National Fish Hatcheries: Classification of the Distribution of Fish and
Eggs Needs Refinement (Letter Report, 10/15/1999, GAO/RCED-00-10).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
activities of the National Fish Hatchery System, focusing on: (1) the
funding level for the National Fish Hatchery System since 1992 and the
funding level's impact on operations; (2) the production level at
federal hatcheries; (3) the portion of production that is used for
recovery and restoration efforts; (4) the distribution of total hatchery
production into federal, state, and other waters; and (5) the issues
related to health and disease problems at these hatcheries that pose
problems for introducing their fish into the wild.
GAO noted that: (1) appropriations for operating the National Fish
Hatchery System decreased about 15 percent from fiscal years (FY) 1992
through 1999 while the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) overall budget
increased during this period; (2) according to FWS personnel, these
funding declines have resulted in unfilled staff positions and a drop in
the distribution of fish and fish eggs; (3) about one-fourth of the
positions at federal hatcheries are unfilled, and 1998 fish distribution
was about 19 percent below 1992 levels; (4) in FY 1998, the National
Fish Hatchery System distributed about 163 million fish, weighing a
total of about 5.7 million pounds, and about 122 million fish eggs; (5)
GAO's review of FWS' records showed that its data overstated the extent
to which the distribution from federal hatcheries has gone for
restoration or recovery efforts; (6) GAO found that 40 percent of the
fish and 20 percent of the pounds distributed were used to assist in
restoration and recovery efforts, not 80 percent of the fish and 56
percent of the pounds as identified by FWS; (7) moreover, federal
hatcheries have assisted in the production of fish for commercial and
recreational purposes to a greater extent than FWS indicated; (8) about
three-fourths of the fish and half of the fish eggs were distributed to
waters under federal jurisdiction, with most of the rest distributed to
waters under state jurisdiction; (9) FWS officials and other fish health
experts agree that much remains to be learned about the interaction of
diseases between wild fish and hatchery-raised fish; (10) they stated
that hatchery fish were not necessarily less healthy than wild fish but
were more likely to show outward symptoms of disease, a tendency they
attributed to the greater stress hatchery fish experience from changes
in water temperature and quality, high population densities of fish,
handling and transporting; (11) the hatcheries' responses to the health
and disease problems in hatchery fish varied; (12) officials said many
situations were alleviated with antibiotics or by reducing the stressful
conditions, but, in some instances, fish or eggs were destroyed to avoid
transmitting a problem to other fish; (13) GAO identified instances in
which fish that may have been diseased had been released; and (14)
hatchery officials said the latter course of action had been taken only
with the concurrence of state officials and only in situations where a
body of water was closed or where the specific disease was already known
to exist.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-00-10
TITLE: National Fish Hatcheries: Classification of the
Distribution of Fish and Eggs Needs Refinement
DATE: 10/15/1999
SUBJECT: Animal diseases
Wildlife conservation
Water resources conservation
Fishes
Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER: National Fish Hatchery System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Resources, House
of Representatives
October 1999
NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES -
CLASSIFICATION OF THE DISTRIBUTION
OF FISH AND FISH EGGS NEEDS
REFINEMENT
GAO/RCED-00-10
National Fish Hatcheries
(141296)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-283539
October 15, 1999
The Honorable George Miller
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Resources
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Miller:
Fish hatcheries operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
been part of the nation's network of fish hatcheries for more than
120 years. While state and tribal hatcheries play an important role
in supplying fish for commercial and recreational fishing, federal
hatcheries have a unique role. This role includes helping to ensure
the recovery of species of fish that have been listed as threatened
or endangered, restoring native fish stocks to self-sustaining
levels, replacing fisheries lost as a result of federal water
projects, and supplying fish to Indian tribes and Fish and Wildlife
Service lands. The performance of federal hatcheries has been a
matter of some controversy, including such issues as their role in
and impact on fish recovery and restoration efforts, the health of
fish released into streams, and the ability of hatchery-raised fish
to survive when released into the wild.
To provide the Congress with information to help evaluate the
appropriate role for federal hatcheries, you asked us to develop a
baseline assessment of current activities at these facilities, known
collectively as the National Fish Hatchery System. As agreed with
your office, we focused our review on the following questions:
-- What has been the funding level for the National Fish Hatchery
System since fiscal year 1992, and what impact has this funding
level had on its operations?
-- What is the current production level at federal hatcheries; what
portion of this production goes for recovery and restoration
efforts; and what is the distribution of total hatchery
production into federal, state, and other waters?
-- What are some of the issues related to the health and disease
problems at these hatcheries that pose problems for introducing
their fish into the wild?
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Appropriations for operating the National Fish Hatchery System
dropped from about $47 million to $40 million, or 15 percent (in
constant 1999 dollars), from fiscal years 1992 through 1999, while
the Fish and Wildlife Service's overall budget increased during this
period. According to hatchery managers and other Fish and Wildlife
Service personnel, these funding declines have resulted in unfilled
staff positions and a drop in the distribution of fish and fish eggs.
About one-fourth of the positions at federal hatcheries are currently
unfilled, and 1998 fish distribution was about 19 percent below 1992
levels. Strategies for dealing with the situation have included
transferring some federal hatcheries to states, seeking reimbursement
for services provided to states and private entities, deferring
maintenance, and relying more on volunteers.
In fiscal year 1998, the National Fish Hatchery System distributed
about 163 million fish, weighing a total of about 5.7 million pounds,
and about 122 million fish eggs. Our review of the Service's records
showed that its data overstated the extent to which the distribution
from federal hatcheries has gone for restoration or recovery efforts.
