The recommendation is for Colville Hatchery Operation and Maintenance (198503800) and Rufus Woods Redband Net Pens (200811700). The comments apply to both proposals, although the comments are not identical. Some comments specific to each proposal are provided.

The ISRP appreciates the effort the Colville Tribal Fisheries staff put into the response to the ISRP’s preliminary review of the Colville Tribal Hatchery proposal. The sponsors provided an informal description of the resident trout program while attempting to address the ISRP questions. A number of questions from the ISRP’s preliminary review were addressed and the panel is better able to understand the scope and details of the project. While the information was interesting, the presentation does not allow one to evaluate the recent performance of the program in terms of harvests by tribal members in relation to numbers of eggs brought into the hatchery and fish stocked in reservation waters. 

The sponsor needs to develop a trout stocking master plan which guides the annual stocking, provides a basis for Fish and Wildlife Program proposal review, and provides for evaluation of the success of the program. The plan should generally include information requested in Three Step Master Plans for anadromous hatcheries. The plan should critique the resident fish hatchery program for its ability to provide catchable trout on the reservation while demonstrating efficient and productive practices. The plan should develop hatchery and harvest goals and collect information to evaluate whether these goals are being met. Some documentation of fishing effort is needed on each lake that is stocked; otherwise it is impossible to determine whether the effort is worthwhile. This plan should incorporate the Rufus Woods net pen project and fish purchased and released under the Rufus Woods Habitat/Passage Improvement, Creel, and Triploid Supplementation (200740500).

The ISRP finds that the project does not meet specific review criteria established by the 1996 amendment to the Power Act for NW Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program. Those criteria state that projects: 1) are based on sound science principles; 2) benefit fish and wildlife; 3) have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and 4) have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results. In particular, documentation addressing ISRP review criteria 1, 3, and 4 are not evident in the proposal, annual reports, or response.

Projects are based on sound science principles. The ISRP is unable to conclude the stocking regime for each body of water has a defensible scientific rationale. Table 7 of the response to the ISRP lists each body of water and identifies the number of fish stocked of each species in 2011, and identifies potential problems in the lakes and streams. A plan is needed that identifies the different species, their size, and their numbers, that could potentially be stocked in each lake or stream and a justification for those species, numbers, and sizes based on empirical stock recruitment information from the lake or stream. The narrative provided in the proposal suggests that some biological information is used to establish a stocking program, but the decision framework is never presented. Stocking brook trout in North and South Twin Lake is an example of the stocking that is inadequately justified. The proposal states that self-sustaining populations of brook trout occupy these lakes. No stock recruitment or harvest data are provided to indicate that hatchery fish are necessary to provide a fishery. What factors led to the stocking of about one million trout into the relatively small Twin Lakes in 2009? What is the justification for the proposed increase of stocked large triploid trout in Rufus Woods Reservoir from 20,000 to 60,000 fish, and what information is available that these additional fish have minimal effects on native fishes. Stocking catchable rainbow trout in streams based on pre-stocking electrofishing surveys of abundance is another example.The justification for why a specific abundance level triggers additional stocking is not provided. Documentation of the stocking decision framework is important for informing future managers and informing this review by the ISRP. Additionally, fish rearing protocols at the net pens should be documented.

The basis for raising specific number of fish and stocking them into the reservation water bodies needs justification beyond the obvious need to provide resident fish harvests for tribal members. The program should demonstrate that its operations are effective and efficient in achieving the ultimate goal of providing harvests. 

Projects have clearly defined objectives and outcomes. The ISRP expects there will be established standards for hatchery and net pen production (egg take, eyed egg success, hatching success, and numbers released) for each species, and that the program will explicitly self-evaluate to those established benchmarks.The ISRP expects there will be standards established for fishery yields (CPUE, total harvest in relation to fish stocked, economic and other social benefits) for each body of water and the project as a whole. These standards should be consistent with types of data that can be collected. For example, if CPUE is measured in terms of fish per angler per day, then the standard should also be set using fish per angler per day. Although some fishery goals and evaluation were provided for the net pen project, others were incomplete. 

Projects have provisions for monitoring and evaluation. The ISRP concludes that a sufficient monitoring program is not in place. A defined and statistically justified M&E plan is required for the resident fish stocking program that addresses both the biological/chemical/food-web and harvest factors. The ISRP understands and appreciates the difficulty in conducting direct creel surveys in small, remote lakes and streams. Nonetheless, the ISRP believes that effort needs to be made to better document the use of these lakes and the harvest of fish for the intended purpose of recreational angling or subsistence fishing. The documentation may need to use interview and survey techniques from the social science realm rather than the fisheries field.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

Finally, the ISRP expresses concern about the fish culture performance at the hatchery. Hatchery performance data were provided by the sponsors that raised questions, yet there was no evaluation of these production numbers by the sponsors. Table 4 in the response to the ISRP summarizes egg take, eyed eggs, fish ponded, and fish released for brook trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and redband rainbow trout. For brook trout and Lahontan cutthroat trout, the average percent eye-up for the past seven years has been 67% and 54% respectively, and survival to release has been only 36% and 30% respectively.For rainbow trout from Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, the survival from green egg to release averaged only 25% for broodyears 2006 and 2007. This level of success in the fish-rearing phase of the program is in need of investigation and improvement. Why does the number of green eggs vary so much within a species from year to year? The ISRP acknowledges the information provided on water supply challenges. The hatchery production program should be designed around water supply constraints.

