of Fish Technology Center outreach efforts and, moreover, recommends that the proposed Technology Center Advisory Group include two participants to represent state fish hatchery and private aquaculture interests.
5. A mechanism must be established to asiess the functional productivity of the Fish Technology Centers.
Initial attempts to disseminate publications and technology transfer produced two U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Publications -- the Fish Cultural Development Center Reference List (revised October 1982) and the Fish Technology Center Reference List (May 1990). While these two publications provide some measure of productivity, an evaluation process must be devised to further assess the benefits of the Technology Centers. The Washington Office recommends that a Technology Center Advisory Group be formed to facilitate Technology Center evaluation, direction, and recognition. As an alternative, Washington Office staff could work, in conjunction with a representative from a neighboring Region, to offer an unbiased review and comparative assessment of Technology Center productivity. 7
6. Fish Technology Centers may require staffing upgrades and program extension to evolve into "Centers-of-Excellence."
Fish Technology Centers must maintain the technical expertise and staff capabilities of the Center, .ensuring that at least three professional staff positions are engaged in scientific evaluations. These positions must be integrated and capable of focusing on the Center's identified area of specialty, and in some cases, the staff positions may need to be upgraded. The new Fishery Biologist Standard would assist in upgrading station positions. But in order to properly evaluate the Technology Center's applied scientist positions, it may be necessary to use the classification guidelines and procedures used by other agencies that have graded professional applied scientists. The Washington Office recognizes the need for technical expertise and recommends that position upgrades be considered. Consistent with this philosophy, Center Director positions should also be reviewed for consideration for job elevation to the GS/GM--13/14 level. Furthermore, if Fish Technology Centers are to evolve into world-class "applied research" centers (viz., "Centers-of-Excellence") the staffing plans must provide for professionals with varied areas of expertise, such as physiology, histology, fish culture, genetics, water quality, bioengineering,- population dynamics, or some other technical specialty. It would be likely that individuals in these positions would perform duties and responsibilities commensurate with grades at the GS-12 and GS-13 levels.
7. The Technology Centers' facilities and equipment should continue to be upgraded to meet the technical aspects of today's investigations.
The Centers were established by the Regions to engage in specific fish culture development activities that would have a positive impact on fish hatchery operations. To do this, the Region changed the functional role of an existing Service facility from a fish hatchery to a technology center. In this respect, fish production still remains a component of some Center operations and reduces their ability to pursue technology evaluation, development, and transfer. Accordingly, Fish Technology Centers need to be closely allied to fish production, but their primary emphasis should focus on related technologies and methodologies. Such an approach requires a long-term commitment to Fish Technology Center staffing and facilities, with changes of program focus being made to conform to Regional and National program needs. Fostering a similar long-term strategy, the Maintenance Analysis Section identified the need to separate and categorize major rehabilitation projects. Subsequently, the Section recommended a comprehensive development plan for Fish Technology Centers. Accordingly, the Washington Office recommends that facilities and staffing should be reviewed to ensure that adequate resources have been allocated to each Technology Center, and that this evaluation process be clarified and reconciled through the proposed Fish Technology Center Advisory Group. 8
PROGRAMMATIC FINDINGS:
8. Although the existing scope of activity for each Fish Technology Center is appropriate, new challenges await.
Although much of the Fish Technology Center work is currently focused on traditional Regional concerns, there is a growing need to expand study horizons to address some of the more complex fish assessment demands being proposed, both Regionally and Nationally, to evaluate hatchery fishes and fish culture practices. Some of these current nationally focused issues include the quality and genetic integrity of propagated fish, the role of "propagation" for threatened and endangered species, the need to conserve water and employ water-reuse strategies, and the culture and management of high-visibility interjurisdictional fishes. These issues are being addressed at the existing Technology Centers, but the degree of attention given to these subjects does not match the need. Accordingly, some method of comprehensive review and prioritization will be necessary to address these emerging issues. In order to meet these challenges, each Fish Technology Center should have independent responsibilities for one or several closely related groups of fishes. Further, each Technology Center should have the lead for a specific problem "area." This lead role should conform to the geographical location and technical expertise of the staff. Other Fish Technology Centers, when pursuing studies generally assigned to another Center, would do so in cooperation with the Lead Center. The Washington Office recommends that Center Directors explore their capabilities to address new areas of study, and that a mechanism be employed by the proposed Advisory Group to review and prioritize emerging issues for subsequent action plans.
9. Fish Technology Centers can assist in hatchery product evaluation, and demonstrate hov some hatchery fishes can be more effectively used.
Hatchery programs have not always been guided by a comprehensive fisheries management plan that includes consideration of appropriate stock, strain, size, time and location of release, or genetic composition of the resident fish populations. However, in defense of the fisheries managers, they were acting in accordance with traditional protocols, and adjusting their management practices in a "safe," conservative manner. Today's fishery managers and biologists require integrated approaches that incorporate the use of available technology (such as a strain registry) to determine species, strains, and sizes of fish needed from specific hatcheries to create successful stocking programs Hatchery fishes would therefore, be more effectively used, if demonstration projects could determine he real benefits of carefully orchestrated stocking protocols, 'Using specific strains of fish, as focused on specific resource objectives. For these reasons, the Washington Office recommends that a Fish Technology Center program be established which would address alternate uses of hatchery fishes to enhance the fishery resources in specific aquatic habitats. The Technology Center program should involve cooperation with field offices and national fish hatcheries to focus on a) ensuring appropriate gene composition of wild fish populations; b) identifying fish stocks that can provide acceptable performance benefits, in terms of fish harvest, recreational opportunity, and species enhancement or restoration; and c) determining fish stocking rates based on carrying capacity of the habitat, or a desired exploitation rate to enhance recreational opportunities and/or harvest.
10. Fish Technology Centers are capable of addressing the issues of fish quality and genetic integrity -- two fish hatchery concerns that continue to challenge the fish culture community.
Fish stocking practices have reportedly affected the genetic integrity of several wild stocks of fish. With hybridization and domestication of certain species, there is a need to establish adequate broodstock protocols and determine the effects of hatchery operations on the propriety ("fitness") of cultured fish species. One or more Fish Technology Centers should be challenged with the opportunity to evaluate specific strains of fish, to determine their relative performance in various environmental settings. Moreover, one or more geneticist positions should be established at existing Fish Technology Centers Alternatively, a new Fish Technology Center could be established to study fish genetics, and assist in evaluating the strains and performance of hatchery-produced fishes. This approach would also dovetail with new Technology Center demands to culture and perpetuate many threatened and endangered fish species. Under the guidance of a geneticist, the Technology Centers could serve as coordination points for selective "partnerships" with nearby public and private aquaria, where threatened and endangered species might be maintained under , controlled conditions. Therefore, the Washington Office recommends that . evaluation of the role of hatchery fishes in fisheries management be given a high priority as a Technology Center responsibility, and that the proposed Technology Center Advisory Group assess the capabilities of Fish Technology Centers to evaluate the quality and genetic integrity of cultured fishes. 10
11. Technology Centers will be likely candidates for corroborative studies, working in partnership with other laboratories and Research Centers testing aquaculture related drugs and chemicals.
Recent actions by regulatory authorities have diminished the availability of approved therapeutic agents to treat hatchery fishes. This paucity of "off-the-shelf" chemicals has had serious effects throughout the aquaculture industry. In this regard, Technology Centers can play a vital role in the Service's ability to forge ahead with drug registration. The Centers are likely candidates for field testing of several drugs. Moreover, some sites may be asked to comply with "Good- Laboratory-Practice" protocols in conjunction with other sophisticated research studies. Considering the urgency of this issue, the Washington Office recommends that Fish Technology Centers provide facility and staff support in the Service's effort to register hatchery-use chemicals.
12. Threatened & Endangered species should not be perpetuated at Fish Technology Centers unless the Technology Centers are providing unique capabilities to sustain the species through specialized expertise, such as fish reproduction, nutrition, genetics, and disease control.
The Service is presently perpetuating over thirty percent (30 of 91) of the threatened and endangered species now listed in the United States. Additionally, more emphasis appears to be directed at threatened and endangered species "propagation," inasmuch as 75% of these species recovery plans include propagation as a recovery consideration, and 44% support the idea of "propagation" as a viable recovery strategy. Should habitat losses reach a critical point where the only way to sustain the species is through captive populations, then culture-maintenance becomes increasingly important. The Washington Office is currently determining the extent of Service efforts to propagate and/or perpetuate threatened or endangered fishes at Service facilities, and the likelihood that such activities will increase. Washington staff is also examining the roles that National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers, and private aquaria could play in the future. These efforts are expected to provide a firm foundation for policy development and program direction. In this regard, the Washington Office recommends that the proposed National Fish Technology Center Advisory Group consider the role of Fish Technology Centers in dealing with the emerging concern to protect threatened and endangered fish species. , 11
13. Many estuarine and anadromous fish species are declining at an alarming rate and, thus, Fish Technology Centers should evaluate hatchery fish propagation as an additional means of protecting and restoring these fish populations.
Modifications to habitat are adversely affecting important estuarine and riverine fish species, such as sturgeon, salmon, striped bass, and American shad. Moreover, the Service's involvement with other coastal fisheries, like redfish, weakfish, bluefish, and the flatfish species has continued to escalate. An Estuarine Fish Technology Center could be developed to refine egg-take, culture, and management techniques important for the continued enhancement or restoration of anadromous fishes. Through such an effort, public attention would focus on the estuarine and riverine fishes, and recognition would be given to these most valuable resources. The new Technology Center would need to be capable of integrating both fish culture and fishery management expertise, and working in partnership with other resource users. The Washington Office recommends that the Technology Center Advisory Group consider the establishment of a new Fish Technology Center dedicated to the culture and assessment of anadromous fishes, and that the consideration include a careful evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with fish stocking programs for riverine or estuarine fishes.
14. The depletion of available water supplies has become an aquaculture issue and a national concern that can be effectively addressed by Fish Technology Centers.
To meet the growing demands of aquaculturists, systems must be developed to ensure that adequate quantities of water will be available for the production of quality fish. Water reuse and disinfection are current water conservation technologies effectively employed to provide water for fish production. Nevertheless, there is still much to be developed concerning these technologies. Therefore, a Fish Technology Center designed to utilize low water flows, with appropriate • compensating technologies, is needed to test, adapt, and demonstrate research findings. Procedures could then be refined to efficiently utilize available waters. It would serve as a model facility for water treatment systems in aquaculture, and strengthen the Service's outreach role in providing valuable technology to state and private fish culture operations. Accordingly, the Washington Office recommends that the proposed Technology Center Advisory troup evaluate ways that the Service can become more active and effective in the development and use of water conservation techniques. Their evaluation should include consideration of the costs and benefits associated with establishing a new Fish Technology Center dedicated to water conservation issues and technologies. 12
15. Fish Technology Centers should continue to exercise their ability to evaluate technologies and methodologies that will reduce the environmental impact of fish hatchery operations, and provide respective leadership and guidance to safeguard our Nation's fishery resources.