We found that 40 percent of the fish and 20 percent of the pounds
distributed were used to assist in restoration and recovery efforts,
not 80 percent of the fish and 56 percent of the pounds as identified
by the Service. Moreover, federal hatcheries have assisted in the
production of fish for commercial and recreational purposes to a
greater extent than the Service indicated. About three-fourths of
the fish and half of the fish eggs were distributed to waters under
federal jurisdiction, with most of the rest distributed to waters
under state jurisdiction.
Service officials and other fish health experts agree that much
remains to be learned about the interaction of diseases between wild
fish and hatchery-raised fish. They said that hatchery fish were not
necessarily less healthy than wild fish but were more likely to show
outward symptoms of disease�a tendency they attributed to the greater
stress hatchery fish experience from changes in water temperature and
quality, high population densities of fish, and handling and
transporting. When health and disease problems in hatchery fish were
encountered, the hatcheries' responses to the situations varied.
Officials said many situations were alleviated with antibiotics or by
reducing the stressful conditions, but, in some instances, fish or
eggs were destroyed to avoid transmitting a problem to other fish.
We also identified instances in which fish that may have been
diseased had been released. Hatchery officials said the latter
course of action had been taken only with the concurrence of state
officials and only in situations where a body of water was closed
(such as a lake with no outlet) or where the specific disease was
already known to exist.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Most public and private hatcheries throughout the United States focus
on producing fish for the primary purposes of commercial use and
recreational fishing, but the 67 hatcheries in the National Fish
Hatchery System are supposed to play a different role. According to
Service officials, while many of the fish produced by federal
hatcheries provide significant commercial and recreational benefits,
these benefits are secondary to the primary role of the National
System. Since the 1970s, the Service has tried to emphasize the
restoration and the recovery of threatened and endangered species,
along with the replacement of fisheries lost because of federal water
projects. Beginning in 1996, the Service established, with input
from public stakeholders, the role and the responsibilities of the
federal hatcheries. In 1998, to better align their output with their
role and responsibilities, the Service established and defined
program categories for use in classifying the distribution of their
fish and fish eggs (see table 1).\1 Service officials indicated that
they place the highest priority on the first two programs�recovering
threatened or endangered species and restoring other native fish
stocks to self-sustaining levels.
Table 1
Programs Included in the Activities of
Federal Fish Hatcheries
Program Definition Example
---------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------
Recovery The stocking of native fish In 1973, the Apache trout was
to help reestablish self- listed as endangered under
sustaining populations at the Endangered Species Act.
levels of abundance and The recovery plan called for
spatial distributions hatchery propagation. Actions
sufficient for delisting at the Alchesay-Williams
Creek National Fish Hatchery
in Arizona helped bring
recovery to the level that,
by 1998, delisting was in
sight.
Restoration The stocking of native fish The paddlefish, one of the
to help reestablish self- largest freshwater fish, has
sustaining populations at been eliminated from many
levels of abundance and smaller rivers and streams in
spatial distributions well the central United States
above the threshold for because of habitat loss. The
delisting or listing Mammoth Spring National Fish
Hatchery in Arkansas, one of
several hatcheries involved
in paddlefish restoration,
raises paddlefish until they
are about 12 inches long.
They are then stocked into
their native habitat.
Mitigation The stocking of nonnative Construction of federal dams
and native fish to replace on the upper White River in
or maintain harvest levels Arkansas lowered water
lost as a result of federal temperatures; consequently,
water projects native bass, catfish, and
sunfish could not survive
below the dams. The Norfork
National Fish Hatchery in
Arkansas produces nonnative
trout to stock these colder
parts of the river. Because
the trout are not able to
reproduce and achieve self-
sustaining populations in
these waters, continued
restocking is necessary.
Fish and Wildlife Service The stocking of nonnative or In Louisiana, the
and tribal lands native fish to enhance Natchitoches National Fish
harvest, outreach, and Hatchery stocks fish into the
educational activities at waters of the Sabine National
national wildlife refuges Wildlife Refuge to create a
(or harvest on tribal recreational fishery. To
lands), but not with the develop this fishery, the
intent of reestablishing or depth of the refuge's waters
maintaining self-sustaining was
populations raised and they were stocked
with fish native to
Louisiana.
Partnership management The stocking of nonnative or The Leadville National Fish
native fish to enhance the Hatchery stocks trout for
harvest, but not with the recreational fishing on
intent of reestablishing or federal lands in
maintaining self-sustaining Colorado�mainly military
populations or mitigating reservations, including the
the adverse effects of Air Force Academy, Peterson
federal water projects Air Force Base, Pueblo Army
Depot, and Fort Carson.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The 67 hatcheries in the National System are located in 34 states
(see fig.1). In addition to these federal hatcheries, the Fish and
Wildlife Service operates nine fish health centers and seven fish
technology centers. These centers provide technical support and
health screenings.
Figure 1: The Location of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's
Regional Offices, Fish
Hatcheries, Fish Health
Centers, and Fish Technology
Centers
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Prepared by GAO from data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Disagreements persist about how federal hatcheries should be
operated. Matters of controversy include how many federal hatcheries
are needed, how they should be funded and operated, and what goals
they should try to achieve. In addition, controversies exist about
the impact of hatchery-raised fish (such as the transmission of
disease and health problems to wild fish stocks), the genetic changes
introduced by hatchery-raised fish, and the ability of
hatchery-raised fish to survive when released into the wild.
--------------------
\1 The Service has not publicly reported on the distribution of fish
and fish eggs from the National System since fiscal year 1996.