1. Additional explanation and synthesis is required for the background/problem statement related to questions raised in the appropriate sections below. In addition, a summary of results is needed.
   
   
2. Provide an explanation of the evaluation and decision framework based on stream and lake sampling. The response should also include an explanation of the metrics used to evaluate hatchery production; stocking rates in lakes and streams; potential locations for stocking each species cultured in both lakes and streams; and a summary of field evaluations of harvest, survival, and fish condition. Explanation of these essential elements of managing recreational hatchery supported trout fisheries needs to be included in the problem statement so reviewers understand the full scope of the endeavor.
   
   
3. Provide rearing and stocking history for all species since the last ISRP review and information on growth and survival in lakes and streams and on harvest. A table and narrative is requested that summarizes the production including eggs received, fish hatched, reared, transferred, and released. In addition, post release survival and harvest for each stock and year since the last review is required by the ISRP to complete evaluation and provide retrospective reporting to the Council.
   
   
4. The Council’s 1999 Artificial Production Review (NWPCC 1999-15) established that evaluating hatchery based on numbers or pounds of fish produced and released was inadequate and that goals and objectives were required for post-release performance. The ISRP looks for clear metrics for performance in the hatchery including broodstock or egg collection goals, egg to fry survival, fry to sub-catchable or catchable survival, disease or other health inspections, and food conversion as well as post-release performance including survival for stated intervals, harvest, condition, and related measures. There may also be facility related metrics for discharge water quality. These should all be identified and reported for the time period since the last ISRP review.
   
   
5. Fish rearing is apparently limited by water quality and quantity at the hatchery and upgrading facilities is a work element. Please provide more information on facility capacity and how limitations are going to be reduced by facility improvements.
   
   
6. The Colville Hatchery O&M project is extensive; the project encompasses much more than simply raising and releasing resident fishes. The sponsors have developed tasks to evaluate stocking needs, harvest levels, relative abundance of hatchery fish in lakes and streams. This proposal needs to provide a summary of key findings, including numbers of hatchery and native fishes taken in lakes and streams as a result of the stocking program. The extent to which the hatchery program is meeting the needs of the Colville Tribe needs to be described. Risk management concerns about the release of non-native brook trout (char) and Lahontan cutthroat trout into the streams and lakes on the reservation needs to be explained. The program appears to release these fish in areas where few if any native redband trout occur, which is good. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile for biologists to evaluate the potential impact of the non-native fish releases on key native fishes. The tribe is transitioning to sterile (98%) triploid trout, which grow to large size. The ecological effects of these triploid fish on native fishes should be investigated including competition, predation, and displacement from habitat.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery is an artificial production program that addresses the loss of anadromous fish resources in the Upper Columbia Subregion within the "blocked area" created by the construction of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. This project enhances resident fisheries located in the Intermountain and Columbia Cascade Provinces, specifically within the Colville Reservation portion of the Upper Columbia, San Poil, and Okanogan Subbasins. The project particularly mitigates for anadromous fish losses through protection/augmentation of resident fish populations to enhance fishery potential (i.e., in-place, out-of-kind mitigation). The Colville Tribal Hatchery (CTH) is located on the northern bank of the Columbia River just downstream of the town of Bridgeport, Washington on land owned by the Colville Tribes. The minimum production quota for this facility is 22,679 kg (50,000 lbs.) of trout annually. All fish produced are released into reservation waters, including boundary waters, in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/recreational fishery for Colville Tribal members and provide for a successful nonmember sport fishery.

Significance to Regional Programs: The information provided is insufficient to understand the project’s contribution to achieving the goals of appropriate management and subbasin plans. The CCT have a Fish Management Plan dated 2006 that is linked to the proposal; the management plan includes a resident fish section. It is evident that the project contributes to meeting the goals of this management plan. It is not clear whether this is the only project/program to contribute to the resident fish production portion of the plan. It is not clear how many subbasin plans are involved in the geographic range of the fish stocking involved with this project; only the San Poil is identified. Omak Lake is understood by the ISRP to be located in the Okanogan subbasin, and Lake Rufus Woods is included in a section of the plan for the Intermountain province. The subbasin plan associated with all of the stocked lakes needs to be identified.

