NATIVE FISH SOCIETY
P.O. Box 19570
Portland, Oregon 97280
(503) 977-0287
Email:Ê bmbakke@teleport.com
February 27, 2003
TO: ÊÊÊÊ George Nandor, ODFW
FR:ÊÊÊÊÊÊ Bill Bakke, Director, NFS
RE: Comments on the hatchery management policy February 24, 2003 draft
The Native Fish Society appreciates having the opportunity to review and comment on the first draft of the hatchery management policy rules.Ê Our comments are directed toward improving these important rules.Ê We are pleased that the department has written draft rules in compliance with Governor Kitzhaberâs 1999 Executive Order.
1. There is insufficient distinction between policies concerning harvest and conservation hatcheries.ÊÊ The draft blurs the two and generates unnecessay ambiguity.
2. The planning process, reporting and implementation needs to be more public rather than relying primarily on staff decisions.Ê I have tried to indicate areas where the decision and reporting process could be strengthen by including the public and the commission in the discussion and decision.Ê
3. The draft lacks a definition of terms and I have noted a few terms that should be defined, such as, captive rearing as different from captive brood.Ê
4. There are phrases used in the draft that go to the question of intent.Ê Using phrases such as ãgenerally striveä suggest that the action item following this phrase is not likely to be done.Ê It would be better to state the intent rather than use code.Ê
5. All stock transfers, be they fish or eggs, should be banned due to the risk to native, wild fish.Ê Any proposed stock transfer should be by commission rule rather than by the discretion of the hatchery manager or ODFW staff.
6. Standards should be established for survival and contribution of hatchery fish to fisheries for each hatchery program.
7. For each hatchery all predators killed to protect hatchery fish shall be documented and made public.Ê
8. We support 100% marking and there should be no deviation from this standard.Ê This standard should be stated by rule.Ê Marking all hatchery fish is the recommendation of scientific panels and is important to hatchery fish evaluation, counting strays, and other management goals such as monitoring and evaluation.
9. The rule should include a requirement for compliance monitoring to provide accountability and provided to the commission for review and comment.
10. A rule that calls for research on the fitness and reproductive success of hatchery fish should be included in this policy.Ê It is a long-standing dilemma noted in department evaluations.Ê The assumption that hatchery fish are equal to wild fish in reproductive fitness needs to be tested and should be a high priority for the hatchery policy.
11.
ODFW should open the US v. Oregon production agreement up to
public comment and review.Ê This secret
process is to be re-opened it is up to ODFW to include public involvement.Ê This process controls production planning in
Columbia River tributaries in Oregon which is now outside any public process.
Purpose:
In the purpose statement there should be a stated commitment to develop and comply with specific management objectives and performance standards.Ê Not only are these necessary for a policy and required by the HGMPs required by NOAA Fisheries, they are the basis for constructing a sound policy and accountability.
Add: a goal that would ensure the sustainability of mitigation and production hatchery fish such that they remain productive and contribute to fisheries, are cost effective, and protect native, wild populations of fish and the ecosystem.
Reason:Ê This aspect of artificial propagation is absent from the goals statement, yet these programs constitute a major portion of hatchery releases.Ê
Comment:Ê Goal 2 states ãContribute toward the sustainability of naturally produced native fish populations through responsible use of hatcheries and hatchery-produced fish.äÊ That part of the statement ãContribute towardä offers weak direction and gives the impression that it is not a priority.Ê This should be strengthened.Ê Otherwise the goal assumes too much since it gives the impression that the goal is real and can be accomplished, when it is not supported by the science.
Reason:Ê A major research question and priority ought to be to evaluate whether domestication selection in the hatchery can produce a fish with equal reproductive success compared to wild native fish.Ê Until this research is completed and we have an answer to this question of hatchery fish fitness, the goal makes no sense and assumes too much.
Comment:Ê (1) Are there internal conflicts among all the goals, rules, statutes, agreements, treaties, ESA, permits, plans etc.?Ê This is written as if there are no conflicts among the various factors controlling hatchery fish rearing and release.Ê If there are no internal conflicts then it should be stated and if there are then it should be explained in an introduction to the key elements.