Service officials indicated that a lack of funds and time were the
reasons behind the failure to publicly report this information for
fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
AGENCY OFFICIALS LINKED
DECLINING FUNDS TO STAFFING
SHORTAGES AND DROPS IN FISH
PRODUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
During fiscal years 1992 through 1999, funding for federal hatcheries
decreased. Service officials said this funding decline had left them
unable to fill many positions and unable to perform needed
maintenance at federal hatcheries, which in some cases, resulted in
threatened or endangered fish being lost. As a result of these
decreases in funding, fish and fish egg production also declined
during this timeframe. Officials said that they have adopted a
variety of strategies to obtain additional funding or stretch
operating dollars.
THE LEVEL OF APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FEDERAL HATCHERIES HAS
DECLINED BY 15 PERCENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
While overall funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service has increased
from fiscal years 1992 through 1999, operating and maintenance
funding for the National Fish Hatchery System, as measured in
constant 1999 dollars,\2 has declined by about 15 percent. Fiscal
year 1992 appropriations were $46.7 million in constant dollars,
compared with $39.5 million for fiscal year 1999 (see fig. 2).\3
During the same period, total operating appropriations for the
Service rose by 34 percent, from $493 million to $661 million, as
measured in constant 1999 dollars.\4 However, the hatcheries' share
of these appropriations declined from about 9 percent to 6 percent.
This decline was, in part, the result of the lack of sufficient
increases in appropriations to cover the increased costs of
operations, maintenance, and construction; administrative
streamlining; hatchery closures; and moving priorities for new
funding towards other programs.
Figure 2: Operating and
Maintenance Funding for the
National Fish Hatchery System,
Fiscal Years 1992 Through 1999
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Amounts are in constant 1999 dollars.
Source: GAO's analysis of data from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
--------------------
\2 �Constant 1999 dollars� means that the appropriations from prior
years have been adjusted to account for the change in the Consumer
Price Index. The amounts reported for fiscal years 1992 through 1998
reflect the purchasing power of those dollars in terms of what a
dollar could buy in fiscal year 1999. Operations and maintenance
funds provide moneys for such things as salaries, utility expenses,
routine vehicle and building maintenance, fish food and drugs, and
other supplies.
\3 In addition to appropriations for the hatcheries' operations and
maintenance, the Service receives some fisheries-related
appropriations under other categories (such as fish and wildlife
management), as well as funds for replacing fisheries lost as a
result of federal water projects. (See app. I for details on these
additional sources of funds).
\4 These amounts exclude research and development funds.
THE FEDERAL HATCHERIES HAVE
REPORTED STAFFING SHORTAGES,
MAINTENANCE SHORTFALLS, AND
EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Officials at Fish and Wildlife Service headquarters and at the 13
federal hatcheries we visited said that declining appropriations have
resulted in an inability to fully staff hatchery positions.
Nationwide, about 125 positions, or one-fourth of all the positions
at federal hatcheries, were vacant, and, according to agency
managers, funds were not available to fill them. Adequate staffing
at fish hatcheries is needed because fish require daily feeding and
tank cleaning, and failure to do this could cause stressful
situations that harm the health of the fish. In addition, the staff
must be available 24 hours a day in case of emergencies, such as pump
failures or interruptions of water supplies, which could jeopardize
the entire production of a hatchery. Vacant positions include
hatchery managers, biologists, geneticists, and maintenance workers.
For example:
-- The Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center in New
Mexico, which breeds and raises several of the nation's most
endangered fish species, does not have three of its allotted
staff because the facility has lacked the necessary operating
funds. One of these positions is the director, a position that
has been vacant for more than a year.
-- At the Leadville National Fish Hatchery in Colorado, the fish
biologist position has been vacant since February 1994 because
of inadequate funds. To deal with this shortage and still
achieve production and mission goals, the hatchery has relied on
numerous volunteers during the past 4 years. However, hatchery
staff said turnover among volunteers has been high.
Many of the hatchery managers we spoke with also reported that they
were unable to maintain or perform preventative maintenance on
facilities and equipment. According to Service officials, the
average federal hatchery is 55 years old and has several million
dollars in accumulated maintenance needs that have been deferred over
the years. By their estimation, the National System needs about $110
million for
maintenance.\5 By comparison, the National System's appropriation for
maintenance was about $7.4 million in fiscal year 1999�or only about
7 percent of its total needs. Several hatchery managers reported
losses of fish, some of which were classified as threatened or
endangered, because of equipment failures or malfunctions. For
example:
-- In April 1999, 198 endangered Gila trout died at the Mescalero
National Fish Hatchery in New Mexico when a seal failed in an
older holding tank. An official from the Fisheries Resource
Office in New Mexico estimated that these fish represented 25
percent of the native population in one of the two streams where
these fish are found. More importantly, he said these fish were
spawning-age adults that were being used to reintroduce this
species into Arizona and move towards delisting the species from
the Endangered Species List. This effort has now been delayed.
-- In December 1998, 700 threatened Gulf of Mexico sturgeon died at
the Welaka National Fish Hatchery in Florida when an aerator
system failed. Hatchery staff said a backup system that could
have saved the fish was not operating because maintenance funds
were unavailable to repair it.
Managers at some facilities said they have been unable to obtain
needed equipment. According to an official at the Dexter National
Fish Hatchery and Technology Center, that facility has lacked the
funds to purchase specialized laboratory equipment needed to
propagate and protect threatened or endangered fish species. At the
Mammoth Spring National Fish Hatchery, we observed researchers using
benches and chairs for makeshift laboratory workspace.
--------------------
\5 In addition to deferred maintenance needs, the National System
reported a backlog of $168 million for construction items.