Technical Background: The information provided is insufficient. The sponsor states the program provides subsistence and recreational trout fishing opportunities to substitute for lost anadromous fishing. This overarching purpose is fine. The technical background does not provide sufficient information on the status of lakes and streams on the Colville Reservation, the policy and scientific guidance from tribal management plans to guide this program, history or the program, etc. It is important to know how many lakes there are, how many are open to tribal fishing only, how many are open to the public, the fishing opportunity in each lake, and the same information for streams. Some of this information can be gleaned from the 2009 annual report, but a succinct summary needs to be included in the proposal.

Objectives: Incomplete. There are two general objectives presented; 1. provide fishing opportunities and 2. avoid introgression between hatchery rainbow trout and native redband trout. Some discussion of fish rearing objectives is provided, but not enough. There should be a quantitative objective for fish harvesting metrics - CPUE, total harvest, angler days, or angler satisfaction as well as quantitative objectives for fish growth and survival. None are provided in the proposal. Some of this information can be found in the linked 2006 Fish Management Plan. These quantitative objectives need to be in the proposal. Monitoring that provides data to evaluate whether the objectives are achieved should be described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

Accomplishments: Additional details from each year’s production, at least from the last ISRP review in 2006 should be provided. A table of production for brook trout is provided. A similar table is needed for each species reared or purchased. These production tables should identify the sites of fish release for each year, species, and number. A table should be provided that identifies the post release survival and harvest objectives and data that indicates whether those goals have been achieved. If there are no goals this should be acknowledged, if there has been no evaluation of whether the goals have been achieved, this should be acknowledged. 

More information and a clear explanation of the evaluation of relevant data is needed on the decision to abandon redband trout rearing and a return to producing domestic coastal rainbow trout. An explanation is needed on the data used to determine stocking levels for brook trout and rainbow trout in various locations. The data used to determine that Lahontan cutthroat trout in Omak Lake have not reproduced and require artificial production to maintain the population is needed. The project conducts creel census and electrofishing surveys to guide management. The monitoring of the lakes and streams is noteworthy. Hatchery fish are monitored after stocking. No examples of the data or decision framework are provided. Key findings need to be described in more detail than basic identification of the various types of projects.

For example, lakes with less fishing pressure have been censused using voluntary creel forms and end of year angler surveys. While data from these methods are useful, quality control checks using trail cameras in 2010 and 2011 indicated that less than 10% of the anglers fill out questionnaires and these anglers may not be representative of the average angler. After accounting for under-reporting the ISRP recommends that the level of effort be determined and the fish harvest be estimated to establish the benefit of the hatchery program. 

Adaptive Management: The sponsors provide statements that production, stocking, and management has changed to reduce production and stocking with improve fishing quality. However, there is no linkage between these statements and data provided in the accomplishments and results section. The adaptive management section also makes statements regarding the attempt to rear redband trout, and that they have not lived up to expectation. While summary statistics in the adaptive management section are adequate, some of the details of the experiments need to be included in the results section. In the latest annual report for 2009, there is no indication this experimental effort has unfulfilled expectations.

Response to the ISRP: More information is required on the specific details of stocking and evaluation. For example, in paragraph 2, the sponsors state that stocking in Twin Lakes was reduced from 65% to 27% of the hatchery’s production based on M&E studies. What information was collected, and how was it interpreted to indicate a reduction in stocking was warranted. Is this reduction in response to increased stocking from Rufus Woods net pens? The sponsor also states that following this change, catch rate, average size, and angler satisfaction was the best in a decade. The proposal should include a summary of the actual data, and an explanation of its interpretation.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

Hatchery fish are only marked as needed for the specific analyses. This is reasonable, as described in the proposal.

The Tribe is planning to replace redband trout with sterile triploid rainbow trout because the performance of redband trout in the hatchery is lower than more domesticated trout stocks. The Tribe notes that the hatchery redband stock is not genetically close to the native redband, and they suggest continued stocking of hatchery redband will harm native redband.

The Tribe releases large numbers of non-native Lahontan cutthroat trout into Omak Lake, which is apparently land-locked. These fish support a popular sport fishery, but this non-native stocking operation is not sufficiently evaluated in the proposal.

The Tribe purchases 2000 large (>5 lb) triploid trout for release into reservation lakes. The impact of these fish on native fishes via predation and competition needs to be better understood. The harvest rate on these catchable trout could impact native fishes through incidental by-catch, including redband trout.

There is a plan to improve the creel survey. It would be good to provide some statistics on the extent to which tribal members harvest resident fishes, including hatchery stocks. To what extent is hatchery production meeting the needs of the tribe?

