State of UtahFish Health Policy Board

May 10, 2017, 10 AM to 2 PMUDAF, Main Conference Room – 2nd floor

AGENDA

1) Call to order, welcome and introductions – R. Paul Evans, Chair.

2) Approval of the minutes / summary from January 17, 2017 (handout).

3) Variance Requests Loveland Living Planet Aquarium – Evan Jamison Mountain View Trout Farm – Anna Forest Big Creek Variance – Cristi Swan Spring Lake Trout Farm - Robert Judd

Action Items from Previous Meetings4) Hardship transfers for sensitive species – Wade Cavender

5) BKD literature Review - Wade Cavender

6) Crustacean pathogens – Anna Forest

New Action Items7) Clarification of R58-17-15(B)(6)(a): Fish Health Approval/Sampling of warm water species. Proposal to

change “reside in the same water source” to “cohabitate in the same water source” – Anna Forest, Wade Cavender

8) Review of the health approval actions of the Department in regard to Spring Lake Trout Farm

9) Future Action Items List

10) Lunch*

* Lunch is provided for the Fish Health Policy Board members and presenters

Call to order, Welcome and Introductions (0:00 – 3:53)Paul Evans, Chair FHPB, BYU; Anna Forest, UDAF; Bill Durler, UDAF; Robert Judd, Utah Aquaculture; Brian Anderson, Sportfish Representative; Ronney Arndt, University of Utah; Mike Canning, DWR representative; Marty Bushman, Utah Attorney General’s Office; Barry Pittman, State Veterinarian UDAF; Chelsey Crawford, Assistant State Veterinarian UDAF; Wade Cavender, DWR Fisheries Experiment Station; Cody James, Director Animal Industry UDAF; Evan Jamison, Loveland Living Planet Aquarium; Krissy Wilson, DWR; Drew Cushing, Aquatics Chief DWR; Cristi Swan, DWR Fisheries Experiment Station; Neal Barker, Cold Springs Trout Farm; Anna Marie Vail, UDAF; LuAnn Adams, Commissioner UDAF, Gage Froerer, Utah House of Representatives;

Approval of the January 17, 2017 Minutes (4:40 – 5:48)The summary of the January 17, 2017 FHPB meeting was approved as provided. No discussion

Request to move Agenda Item #8 (Review of the health approval actions of the Department in regard to Spring Lake Trout Farm) to beginning of meeting and discuss Spring Lake Trout Farms Variance Request at the same time. Although agenda item #8 is somewhat connected to the variance request, UDAF would like to see a separation in the discussion and the minutes between the variance request and agenda item #8

Agenda Item 8Review of the health approval actions of the Department in regard to Spring Lake Trout Farm

Dr. Paul Evans reminded that the FHPB is a policy board and should focus on policy. For the past 2 months, there has been an array of emails that all of you were copied on that regard Spring Lake Trout Farm and UDAF. Does anyone have anything to say about the array of email correspondences? Are there any comments or discussion points? No one on the FHPB had any comments or wanted to discuss the issue.

Discussion jumped between Spring Lake Trout Farm’s variance request, Fish Health Approval requirements and past actions of Spring Lake Trout Farm and UDAF. For the purpose of keeping agenda items separate in the minutes, a brief summary of issue follows.

At issue is the interpretation of the requirements for Fish Health Approval in R58-17; procedures for sample collection in the Blue Book and historical methods of sample collection by UDAF.

R58-17 Requirements for Salmonid Fish Health Approval and sampling of Brood LotsR58-17-(B)(1) Health approval for salmonid aquatic animals is based on the statistical attribute sampling of each lot of aquatic animals at the facility in accordance with current Blue Book procedures. This shall require minimum sampling at the 95% confidence level, assuming a 5% carrier prevalence for the prohibited pathogens, pursuant to R58-17-15(D)(2) and (3). Health approval is applied to the entire facility, not individual lots of aquatic animal.(2) All lots of aquatic animals shall be sampled.(3) For brood facilities, lethal sampling may be required on the brood aquatic animals if the following conditions

exist:(a) Progeny are not available at the facility for lethal sampling; or(b) A statistically valid sample of ovarian fluids from ripe females is not tested.

R58-17-(C)(2)(c) All lots of aquatic animals at the facility as well as any outside sources of these aquatic animals must be

inspected for initial approval and for renewals pursuant to R58-17-15(B)(4).