Construction items are funded by a separate budget account and are
not part of the operations and maintenance funds addressed in this
report.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF FISH AND
FISH EGGS HAS DECLINED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
In recent years, the distribution of fish and fish eggs from federal
hatcheries has declined. As table 2 shows, fish distribution
declined from about 204 million fish in fiscal year 1992 to about 164
million fish in fiscal year 1998, a decrease of 19 percent. In
contrast, the number of pounds of fish distributed decreased by only
6 percent, from about 6 million pounds in 1992 to about 5.7 million
pounds in 1998. The number of eggs distributed declined from 132
million to about 122 million, a decrease of 8 percent.\6 Hatchery
managers said one of the reasons for the decline in the distribution
of fish and fish eggs was the lack of money to repair the fishponds
and the facilities used to rear fish. However, while the federal
hatcheries have been distributing fewer fish, the decline in pounds
of fish has been relatively small because many of those fish have
been larger.
Table 2
The Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs
From Federal Hatcheries, Fiscal Years
1992 Through 1998
Number of Pounds of Number of
fish fish eggs
distributed distributed distributed
(in (in (in
Fiscal year thousands) thousands) thousands)
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
1992 203,687 6,030 132,329
1993 213,529 6,220 263,476
1994 177,070 6,120 151,137
1995 168,463 5,978 138,800
1996 161,491 5,504 144,504
1997 165,564 5,500 112,904
1998 164,260 5,664 121,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
--------------------
\6 Some federal hatcheries maintain desired strains of mature,
spawning-age fish that produce eggs that are used to meet the
production needs of the National System. These �broodstock�
hatcheries provide eggs to other federal hatcheries and to state
hatcheries, other federal agencies, and universities to support
restoration efforts, help meet mitigation responsibilities, promote
research and technological development, and help provide recreational
fishing opportunities.
THE FEDERAL HATCHERIES HAVE
TAKEN MEASURES TO COPE WITH
DECLINING BUDGETS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4
Managers have taken some steps, such as the following, to cope with
decreasing funds.
-- Transferring federal hatcheries to states: During fiscal years
1996 through 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service transferred six
hatcheries to states�one each in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
-- Seeking additional funding from nonfederal sources: Some
facilities have received funds from states or other entities.
For example, the federal hatcheries in Colorado and Montana have
received partial compensation for raising rainbow trout for
state waters. The Warm Springs Fish Health Laboratory in
Georgia has charged commercial producers that want to ship
sterile grass carp to other parts of the country for the
laboratory's inspection and certification services.
-- Seeking alternatives to contracting: Some federal hatcheries
and fish centers are using in-house staff or other resources to
build or maintain projects that otherwise would have been done
by contract. In-house staff at Colorado's Hotchkiss National
Fish Hatchery built a mesh enclosure to protect its fish from
herons and other predators. According to the hatchery manager,
the total project cost $42,000, compared to a contract's
estimate of $90,000 to $110,000. The Warm Springs National Fish
Hatchery in Georgia used electricians and bulldozer operators
from the National Guard to install electrical wiring and reshape
its fishponds.
MOST DISTRIBUTIONS FROM FEDERAL
HATCHERIES HAVE BENEFITED
RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Our review of the Fish and Wildlife Service's distribution records
found that they gave an incorrect picture of the degree to which
federal hatcheries have been focusing on the Service's recovery and
restoration programs. According to the Service, most of the fish and
fish eggs distributed by its hatcheries had been used in these two
programs. However, we found that more than half of the distribution
that the Service had classified as related to these programs did not
meet their definitions. While most of the fish and fish eggs had
been distributed to waters that are under federal jurisdiction, they
actually benefited recreational and commercial fisheries. Inasmuch
as Fish and Wildlife Service managers have indicated that the
priority for federal hatcheries should be recovering threatened or
endangered species or restoring other imperiled fish to
self-sustaining populations, most of their distributions were of
nonnative, nonimperiled, or nonsustainable native fish, which have
benefited commercial and recreational fisheries.
FEWER FISH AND FISH EGGS
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS USED FOR RESTORATION AND
RECOVERY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
In fiscal year 1998, the last year for which complete information was
available, federal hatcheries distributed about 163 million fish,
weighing a total of about 5.7 million pounds, and about 122 million
fish eggs.\7 The Service's data indicated that about 80 percent of
the fish, representing about 56 percent of the pounds, and 29 percent
of the fish eggs were for restoration or recovery projects. However,
when we examined the various uses more closely and compared them with
the definitions for the various programs, we found that only 38
percent of the fish, representing about 20 percent of the pounds, and
23 percent of the fish eggs should have been classified as having
gone for restoration or recovery efforts. Figure 3 compares the
distribution of hatchery fish according to the Service's records with
our adjustments to more accurately reflect the Service's
definitions.\8
Figure 3: Initial and
Reclassified Fish Distribution,
Fiscal Year 1998
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO's analysis of data from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
According to the Service's program definitions, for a usage to be
classified as restoration or recovery, it must involve an attempt to
achieve a self-sustaining population of a native fish that is
threatened, endangered, or otherwise imperiled in some way. We found
several instances in which hatcheries had classified distribution as
recovery or restoration even though the fish were nonnative, were not
imperiled, or were not being used for the purpose of developing a
self-sustaining population. For example:
-- The Mescalero National Fish Hatchery in New Mexico had
classified the distribution of more than 37,000 rainbow trout (a
common nonnative species) as recovery because these fish had
been sent to the Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology
Center, where they had been used as food for the endangered
Colorado pikeminnow. Similarly, the Orangeburg National Fish
Hatchery in South Carolina had classified the distribution of
1.2 million bluegill (a common species) under the recovery
program because the fish had been stocked into waters at
national wildlife refuges as food for endangered wood storks.
-- The Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery in Louisiana classified
the distribution of nearly 1 million bluegill, channel catfish,
and largemouth bass (all common species) as restoration because
they were stocked into waters at a national wildlife refuge in
Louisiana in order to establish a recreational fishery.