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

Project Relationships: Three BPA projects implemented by the CCT are identified. There is overlap in activities between the Hatchery O&M and the Twin Lakes oxygenation and Lake Rufus Woods net pens. The full scope of the interaction is not clear and needs to be better established. The relationship of this project to Tribal management outside of the BPA scope is not discussed. BPA funded trout rearing and stocking projects implemented by other sponsors are not identified. A programmatic topic is a potential need for standardized monitoring across trout rearing programs, and a comparative analysis of hatchery rearing and fishery benefits. Standards for fish release, yield in fisheries, disease management, etc established by Washington State, that may apply to this project are not discussed.

Emerging limiting factors: The proposal identifies the ecological studies on Twin Lakes that investigated a hypothesized bass predation limiting factor in that location, and discovered that hypolimnetic anoxia and high epilimnetic water temperature actually were limiting trout survival and growth. As a consequence, oxygenation of Twin Lakes is being used to remediate the limiting factor. The 2009 annual report identified water quality, invasive species, and tributary water quantity at Omak Lake as limiting factors, but they are not discussed in the proposal. Additional discussion of the anticipated analysis of limiting factors and management strategies to address them needs to be included.

Non-native brook trout have been released onto reservation waters for 75 years. This alone is not a sufficient justification for continued stocking of non-native fishes. Brook trout reproduce in some of the lakes and stocking has stopped in those lakes. Appropriately, stocking does not occur in areas where native redband occur. The two species have interacted for nearly a century. Evaluating adverse interactions between brook trout and native fishes such as redband does not appear to be incorporated into project deliverables. If the Tribe has data indicating the interaction is minimal and therefore stocking is low risk given that some brook trout may infiltrate areas where native redband occur, it should be incorporated into the proposal problem statement. 

Tailored Questions:

Resident Fish: Opportunities to restore or reintroduce resident native fish: Gold Lake has been stocked with westslope cutthroat trout and a self-sustaining population has been established. Currently stocking is suspended and monitoring takes place annually. It would be appropriate to summarize this effort in the accomplishments section. How has reproduction been confirmed, what is the standing biomass of trout in the lake, and what kind of fishing can the lake support without stocking?

Redband trout enhancement for harvest has not been successful. The ISRP concludes that the proposal does not provide sufficient information on the distribution of native redband trout, evidence of a risk analysis for stocking coastal rainbow, brook, or westslope cutthroat trout in the current enhancement areas, or a discussion of methods to evaluate the status of native redband trout as a consequence of implementing the hatchery O&M project.

Data Management: The sponsor is developing a data management plan. Data management is currently limited to local offices and not available regionally.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The brief summary information provides a snapshot of the project, but not enough is provided in other sections of the proposal to fully evaluate the sufficiency of the actions to meet the project goals. For example, electrofishing is used to estimate trout population abundance before and 30 and 60 days post stocking. But no information is provided to the ISRP on the precision of the surveys, what level of abundance triggers stocking, and how management decisions result from the pre- and post- stocking surveys.

The work elements, metrics, and methods are not presented in sufficient detail for evaluation. In general the correct assessments appear to be employed.

Project reports are on time.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No specific comments at this time.

The proposal has been modified in the appropriate sections.  Results are included in the proposal and in this response.

The Colville Hatchery Operations and Maintenance Project (1985-038-00) manages five major lakes, 12 small lakes and five streams through stocking on the Colville Confederated Tribes Reservation. A number of factors have been considered to determine appropriate species for are planting in each water body.   These factors include:

1)      Desires of the Tribal membership.

2)     Historical performance related to harvest goals.

3)     Biological risks (hybridization potential, disease, competition, survival, water quality limitations).

4)     Entrainment potential.

For example, Omak Lake and Duley Lake are highly alkaline (ph>10) and neither has an outlet.  Lahontan cutthroat trout are an obvious choice because of the water quality limitations. These lakes are closed systems and therefore risks to native species are negligible.

Size and planting dates are determined by conditions found in each water bodies.  For example, fry plants are not used in water bodies with predatory fish issues and fall plants are not used in lakes with winter kill problems.  Fall plants are used in lakes such as Twin Lakes where winter kill is typically not a problem and fall growth continues because of adequate food sources within the lake.   Fish are planted as water temperatures decrease in the fall and before temperatures increase in the spring in order to limit bass predation.  Falls plants have been eliminated in streams due to high immigration rates associated with the spring freshet.

We utilize various sources of information such as growth rates, relative weights, creel data and historical stocking to draw reasonable conclusions and make stocking decisions when the data is available.  Appropriate stocking numbers are the most difficult to determine.  With five major lakes and 14 smaller lakes it is impossible to know the carrying capacity, angling pressure and survival and mortality of each lake.  Many lakes are remote and have low angling pressure.  Voluntary creel boxes are utilized to measure pressure and catch rates but evaluation of the creel boxes has shown that compliance is poor and results are likely biased.  Staffing is inadequate to effectively monitor angling pressure and catch rate in all these lakes.  In addition, some of these lakes are subject to winter or summer fish kills due to low dissolved oxygen levels or algae blooms.  Because insufficient data are available, indicators such as fish health and historical information are used to determine stocking numbers. 