The emergence and accelerated growth of the fish culture industry have directed attention to the potential environmental impact of fish culture facilities. Recent findings have demonstrated that large-scale fish production can have a substantial impact on sensitive aquatic habitats. Therefore, regulatory agencies are intensifying their investigation of aquaculture wastes, and their effects. Regulators are seeking accurate data that will permit them to characterize fish hatchery effluent waters, and identify practical operational strategies that will ameliorate the pollution potential of fish culture operations. Accordingly, Fish technology Centers should continue to provide guidance to the fish culture community, and ensure that studies of new technologies or methodologies are coordinated with other Centers and the Service's Research arm. Additionally, identified beneficial strategies should be documented and, where appropriate, employed within the National Fish Hatchery System. Outreach efforts describing waste treatment technology should also be directed toward the state and private fish culture community, whereby their understanding and subsequent utilization of the findings would provide pay-back in terms of habitat protection. For these reasons, the Washington Office recommends that Fish Technology Centers continue to pursue those technologies and methodologies that will provide practical, cost effective solutions to reducing the environmental impact of large-scale fish culture operations.
file: WO-VAM -8 Appendix A Fish Technology Center Advisory Group
* Renamed Coordinating Group in March 1993 13
• NATIONAL ADVISORY GROUP FOR FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
This Fish Technology Center re-evaluation stemmed from previous findings, thoughts, and recommendations from the Washington Office, Regional Service representatives, and Technology Center Directors. All had perceived that the Technology Centers would benefit from having more centralized focus, direction, and strong administrative support. All had concluded that more efficient use of Service facilities, personnel and monies might be possible. Accordingly, the Fisheries program personnel in the Washington Office worked in concert with the Technology Center Directors, and initiated a review of the Technology Center program, focusing on its mission, priorities, and organization. Results of this effort led to the overall consensus that the Service needs to implement several changes in order for the Fish Technology Centers to realize their full'potential and that these changes should be a top priority of the Fisheries Program, particularly the National Fish Hatchery System. The most critical change being the formation of an Advisory Group to address Technology Center planning, direction, and coordination.
A Technology Center Advisory Group should be formed by a nucleus of caring representatives from each Regional Office (1 thru 9). Each representative should both embrace the concept of Total Quality Management and recognize the dynamics of the Service's VISION. Besides Service members, the Group should include both an individual representing state fish culture interests, plus someone representing private aquaculture. These participating individuals would represent non-Service interests and offer philosophical and programmatic diversity to Group discussions, but they would be "non-voting" members in terms of Service decision-making. The Advisory Group would review emerging opportunities and issues of National ' prominence. Its findings would be developed into a list of prioritized issues and opportunities, and channeled through the Center Directors for comment, with subsequent feedback in terms of staff, facility, or monetary ' constraints that might need to be adjusted further. Lead Fish Technology , Centers would be recommended by the Group, in concert with input from the Center Directors. Goals and objectives would be proposed for the lead Center and other participating Centers, with final reconciliation and approval to be accomplished through the-Regional Directors' and the Director's Office. Such an initiative would be scheduled to conform to a multi-year program planning and evaluation process, and would eventually result in a more structured and systematic approach. Regional managers/administrators could use this information to prepare budgets, improve programs, and identify emerging needs for the recommendation of new technology centers. 14
FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTER ADVISORY GROUP'S PROPOSED ADVISORY GROUP FUNCTIONS
1) Review emerging opportunities and issues of National significance, with selection and prioritization of those that can be addressed by the Technology Center approach.
2) Determine the Lead Center, after coordination with Technology Center Directors, Regional Offices, and the Washington Office.
3) Delineate facility, staff, and financial constraints, and recommend those resources necessary to facilitate the endeavor.
4) Provide annual program review, with a more comprehensive program planning and evaluation process approximately every three or four years. The multi-year review would be synchronized with planning and review process of other research facilities (Region 8).
5) Recommend the establishment of a new Technology Center if existing facility retrofit would not effectively accomplish the long-term desired objectives. Such a recommendation would be channeled ' through the Technology Center Directors, the Washington Office Coordinator, the Regional ARD's, and the Deputy Assistant Director of Fisheries. In order to ensure the commitment to satisfy a National need, the Assistant Director of Fisheries should present the request for a new Technology Center to the FWS Director. 15 FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTER ADVISORY GROUP ADMINISTRATIVE OVERVIEW
1. Advisory Group Core (voting members):
Each Region (1 thru 9) would appoint one person to serve on the FTC Advisory Group (nine total votes). An appointed ARD would serve as Chair (and be one of the nine voting members). The Washington Office FTC-liaison would serve (non-voting member) as executive secretary. It would be desirable for the "Core" voting membership to represent a mixture.of experience/expertise. The Advisory Group "Core" will also undergo internal evaluation to ensure efficiency in function and purpose.
2. Other Potential Advisory Group Participants:
The FTC Advisory Group Chair would determine time & place for FTC Advisory Group Meetings, develop the meeting agenda, and with discretion, invite "outside" non-voting participants to facilitate the "movement" of complicated issues. Examples of "outside" participation include the following :
Employ an experienced facilitator to address complicated issues and opportunities whenever discussion issues might generate some conflict within or between Regions (Washington Office would contract the facilitator).
Recruit a well-versed state aquaculture administrator to work with the Group whenever topic issues and opportunities are projected to mandate or foster changes in relevant interstate program coordination.
Inirite a leader from private aquaculture to work with the Group whenever discussions are scheduled to focus on public outreach and/or other concerns that are projected to require interaction with the private aquaculture community.
Include other professionals, when appropriate.
3. Advisory Group Actions Should Follow ARD Guidance:
The administrative processes (reporting, etc.) for the FTC Advisory Group, and the initial charges to the Advisory Group should be consistent with the report of the "Special ARD's Meeting Regarding the Redirection and Centralization of Fish Technology Centers" held February 1993, in Albuquerque, NM (See following report) 16
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ARD's MEETING REGARDING REDIRECTION AND CENTRALIZATION OF FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
( February 1993, Albuquerque, NM )
A special ARD's meeting was conducted February 9-10, 1993, in Albuquerque, NM, in order to come to grips with the need to redirect program emphasis within Fish Technology Centers, and to lay a foundation for a formalized procedure that will allow Fish Technology Centers to address important national fisheries issues. This meeting was organized to discuss the findings and recommendations of two intra-Service reviews of Fish Technology Center programs. The first, an 18-month evaluation of Fish Technology Centers, was initiated by the Deputy Assistant Director for Fisheries, and included extensive review of Service documents (viz., Hatchery Sub-Activity Analysis Report, Calhoun Report, Inter-regional communiques, etc.). The second was a "VISIONING" exercise by the Fish Technology Center Directors that reported on what they considered to be their future capabilities and direction. Washington Office staff combined both of these Fish Technology Center reviews with other information, and produced a report that dealt with significant administrative and programmatic changes that need to take place if Fish Technology Centers are to advance to their full potential, to address emerging fisheries issues of high national priority. At this meeting, four key issues were brought before the ARD's. These were discussed, with results as follows:
1. Establish Centralized Direction and Leadership Through AF and an Advisory Group.
There was general agreement that Fish Technology Centers could improve their program output by aligning their initiatives with national priority issues. Moreover, there was agreement that a centralized approach through an Advisory Group could effectively accomplish Fish Technology Center_program review, planning, prioritization, direction, evaluation, and redirection. Each ARD, or attending ARD-representative, sanctioned the concept, and agreed to foster the proposal to form the FTC Advisory Group that would be comprised of representatives from each Region (R1-9), with each representative having one vote. The Advisory Group Chair would be an ARD who would establish time & place for meetings, and ensure that Regional concerns and proper administrative protocols were being met. The Washington Office liaison for Fish Technology Centers would serve as the executive secretary for this Advisory Group, and communicate 17 and coordinate Fish Technology Center concerns within the FTC system, with Region-8, and with other cooperating entities. Additionally, besides the "executive core" or voting body of the Fish Technology Center Advisory Group, participants agreed that at times, other "outside" expertise from private aquaculture, academia, state administrators, and other sources may be brought into the FTC Advisory Group meetings, as warranted by specific situations.
Pending approval from the Directorate (on Feb 24th. the decision of the Director was to proceed), the first meeting of the Advisory Group will be held in April 1993, at a time and place determined by the Chair. The FTC Advisory Group Chair will lead the Group, which would be desirably targeted to be comprised of a representative mix of field biologists, technical scientists, fish culturists, and program administrators. Each Region (1-9) will assign their representative, who will work on the Advisory Group in the best interests of the Fish Technology Centers, as a whole. Business conducted by the Advisory Group will be accomplished under the direction of the ARD/Chair, who will report any findings and recommendations to the ARD's at the ARD meetings. The Assistant Director for Fisheries (AF) will reconcile concerns; subsequent calls for action will be brought before the Directorate by the Assistant Director for Fisheries.
An initial charge was developed for this Advisory Group, and includes the following five points:
1) Develop a list of national priority issues, and a mechanism to prioritize work initiatives and implement program redirection within the Fish Technology Center system. This process will require Advisory Group review of all • pending and ongoing Fish Technology Center work initiatives.
2) Develop and advocate budget proposals commensurate with program needs and consistent with the Service's VISION. Inherent with this is the commitment to support program vitalization through program redirection, and to be an advocate for FTC's to acquire the desired funding levels to engage in resource-oriented program opportunities.
3) Provide general oversight for the coordination of Fish Technology Center programs with the National Fish Hatchery system, other Fish Technology Centers, Region-8/Research, Management Assistance Offices, Fish Health Centers, and the private sector.
4) Develop an administrative process that will ensure Fish Technology Center program review. Subsequent evaluation of 18
Fish Technology Center performance would direct attention at national priority issues and focus on the completion of program objectives aligned with these national priorities. This independent review would be undertaken every four years.
5) Develop a quality control process that will ensure the integrity of all work being conducted by Fish Technology Centers. The process will include the opportunity for annual technical review of detailed FTC project proposals prior to initiation of the work. Additionally, as an outreach effort, a list of FTC proposed projects and FTC project completion reports will be made available to cooperators and other interested parties.
2. Align Fish Technology Center Activities with the Highest Needs of the NFHS.
Meeting participants agreed that the Service has received world-wide recognition as a primary developer of fish culture technologies for the improvement of fish nutrition, fish health, fish husbandry, and other areas of fish production. These are valuable contributions to the world of science for which the Service can always be proud. However, the Service's new VISION extends past traditional boundaries and seeks information about fish stocking practices and the roles that cultured fishes have in effective aquatic resource management. Accordingly, to change from the traditional production-oriented focus, and to conform to the Service's resource-oriented VISION, some adjustment must be made in FTC program direction and subsequent prioritization of the things that Fish Technology Centers do.