Although these fish are native to Louisiana, they are not
threatened, endangered, or imperiled and had not previously
inhabited the waters where they were stocked.
-- The Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery along the
Washington side of the Columbia River classified the
distribution of more than 3 million fall and spring chinook
salmon as restoration. Despite being native to the area, the
fish could never establish self-sustaining populations because a
dam had obliterated their natural spawning habitat.
-- The Fish and Wildlife Service classified the distribution of the
threatened Apache Trout at the Alchesay-Williams Creek National
Fish Hatchery as recovery. However, the hatchery's manager told
us that its trout production was no longer used for the recovery
program but was being used to supplement the recreational
fishery on the Apache Indian reservation.
-- The Garrison Dam National Fish Hatchery in North Dakota
classified the distribution of over 7.2 million black crappie,
northern pike, small mouth bass, and walleye as restoration
when, in fact, these fish had been used to offset the impact of
dam construction and other federal water projects in the area.
Although these fish are native to the area, they are not
threatened, endangered, or imperiled.
Our findings should not be interpreted to mean that federal
hatcheries have been doing things they are not authorized to do�only
that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not been providing an accurate
picture of how the activities at those hatcheries have been aligned
with its priorities. Nearly all of the differences in classification
involved fish and eggs classified as being used for recovery and
restoration purposes when they had actually been used to mitigate the
effects of federal water projects. Mitigation, like most purposes
other than recovery or restoration, is the stocking of native or
nonnative fish to maintain or replace harvest levels lost as a result
of federal water projects and often involves stocking bodies of water
that have little or no spawning habitat to support self-sustaining
populations. The fish�often nonnative species�are either stocked at
a catchable size (called �put and take�) or are stocked and allowed
to grow until they are of catchable size (called �put, grow, and
take�). For example:
-- The rainbow trout, which has been introduced throughout the
country, is native only to the rivers and streams of the Pacific
Coast and Pacific Northwest. When this fish species has been
stocked into reservoirs and rivers in other parts of the
country, there has been little or no reproduction because of the
lack of suitable habitat. In fiscal year 1998, rainbow trout
accounted for most of the �put and take� stocking, representing
almost 40 percent of the total pounds of fish produced at
federal hatcheries.
-- Some species, such as lake trout, northern pike, bass, and
channel catfish, have been stocked into nonnative waters and
have successfully reproduced. All of these fish are game fish
that are sought after as recreational fish. At times, these
fish have threatened the survival of native species because of
their reproduction and predatory natures. According to Service
officials, in recent years, the stocking of nonnative fish has
been done much more cautiously.
-- Some species, such as the salmon species native to the Pacific
Northwest, have been stocked in their native waters to replace
or maintain harvest levels lost as a result of federal water
projects. Although millions of these fish have been stocked
into native waters, self-sustaining populations are not possible
because of numerous factors, including a lack of sufficient
spawning habitat, predation by nonnative fishes, and impacts
from human activities, which have prevented many of these fish
from reaching maturity and returning to reproduce in
self-sustaining numbers.
Classifying these uses as recovery or restoration, rather than as
mitigation or some other more appropriate category, does not provide
an accurate picture of what federal hatcheries have been doing.\9
--------------------
\7 This amount of fish is more than 1.6 million (about 1 percent)
less than the amount identified by the Service and included in table
2. We found that this amount of 1.6 million should have been
excluded because of such reasons as double counting.
\8 See app. II for additional information on fish and fish egg
distribution by program category and major species of fish produced
in each region of the Service.
\9 See app. III for a listing of fish and fish egg distribution, by
Service region, for the recovery and restoration programs.
MOST FISH AND FISH EGGS HAVE
BEEN PLACED IN WATERS UNDER
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
In fiscal year 1998, most of the fish and fish eggs distributed from
federal hatcheries were placed in waters under the jurisdiction of
the federal government (see table 3). These waters include those on
federally owned lands and those that cross governmental boundaries
(such as the Columbia River, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi
River). That year, 75 percent of the fish from federal hatcheries
and 53 percent of their fish eggs were distributed to waters under
federal jurisdiction. Waters under state jurisdiction received the
next largest portion, with smaller numbers going to tribal and local
governments.
Table 3
The Distribution of Fish and Fish Eggs
by Entity Controlling the Waters, Fiscal
Year 1998
Amount (in
Program and product thousands) Percentage
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Federal government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 122,663 75
Pounds of fish 4,480 79
Fish eggs 64,721 53
State government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 31,883 20
Pounds of fish 629 11
Fish eggs 52,875 44
Local government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 989 1
Pounds of fish 21 0.4
Fish eggs 432 0.4
Tribal government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 6,611 4
Pounds of fish 518 9
Fish eggs 2,866 2
Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 504 0.3
Pounds of fish 6 0.1
Fish eggs 646 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
MANAGERS SAY HEALTH AND DISEASE
PROBLEMS FROM HATCHERY FISH CAN
BE MINIMIZED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Officials from the Service and from science and industry groups that
deal with fisheries acknowledged that most of what is known about
fish diseases and how to control them has been learned from hatchery
operations but that there is still much to learn about the
interaction between hatchery production and natural ecosystems. In
general, the officials from the federal hatcheries and health centers
that we spoke with made the following points about the health and
disease problems in hatchery fish:
-- Hatchery fish are subject to stresses that can promote the
manifestation of health and disease problems. Similar health
and disease problems affect both wild and hatchery fish, but
hatchery fish face stresses that cause these problems to more
readily manifest themselves.\10 These stresses include being
reared in high populations densities, being subjected to
fluctuations in water temperature and quality, and having to
undergo human handling and transporting to the site where they
will be released.