The American Fisheries Society, Fish Health Section Blue Book R58-17 references Blue Book as the procedure manual for conducting fish health inspections. In reference to ovarian sample collection, the Blue Book states “From female broodstock at spawning, ovarian fluid is collected into an appropriately sized sterile container. “

Historical ovarian sample collection

UDAF has collected ovarian fluids from fish that have spawned in previous weeks. From a UDAF perspective, this practice is not supported by the Blue Book and the scientific literature does not address the viability of viruses in ovarian fluids that may remain in the fish over time. UDAF and DWR fish health personal and the State Veterinarian concluded that ovarian fluids should be collected at the time of spawning.

Spring Lake Trout FarmBonneville cutthroat eggs were transferred from Little Dell Reservoir to Spring Lake Trout Farm on 28 June 2013. These fish have never been inspected. Since all lots of fish need to be sampled for Fish Health Approval, Spring Lake Trout Farm is out of compliance with R58-17. Current personnel at UDAF became aware that Spring Lake Trout Farm had up to 50 spawning cutthroat in the spring of 2016. Sinc UDAF proposed to lethally sample the progeny in the fall and to collect ovarian fluids from cutthroat brood stock in the spring. Progeny were lethally sampled in the fall of 2016. There are currently 90 cutthroat broodstock at Spring Lake Trout Farm because a previous lot of progeny has become old enough to spawn.

Fish Health Approval, Cutthroat trout at Spring Lake Trout Farm, and the need for a variance.R58-17 requires all lots of fish and outside sources to be inspected for health approval. Spring Lake Trout Farms lot of cutthroat trout from little Dell have been on site since 2013 and have never been inspected. At issue is 1) the assertation by Robert Judd that the Bonneville Cutthroat brood does not need to be sampled because lethal sampling of progeny occurred in the fall of 2016; 2) Spring Lakes Trout Farms Desire to collect ovarian fluids from previously spawned fish; 3) the number and type of samples and needed to health certify the cutthroat trout. Spring Lake Trout Farm would like to use any ovarian fluids collected on May 11, 2017 as the means of health certifying the cutthroat trout and fulfilling the R58-17 requirement that all lots of fish are inspected.

In a discussion about the cutthroat trout at Spring Lake Trout Farm, the board concluded:1) The Bonneville Cutthroat trout that originated from Little Dell Reservoir are a separate lot of fish from cutthroat trout spawned at Spring Lake trout Farm because Little Dell Reservoir is part of their life history. R58-17 requires each lot of fish to be inspected for fish health approval.2) Blue Book instructs ovarian fluids to be collected at spawning,3) According to Blue Book, 45 samples are required from a lot of 90 fish to detect a pathogen with an assumed prevalence of 5% with 95% confidence. 4) A variance may be required to grant health approval to Spring Lake Trout Farm.

Agenda item 3)Variance Requests• Loveland Living Planet Aquarium – Evan Jamison• Mountain View Trout Farm – Anna Forest• Big Creek Variance – Cristi Swan• Spring Lake Trout Farm - Robert JuddThe criteria for variances was presented to the Board

The Spring Lake Trout Farm variance request was amended to collect 45 samples from the Bonneville cutthroat brood and to use May 11, 2017 inspection as a means of health certifying the cutthroat trout and Spring Lake Trout Farm. The 45 samples would be a combination of use any ovarian fluids collected on May 11, 2017 and lethal sampling. The amended variance was passed by the Board.

Variance Requests

Loveland Living Planet Aquarium Variance (1:08:10)Loveland Living Planet Aquarium would like to import grass shrimp, mysid shrimp and adult brine shrimp without health approval. Crustaceans are live collected and shipped the day before they ship. The crustaceans are used to feed marine fish and cephalopods. Although the Living Planet Aquarium hatches its own brine shrimp, the ability to culture feeder crustaceans does not always meet the needs. Live crustaceans are placed in a closed, marine, recirculation system with waste entering the sewage treatment systems. The aquarium has the option to treat the waste prior to entering the sewage system.