Winter fish kills are determined via short gill net sets after ice out and taking dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles through the ice.  Simpson Lake for example, dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles were taken on February 7, 2012 to assess conditions.  It was determined that dissolved oxygen levels were below 2.5 mg/l throughout the water column.  It’s unlikely that any fish survived these conditions; however immediately following ice off, a cursory gill net survey is performed to document the presence/absence of fish.  Based on these results, fish managers determine stocking needs. 

Lakes with low angling pressure that are not normally subject to fish kills are planted in the spring with the size and number of fish that has proved successful in previous years for consistency.  These lakes are surveyed in late summer. Fish size, growth and condition are compared between stocking and late summer surveys.  Based on these data stocking numbers are left unchanged if growth and condition meet project goals. Stocking densities are adjusted if there’s poor growth and condition.    The table below shows growth as a percentage of stocking weight and relative weight from September gill net surveys in six Reservation lakes (Table 1).

Table 1. Rainbow trout growth in six Reservation Lakes.

Relative weights are used to determine fish stocking densities for reservation lakes (Table 2).  La Fleur Lake increased from 84 to 113 from 2009 to 2010 and then decreased to 99 in 2011.  Stocking levels were not adjusted based on these results.  Little Goose was overstocked in 2010 and there was only 17 % growth.  Relative weight in September 2010 was 85.  Stocking levels were reduced 90% in 2011 and weight increased 198% over the same period and Wr increased to 99. 

North Twin Lake was oxygenated starting in 2009.  Summer mortality decreased but summer growth is still marginal. Relative weight increased from 80 in 2009 to 111 in 2011 and 2012.  Stocking levels have been reduced from pre-2007 levels with minimal changes to catch rates.  South Twin Lake is not oxygenated.  Stocking levels have been reduced without a major effect on catch rates however summer mortality is still high and relative weight is low (81).  Both of these lakes (North and South Twin) are studied under the Twin Lakes Enhancement project. 

Rainbow trout do not perform as well in Buffalo Lake as they have done in some other Reservation Lakes.  Stocking levels were reduced by 67% in 2011 and summer growth increased from 7% to 98% of stocking weight.  Kokanee perform well in Buffalo Lake and therefore management emphasis is shifting away from rainbow trout (Wr=87). 

In Round Lake, relative weights ranged from 26 to 75 in 2009 indicating poor performance (target goal of 100).  Because of this poor performance stocking of this species was discontinued in 2010.

  Table 2.  Rainbow trout relative weight in six Reservation lakes

 The Colville Hatchery stocks five streams on the Reservation. These streams are managed as put-and-take fisheries only. 

In the Sanpoil River, known native redband trout exist and therefore the river and its tributaries are not stocked.  The Lake Roosevelt Habitat Improvement Project (199001800) and the RM&E Project (200810900) provide habitat restoration and monitor and evaluation of native redband rainbow trout in the Sanpoil River.   

Stream plant densities are determined by pre and post stocking electrofishing surveys.  The goal of these surveys is to determine if catchable size (> 8 inches) fish are present for angler harvest. Index locations are blocked with nets, and then a single electrofishing pass is conducted   All fish captured are identified, weighed (g) and measured (total length), then returned to the stream.  Based on the number of catchable fish observed a decision on whether or not to plant fish is then made (Table 3).  Because each stream is different and each location within a stream is different, there are no rigid guidelines to determine if more fish are needed.   These data are frequently very limited, but normally include average fishing pressure (if known), number of catchable fish present and stream conditions. 

Examples of these data are shown below.  Surveys were made on August 3 and 4, 2011.  Less than 10 catchable trout (average fish per site) were observed in Hall and Nespelem creeks, therefore these streams received additional plants.  Mill and Lost Creeks averaged more than 10 catchable trout, and therefore did not receive additional plants.

Table 3.  Average trout catch (fish/site) from electrofishing surveys on select tributary streams on the Reservation.

Table 4. Rearing, stocking and survival data by species from 2005 to present.    

Table 5. Stocking summary from each lake from 2006 to 2008.

Table 6. Stocking summary for Reservation lakes from 2009 to 2011.

Because of the large number and variety of lakes that are planted as well as limitations in staffing and funding post release survival and harvest data are unavailable for most lakes.  Data for North and South Twin Lakes is available.  Total rainbow trout catch and angling pressure for Twin Lakes for 2006-2011 is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.  North and South Twin Lakes estimated total catch and angler hours from 2006 to 2011.

The low catch number in 2010 was primarily due to outmigration of catchable redbands planted in spring of 2010.  In 2011 a block net was placed by each outlet and catch numbers increased by 236% with a “return to creel” percentage of 67.56%.