Since the VISION document did not itself generate enough energy to overcome the inertia associated with traditional program emphasis, meeting participants explored program opportunities for the Technology Centers, and agreed to vigorously pursue new areas of study consistent with the Service's VISION. The ARD's (& reps) made a commitment that Fish Technology Centers will begin immediately to change emphasis from the traditional programs to the resource- oriented programs. Reconciling the Visioning Report of the FTC Directors with the Services VISION Document, the Advisory Group should begin to align Fish Technology Center activities with the highest needs of the National Fish Hatchery system. Targeted areas of opportunity include the evaluation of hatchery products, in terms of resource contribution, fish reproduction and the conservation of genetic material, safeguarding native fish stocks and ensuring resource biodiversity, and the perpetuation of threatened and endangered species. 19
As an initial step toward program redirection, Regional representatives agreed to examine their respective Fish Technology Center programs and to develop a new list of work activities that reflects the current direction of the Fish Technology Center. Moreover, participants made a commitment to redirect 20% of the Fish Technology Center activities at those newly emerging national needs that are considered to be high priority initiatives. Additionally, within three years 50%, and within five years 75% (target goals) of FTC work would be focused at similar fishery resource issues. Finally, participants also recognized that program redirection would require the concomitant need to extend Fish Technology Center staffing expertise and to develop active partnerships with other investigators.
3. Establish a Commitment to Manage Fish Technolegy Centers Cohesively, not as Separate Units.
All participants were aware of the need to strengthen Fish Technology Center program coordination and communication, while shifting emphasis toward Service and NFHS priorities. Meeting participants agreed that while Fish Technology Centers have a legitimate role in field evaluation studies, stronger partnership contribution would relate to FTC staff serving in an interdisciplinary technical liaison ("go-between") capacity with Fisheries Resource Offices and National Fish Hatcheries. They also felt that Fish Technology Center staff could establish protocols for hatchery evaluation studies; thus, ensuring that repetitive tests by different FTCs, in different Regions, would be truly comparable. Through a communications process, investigative efforts would avoid inadvertent duplicity, and study cooperators would more efficiently use both their time and available technical resources. Participants pointed out the need to develop FTC partnerships with National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Health Centers, Region-8/Research, Management Assistance Offices, other Fish Technology Centers, academia, and the private sector. They also addressed the need for interim progress reports that could be made available through Service-wide electronic networking to facilitate communications to information "users.' Towards this end an initial responsibility of the Advisory' Group will be a careful examination of Fish Technology Center roles, responsibilities, and projected work plans, so that duplicity can be minimized, while collaborative evaluations and information exchange can be maximized. Through more cohesive management, the magnitude and scope of Fish Technology Center program possibilities would be enhanced and be much more responsive to the Service's National Fish Hatchery needs. 20
4. Allocation of Resources from National Fish Hatchery System Funding Base to Fish Technology Centers.
Meeting participants recognized the importance of removing budgetary restraints that might impede the proposed shift in Fish Technology Center programs towards a more resource orientated program focus. After considerable deliberation a consensus was reached whereby the Regions took decisive action and agreed to reexamine and reprioritize their flex maintenance projects in the "light" of FTC needs. Washington Office Fisheries would use this information to reconcile budgetary requirements that may be a prerequisite to desired change. Moreover, the Regions acted in concert and agreed to fund redirected FTC program activities that would be consistent with the Service's new VISION. The funding levels would permit an incremental shift of emphasis, corresponding to 20%, 50%, and 75% of program activities, (target percentages) conforming to the VISION, within 1, 3, and 5. years, respectively. The first year of program redirection, at the 20% level, will begin October 1993. Regions also agreed to develop a specific budgetary allotment for each Fish Technology Center. Similarly, the Regions would work through the Advisory Group to look for ways to advocate and assemble a defined Fish Technology Center budget initiative for 1995, and beyond.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS:
Region 1 Chuck Dunn Region 2 Pat Langley, Jim Hutcheson Region 3 Dan Bumgarner Region 4 John Brown Region 5 Ron Howey Region 6 Joe Webster Region 7 Larry Peterson Region 8 Mike Mac Region 9 Gary Edwards, Bill Knapp, Vince Mudrak Appendix B Fish Technology Center Directors' VISIONING Fish Technology Centers VISIONING* Document
Fish Technology Centers & Geographic Locations: -- Abernathy, WA ...... (Region 1) -- Dexter, NM ...... (Region 2) -- San Marcos, TX ...... (Region 2) —.Warm Springs, GA ..... (Region 4) -- Lamar. PA ...... (Region 5) -- Bozeman, HT ...... (Region 6) -- Mora, NM ...... (proposed,R2)
* The following Technology Center Visioning Document reflects the consensus of the Fish Technology Center Directors, as of August 1992. The issues reflect their view (VISIONING) of those kinds of initiatives that the Directors considered to be of major importance to the fishery resources of our Nation, and whiCh the Fish Technology Centers could play a vital role.
* Draft Issue Statements have referenced at least one Fish Technology Center logically "situated," staffed, and equipped to respond to each issue., The Fish Technology Center Directors reconciled their staffing and facility capabilities with prospective issues, and made logical assumptions as to their potential involvement. Draft issue statements have also been cross-referenced to the Service's VISION Document, with corresponding numbers and letters put in parentheses. FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR'S VISIONING DRAFT ISSUE STATEMENTS
A. Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern.
1. Increasing numbers of fish and other aquatic species are becoming threatened, endangered, or otherwise depleted. (FS6E) (Involves All Technology Centers)
- Operational investigations are needed to assist in recovery of endangered 'species and species of special concern by developing culture techniques that provide fish and other aquatic species for enhancement stocking, reintroduction, and captive propagation. These investigations must ensure that fish produced are genetically and functionally compatible with existing wild populations. Such a program must be consistent with draft or approved recovery plans when available, habitat improvement projects, and related activities are directed at correcting limiting factors causing (or responsible for) population declines. Often because of the critical nature of the species, it may mean becoming involved before a recovery plan is complete.
B. Water Quality and Quantity.
1. Water pollution at hatcheries. (FS4E) (Abernathy, Bozeman & Lamar)
- Remedies need to be developed to reduce nutrient loads and resulting contributions to water pollution from fish culture operations. Otherwise, fish production will likely be restricted by regulatory agencies' imposing strict limitations on the nutrient load and chemicals permitted in effluent waters.
2. Limited water supplies. (FS4F) (Bozeman, Lamar & San Marcos)
- Competition among public and private entities for scarce water supplies requires that fish culturists efficiently use existing supplies, many of which may be of marginal quality. Efforts are needed to develop cost effective water use and re-use techniques. C. Disease Treatment and Management. .
1. Pathogen-free water to facilities. (Bozeman)
- Mechanical systems and hatchery management protocols need to be developed to prevent fish pathogens from entering aquaculture facilities and infecting valuable fish populations.
2. Approved chemicals and drugs (FS10C) (Abernathy, Bozeman, Dexter, Lamar & San Marcos)
- Fish culturists and specialists in aquatic animal health are presently severely handicapped by a paucity of safe, efficacious drugs and chemicals approved for treating infectious diseases in both food and non-food fishes. In cooperation with Region 8 and FDA, development and approval of pertinent therapeutics must be pursued. Technology Centers can play a key role in carrying out needed sudies and collecting data required in the INAD process. (F= A) (All Technology Centers)
- Fish cui:::.re management methodologies and improved technologies are needed to complement a disease-free approach to fish pathogen control, and reduce fish mortality associated with certain disease pathogens such as systemic bacterial infections. (FS10A) (Abernathy)
- Significant strides in the control of infectious diseases in fish culture will depend heavily on the development of practical, cost-effective vaccines. Technology Centers can also provide assistant,. in testing new products as they are approved. (FS10A) (Abernathy)
D. Nutrition.
1. There is an increasing need for quality formulated fish feeds to culture a variety of species. (FS10E) (Abernathy, Bozeman, Dexter & San Marcos)
- There is a critical need to develop nutritionally sound, good per:orming, economic, practical open formula fish feeds, and to make them readily available for the early life stages of many newly cultured fishes, including threatened and endangered species.
- There is a growing demand for increased quantities of formulated feeds by private and public aquaculture. This increased demand has causec and will continue to cause, shortages and increased costs of crlzical diet ingredients such as fish meal. Therefore, there is a crucial need for Service facilities to develop alternative fish
feed ingredients to meet the needs of the expanding aquaculture industry. (FS10E) (Abernathy, Bozeman, Dexter & San Marcos) - There is a growing need to standardize techniques and monitor fish feed quality because of increasing problems with contract violations in contract feed purchased "off-the-shelf" for National Fish Hatcheries. (Abernathy & Bozeman)
E. Genetics.
1. Potential loss of genetic diversity can occur in a number of aquatic species because of limited numbers. (FS6B) (Dexter)
- When necessary, gene banking should be carried out to ensure that genetic material crucial to species survival or enhancement is not lost as wild populations decline. Therefore, cryopreservation techniques must be studied and perfected for pertinent species of fish.
2. Lack of knowledge about wild and domestic stocks inhibits management attempts. (FS6C & D) (Dexter, San Marcos & Warm Springs)
- There is a critical need to survey and analyze genetic diversity among wild and domestic stocks, and to classify and catalog resultant data. Establishing baseline "fingerprints" of pertinent species must be pursued in a timely manner.
3. A lack of genetic variability has occurred in a number of instances and has the possibility of occurring in others and affecting stock fitness. (FS6E) (Dexter, San Marcos, Bozeman)
- Work is needed to develop practical techniques to assess and maintain the genetic diversity of fish species and strains both for wild populations and for those held in captivity to produce fish for reintroduction, enhancement or sportfishing.
- Investigations are needed to determine how hatchery-propagated fish can be used to supplement wild populations and yet maintain the long-term fitness of target stocks, keeping ecological and genetic impacts on non-target populations within specified biological limits. (FS9A) (Abernathy, Dexter San.Marcos, Bozeman)
F. The Post-Release Survival and Impact of Hatchery Fish on Wild Stocks are not Well Known.
1. Impacts of hatchery fish on native stocks is not well known.
A QUESTION WAS ASKED: "WHETHER FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS SHOULD BE INVOLVED OR IF THIS WORK WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FAO'S ?" RESPONSE: " FAO'S WILL NEED MORE $'S TO DO THIS WORK, WHILE FISH TECHNOLOGY CENTERS MAY NEED REDIRECTION IN THEIR PROGRAM'S TO DO THE WORK." ( FTC's to be determined)
- Work is needed to determine the ecological and genetic impact of hatchery reared fish on wild stocks.