The crustaceans are a part of the aquarium industry which is not well regulated. Aquarium suppliers do not test for OIE pathogens. The board inquired about the pathogens that would be of concern and any AIS issues. The request is for marine crustaceans, so the AIS risk is with marine species that are imported along with the crustaceans. It would seem unlikely that a marine organism would establish in fresh water System. As far as the brine shrimp are concerned, there is a multimillion dollar industry in the Great Salt Lake. Any of the prohibited shrimp pathogens in R58-17 would be detrimental to the industry as the pathogens are listed in the OIE and the industry has to test for those pathogens when they sell cysts overseas. Brine shrimp are carriers for White spot virus. The variance was amended to exclude brine shrimp – and to approve a variance for two years to import grass shrimp, ghost shrimp and mysid shrimp without health testing from US mysids and Carolina Biological. The Board would also like the Aquarium to investigate pretreatment of the water prior to placing water into the sewage system. The amended variance passed.

Mountain View Trout Farm in Brigham/Bear River City – Anna Forest (1:43:23)Mountain View Trout Farm switched business models from selling live fish to producing food fish. When Mountain View Trout farm was health certified, they provided fish to Bear River City for a fish scramble and fish fry on Pioneer Day. Mountain View Trout Farm would like to supply fish this year. Without the variance, it would be a dead fish sale for the fish fry. The variance request is to provide live fish for a kids fish scramble in a temporary pond an hour before the fish fry. All the fish supplied will be harvested and cooked at the Pioneer Day celebration. Waste will be placed in the dumpster.The variance was approved.

The Big Creek Variance – Christine Swan (1:46:30)

Big Creek is in the Northern Region and a part of the Bear River Drainage. It was health certified as a gamete only source for Bonneville cutthroat trout restoration in 2010 due to a whirling disease finding in 2009. Health approval will expire on June 12, 2017. The Division is able collect to 60 ovarian and 60 lethal samples for a total of 120 samples for health certification. Health inspections have been postponed due to heavy runoff from last winter’s snowfall and rain. The 11 cfs stream is now flowing at 115 cfs and we simply cannot get in there to inspect the fish.

The photo was taken at 50 cfs. The flow rates is at 115 and is still increasing.Health Approvals are granted for one year with a 2 month grace period to allow for testing. The Division would like an extension of 30 days to allow for the water to go down to a level that permits fish sampling. The variance was amended to allow for a 60 day extension. The amended variance was passed by the Board.

Hardship Transfers - Wade Cavender (1:53:30)The Hardship Transfer Plan was discussed at the last meeting, but was not listed as an action item.The Hardship Transfer Plan is geared for native species where conservation of the animals is a concern due to low numbers, limited habitat/distribution. It is not designed for game fish. We proposed a slight changing in the wording. The wording for salmonids will not change. The wording for Cyprinids will change to allow for situation where we are moving fish a short distance where treating for Asian tapeworm does not make sense. An example of where this might be employed. There is a high water event and fish Fish get entrained on a channel when the water receded. The fish could die because side channels can dry up. To save the fish, we need to move them 10 feet over a bank and back into the main stem of the waterway. A mandatory treatment in this case is unwarranted. The proposed language is to require treatment of Praziquantel if transported outside of the contiguous drainage to prevent movement of the parasite. The treatment is fairly straight forward, but time consuming. Fish have to be held in a tank for over 24 hours. They can survive the treatment, but it can be hard on them. The change in wording was approved by the board.

BKD Literature Review – Wade Cavender (2:00:45)

There was a fairly extensive discussion on BKD at the last meeting. FES was tasked with conducting a literature review and examining the status of BKD in the West. There have been a few detections, but no documentation of clinical disease in the Intermountain West.

BKD is caused by the bacteria Renibacterium salmonarium and all salmonids are susceptible. It can be transferred vertically or horizontally and remain dormant for long periods of time. It is an intercellular bacterium, so treatments can be ineffective. Antibiotics can knock it back (reduce levels), but may not eradicate it from the host.

BKD is a prohibited pathogen in Utah. It can cause high mortality and requires action in a reasonable period of time. It is controlled through avoidance, eradication and disinfection. Should a facility become positive, the facility would be quarantined and an emergency response team would look at options including eradication of the lot or all the fish at the hatchery. The hatchery would need to be disinfected and then go through a recertification with two inspections at least six months apart.