(5) Production Plans:Ê There is no provision for public review and comment or for ODFW Commission adoption.Ê These plans have been removed from the public process.Ê This must be corrected, giving the public and commission the opportunity to participate in this process rather than merely be told, ãWell, this is how it is folks.ä
(8) The ODFW Commission should adopt hatchery plans.
(9) When it is said that hatcheries will ãmaximize fish quality and minimize adverse impacts to watersheds, consistent with fish management agreementsäetc., does it mean that these agreements can trump quality and protection?Ê The sentence is constructed to give that meaning.Ê Also, by protecting watersheds against impacts of the hatchery program does this also mean protect native wild fish from these impacts?Ê This key element should be rewritten or at least its intent stated rather than hidden.
(11) By stating that funding and staffing constraints will affect the pace and degree of compliance with these rules, the department has crafted a substantial loophole.Ê Since these constraints are real, given the budget, it would be useful to state throughout the document implementation timelines that would be adopted by the ODFW Commission with the understanding that failure to meet the conditions of these timelines would be reviewed as well.Ê This would help settle the compliance question rather than leaving it open ended and discretionary.Ê
(1) b.:Ê A specific objective for hatcheries to have a net survival advantage (egg to adult) has value but it is a low standard when there is so much concern over life cycle survival rates of hatchery fish.Ê A standard should be established that evaluates hatchery fish survival advantage from smolt to adult.Ê This is an important metric for all forms of hatchery programs, for if the smolt to adult survival rate is low it creates a feedback loop important to monitoring and evaluation and management changes. When evaluating conservation and native brood stock hatchery programs, the smolt to adult survival rate compared to wild fish must be taken into account to justify the expense and risk of this kind of hatchery program.Ê Also, the contribution to fisheries criteria should also be a requirement of hatchery fish.Ê In addition, the cost per adult should be determined so that it is known whether the cost to produce hatchery fish is reasonable given the purpose and goals of the program.Ê All these factors must be included in the criteria for hatchery production to make it accountable to best management practices.
(1) c: Minimum adverse interactions is not a standard until specific criteria are set for each hatchery program.Ê This should be stated, and criteria developed for each hatchery program.
(1) d:Ê Minimal adverse effects on water quality and quantity should be expressed by hatchery and this should be made clear in this policy.
(2) The term ãstrive to enhance or maintain fisheries without impairing naturally reproducing populationsä is ambiguous.Ê The statement should purge the phrase ãstrive toäso that the intent is direct and understandable.Ê If the intent of this statement is to not be held to the protection of wild fish while using hatcheries to enhance or maintain fisheries, then this should be stated directly rather than cleverly trying to hide the intent.
How will impacts to the productivity of wild fish be determined in this policy and what will the cost be for this work?
(4) By saying conservation hatcheries will ãgenerally strive to more fully integrate hatchery and natural production·ä the rule is once again ambiguous.Ê What is the intent?Ê Will the policy actually integrate or will it only try to do so?Ê This kind of vagueness places wild populations at risk.Ê Does the policy risk assessment account for this?
(4)a: This rule would allow stock transfers among watersheds.Ê We are opposed to stock transfers given the high risk this creates for wild fish, especially depleted populations.Ê This rule should state that all stock transfers shall be subject to ODFW Commission approval.
(5)
There is no standard established that calls for survival and
contribution criteria for harvest hatchery program fish.
(1) What does the word ãappropriateä mean in this context?Ê Can it mean that only certain groups will be worked with and not others even though they may have an interest?Ê It would be better to drop the term so that some groups do not fall into the inappropriate category.Ê After all, hatchery fish are still a public resource and most areÊ funded with public money.
(2) When you say the department will coordinate to effectively meet resource management needs, does this include conservation as well?Ê I assume so, but maybe it should be stated.
(6) Replace the term ãsupportä to initiate activities that encourage the exchange of hatchery information·.ÊÊ Provide for public review of these arrangements and agreements and plans.