2. Our knowledge of post-release survival of hatchery- reared fish is often poor. (FS9C) (Abernathy, Dexter, San Marcos)
- Extensive work is needed to assess factors limiting post-release survival of hatchery-reared fish. There is a need to determine how various hatchery practices alter those attributes of fish depressing (or limiting) their post-release survival, and to identify and develop fish culture methods which produce fish with characteristics that will enhance post-stocking survival and performance.
G. Culture-Systems Management and Operation.
1. Rising energy costs require development of energy efficiencies in fish culture operations. (San Marcos) (all centers should be doing this)
- Efficiency in fish hatchery operations continues to be a significant consideration due to steadilY increasing costs of energy, labor, supplies, and feeds. Automated equipment, and improved techniques and rearing facilities are needed at Fish and Wildlife Service fish hatcheries and associated rearing facilities to improve economics of operations.
2. Management of broodstock is not consistent at all Fish and Wildlife Service hatcheries, sometimes resulting in inadequate documentation and failure to maintain genetic diversity. (FS9D) (Bozeman, Dexter, San Marcos)
- Broodstock management techniques and strategies need to be developed, standardized and implemented for all fish species cultured by the Fish and Wildlife Service. (Bozeman, Dexter)
H. Aquaculture.
1. The aquaculture community has developed rapidly and needs assistance.
- The Fish and Wildlife Service's involvement with the private aquaculture industry requires expanding technology transfer systems through training programs, repackaging existing and new information and disseminating it ..10 private growers, and expanding technical assistance capabilities for the industry. (FS10E) (Abernathy, Bozeman, Lamar, San Marcos)
- Increasing demand for aquaculture products and the economics of fish production in both public and private fish culture facilities require improved hatchery technologies, such as the use of liquid oxygen, to intensify production of fish from existing facilities and with limited water supplies. (Abernathy, Bozeman, Lamar, San Marcos)
2. Depredation is a significant problem on wild and cultured fish.
- Depredation of wild fish populations and those in aquaculture facilities by birds, animals, and fishes are a very serious problem requiring immediate development of control technologies and expanded extension activities by the Service. (FS10D) (Dexter, San Marcos)
I. Other Issues.
1. Aquatic nuisance species have impacted the nation's fishery resources.
- The uncontrolled introduction of aquatic nuisance species has had a detrimental impact on many of the Nation's fishery resources. Investigations of methods and technologies to monitor, control and/or minimize their impacts, at Service facilities. Aquaculture cultural facilities, critical habitats for T&E species, potential reintroduction sites for pertinent species, and management areas for valuable native stocks. (FS6H) (San Marcos)
2. Non-lethal, non-stressful fish sampling methods are limited.
- There is a critical need to develop non-lethal fish sampling methods for various studies and disease diagnosis, to prevent loss of valuable stocks of fish. Less stressful fish inventory methods also need to be developed. (Bozeman, San Marcos)
3. Practical sophisticated marking and tagging methods for fish are needed for proper management.
- Development of innovative, economic techniques for mass-marking fish with external, long-lasting, readily recognized (international) fish tags is needed to facilitate the management of wild and hatchery stocks of anadromous, threatened and endangered fish. (Abernathy, San Marcos) (Dexter would like to test techniques developed by Abernathy or San Marcos) . IT
..
PREFACE
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has a long-standing interest in public and private aquaculture based on the Service's own fish culture activities and the potential impacts of aquaculture activities on public resources. The present research, technological development, and resource management functions of the Service include substantial aquaculture activities. The Aquaculture Plan that follows provides a broad view of aquaculture issues and the Service's vision as to activities that are appropriate responsibilities of the Service. The Aquaculture Plan was prepared in response to a directive from Congress and to carry out the priority actions identified in the Service's Fisheries Resources Action Plan. The Aquaculture Plan also incorporates Service responsibilities based on the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended. Ongoing Service activities provide the foundation for the program described in the Aquaculture Plan.
A mission statement, goals, objectives, and specific tasks to guide Service aquaculture activities are identified. The plan, "Helping Aquaculture Grow", is presented in three parts: 1) the statement of mission and goals; 2) a set of objectives, related issues, and specific tasks to implement those objectives and issues: and 3) an appendix identifying priorities and the funding needed to initiate implementation of the plan during the next three years. The degree to which the Aquaculture Plan will be implemented is directly related to the availability of funds for the specific tasks that are identified in it. The appendix will be updated annually and the other sections as needed.
Additional information on Service aquaculture activities may be obtained by contacting the National Aquaculture Coordinator, Division of Fish Hatcheries, at (703/358-1878) ARLSQ 820, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. THE MISSION AND GOALS OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATIVE TO PRIVATE AQUACULTURE
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is to "provide the Federal leadership to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats." Aquaculture has played, and continues to play, a major role in the conservation and management of public fishery resources, as exemplified by extensive Federal and State fish hatchery systems.
Public and private aquaculture are based on the same biological principles and systems and share similar needs for abundant, pure water and a clean environment. However, private aquaculture is conducted for commercial purposes and must maintain a financial profit to remain in business. The common characteristics and needs of private and public aquaculture, such as, growing the same species; the biological requirements of those species; the management of water quality; the demand for improved culture techniques and systems; needs for similar health management support, improved feeds, and genetic management; and the potential impacts of both on public fish and fishery resources provide a fundamental linkage between them. The actions of either can, and often do, have profound direct effects on the other.
The value of private aquaculture to the well-being of the citizens and resources of the United States in providing an increasing supply of healthful animal protein, providing recreational fishing, and contributing to the Nation's economy is substantial. Development of the private aquaculture industry can be consistent with and provide substantial benefits toward the conservation of the Nation's wild fish populations and fishery resources. The scientific needs of the Service's fish production programs and those of the aquaculture industry are similar, and much of the Service's scientific work is directly applicable to the aquaculture industry. Accordingly, the Service intends to build a.mutually beneficial relationship with the private aquaculture industry, to develop Service guidelines implementing established Federal policy to work with rather than compete with private enterprise, to work cooperatively to resolve conflicts between public resource stewardship and the aquaculture industry to the maximum benefit of both, and to use its scientific and technical resources to further the development of private aquaculture.
Service aquaculture activities are authorized under provisions of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2801-2810); the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j); the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-666c); the Fish Rice Rotation Farming Program Act of March 15, 1958 (16 U.S.C. 778-778d), and various specific authorizations that include reference to public and/or private aquaculture.
GOAL 1. ENCOURAGE PRIVATE AQUACULTURE TO DEVELOP IN A MANNER THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP.
Work with the aquaculture industry to promote understanding and consistent implementation of the requirements of the Federal environmental permitting process (404; NPDES; etc), and other regulatory authorities (Lacey Act). - Encourage appropriate consideration and systematic review of the potential impacts of the import and/or transfer of nonindigenous species for aquaculture purposes, prior to any such import or transfer.
- Ensure responsible protection of migratory birds and other Federally protected species while minimizing animal damage problems on private aquaculture operations.
- Encourage fish health programs, and participation in them by Federal, State, Tribal, and private sectors to ensure protection of natural resources and public aquaculture.
GOAL 2. CONSISTENT WITH OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES, HAKE SERVICE EXPERTISE, KNOWLEDGE, AND CAPABILITY IN FISH CULTURE AND OTHER AQUACULTURE RELATED DISCIPLINES AVAILABLE TO THE PRIVATE AQUACULTURE COMMUNITY.
- Provide technical assistance/advice/information based on Service experience and expertise in aquaculture.
- Provide fish health services and other technical services within the guidelines and limits of established Service priorities.
- Use Service facilities for demonstration of scientific and technological developments in aquaculture.
- Conduct training programs in aquaculture and related subjects.
- Conduct research and technology development with potential application to aquaculture. AQUACULTURE IN THE NEXT DECADE: THE ROLE OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Fulfillment of the Service's mission, goals, and responsibility to assist the development of aquaculture, public and private, will be accomplished through the following objectives and tasks. The objectives and tasks build upon current activities and implement the basic concepts established in the Statement of Mission and Goals. The Service believes that the challenging issues facing aquaculture development can serve as opportunities---opportunities to enhance resource stewardship, to increase the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation's economy, to improve the quality of our food supply, and to expand recreational opportunities. The Service cannot, and should not address every issue of concern to aquaculturists. Many aquaculture needs or issues (e.g. promotion of development, or production statistics) primarily are responsibilities of other Departments or agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. The Service will review this plan periodically and identify new issues. Such reviews will include perspectives from other agencies and private sector aquaculturists. Specific new objectives and tasks requiring Service involvement will be added or removed as appropriate. However, all Service aquaculture activities will be guided by the concepts of inter-agency cooperation established in the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. The Service believes that Federal, State, and private sector aquaculturists and resource managers must work together. Mutually beneficial programs that promote ecosystem management and conservation; develop recreational, economic, and aesthetic benefits; maintain the health and productivity of both public and private aquatic resources; and foster aquaculture development depend on such cooperation.
The objectives listed below are based on the Mission and Goals Statement and provide a framework within which to address current issues of concern. Specific Service actions to address these issues are identified in the list of tasks that follows.
Objective I: To Protect the Quality, Health, and Productivity of Aquatic Resources, Public and Private.
Related Issues:
- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED TO MANAGE GENETIC RESOURCES SO AS TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT PRODUCTION OF PROPAGATED SPECIES AND TO MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL GENETIC INTEGRITY OF WILD RESOURCES.
- CULTURE SYSTEMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR SELECTED SPECIES, INCLUDING THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES NEED TO BE DEVELOPED.
- LACK OF EFFICIENT, INEXPENSIVE FEEDS AND ESSENTIAL NUTRITION INFORMATION, FOR ALL LIFE STAGES AND SPECIES, HAMPERS THE DEVELOPMENT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CONSTRAINS CAPABILITIES TO PROPAGATE MANY SPECIES, AND LIMITS THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AQUACULTURE. - INCONSISTENT, PERHAPS UNNEEDED, HEALTH REGULATIONS BASED ON HISTORIC INFORMATION AND POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, RATHER THAN GEOGRAPHIC UNITS (e.g. WATERSHEDS), CONSTRAIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE.
- LACK OF APPROVED DRUGS AND CHEMICALS, RESULTING FROM COMPLICATED TESTING AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS, LABEL RESTRICTIONS, AND HIGH COST OF OBTAINING NEW DRUG APPROVALS REDUCE PRODUCTIVITY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AQUACULTURE.