If Utah changed the classification of BKD, it would go from a prohibited pathogen to a reportable pathogen. There is no inspection requirement for reportable pathogens. Surrounding states have a inspection requirement for BKD, but may classify BKD differently. Some states do not require testing because the pathogen is endemic, but they do have

management strategies to reduce BKD within populations of fish. Other states classify BKD as restricted or regulated. This gives the states options to manage BKD and allow for movements of fish in areas where the disease endemic.

The Western States all have the Blue Book as a common manual for inspections and we all follow the same procedures. There is variation on what fish are examined. States have modified the inspection requirement s. The Blue Book calls for sampling all lots of salmonids for BKD. Utah modifies this to sampling the most susceptible species at a facility. Surrounding stats trout programs use Bluebook protocol for DFAT for detection and confirmation by culture or PCR. Salmonid programs use ELISA to cull egg takes with higher loads of BKD.

I chose Oregon as a representative state from the Pacific Northwest. Most of the problems are associated with the Coho and Chinook salmon populations. BKD is endemic and causes 60-85% mortality in the 1970-1990s. They have rescued the prevalence to below 10% with an aggressive management stratigy to treating/injecting brood with antibiotics and culling eggs from heavily infected brood.

Idaho is in the intermountain west, but they do have a salon program. BKD is endemic, associated with Chinook, and not regulation. The egg culling program has reduced the occurrence of BKD.

BKD is considered a restricted pathogen. This allows the state to manage the pathogen in areas where it is endemic. They only stock fish if it occurs in less than 10% of the population. If it is higher than that, they treat and retest the fish. These are very intensive management program that allow the states to manage the situation and reduce the impacts of the disease. If the state step back on their efforts, due to lack of erythromycin, they see an increase in severity.

Canada considers BKD a restricted pathogen and believe that it is an emerging disease of concern.

Colorado has detected BKD and observed clinical disease. BKD is a regulated pathogen and Colorado uses management strategies to reduce the occurrence in endemic areas.

Arizona, Wyoming, and New Mexico have all detected BKD. AZ found BKD in their Apache Trout program and have initiated a culling program. Similar situations have occurred in Wyoming and New Mexico.

In Utah, BKD was detected in Jones Hole, Kamas, the Pilot Mountains, and at a few private hatcheries.

BKD should remain a prohibited pathogen, but we should re-evaluate the status of BKD frequently. We should also develop an action plan on how to deal with BKD should a detection occur. We do not know if BKD has increased variance, or if environmental factors are playing a role.

Crustacean pathogens – Anna Forest (2:35:30)

.

Utah has two facilities (Chevalier Marine Products and Red Hill Mineral Farms) that are licensed to culture prawns, but receive inquiries about shrimp, prawns, and crawfish for aquaponics on a regular basis. Most species of shrimp and crawfish are prohibited by wildlife rule and applicants have to go through the Certification Review Committee and the Wildlife Board to legally possess shrimp or crawfish. Two facilities have gone through this process, but have not been licensed by UDAF to grow Pacific White Shrimp. There is potential for Utah to have four commercial shrimp/prawn facilities.

All fresh water and marine shrimp need to be inspected for four viruses (emergency prohibited pathogens) prior to being imported or sold live in Utah. The Aquatic Animal Health Rule (R58-17) does not mandate health inspections for crawfish.

All of Utah’s emergency prohibited pathogens for shrimp are listed in the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health). The OIE sets standards for testing of animals and animal products.

White Spot Syndrome was detected in crawfish from Louisiana in 2007.

There is an effort to establish a National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP). Utah’s four emergency prohibited shrimp viruses are listed in the NAAHP as PAAP”S - pathogens that the US federal government has measures to eradicate or control.

Utah’s brine shrimp industry ships products internationally and must test for OIE pathogens. The last report from a brine shrimp cyst producer in Utah had cysts tested for all of the pathogens in yellow and well as the one highlighted in orange at the bottom that is not listed in the OIE. The pathogens that the brine shrimp producers have to test for are mandated by the receiving country.

When people think of crustaceans, they typically think of dinner items like shrimp, crabs, or lobster. Crustaceans are actually a large and diverse group of arthropods that includes brine shrimp, barnacles, amphipods, isopods, ostracods, etc.

To give you a idea of the diversity, this is a condensed classification of crustaceans with the order Decopoda at the bottom.