In 2006 the hatchery production goals were changed from pounds produced to fish quality and properly matching fish stocked with the needs of each particular water body.  Hatchery protocols were revised and goal directed studies of Reservation lakes and streams were initiated.  Stocking decisions were based on the results of creel surveys, gill net surveys and electro fishing surveys. 

Metrics to determine the success of these changes are more difficult to quantify than simply pounds and numbers produced.  Fish growth and condition (Wr), angler success (CPUE) and average catch size are now used to evaluate stocking decisions.  A management plan is currently being developed for each Reservation lake.  This plan is based on both historical and current data and will use metrics (where known) such as Wr, summer growth, percentage of carry over fish, catch rate and average catch size to determine if goals are being met.

The tribal hatchery is currently 22 years old and current facilities are beginning to reflect its age.  The six production wells that are used to deliver ground water to rearing vessels over time have exhibited varying diminished production capabilities.  Over the life of the hatchery all well pumps have been replaced once.  In 2008, an energy efficiency study was completed by EMP2, an independent consultant firm.  The study determined the water resource is available, but pumping capacity was limited.  Emp2 identified an option to incorporate Low Head Oxygenators and oxygen generation, bypass water distribution tower and redirect water to raceways.  This option would allow well pumps to be more productive and efficient by reducing 20 feet’ of pump head by bypassing the water distribution tower.  This improvement project began design in 2010 and was completed in October 2011.  EMP2 is scheduled to return on March 7-9 to test well pump curves and energy consumption of new system.  Results will be summarized as energy and well pump efficiencies.  The results will also assist the Hatchery Manager in operating specific wells for production needs.  Benefits include additional water flow and reduced utility costs.

Emp2 identified well #6 as operating inefficiently.  Well pump #6 was replaced in 2005 and was rated to pump 950gpm, but when tested in 2009 it produced 280gpm and less then 150gpm in late 2010.  This well has been turned off as a result of reduced capabilities.  A well expert will be contracted to video camera the well and suggest options such as rehabilitate, rescreen or even abandon the well.  The hatchery facility currently has five operational water wells with varying pumping capacities (30Hp & 40Hp pump motors)  The sixth well, once it is fully operational, will be available as a back-up or for additional production when necessary.

The hatchery also has rearing limitations.  The tribal hatchery currently follows Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Health Guidelines, specifically maximum density and flow indices per reared species, in determining acceptable carrying capacities per rearing vessel (Piper, R. G., 1982, WDFW Fish Health Manual, 1996, 2006).   Production requirements at the hatchery over the years pushed the recommended density index (lbs/ft³/in) for rainbow trout from 0.5 to over 0.9.  Results included eroded, fused or absent fins, severe CWD out-breaks, environmental gill disease and ultimately high mortality.  The hatchery also must consider and manage cold water disease (CWD) that affects rainbow trout and can cause high mortality.  Managing within or even lower than identified indices for optimum health will lower stress and can sometimes avoid CWD out-breaks altogether. 

The hatchery has switched its philosophy and focus toward improvement(s):

1. Cut production numbers, produce a larger higher quality fish,
2. Managing within recommended rearing guidelines per species,
3. Eliminate Captive Redband Broodstock Program,
4. Utilize a domestic rainbow trout stock Improved FCR’s, higher density index), and
5. Triploid all rainbow trout to protect native redband trout populations on the Reservation..

Switching the rainbow stock back to domestic rainbow trout will assist in managing around some hatchery limitations.  This stock can be successfully reared at a higher density and has proven lower FCR’s than the redband rainbow stock.  Eliminating the captive broodstock program will free up some limited rearing space and water resources.  The two temporary raceways that were put in place in 2002 to assist in the captive broodstock program are made of vinyl and as stated are temporary.  Currently, these temporary rearing vessels are in need of major repair or preferably replacement with a permanent structure.

The primary goal of the hatchery project M&E division is to provide sufficient information to develop management strategies for each Reservation water body that is stocked by the hatchery.  Goals for each water body are updated each year as more data are obtained.  Types of data used to develop this plan are: (a) Fish growth data Carrying capacity, either by direct measurement where possible or by inference from growth and fish condition data,  (b) lake biotic and abiotic factors (temperature, dissolved oxygen, algae blooms, zooplankton densities) (c.) Fishing pressure, catch rates and angler satisfaction.