- FISH HEALTH SERVICES MUST BE CONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE TO BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS TO CONTROL THE IMPACT AND SPREAD OF PATHOGENS. RELIANCE ON PUBLIC SECTOR SERVICES MUST BE BALANCED WITH INCREASED CAPABILITY AMONG TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES.
- RELIABLE, INEXPENSIVE WATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES; RECIRCULATION AND REUSE SYSTEMS; AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED TO USE WATER RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY, MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND CONDUCT AQUACULTURE IN AREAS WITH LIMITED WATER RESOURCES. Objective II: To Reduce and/or Manage Conflicts Between Public Aquaculture and Resource Management, and Private Sector Aquaculture. Related Issues:
- THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF PRIVATE SECTOR AQUACULTURE IS TO PRODUCE AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY FOR PROFIT; HOWEVER, THE OPERATIONS OF PRIVATE AQUACULTURISTS INTERACT WITH PUBLIC RESOURCES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, BOTH POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY. THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF RESOURCE AGENCIES AND AGRICULTURAL AGENCIES IN SUPPORTING AND REGULATING PRIVATE AQUACULTURE HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED.
- SOME POLICIES, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS WERE DEVELOPED TO ACCOMPLISH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION GOALS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE NEEDS OF AQUACULTURE; AND ARE COMPLEX, CONFUSING, AND INCONSISTENT FROM STATE-TO-STATE, AND AMONG FEDERAL REGULATING AND SERVICE AGENCIES.
- INTRODUCTION OF NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES CAN BE HIGHLY DESIRABLE FOR DIVERSIFICATION AND PROFITABLE OPERATION OF PRIVATE AQUACULTURE BUSINESSES; HOWEVER, ESCAPE OF SUCH INTRODUCTIONS MAY JEOPARDIZE THE STRUCTURE AND STABILITY OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS.
- DEPREDATION BY MIGRATORY BIRDS, AND OTHER PREDATORS, AT FISH-REARING FACILITIES PRODUCES SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC LOSS AND CONFLICT AMONG CONSTITUENT INTEREST GROUPS.
- INFORMATION ON REGULATIONS AFFECTING AQUACULTURE, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE REGULATIONS ARE ENFORCED, IS DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN.
- FISH FARMERS CONTEND THAT THE PRODUCTS OF NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES ARE SOMETIMES DISTRIBUTED FREE TO POTENTIAL BUYERS OF PRIVATELY PRODUCED PRODUCTS. Objective III: To Provide Leadership, Coordination, Technical Assistance, and Information to Support Aquaculture Development that is Compatible with Responsible Resource Stewardship.
Related Issues:
- COORDINATED LEADERSHIP, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION TRANSFER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RESOURCE MANAGERS, THE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY, THOSE WHO WISH TO BECOME AQUACULTURISTS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE NOT CONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL USERS. TASKS
The Service proposes the following specific actions to accomplish the goals and objectives of its Aquaculture initiative, "Helping Aquaculture Grow." Limits of financial and staff resources prevent the Service from immediately beginning work on some tasks. However, a vision of the Service's role in aquaculture would be incomplete without them. New tasks will be added as new issues arise and others modified to adjust to changing conditions and priorities. The list of tasks, as well as Appendix A that provides a timetable and summary of funding needs, will be reviewed and revised annually as part of the Service's budget development process. The timetable and summary of funding needs are based on a 3-year cycle to coincide with the budget development process. If resources are not adequate to implement the complete plan in the initial 3-year period, priorities will be established by the Director, based on need and resources available.
A majority of the tasks are addressed, to some extent, through current activities. Some can be accomplished without additional staff and financial resources, but others will require substantial increases in both staff and funding. The majority of the tasks should be addressed during the first year of the plan; however, a 3-year phased development is suggested so as to minimize the need for either new funds or reprogramming. Tasks requiring modest additional support (less than $50,000 per year) are identified with an asterisk (*). Those tasks requiring substantial new funding (greater than $50,000 per year) and staff are identified with two asterisks (**). No estimates of additional staff requirements are provided. Responsibility for tasks may rest with a particular office or with several offices. Offices with primary responsibilities for each task are listed in parentheses after each task.
Creation of the National Biological Survey (NBS) has modified the Service's capabilities to conduct some of the long-term research tasks identified in this plan. Because these tasks are important to the efficient and effective operation of National Fish Hatcheries, as well as private sector aquaculture, such tasks have been retained in the plan. Such research tasks will be undertaken in cooperation with research establishments (RE), or the NBS. Tasks are not listed in priority order. Year-to-year priorities may be inferred from the timetable; however, the position of each item in a given year does not indicate the relative priority of the task within that year.
Objective I: To Protect the Quality, Health, and Productivity of Aquatic Resources, Public and Private.
** Task 1: Conduct and support research on Best Management Practices, (e.g. improved water quality management, nutrition), for propagation operations that will enhance efficiency and minimize disease impacts. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries; RE/NBS)
** Task 2: Develop and conduct a practical, effective genetic research and conservation program that protects the genetic integrity of native fishes, fosters practical resource management, and promotes more efficient aquaculture production. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries; Fisheries Assistance Offices; RE/NBS) ** Task 3: Encourage and support research to establish optimal environmental requirements and basic rearing requirements for propagation of species that may be listed as threatened or endangered. Develop similar information, if not presently available, for all propagated species. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries; RE/NBS)
Task 4: Provide leadership and coordination to support the development and operation of a comprehensive National Aquatic Health Strategy designed to integrate public and private capabilities to provide consistent health services and to foster regulations that are compatible with regional, national, continental, and international programs and standards. (Washington Office; Regional Office; Fish Health Centers)
Task 5: Participate in the activities of regional fish health programs. (Regional Offices; Fish Health Centers)
** Task 6: Develop strategies, obtain authorities, and implement programs providing essential fish health services, primarily virological inspections and diagnostic support services to States and the private sector. (Washington Office, Regional Offices; Fish Health Centers)
* * Task 7: Promote and support fish health research that will lead to: more accurate determination of the range, prevalence and impacts of fish pathogens in wild and domestic stocks, methods for non-lethal sampling, better understanding of the relationships between pathogens and disease, and more effective control of fish diseases. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; RE/NBS)
** Task 8: Encourage and support research to develop "immuno-enhancing" biologic agents that effectively immunize fish against all" "major" bacterial or viral pathogens of hatchery reared fishes. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; RE/NBS)
** Task 9: Develop cost effective fish and pathogen containment systems that will prevent the movement of fish, other animals, or pathogens between culture facilities and adjacent natural communities. (Regional Offices; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries)
* * Task 10: Support expanded research and development of demonstration/ production models for intensive or extensive aquaculture systems that conserve water and maintain high water quality, avoid point source effluent discharge problems, and/or use a small land base, (i.e. water reuse/recirculation systems). Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries; RE/NBS)
* Task 11: Increase development and testing of feeds for all life stages of propagated species: feeds that are efficient, low-cost, low- pollution potential, and are based on non-traditional sources of proteins. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries; RE/NBS)
** Task 12: Coordinate and support research that will lead to submission of applications for approval of new animal drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA.) (Washington Office; Fish Health Centers; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries)
Objective II: To Reduce and/or Manage Conflicts Between Public Aquaculture and Resource Management, and Private Sector Aquaculture.
** Task 1: Support development of a current information base on Federal and State resource regulations pertaining to public and private aquaculture. Provide training courses relative to such regulations. (Washington Office; Regional Offices; Office of Training and Education)
** Task 2: Test and evaluate non-lethal methods for controlling predation by fish-eating birds and mammals at National Fish Hatcheries. (Washington Office; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries)
* * Task 3: Encourage and support research on the population dynamics and feeding behavior of migratory fish-eating birds. (Washington Office; Regional Offices)
** Task 4: Develop species-specific management plans for fish-eating migratory birds based on the productive capabilities of natural ecosystems and consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (Washington Office: Regional Offices)
Task 5: Develop procedures and strategies to evaluate and reduce the potential risks of adverse consequences resulting from intentional introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms for legitimate aquaculture and management purposes. Propose appropriate regulations. (Washington Office; Regional Offices)
Task 6: Develop guidelines to implement established Federal policies prohibiting competition with private sector business. (Washington Office)
Objective III: To Provide Leadership, Coordination, Technical Assistance, and Information to Support Aquaculture Development that is Consistent with Responsible Resource Stewardship.
* Task 1: Develop training courses for aquaculturists on proper use and control of approved drugs and chemicals. (Washington Office; Regional Offices; Office of Training & Education) Task 2: Develop policies and procedures that make broodstocks (strains) maintained by the Service available to other public and private aquaculturists. (Washington Office, Regional Offices)
** Task 3: Coordinate a Federal-State-Private sector program providing inspection services of triploid fishes in support of State regulations. (Washington Office, Regional Offices)
Task 4: Develop and operate a coordinated system for information transfer, extension, and technical assistance, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, such as, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Extension Service) and the Department of Commerce (Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service). (Washington Office, Fish Technology Centers, Office of Training and Education)
* Task 5: Contribute to the support and operation of the Aquaculture Information Center, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and other Federal agencies. (Washington Office)
Task 6: Publish "Report to the Fish Farmers", including coldwater and coolwater species, on a regular 5-year schedule. (Washington Office, Research Centers; Fish Technology Centers)
Task 7: Publish revised versions of "Fish Hatchery Management" on a regular 10-year schedule. (Washington Office; Research Centers; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries)
Task 8: Provide opportunities for visitors and volunteers to learn basic fish culture techniques of at National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers , and other Service facilities. (Washington Office; Regional Offices; Fish Technology Centers; National Fish Hatcheries)
Task 9: Develop a proposal for a cooperative outreach program providing information, fish, and surplus equipment to assist secondary schools with curriculum initiatives that include instruction in fishing, aquaculture, and resource stewardship: Fisheries and Aquaculture Cooperative Education (FACE). (Washington Office; Regional Offices; National Fish Hatcheries)
Task 10: Publish an annual report summarizing production from all public sector fish hatcheries (i.e. Federal, State, local). Cooperate with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and aquaculture associations to compile summary information on total aquaculture production in the U.S. (Washington Office)
Task 11: Participate in the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) and other national and international working groups and forums concerning aquaculture development to ensure representation of resource and environmental interests. (Washington Office)
* Task 12: Provide leadership and direction to support Aquaculture Summit meetings every third year. (Washington Office) APPENDIX A
THREE YEAR TUURAMEAAM7RINOZAWANTIIS * *(Includes funding for entire initiative, including cooperative research)
YEAR 1
Objective I: Resource Protection and Research Task 1: Accelerate Best Management Practices Research $1,000,000 Task 3: Propagation of Endangered Species ...... $1,300,000 Task 4: National Aquatic Animal Health Strategy ...... $30,000 Task 5: Regional Fish Health Program ...... Task 6: Non-Service Fish Health Services ...... $1,500,000 Task 10: Research on Water Conservation & Management.. $2,500,000 Task 12: Approval of New Animal Drugs ...... $3,500,000 $9,830,000
Objective II: Conflict Management Task 1: Regulation Information ...... $150,000 Task 3: Behavior and Population Dynamics of Birds ...... $500,000 Task 4: Management Plans for Fish-Eating Birds ...... $500,000 Task 5: Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms ...... $100,000 Task 6: Competition Guidelines ...... $1.250,000
Objective III: Leadership, Coordination, Information Task 2: Policy on Access to Broodstock ...... Task 3: Triploid Inspections ...... $100,000 Task 4: Extension and Information Transfer ...... $40,000 Task 5: Aquaculture Information Center ...... $25,000 Task 6: Report to the Fish Farmers ...... $25,000 Task 7: Fish Hatchery Management ...... $10,000 Task 8: Volunteer Program ...... Task 10: Aquaculture Production Report Task 11: JSA Participation ...... $200,000 Year 1 Total .... $11,280,000
Year 2 (The following tasks will be initiated in Year 2; all year 1 tasks will be continued.)