-- Most health and disease problems can be minimized by reducing
fish population densities and other stresses or by using
antibiotics. Hatchery managers said they reduce the number of
fish being reared and the changes in water quality or
temperature to minimize most of the health and disease problems
found there. These practices help reduce the need to use
antibiotics, which are used primarily for internal bacterial
infections.
-- Survey efforts are under way to determine the distribution of
certain diseases among wild fish and develop health information
on interactions between wild and hatchery fish. In 1997, the
Service started the National Wild Fish Health Survey. This
effort began when an outbreak of �whirling disease� depleted
wild trout stocks in the Rocky Mountains.\11 In fiscal year
1998, the Service spent $1.8 million investigating the whirling
disease parasite, expanding the survey to gather additional
information on the prevalence of various fish pathogens, and
developing a database to examine relationships among fish
diseases and various features of water quality and fish habitat.
This survey included an analysis of more than 13,000 fish from
422 sites in 38 states.
-- When unexpected health or disease problems occur, fish and fish
eggs have sometimes been destroyed to prevent the problems from
being transmitted to other fish. In 1988 a viral disease was
identified in salmon stocks at the Makah National Fish Hatchery
in Washington. Because the virus may have been imported from
Europe, all of the fish at that hatchery were destroyed. At the
Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery in Washington, salmon
that return to the hatchery to spawn are tested for bacterial
kidney disease, and according to the hatchery manager, the eggs
of those fish with a high exposure to the disease are destroyed.
-- When fish that may be diseased are introduced into the wild, it
is according to state regulations. In 1994, the pathogen for
whirling disease was found in the waters and the fish at the
Leadville National Fish Hatchery in Colorado. With the
concurrence of state fish and game officials and in accordance
with state regulations for controlling that disease, fish from
this hatchery were stocked in streams in which whirling disease
already existed or in restricted bodies of water.\12
--------------------
\10 App. IV provides more information on several diseases found in
federal hatcheries in the National System.
\11 Whirling disease is a parasitic infection that attacks cartilage
in trout and salmon, causing deformities. Infected fish display a
distinctive rapid whirling, or swimming in circles. The disease can
be fatal to very young fish, and there is no known cure.
\12 Restricted bodies of water are waters where fish infected with
whirling disease may be stocked without a significant threat of
spreading the parasite. For example, a reservoir on the eastern
plains of Colorado would be considered a restricted body of water
because it does not feed into other bodies of water with native wild
trout populations.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Over the past 8 years, operating and maintenance appropriations for
the National Fish Hatchery System have decreased. According to Fish
and Wildlife Service officials and hatchery managers, this decline
has been the principal reason for not being able to fill positions,
maintain production, and keep facilities properly maintained.
Deciding what course of action to take in the face of such shortages
requires, among other things, a clear understanding of the role and
responsibilities of federal hatcheries. However, information on how
federal hatcheries have been supporting the Service's programs
through the distribution of fish and fish eggs has not been reliable.
Although the Service classified most of this distribution as being
focused on recovering threatened or endangered species or restoring
other imperiled fish to self-sustainability, in reality, the
principal focus has been the distribution of nonnative, nonimperiled,
or nonsustainable native fish to maintain or enhance commercial and
recreational fisheries. The overstatement of fish and fish egg
distribution associated with the recovery and restoration programs
has understated the hatcheries' activities that have principally been
used to benefit commercial and recreational fisheries. The Service's
classification of distribution does not provide a clear picture of
the unique role that federal hatcheries are supposed to fill.
RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To provide the Congress with the information needed to evaluate the
appropriate role of the National Fish Hatchery System, we recommend
that the Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service to take steps to refine the classification
system for fish and fish egg distribution and help ensure that
hatchery managers appropriately classify all fish and fish egg
distribution by its principal purpose.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
We provided a copy of this report to the Department of the Interior
for review and comment. The agency agreed with our findings and
recommendation. It also stated that reputable hatchery managers and
scientists continue to disagree about such terms as recovery,
restoration, and mitigation. The agency said that it is committed to
describing its hatchery distribution programs in a manner that
accurately addresses the concerns of those seeking information and
that, in January 1999, it began to investigate methods for doing so.
It also provided comments on the factual content of the report, and
we made changes as appropriate. The agency's comments are included
as appendix VI.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
Our work included analyses of budget, financial, and distribution
data. We obtained this information from Fish and Wildlife Service
headquarters and, where necessary, from four of the six regional
offices (Albuquerque, Atlanta, Denver, and Portland) that have
hatcheries. To more closely assess the effects of current funding
levels, we visited 13 of the 67 federal fish hatcheries, 3 of the 9
fish health centers, and 4 of the 7 fish technology centers.
Appendix V lists the specific facilities that we visited.
To identify funding trends, we analyzed financial data and reports
for fiscal years 1992 through 1999, which were obtained from the
Service's headquarters and the four regional offices we visited. We
also reviewed annual reports for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 and
other pertinent financial data for the hatcheries we visited. In
addition, we interviewed officials at the Service's headquarters,
regional offices, hatcheries, fish technology centers, and fish
health centers to obtain their opinions of funding needs and impacts.
To describe fish and fish egg distribution for fiscal year 1998, the
Service provided us with its fiscal year 1998 fish and fish egg
distribution database and the program definitions used to classify
this information. We then took the data on distribution related to
recovery and restoration programs and asked the management at all the
hatcheries that had these two programs to explain the end use of each
fish species they had classified as used for them. We used their
responses to our questions about the end uses and the Service's
definitions of these programs to more accurately reclassify the
distribution to other program categories. We then showed the results
of our analyses to headquarters officials for their judgments on our
recategorizing of the data and made changes as necessary. We used
data from the Service's automated database to determine the
destination of fish and fish egg distribution.