There are a number of key findings as a result of these studies:

1. Hypolimnetic anoxia rather than invasive species is the primary cause of the fishery problems in Twin Lakes.  This has resulted in the Twin Lakes Oxygenation Project.
2. Fishing pressure and angler expectations at Rufus Woods are far greater than can be supported without substantial supplementation either by escapement or stocking.  This has led to the Rufus Woods Creel Project which has further defined the issues and supplemented the fishery.
3. Most lakes on the Colville Reservation have been over stocked.  Reduced stocking numbers have yielded higher catch rates.  Examples are Owhi, North and South Twin and Little Goose.  Reduced stocking numbers allows the hatchery to produce larger, healthier fish.
4. Specific stocking plans for each lake.  For example Twin Lakes are stocked with catchable size fish in the spring and a larger number of sub-catchable fish in the fall.  Because there is a large population of macro invertebrates (mostly Daphnia) in the fall there adequate food sources for the fish to reach catchable size by midsummer and support the fishery once most of the spring plants have been caught.  Lakes such as Simpson and Little Goose which have frequent summer and winter kills are only stocked with catchable fish in the spring.
5. Reservation streams are no longer planted in the fall due to high loss during the spring freshet.  Streams are most efficiently planted with small, multiple plants after the freshet. 
6. Redband rainbow trout do not meet Tribal production goals for subsistence or recreational fisheries either in the hatchery or once planted.  This program has been curtailed.
7. Some species do not do well in certain lakes.  For instance, rainbow trout do poorly in Round Lake and are no longer planted there.  Brook trout do poorly in Buffalo Lake and are no longer stocked.
8. Some Reservation lakes have relatively low fishing pressure and are not planted.  Examples are Round and Gold lakes.

As a result of these findings there has been a major shift in emphasis at the Colville Tribal Hatchery away from producing large numbers to producing fewer, high quality fish which has resulted in improved fishing opportunities on Reservation waters.

Lahontan cutthroat trout and eastern brook trout are raised at the Colville Tribal Hatchery and released into selected Reservation waters.Approximately 100,000 Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) are released into Omak Lake each year.  Omak Lake is a closed lake with no outlet.  The water is highly alkaline (ph >10) and few species of fish can survive in this lake.  There is little or no risk of escapement from this lake and there is no interaction with other salmonid species.  Small numbers (approximately 5,000) of LCT fry have occasionally been planted into Soap and Duley lakes.  Neither of these lakes have an outlet, water quality is poor and ph is high (>10), again making them obvious candidates for Lahontan cutthroat fisheries.

Eastern brook trout have been found on the Colville Reservation for nearly 100 years.  Most Tribal members consider them to be native.  They are generally considered to be the most desired trout species found on the Reservation.  They are found in almost every stream and many lakes on the Reservation.  No impact assessment of brook trout on the Colville Reservation has been attempted.  Sufficient resources to conduct such a survey are currently unavailable and it would take a monumental effort to control them.  Currently brook trout are planted into Owhi, McGinnis, North and South Twin, Simpson and sometimes Summit lakes.  Brook trout have previously been stocked into Little Goose, Round, LaFleur, Gold and Buffalo lakes but are no longer being planted in these lakes.

There is a thriving population of brook trout in Owhi Lake.  Owhi Lake is the source of brood stock for fish raised in the Colville Tribal Hatchery.  Each year a portion of the brook trout raised at the hatchery are released back into Owhi Lake.  Water level at Owhi Lake is controlled by a concrete dam at the south end of the lake.  Excess water from Owhi Lake flows into a small stream and then into the Nespelem River, ultimately flowing into Rufus Woods Lake.  While it is theoretically possible for a fish to pass this dam under flood conditions and reach the Nespelem River it is likely that few fish do so.  There is already a population of brook trout in the Nespelem that likely have come from a number of its other tributaries.  No brook trout has been found in the Rufus Woods creel or gill surveys.  

McGinnis Lake is a brook trout only lake open to both Tribal members and to nonmembers.  There is no outlet to this lake and therefore there is no risk of escapement or risk to other salmonid species. 

Brook trout are planted into Simpson Lake on an as needed basis.  Simpson is a Tribal member only lake that is subject to both summer and winter kills.  It receives relatively little fishing pressure and is only stocked after a major fish kill.  Simpson flows into Little Jim Creek and ultimately into Lake Roosevelt.  It is theoretically possible for a fish to reach Lake Roosevelt under flood conditions. 

Summit Lake is a small lake found near the top of Disautel Pass.  The lake has no outlet and consequently there is little or no risk associated with planting brook trout in this lake.

North and South Twin Lakes have reproducing populations of brook trout.  These populations are augmented each year with hatchery plants.  While brook trout make up less than 20% of the annual angler catch they are a prized by anglers.  The lakes drain into Stranger Creek which eventually flows into Lake Roosevelt.  In the past, escapement into Stranger Creek has been a common occurrence.  The two outlets to Stranger Creek are now blocked with nets that reduce escapement to a minimal amount.  Stranger Creek is also fed by Cornstalk Creek which is fed by Round Lake.  Round Lake has a thriving population of brook trout some of which undoubtedly enter Cornstalk Creek and therefore Stranger Creek.  Since brook trout are commonly found in Stranger Creek  any escapement from Twin Lakes is unlikely to materially add to the population.