(1) Delete hatchery production schedules for providing guidance to hatchery brood stock programs.Ê Hatchery plans rather than schedules should drive hatchery brood stock programs.Ê Schedules are included in the plans so mentioning it separately is redundant and gives poor direction, for the schedule could drive the program rather the plan in this context.Ê
(2) The department will select broodstocks that best meet harvest and conservation objectives.Ê This should be subject to public review and commission adoption.
(3) Harvest hatchery programs will transition into use of native brood stocks based on available data.Ê The problem is that there may be no available data that would indicate impairment.Ê This sets a standard with a low bar, and does not require the department to be deliberate about hatchery releases and impacts on wild fish.Ê Before a program like this is started there should be a scientific review.Ê This review should be provided to the public for comment and to the commission for adoption. Lacking this process, the department lacks accountability for decisions on using native brood stock.
(4) Conservation hatchery programs will use local wild fish or fish from nearby wild or hatchery populations.Ê This is an unacceptable approach.Ê No transfers of fish should be allowed in order to protect the local population.Ê This approach, if used, should be subject to scientific review, public comment and commission adoption.
(5) This rule should be subject to scientific review, public comment and commission adoption so that any deviation from the rule is fully disclosed and approved.
(3) It seems appropriate when saying hatcheries will minimize stress and ensure survival of fish to spawning, that specific criteria be established by hatchery for mortality rate. This should be stated
(4) Recycling live fish through a fishery should also include assessment of impacts on native wild fish.Ê These fish are for the fishery, but fishing for recycled fish also carries a risk of incidental catch on wild native fish and a cost of additional mortality for the native fish.
(3) The release of live, spawned out fish into the stream should be consistent with wildÊÊ fish protection.
(6) Providing additional fishing should also be consistent with protection of wild fish.
(5) Hatch box programs should also be consistent with protection of wild fish
Add the following:Ê (6) Shall meet the Clean Water Act standards for hatchery water released into public waters.
Add the following:Ê (5) Document predators kill by hatchery annually and report to commission.
We support 100% marking and there should be no deviation from this standard.Ê This standard should be stated by rule.Ê Marking all hatchery fish is the recommendation of scientific panels and is important to hatchery fish evaluation, counting strays, and other management goals such as monitoring and evaluation.
(4) The release of fish into waters other than where they came from should be prohibited by rule.Ê Any exception should be provided for public review and commission adoption.
(7) Emergency fish releases into waters other then where they originated should be precluded by rule to avoid stock transfers into inappropriate waters.Ê
(9) Providing fish passage at all barriers.Ê This is an intent statement.Ê By adding a timeline for completion of tasks, the department can ensure steady progress and secure funding for the work.
(10) Managing fish passage past hatchery-associated barriers and determining risks to wild and hatchery fish should be a deliberate process that involves ODFW Commission approval.
(11) Compliance monitoring of hatchery effluent to meet Clean Water Act standards should be on a specified schedule for each hatchery program.
(14) The commission should adopt a timeline for hatchery maintenance and have staff provide a report on deferred maintenance and other expenses each biennium.Ê The rule should include language that accomplishes this recommendation.
The rules should prevent the release of infected fish into public or private waters.
(3) The rule should have specific language prohibiting the release or transfer of diseased fish.
(4)iÊ The loss of fitness and reproductive success in hatchery fish is a major issue with some saying it just is not so and other saying it is a problem.Ê The loss of fitness in hatchery fish is a major research question that should be a priority in order for the department to implement the Native Fish Policy and the Hatchery Policy.Ê Add language that captures this recommendation.
(5)fÊ Impacts of hatchery operations on adjacent habitats should also include evaluation of impacts on wildlife.
(6)gÊ Add maintaining and enhancing natural life history variation as well as genetic variation as a function of monitoring natural populations affected by hatchery fish.
Add: Each biennium, prior to the meeting of the legislature, the staff shall provide a report to the commission that is an assessment of agency compliance with these rules for hatchery production and natural production.Ê
Add that fish propagation personnel will be given training in the Natural Fish Conservation policy. Since the hatchery and natural production policies are integrated and the hatchery policy contains protection for natural populations, staff training should include the natural production and conservation policy.