To describe fish health and disease problems at federal hatcheries,
we spoke with Service officials and collected data from officials at
fish health centers and hatcheries. We did not address the issue of
possible genetic changes among hatchery-raised fish.
We performed our work from April 1999 through September 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
interested congressional committees. We are providing copies of this
report to the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior, and to
the Honorable Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service. We will also make copies available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (206)
287-4810. Major contributors to this report were Alan Dominicci,
Kelley Layman, and Bill Temmler.
Sincerely yours,
James K. Meissner
Associate Director,
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues
FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL FISH
HATCHERY SYSTEM
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix presents additional information about the amounts of
money available to fund hatchery operations and hatchery-related
activities within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Table I.1
shows how funds for these activities are organized: hatchery
operations and maintenance, the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan,
and fish and wildlife management. The Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan is a program to replace sport fisheries in Washington and Idaho
that were lost by the construction and the operation of federal dams
on the lower 150 miles of the Snake River. Only about $1 million, or
about 9 percent, of this appropriation goes to federal hatcheries,
and this amount goes to three facilities in Idaho--the Dworshak
National Fish Hatchery, the Dworshak Fish Health Center, and the
Hagerman National Fish Hatchery. Most of the remaining funds go to
other federal hatcheries in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, which are
owned by the Service but are operated by states and tribes under
agreements with it.
The Service's appropriations for fish and wildlife management are
spent, among other things, for the management of interjurisdictional
fisheries, the promotion and the development of recreational
fisheries, the recovery of threatened or endangered species, and the
restoration of species that soon might be listed. For example, the
fish and wildlife management program conducts population studies to
determine trends in fish stocks and evaluates and quantifies habitat
for aquatic resources. The degree to which appropriations for this
program are used for hatchery-related management is unknown. The
table also shows the total for the three activities and the total
operations appropriation for the Service for fiscal years 1992
through 1999.\13
Table I.1
Fisheries-Related Appropriations, Fiscal
Years 1992 Through 1999
(Amounts in thousands of dollars and in
constant 1999 dollars)
Total for Fish
Fisc Fish and Total and Wildlife
al Hatchery Lower Snake wildlife fisheries- Service's
year operations River management related operations
---- -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- --------------
1992 46,711 12,272 13,706 72,690 493,413
1993 44,047 11,868 15,026 70,941 497,317
1994 43,376 12,896 17,309 73,581 540,251
1995 40,913 12,495 16,910 70,317 545,279
1996 38,636 12,100 17,002 67,739 526,233
1997 37,935 11,881 18,287 68,103 540,776
1998 38,934 11,786 21,294 72,014 603,523
1999 39,527 11,648 22,387 73,562 661,136
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Bonneville Power Administration reimburses the U.S. Treasury
for expenditures for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.
\b These appropriations are for resource management.
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
In addition to these appropriated funds, some hatcheries and fish
health and technology centers receive funds from federal and state
agencies and from private entities for fish production or other
services. In fiscal year 1998 this additional funding amounted to
about $8.8 million. Of this amount, about $8.3 million, or 94
percent, went to various salmon-producing national fish hatcheries
and fish health and technology centers in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington to mitigate the impacts caused by federal water projects.
The Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service are the primary agencies providing
these funds, which are different from the funds provided under the
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.
For these additional funding sources, we were unable to develop
year-by-year funding amounts going back to fiscal year 1992.
--------------------
\13 For consistency, we excluded agency research and development
funds in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 because, beginning with fiscal
year 1994, all these funds were transferred to the National
Biological Survey, which was changed to the National Biological
Service and subsequently merged into the U.S. Geological Survey in
1996.
COMPARISON OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE'S DATA ON THE TOTAL
DISTRIBUTION OF FISH AND FISH EGGS
WITH GAO'S RECALCULATIONS, FISCAL
YEAR 1998
========================================================== Appendix II
Fish and Wildlife
Service's total GAO's recalculated
distribution (in total distribution
Program and product thousands) (in thousands)
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 4,677 3,229
Pounds of fish 120 79
Fish eggs 780 1,303
Restoration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 126,612 58,238
Pounds of fish 3,047 1,038
Fish eggs 34,919 26,737
Mitigation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 15,318 70,746
Pounds of fish 1,848 3,590
Fish eggs 61,040 66,468
Fish and Wildlife Service lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 4,063 7,663
Pounds of fish 33 76
Fish eggs 715 872
Tribal lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 3,159 10,131
Pounds of fish 351 575
Fish eggs 3,422 3,935
Partnership management
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish 10,433 11,116
Pounds of fish 264 288
Fish eggs 20,663 20,473
Research and development\a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish NA\b 243
Pounds of fish NA 7
Fish eggs NA 1,483
Food for others\c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish NA 1,285
Pound of fish NA 2
Fish eggs NA 0
Not counted/deleted\d
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish NA 1,609
Pounds of fish NA 8
Fish eggs NA 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes fish and eggs identified as having been sent to
laboratories, aquariums, or other research entities.
\b Not applicable refers to fish and fish egg distribution that did
not fit any of the Service's definitions.
\c Includes rainbow trout used as food for the endangered Colorado
pikeminnow (a fish species) at the Dexter National Fish Hatchery and
Technology Center and bluegills used as food for the endangered wood
stork (a bird species) in South Carolina.
\d Represents numbers we did not count as distribution in fiscal year
1998, including fish counted twice in the distribution at one
hatchery, salmon transferred from a state hatchery to a federal
hatchery for tagging purposes and returned to the state hatchery for
release, rainbow trout purchased by an Indian tribe from a private
hatchery and held in a federal hatchery prior to stocking, and
mussels raised at one federal hatchery and counted as fish
distribution.