Objective I: Resource Protection and Research Task 3: Expand Research on T & E Propagation ...... $1,500,000 Task 7: Fish Health Research ...... $2,000,000 Task 8: Immunization Research ...... $1,000,000 Task 11: Feed and Nutrition Research ...... $600,000 (Additional Year 2).$5,100,000
Objective II: Conflict Management Task 2: Non-lethal Predation Control ...... $350,000 (Additional Year 2) .. $350,000 Objective III: Leadership, Coordination, Information Task 1: Drug Use Training ...... $40,000 Task 9: FACE Program ...... $50,000 Task 12: Aquaculture Summit ...... $50,000 (Additional year 2)...$140,000 Total Year 2 Additional.$5,590,000 Year 2 Total .... $16,870,000
Year 3 (The following tasks will be initiated in Year 3; all year 1 and year 2 tasks will be continued.)
Objective I: Resource Protection and Research Task 2: Genetic Research and Conservation ...... $1,500,000 Task 9: Develop Containment Systems ...... $300.000 (Additional Year 3).$1,800,000
Objective II: Conflict Management (No New Tasks Planned for Year 3)
Objective III: Leadership, Coordination, Information (No New Tasks Planned for Year 3) Total Additional Year 3.$1,800,000 Year 3 Total .... $18,670,000 ANADROMOUS HATCHERY OPERATIONS
[The material below is intended to go in the FY 95 Justification in the Anadromous Hatchery Operations program element of the Hatchery Operations and Maintenance subactivity. Similar material is intended for inclusion in the Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations program element. Please be careful to distinguish between these two writeups and to insert them in the right places.]
Program Change
1 995 Program Request Changes $000/FTE $000/FTE
Protecting Wild Stocks 375/5 + 375/5
Genetics Management 150/2 + 150/2 Total 525/7 + 525/7
Protecting Wild Stocks ( + $375,000 and 5 FTE)
The Service is requesting a total increase of $725,000 and 9 FTE to expand its implementation of this specific component of its Fisheries in Transition (FIT) initiative, which is intended to help our Nation's fish hatcheries embrace a balanced approach to conserving biological diversity and natural ecosystems and providing opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing. One of the five cornerstones of this program is an expanded and more focused effort to ensure that stocking of hatchery fish is compatible with maintenance of wild stocks. An increase of $375,000 and 5 FTE is requested for this purpose under Anadromous Hatchery Operations and a corresponding increase of $350,000 and 4 FTE is requested for Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations.
The Service is proposing to intensify two specific kinds of activities that involve interactions between wild fish and hatchery fish. The first focuses on reducing transmission of fish pathogens and diseases between wild and hatchery fish. This is becoming increasingly important as more species become imperiled or are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and as more restoration and recovery plans identify captive propagation as a preferred strategy for supplementing or reestablishing populations. Given these trends, the Service must ensure that remaining members of populations, regardless of whether they are in hatcheries or in the wild, are not needlessly compromised or lost because of the spread of pathogens or diseases.
As part of the Service's efforts to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems and diverse assemblages of aquatic organisms, especially anadromous fishes, the Service revised its National Fish Health Policy in FY 93. Emphasis has been placed on providing inspections and diagnostic services for fish produced by Federal and State hatcheries and by private aquaculturists, which includes a variety of anadromous species, such as striped bass, Pacific salmon, and Atlantic salmon. By expanding services provided to these producers, the Service is seeking to 1) reduce the spread of fish pathogens and diseases among fish communities and water bodies, 2) ensure that stocking does not spread pathogens and diseases, and 3) ensure that removal of fish from the wild for broodstock purposes does not compromise the health of hatchery fish.
In accordance with the revised National Fish Health Policy, these expanded fish health services will be provided through the Service's Fish Health Centers at Fort Morgan, Colorado and LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Additional resources are required to ensure that these Centers are adequately staffed and equipped. The Service is requesting $250,000 and and 3 FTE to provide additional fish health services to its Anadromous Hatchery Operations programs and, correspondingly, $250,000 and 2 FTE to its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operation programs.
The second area of focus in protecting wild stocks involves expanding the capabilities of the National Fish Hatchery System to apply the principles of conservation biology to captive propagation of .anadromous fishes, particularly salmonids and sturgeons, thereby ensuring the welfare of aquatic ecosystems and conserving their biological diversity. According to a survey completed by the Division of Fish Hatcheries in FY 1993, about 48 of the 94 fish species listed as threatened and endangered in the United States have recovery plans that identify captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery. Twenty of these species are currently being propagated or held in refugia at Service hatcheries. Another thirteen listed species that either do not have recovery plans or have recovery plans that need to be updated are also being propagated or held at Service facilities. Hence, the Service 1) is propagating or holding about one-third of the listed fishes, 2) could potentially undertake similar activities with the other 28 listed species that have recovery plans that point to captive propagation as viable recovery strategies, and 3) is likely to undertake additional propagation and related activities as more species are listed.
Most recovery plans that cite captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery make no provision for funding work that must be done before listed species 1) are taken in from the wild and maintained in refugia on National Fish Hatcheries, 2) are taken to Fish Technology Centers where reproductive, dietary, and handling protocols are developed, or 3) are used in actual propagation and stocking programs. If recovery is to proceed efficiently and effectively, the National Fish Hatchery System must develop additional capabilities to apply the principles of conservation biology when undertaking population viability analyses and developing propagation plans and stocking plans. This must be done in a deliberate manner that recognizes that management of threatened, endangered and imperiled species requires different perspectives and analyses than management of other fishes used in restoration and mitigation programs. Toward these ends, the Service is requesting $125,000 and 2 FTE for its Anadromous Hatchery Operations and $100,000 and 2 FTE for its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations.
Genetics Management ( + $150,000 and 2 FTE)
The Service is requesting a total increase of $525,000 and 7 FTE to expand its implementation of this specific component of its Fisheries in Transition (FIT) initiative, which is intended to help our Nation's fish hatcheries embrace a balanced approach to conserving biological diversity and natural ecosystems and providing opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing. The second of five cornerstones of this program is an expanded effort to ensure that hatchery fish are produced in accordance with sound principles of genetics management, especially in programs designed to restore self-sustaining populations of anadromous fish, like Atlantic and Pacific salmon, or recover populations of threatened and endangered species, such as sturgeons. An increase of $150,000 and 2 FTE is requested for this purpose under Anadromous Hatchery Operations and a corresponding increase of $375,000 and 5 FTE is requested for Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations.
The Service is proposing to intensify two specific activities that involve genetics management of fish propagated by the National Fish Hatchery System. The first involves using an existing facility at the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge to establish a capability to isolate six distinct lots or strains of lake trout and develop them as broodstocks. This activity is described in the program change proposed for Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations, which identifies a need for an additional $200,000 and 3 FTE. There is no increase requested in Anadromous Hatchery Operations programs for this kind of activity.
The second area of focus in genetics management involves expanding the capabilities of the National Fish Hatchery System to apply the principles of genetics to captive propagation, thereby ensuring the welfare of aquatic ecosystems and conserving their genetic diversity, which is an important part of their biological diversity as a whole. This is especially true of the many species of anadromous fishes that are imperiled or under consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Most recovery plans for listed fishes cite captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery, but make no provision for funding work that must be done before 1) listed species are taken from the wild and maintained in ref ugia on National Fish Hatcheries, 2) are taken in to Fish Technology Centers where reproductive, dietary, and handling protocols are developed, or 3) are used in actual propagation and stocking programs. If recovery is to proceed efficiently and effectively, the National Fish Hatchery System must develop additional capabilities to apply the principles of genetics, especially as they relate to severely depressed populations, when developing propagation and stocking plans for listed species. This must be done in a deliberate manner that recognizes that management of threatened, endangered and imperiled species requires different perspectives and genetic protocols than management of other fishes used in restoration and mitigation programs. Effort must be expended in developing genetic baselines for wild and hatchery fishes so that broodstock programs and hatchery production and stocking programs can implemented effectively, and wild populations can be evaluated over time to ensure that their genetic heritage is preserved or enhanced. The Service is requesting $150,000 and 2 FTE to enhance the genetics management capabilities of its Anadromous Hatchery Operations and a corresponding increase of $175,000 and 3 FTE for its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations. INLAND/GREAT LAKES HATCHERY OPERATIONS
[The material below is intended to go in the FY 95 Justification in the Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations program element of the Hatchery Operations and Maintenance subactivity. Similar material is intended for inclusion in the Anadromous Hatchery Operations program element. Please be careful to distinguish between these two writeups and to insert them in the right places.]
Program Change
1 995 Program Request Changes $000/FTE $000/FTE
Protecting Wild Stocks 350/4 +350/4
Genetics Management 375/5 +375/5 Total 725/9 + 725/9
Protecting Wild Stocks H- $350,000 and 4 FTE)
The Service is requesting a total increase of $725,000 and 9 FTE to expand its implementation of this specific component of its Fisheries in Transition (FIT) initiative, which is intended to help our Nation's fish hatcheries embrace a balanced approach to conserving biological diversity and natural ecosystems and providing opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing. One of the five cornerstones of this program is an expanded and more focused effort to ensure that stocking of hatchery fish is compatible with maintenance of wild stocks. An increase of $350,000 and 4 FTE is requested for this purpose under Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations and a corresponding increase of $375,000 and 5 FTE is requested for Anadromous Hatchery Operations.