The order Decapoda contains shrimp, crabs, lobsters and prawns. The highlighted Superfamilies contain the most commercially valuable shrimp species..

Combining the previous two slides, you end up with the classification system below. This will be used to highlight the range of crustacean groups that pathogens can affect.

All of Utah four emergency prohibited shrimp pathogens have some things in common. They call all be transmitted vertically and horizontally. If animals are exposed, the survivors can be lifelong carriers. There is no treatment for the viruses, and they can cause up to 100% mortality.

White spot can affect freshwater and marine shrimp, crayfish, lobsters, prawns and mysid shrimp. It is assumed that all Decapods are susceptible. Copepods, rotifers, brine shrimp, barnacles, horseshoe crabs can all be lifelong carriers without showing signs of disease. White spot syndrome can affect a lot of crustaceans in Utah that are at the base of the food chain.

The other three Utah four emergency prohibited shrimp pathogens (IHHNV, TSV, and YHV) affect a much more limited number of crustacean families, but the groups they do affect are economically important food groups.

When Wade went to the Rocky Plains meeting this spring, he asked the participants to fill out a survey on what crustacean or mollusks pathogens the states are requiring testing for. The following slide is the survey that was cut and pasted onto the slide. Utah is ahead of the curve in regard to crustacean pathogens. Other states are starting to investigate testing requirements due to the increasing interest in aquaponics and crustacean culture.

In conclusion, Utah should consider adding crawfish to the testing requirement for White Spot Syndrome Virus because the pathogen can affect crawfish and impact a wide range of crustaceans and the base of the aquatic food web.

Clarification of R58-17-15(B)(6)(a): Fish Health Approval/Sampling of warm water species. Proposal to change “reside in the same water source” to “cohabitate in the same water source” – Anna Forest, Wade Cavender (2:49:45)

The following is the language that is used in R58-17-15(B)(6) for the health approval on non-salmonid fish. At issue is the term “reside in” which should be “cohabitate”.

We require fish to be tested for pathogens at a minimum sampling level of 95% confidence that a pathogen with a 5% prevalence will be detected. We also allow for an exemption from the rule if equally susceptible species reside in the same water source throughout their life history. The term ‘reside in’ allows fish of equally susceptibility to be raised in separate ponds and eliminates the possibility of horizontal transfer between species. This reduces the minimum sampling rate below the 95% confidence that a pathogen with a 5% prevalence will be detected. The minimum

sampling level is maintained if equally susceptible species cohabitate in ponds because animals can transfer pathogens horizontally.

The intent of the exemption was to allow for a reduction in the number of samples required for testing if the minimum sampling level (95% confidence that a pathogen with a 5% prevalence will be detected) could be maintained.

The situation in the slide above, water is supplied to all of the ponds from a well. Since water does not flow between ponds, bass in one pond cannot transfer a pathogen to bluegill in a different pond and the horizontal transfer of pathogens between bass and blue gill in separate ponds is eliminated. For example: if 30 bass were sampled from one pond and 30 blue gill were sampled from a different pond, you could only be 95% confident that a pathogen that affected 10% of the population would be detected.

Recirculation systems, where fish are housed in separate tanks and the water reticulated between all of the tanks creates a situation where the fish are cohabitating in the same water source. The reticulating water allows for the horizontal transfer of pathogens between tanks.

The change in wording would not affect facilities that are currently Health Approved.

A motion was made to change the term “reside in” to “cohabitate”.The motion was approved by the Board.

A variance proposal was not received more than 24 hours prior to this meeting and was not placed on the agenda. The possibility of holding an electronic meeting and vote was discussed. The Board decided to place the variance on the agenda for the next Fish Health Policy Board meeting.

Mike Canning gave an update about changes that were made to the Aquaculture Act during the last legislative session. Changes were made to the definition of a stream channel. A new Private Aquaculture Advisory Council was created that can provide feedback to the Division of Wildlife and the Department of Agriculture and Food. Members need to be submitted by UDAF, DWR, private aquaculture, private ponds and sports fisherman. A notice will be placed on DWRs website to solicit nominations to the Advisory Council.

The next Fish Health Policy Board meeting will be held on August 22, at 10:00 am. The meeting will be held at the Fisheries Experiment Station if the construction is underway. If construction is delayed or there is nothing new to tour, the meeting will be held at the Department of Agriculture.