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Table II.2
Top Five Fish Distributed by Each Region
According to Their Amount and Weight,
Fiscal Year 1998
Weight
(in
thousa
nds of
Amount pounds
Species (in thousands) Species )
-------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------
Region 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall chinook 52,136 Steelhead 835
Spring chinook 10,077 Spring chinook 484
Coho salmon 6,934 Fall chinook 455
Steelhead 4,847 Coho salmon 393
Chum salmon 2,322 Cutthroat 78
Region 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel catfish 2,236 Rainbow trout 350
Rainbow trout 1,381 Channel catfish 104
Largemouth bass 1,072 Apache trout 22
Smallmouth bass 132 Cutthroat 9
Striped bass 111 Brown trout 8
Region 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake trout 5,980 Lake trout 354
Walleye 2,584 Rainbow trout 92
Sauger 777 Brook trout 3
Rainbow trout 342 Brown trout 2
Brook trout 30 White bass .6
Region 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped bass 7,354 Rainbow trout 1,257
Rainbow trout 6,494 Brown trout 62
Bluegill 2,324 Striped bass 38
Redbreast sunfish 1,297 Cutthroat 18
Brown trout 593 Channel catfish 12
Region 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic salmon 15,439 Atlantic salmon 169
American shad 3,997 Lake trout 58
Lake trout 770 Rainbow trout 42
Striped bass 287 Landlocked 16
salmon
Landlocked salmon 220 Striped bass .3
Region 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walleye 12,648 Rainbow trout 419
Northern pike 6,034 Cutthroat 147
Rainbow trout 4,327 Lake trout 23
Yellow perch 1,162 Paddlefish 6
Cutthroat 1,074 Walleye 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fish and Wildlife Service Regions are as follows:
Region 1: California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and
the Pacific Trust Territories
Region 2: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Region 3: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin
Region 4: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands
Region 5: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia
Region 6: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Region 7: Includes Alaska, which does not have any fish hatcheries
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
FISH AND FISH EGG DISTRIBUTION
UNDER THE RECOVERY AND RESTORATION
PROGRAMS, BY FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE REGION, FISCAL YEAR 1998
========================================================= Appendix III
Fish (in Fish eggs (in
Region thousands) thousands)
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
1 27,259 0
2 227 0
3 5,993 11,852
4 7,478 0
5 20,162 13,515
6 347 2,673
======================================================================
Total 61,466 28,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fish and Wildlife Service Regions are as follows:
Region 1: California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and
the Pacific Trust Territories
Region 2: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Region 3: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin
Region 4: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands
Region 5: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia
Region 6: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Region 7: Includes Alaska, which does not have any fish hatcheries
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
DISEASES FOUND IN SOME NATIONAL
FISH HATCHERIES, TREATMENT
OPTIONS, AND DISPOSITION OF FISH
========================================================== Appendix IV
Disease Treatment options Disposition of fish
------------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------------
Bacterial kidney Modify diet, use Destroy highly diseased fish
disease antibiotics, and/or reduce (and high-risk eggs) or
stress release them into endemic
waters\a
Bacterial gill Increase water flow, reduce Following recovery, release
disease density of fish population, fish
and/or use antibiotics or
drugs
Whirling disease No known treatment, avoid Destroy or release fish into
exposure to pathogen closed bodies of water or
endemic waters
Enteric red mouth Vaccinate or use antibiotics Following recovery, release
disease fish into endemic waters or
destroy them
Furunculosis Vaccinate or use Following recovery, release
antibiotics fish into endemic waters or
destroy them
Enteric septicemia Use antibiotics Following recovery, release
fish into endemic waters or
destroy them
Asian tapeworm No known practical cure,\b Destroy or release fish into
avoid exposure to pathogen endemic waters according to
state regulations
Coldwater disease Use antibiotics or reduce Following recovery, release
rearing stress fish
Columnaris disease Use antibiotics or reduce Following recovery, release
temperature stress fish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Endemic waters are those waters where the pathogen is native or
naturally occurring.
\b According to fish health center officials, the drug treatment for
this pathogen is highly toxic and not legal for use in fish that may
be consumed as food.
Source: GAO's analysis of data provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
FEDERAL FACILITIES GAO VISITED
=========================================================== Appendix V
HEADQUARTERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.1
Division of Hatcheries, Arlington, Virginia
REGION 1
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.2
Regional Office, Portland, Oregon
Abernathy Salmon Culture Technical Center, Longview, Washington
Hagerman National Fish Hatchery, Hagerman, Idaho
Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery, Cook, Washington
Olympia Fish Health Center, Olympia, Washington
Quinault National Fish Hatchery, Humptulips, Washington
Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery, Warm Springs, Oregon
REGION 2
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.3
Regional Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Dexter National Fish Hatchery and Technology Center; Dexter, New
Mexico
Mescalero National Fish Hatchery, Mescalero, New Mexico
REGION 4
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.4
Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia
Mammoth Spring National Fish Hatchery, Mammoth Spring, Arkansas
Norfork National Fish Hatchery, Norfork, Arkansas
Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery, Warm Springs, Georgia
Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Laboratory, Warm Springs, Georgia
Warm Springs Fish Health Laboratory, Warm Springs, Georgia
Welaka National Fish Hatchery, Welaka, Florida
REGION 6
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:0.5
Regional Office, Lakewood, Colorado
Bozeman Fish Health Center, Bozeman, Montana
Bozeman Fish Technology Center, Bozeman, Montana
Ennis National Fish Hatchery, Ennis, Montana
Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery, Hotchkiss, Colorado
Leadville National Fish Hatchery, Leadville, Colorado
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
=========================================================== Appendix V
(See figure in printed edition.)
*** End of document. ***