The Service is proposing to intensify two specific kinds of activities that involve interactions between wild fish and hatchery fish. The first focuses on reducing transmission of fish pathogens and diseases between wild and hatchery fish. This is becoming increasingly important as more species become imperiled or are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and as more restoration and recovery plans identify captive propagation as a preferred strategy for supplementing or reestablishing populations. Given these trends, the Service must ensure that remaining members of populations, regardless of whether they are in hatcheries or in the wild, are not needlessly compromised or lost because of the spread of pathogens or diseases.
As part of the Service's efforts to maintain healthy aquatic ecosystems and diverse assemblages of aquatic organisms in the Great Lakes and inland waters, the Service revised its National Fish Health Policy in FY 93. Emphasis has been placed on providing inspections and diagnostic services for fish produced by Federal and State hatcheries and by private aquaculturists. By expanding services provided to these producers, the Service is seeking to 1) reduce the spread of fish pathogens and diseases among fish communities and water bodies, 2) ensure that stocking does not spread pathogens and diseases, and 3) ensure that removal of fish from the wild for broodstock purposes does not compromise the health of hatchery fish.
In accordance with the revised National Fish Health Policy, these expanded fish health services will be provided through the Service's Fish Health Centers at Fort Morgan, Colorado and LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Additional resources are required to ensure that these Centers are adequately staffed and equipped. The Service is requesting $250,000 and 2 FTE to provide additional fish health services to its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operation programs, and correspondingly, $250,000 and 3 FTE for its Anadromous Hatchery Operations programs.
The second area of focus in protecting wild stocks involves expanding the capabilities of the National Fish Hatchery System to apply the principles of conservation biology to captive propagation, thereby ensuring the welfare of aquatic ecosystems and conserving their biological diversity. According to a survey completed by the Division of Fish Hatcheries in FY 1993, about 48 of the 94 fish species listed as threatened and endangered in the United States have recovery plans that identify captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery. Twenty of these species are currently being propagated or held in refugia at Service hatcheries. Another thirteen listed species that either do not have recovery plans or have recovery plans that need to be updated are also being propagated or held at Service facilities. Hence, the Service 1) is propagating or holding about one-third of the listed fishes, 2) could potentially undertake similar activities with the other 28 listed species that have recovery plans that point to captive propagation as viable recovery strategies, and 3) is likely to undertake additional propagation and related activities as more species are listed.
Most recovery plans that cite captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery make no provision for funding work that must be done before listed species 1) are taken in from the wild and maintained in refugia on National Fish Hatcheries, 2) are taken to Fish Technology Centers where reproductive, dietary, and handling protocols are developed, or 3) are used in actual propagation and stocking programs. If recovery is to proceed efficiently and effectively, the National Fish Hatchery System must develop additional capabilities to apply the principles of conservation biology when undertaking population viability analyses and developing propagation plans and stocking plans. This must be done in a deliberate manner that recognizes that management of threatened, endangered and imperiled species requires different perspectives and analyses than management of other fishes used in restoration and mitigation programs. Toward these ends, the Service is requesting $100,000 and 2 FTE for its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations and $125,000 and 2 FTE for its Anadromous Hatchery Operations.
Genetics Management ( + $375,000 and 5 FTE)
The Service is requesting a total increase of $525,000 and 7 FTE to expand its implementation of this specific component of its Fisheries in Transition (FIT) initiative, which is intended to help our Nation's fish hatcheries embrace a balanced approach to conserving biological diversity and natural ecosystems and providing opportunities for recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishing. The second of five cornerstones of this program is an expanded effort to ensure that hatchery fish are produced in accordance with sound principles of genetics management, especially in programs designed to restore self-sustaining populations of anadromous fish, like lake trout, or recover populations of threatened and endangered species, such as listed Colorado River fishes and desert fishes. An increase of $375,000 and 5 FTE is requested for this purpose under Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations and a corresponding increase of $150,000 and 2 FTE is requested for Anadromous Hatchery Operations.
The Service is proposing to intensify two specific activities .that involve genetics management of fish propagated by the National Fish Hatchery System. The first involves using an existing facility at the Rydell National Wildlife Refuge to establish a capability to isolate six distinct lots or strains of lake trout and develop them as brodstocks. The Service and its Great Lakes cooperators believe that lake trout strains not previously stocked in large numbers, especially in the lower lakes, hold promise for restoring self- sustaining populations in the lakes. In order to use these vestigial strains to develop future broodstocks, they must be held for at least two years to ensure that stocking these strains outside their current range would not introduce pathogens. Neither the Service nor its cooperators has facilities that are sufficient to hold these strains in isolation. Establishing this capability is considered an urgent priority by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its members, which includes the Service.
The Service is proposing to commit maintenance funding to rehabilitate the Rydell hatchery facility, but lacks the funds needed to acquire the equipment and personnel necessary to operate the facility. The Service is seeking $200,000 and 2 FTE in its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations for these purposes.
The second area of focus in genetics management involves expanding the capabilities of the National Fish Hatchery System to apply the principles of genetics to captive propagation, thereby ensuring the welfare of aquatic ecosystems and conserving their genetic diversity, which is an important part of their biological diversity as a whole.
Most recovery plans for listed fishes, such as Colorado River fishes and desert fishes, cite captive propagation as a viable or preferred strategy for recovery, but make no provision for funding additional work that must be done before 1) listed species are taken from the wild and maintained in refugia on National Fish Hatcheries, 2) are taken in to Fish Technology Centers where reproductive, dietary, and handling protocols are developed, or 3) are used in actual propagation and stocking programs. If recovery is to proceed efficiently and effectively, the National Fish Hatchery System must develop additional capabilities to apply the principles of genetics, especially as they relate to severely depressed populations, when developing propagation and stocking plans for listed species. This must be done in a deliberate manner that recognizes that management of threatened, endangered and imperiled species requires different perspectives and genetic protocols than management of other fishes used in restoration and mitigation programs. Effort must be expended in developing genetic baselines for wild and hatchery fishes, so that broodstock programs and hatchery production and stocking programs can be implemented effectively, and wild populations can be evaluated over time to ensure that their genetic heritage is preserved or enhanced. The Southwest Fish Technology Center, a complex of Service facilities located at Dexter and Mora, New Mexico, is prepared to provide leadership within the Service in applying priniciples of genetics management to captive propagation. The Service is requesting $175,000 and 3 FTE to enhance the genetics management capabilities of its Inland/Great Lakes Hatchery Operations and $150,000 and 2 FTE for its Anadromous Hatchery Operations. HATCHERY MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION
[The material below is intended to go in the FY 95 Justification in the Hatchery Maintenance and Rehabilitation program element of the Hatchery Operations and Maintenance subactivity.]
Program Change
1 995 Program Request Changes $000/FTE $000/FTE
Fisheries Maintenance 600/0 +600/0
(Engineering Support) 46/0 +46/0 Total 646/0 +646/0
Fisheries Maintenance ( + $646,000 and 0 FTE)
More than half of the U.S. listed species of threatened and endangered fishes are being propagated or held in refugia at National Fish Hatcheries. At last count, 34 listed species could be found at 23 facilities, representing a substantial commitment of the Fisheries Program to the recovery of threatened and endangered species.
Efforts to equip these facilities with the technologies necessary to safeguard and manage listed species have come at the expense of using maintenance funds to meet the needs of hatcheries engaged in mitigation and restoration programs. As a result, technological improvements have generally been undertaken sparingly or in some cases, not at all. At many hatcheries, little in the way of new equipment, electrical, and water systems have been added to ensure that mechanical or electrical breakdowns do not cause the loss of listed species. Similarly, little funding has been available to ensure that threatened and endangered fishes can be held in isolated systems or in systems with redundant support capabilities, both of which would help ensure that occurrence of disease or system failures would not destroy valuable genetic material. The Service has been fortunate that the lack of critical equipment or redundant systems has not compromised recovery programs. While some equipment and system failures have occurred, they have not produced ecological catastrophes. None-the-less, it is only a matter of time before the aging and inadequate equipment in use at most hatcheries propagating or holding listed species experiences major problems and produces major setbacks for recovery program. A concerted effort must be made to replace antiquated equipment and apply new technologies at these hatcheries. Of special importance are the needs to modify facilities to enable a species to be held in several isolated lots; to install devices to monitor water flow, temperature, and chemistry; to install redundant pumping and electrical systems; and to modify facilities to ensure that terrestrial and avian predators do not have access to raceways, tanks, or ponds holding listed species.
Engineering support for these kinds of improvements should be relatively minor. Most improvements would involve using proven technologies and applying them in ways that require little, if any, major engineering support. Consequently, the amount requested for engineering support has been reduced from the customary 15% to 7.5%. 1994 UPDATE: DRUG AND CHEMICAL USE
roeadeVe•••./~1.•••11■01~1.**JIVIV".9~resal
MAD RELATED ACTIVITIES SINCE JANUARY 1993
Prepared March 31, 1994 1993 UPDATE: DRUG AND CHEMICAL USE
Ne•••■/~"*.d~"..1~~"...1~Nifterfe'Ve•esdf■sel"./
Summary
• The Service has submitted 11 INAD applications to the FDA.
• Only 2, the INADs for CCP and CuSO4 have been approved.
• The INAD for potassium permanganate will be submitted April 1994.
• Of the INADs the FDA has commented on (with the exception of the CCP and CuSO4 INADs), all have been returned to the Service for minor protocol tweaking, and because none met NPDES permitting requirements. (Effective March 16, 1994, FDA revised their position on requiring NPDES permits prior to approval. We may soon receive approval for the INADs that were rejected earlier.)
• The endangered/threatened species MOU with the FDA should be ready for signing soon.
• A national INAD office is being established in Bozeman, MT. It should have a staff of 2-3 and be up-and-running by June 1994.
• An agreement has been worked out with the States to fund INAD research activities. The agreement calls for the States to contribute $20,000 each for the next five years. A total of approximately $5,000,000 ($1,000,000 per year). 35 States have agreed to participate so far. The research will be performed by NBS (LaCrosse and Stuttgart). AD IBA
• FISHERIES AND RESEARCH (REGION 8) HELD A MEETING IN JANUARY 1993, FOR SERVICE PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING INADs.
--MEETING ACCOMPLISHMENTS--
• IDENTIFIED 8 PRIMARY ESSENTIAL COMPOUNDS AND 4 SECONDARY COMPOUNDS (Original list had 50 plus drugs and chemicals)
PRIMARY/SECONDARY COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED
/PRIMARY COMPOUNDS/USES (SERVICE-WIDE INADs)1 - FORMALIN (2 INADs) FUNGICIDE PARASITICIDE - OXYTETRACYCLINE (3 INADs) FEED ADDITIVE INJECTABLE IMMERSION MARKING - CHLORAMINE-T - COPPER SULFATE/CUTRINE - POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE - COMMON CARP PITUITARY HORMONE (CCP) - HUMAN CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN (HCG) - LH-RHa
/SECONDARY COMPOUNDS (LIMITED USE INADs, SPECIFIC TO A REGION, PROGRAM, OR FACILITY) - SARAFLOXACIN - OXOLINIC ACID (Coleman NFH, Region 5) - ERYTHROMYCIN - MALACHITE GREEN (Coleman NFH, endangered species only)
1 There will be 12 INADs covering use of these 8 primary compounds. --MEETING ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Continued)--
• ESTABLISHED WORK GROUPS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL INADs:
- IDENTIFIED WORK GROUP LEADERS AND INDIVIDUAL INAD SUPPORT TEAMS
- ASSIGNED DUTIES FOR PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT
- ASSIGNED DUE DATES FOR APPLICATIONS TO THE FDA (Most INAD applications were submitted to the FDA by September 1993)
• ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REQUESTING OPINIONS FROM THE FDA ON THE USE OF OTHER COMMONLY USED COMPOUNDS (low regulatory priority status) [See the attached low regulatory priority list.)
ALIZARINE ANTIFOAM/NO FOAM FULLERS EARTH GLUCANS HYDROGEN PEROXIDE POLYAQUA/PRO-POLYAQUA SODIUM THIOSULFATE STRESS COAT TANNIC ACID UREA
• ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING A MOU WITH THE FDA TO ALLOW USE OF SELECT COMPOUNDS ON E/T SPECIES WITHOUT AN INAD (The MOU has been reviewed by the FDA and is currently being reviewed by the Division of Endangered Species.) --CURRENT ACTIVITIES: OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS--
12 PRIMARY COMPOUNDS/USES (SERVICE-WIDE INADs)
- FORMALIN FUNGICIDE (Application under review by the FDA) PARASITICIDE (Application under review by the FDA)
- OXYTETRACYCLINE FEED ADDITIVE (Application under review by the FDA) INJECTABLE (Application under review by the FDA) IMMERSION (Application under review by the FDA) MARKING (Application under review by the FDA)
- CHLORAMINE-T (Application under review by the FDA)
- COPPER SULFATE/CUTRINE ((Application approved by the FDA effective March 23, 1994)
- POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE (Application draft is being reviewed and readied for submittal to the FDA)
- COMMON CARP PITUITARY HORMONE (CCP) (Application approved by the FDA effective September 7, 1993)
- HUMAN CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN (HCG) (Application under review by the FDA)
- LH-RHa (Application under review by the FDA)
(Summary: 11 applications submitted; 9 applications being reviewed; 2 applications approved; 1 application still in draft.) --CURRENT ACTIVITIES:OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Continued)--
• DIRECTOR SIGNED A "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER FOR SUBSTANCES DEFINED AS "HIGH REGULATORY PRIORITY AQUACULTURE DRUGS" BY THE FDA (5/93) (All high regulatory compounds must be disposed of by December 31, 1994.)
• HELD A MEETING WITH THE FDA ON SPECIAL STATUS FOR ENDANGERED/THREATENED FISH SPECIES (5/93)
- FISHERIES HAS DEVELOPED A MOU WITH THE FDA ON THIS ISSUE (The MOU is being reviewed.)
• THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE DEVELOPED AN OPINION ON LIABILITY (5/93)
• THE OFFICE OF SAFETY AND HEALTH DEVELOPED A MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING OSHA REQUIREMENTS (5/93) --RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES--
• CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STATES AND INDUSTRY TO ADDRESS LONG-TERM D/C APPROVAL RESEARCH.
• WORK WITH PARTNERS TO IDENTIFY D/C APPROVAL FUNDS.
• EVALUATE CURRENT D/C USE, AND ELIMINATE OR REDUCE WHERE POSSIBLE.
• EVALUATE NEW CULTURE TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES NOT DEPENDENT ON D/C, i.e., WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT, NUTRITION, GENETICS MANIPULATION.
• CONTINUE TO WORK WITH FDA TO MAKE INADs AS INEXPENSIVE/EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.
• USE APPROVED AND NON-APPROVED D/C ACCORDING TO FDA POLICY (e.g., INADs and low regulatory priority compounds).
• DO NOT DEVELOP POLICY THAT MAY INCREASE POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
• WORK WITH FDA TO DEVELOP EXEMPTION OR SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR E/T FISHES
• USE BASE FUNDING TO SUPPORT SERVICE INAD ACTIVITIES.
• CONTINUE TO SUPPORT REGIONAL AND WASHINGTON OFFICE INAD COORDINATORS AND MONITORS OTHER INFORMATION
--RESPONSIBILITIES/LIABILITIES--
• FDA HAS NEVER BROUGHT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST A FEDERAL AGENCY (But, to make a point, that might do just that.)
• FDA ENHANCED THEIR FIELD INSPECTION CAPABILITIES IN 1993 (Several FWS and State facilities were inspected by the FDA in 1993.)
• MUST PROVIDE SAFETY EQUIPMENT & TRAINING
• MUST DEVELOP QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
• MUST HAVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT[*With (effluent, disposal of residues, left over drugs, etc.) the exception of the INADs for CCP and CuSO4, every application we have submitted has not met NPDES permitting requirements. The only reason the INAD for CCP was approved was that it made it through the FDA approval system prior to FDA's November 1993 change of policy on meeting EPA environmental requirements. This change resulted when the EPA informed the FDA that they (the FDA) did not have the authority to grant categorical exclusions for the discharge of drugs and chemicals into the environment. As a result, the inability to acquire an NPDES permit allowing the discharge of specifically named compounds into the environment (water) may drastically limit the use of non-approved compounds at many facilities. No NPDES permit, no use even under an approved INAD.]
• EVERYONE MUST DEMONSTRATE "GOOD FAITH" EFFORT
*The Service has been lc '-` 'ed informally by the FDA that they have revised their NPDES compliance policy again, effective March it. t. 94. INADs will now be approved without an upfront NPDES permit for the subject compound. Compliance will be up to the INAD holder. We have not received anything in writing as yet on this. However, the most recent INAD approval for CuSO4 was approved without having NPDES permitting authorization for the subject facilities OTHER INFORMATION (Continued)
--NEW ANIMAL DRUG (NAD) APPROVAL--
INADs ARE ONLY THE BEGINNING — RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO PRODUCE NAD APPLICATIONS:
• HUMAN FOOD SAFETY (Good Laboratory Practices [GLP] required) RESIDUES METABOLITES WITHDRAWAL TIMES
• TARGET ANIMAL SAFETY
• ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
• EFFICACY (INADs are part) REVIEW OF APPROVED/LEGAL/ILLEGAL
.1 APPROVED USE IS LIMITED (only 4 available compounds)
- 3 THERAPEUTIC DRUGS (formalin, oxytetracycline, Romet 30)
- 1 ANESTHETIC (MS-222)
- RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIC USES ON SPECIFIC SPECIES
LEGAL USE OF UNAPPROVED DRUGS IS LIMITED
- COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED BY THE FDA AS LOW REGULATORY PRIORITY SUBSTANCES
- INADs (Part of the New Animal Drug [NAD] Process)
- RESEARCH USE UNDER SECTION 511.1, CFR 21
,/ ILLEGAL USE -- ANY SUBSTANCE OR USE NOT APPROVED OR ALLOWED BY THE FDA LOW REGULATORY PRIORITY AQUACULTURE DRUGS
The following compounds have undergone review by the Food and Drug Administration and have been determined to be new animal drugs of low regulatory priority.
ACETIC ACID - 1000 to 2000 ppm dip for 1 to.10 minutes as a parasiticide for fish.
CALCIUM CHLORIDE - Used to increase water calcium concentration to insure proper egg hardening. Dosages used would be those necessary to raise calcium concentration to 10-20 ppm CaCO3. - Up to 150 ppm indefinitely to increase the hardness of water for holding and transporting fish in order to enable fish to maintain osmotic balance.
CALCIUM OXIDE - Used as an external protozoacide for fingerlings to adult fish at a concentration of 2000 mg/L for 5 seconds.
CARBON DIOXIDE GAS - For anesthetic purposes in cold, cool, and warm water fish.
FULLER'S EARTH - Used to reduce the adhesiveness of fish eggs to improve hatchability.
GARLIC (Whole Form) - Used for control of helminth and sea lice infestations of marine salmonids at all life stages.
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE - Used at 250-500 mg/L to control fungi on all species and life stages of fish, including eggs.
ICE - Used to reduce metabolic rate of fish during transport.
MAGNESIUM SULFATE - Used to treat external monogenic trematode infestations and external crustacean infestations in fish at all life stages. Used in all freshwater species. Fish are immersed in a 30,000 mg MgS041 and 7000 mg Naafi. solutions for 5 to 10 minutes.
ONION (Whole Form) - Used to treat external crustacean parasites, and to deter sea life from infesting external surface of salmonids at all life stages.
PAPAIN - Use of a 0.2% solution in removing the gelatinous matrix of fish egg masses in order to improve hatchability and decrease the incidence of disease.
POTASSIUM CHLORIDE - Used as an aid in osmoregulation; relieves stress and prevents shock. Dosaces used would be those necessary to increase chloride ion concentration to
10-2000 mg/L. b.
POVIDONE IODINE- 100 ppm solution for 10 minutes as an egg surface disinfectant during and after water hardening. SODIUM BICARBONATE - 142 to 642 cam for 5 minutes as a means of introaucing carbon dioxide into the water to anesthetize fish.
SODIUM CHLORIDE - 0.5% to 1.0% solution for an indefinite period as an osmoregulatory aid for the relief of stress and prevention of shock: and 3% solution for 10 to 30 minutes as a parasiticide.
SODIUM SULFITE - 15% solution for 5 to 8 minutes to treat eggs in order to improve their hatchability.
UREA and TANNIC ACID - Used to denature the adhesive component of fish eggs at concentrations of 15g urea and 20g NaCV5 liters of water for approximately 6 minutes, followed by a separate solution of 0.75 g tannic acid/5 liters of water for an additional 6 minutes. These amounts will treat approximately 400,000 eggs.
The Agency is unlikely to object to the use of these substances if the following conditions are met.
The substances are used for these indications.
The substances are used at the prescribed levels.
The substances are used according to good management practices.
The product is of an appropriate grade for use in food animals.
There is not likely to be an adverse effect on the environment.
The Agency's enforcement position on the use of these substances should not be considered an approval nor an affirmation of their safety and effectiveness. Based on the information available at some time in the future, the Agency may take a different position on the use of any or all of these substances.
Classification of these substances as new animal drugs of low regulatory priority does not exempt facilities from complying with other Federal, State, and local environmental requirements. For example, facilities using these substances would still be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
January 12, 1994 Office of Surveillance and Compliance Center for Veterinary Medicine