Brook trout are not planted in the Sanpoil or its tributaries nor are they planted in any other lake or stream with native redbands in order to prevent any potential interactions.

There is minimal risk associated with stocking large triploids purchased from local aquaculture facilities into Reservation Lakes for several reasons.  (A) These fish are very catchable.  Twin Lakes studies indicate that return to creel rates exceeds 75%.  (B)  Large triploid rainbow trout do not adapt well.  Rufus Woods studies suggest there may be high mortality and anecdotal observations at Twin Lakes suggests a similar condition.  Aquaculture raised triploids that have survived more than a few weeks in Twin Lakes invariably lose weight.  Few are captured more than a month after the initial release. (C)  Even if the aquaculture raised triploids survive they cannot reproduce.

Smaller triploid rainbow trout that are raised for release in Reservation Lakes do adjust, survive and grow.  Few, if any, reproduce.  There is no lake within the Colville Reservation with a genetically pure population of redband rainbow trout.  The only existing redbands in Reservation lakes that we are aware of are those (or their progeny) that we have planted in recent years.  This stock is a mixture of Bridge Creek and Phalon Lake fish and is not genetically pure.  Triploid rainbow trout are NOT planted into any lake within the Sanpoil drainage in order to prevent any genetic dilution of the redband stocks that other Tribal projects are attempting to rehabilitate.

In addition, the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Project studied the growth rates of diploid and triploid coastal stock rainbow trout for five years before switching the stocking program to 100% triploid trout. The study indicated no significant difference in the return to the creel between the two types. In addition, the fish were not reared to an excessive size prior to release, but were instead grown to a similar size as the diploids. Comparative studies concluded that triploid rainbow trout reared under similar conditions to diploid trout did not grow excessively in the reservoir, and did not live exceptionally long (Spokane Tribe, unpublished data).

The CCT Hatchery is using the same coastal stock fish for the triploid program as Lake Roosevelt (McCloud River strain). The Tribe is NOT using the Trout Lodge triploid strain, which contains Kamloops and steelhead genetics. Therefore, excessively large fish are not expected on Reservation waters, but instead similar sized fish, with similar ecological effects, less the genetic introgression, are expected.

.

Table 7.  Reservation waterbodies.

The CCT 2006 Resident Fisheries Management Plan was based on limited and frequently inaccurate data.  We realize the limitations of this plan and are attempting to develop a new plan based on data collected over the last six years.  This plan will include suggested stocking strategies (species, number, size and stocking date) as well as metrics to determine if harvest goals are being met.

When the water level of Omak Lake is high enough to allow access to tributary streams and flows in these streams are sufficient some natural reproduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout occurs (Shallenberger, 2008).  In 2008 all tributary streams were monitored throughout the summer and reproduction documented in No Name and Kartar creeks, with possible reproduction in Beaverhouse Creek.  Since 2008 the water level of Omak Lake has declined to the point where there is no longer access to the inlet streams.

Prior to 2006, hatchery records indicate that all fish planted into Omak Lake were adipose clipped, but records are incomplete and it is likely that many fish were not clipped.  Since 2006, all fish planted into Omak have been adipose clipped to indicate hatchery stock.  Each year since 2007 when adult fish are captured and spawned the presence or absence of the adipose fin has been recorded. 

Table 8. Percentage of Hatchery Origin Fish

The percentage of hatchery fish has increased each year.   In 2011 only one adult male and one adult female were observed that were unclipped.  There are two principal causes for the increase in hatchery fish:

(a.)  Prior to 2006 clipping was not 100% therefore a number of unmarked hatchery fish were likely included in the unmarked (wild origin) category.  Since 100% of the fish stocked from 2006 on were clipped an increasing percentage of these fish should be found when spawning.

(b.) 2005 was a drought year in Okanogan County.  Since 2005 precipitation has been at or below normal and water levels at Omak Lake have dropped each year.  2007 was the last year that fish had access to the inlet streams and although spawning was successful in  No Name and Kartar Creeks agricultural extractions were so large that it is unlikely juveniles survived (Shallenberger, 2008).

Creel surveys are improved annually, particularly on the larger, more heavily fished lakes.  Judging Tribal member satisfaction is particularly challenging.  As a general rule Tribal members do not respond to surveys.  Cameras have been used to monitor fishing pressure, but they have often been stolen or shot.  Perhaps the best judgment of satisfaction is the lack of complaints.  When complaints do occur we respond quickly, usually with a gill net survey to monitor presence, average size and fish condition.

We are unaware of any WDFW document that covers all of these topics.  We do, however, work with WDFW on all of these issues.  Each year the Hatchery Project enters into a contractual relationship with WDFW for fish health monitoring by Bob Rogers at our hatchery.  Included in this contract are:  (a) Monthly hatchery visits (b) Disease prevention advice (c) Disease diagnosis (d) Suggested treatment (e) Inspection prior to transport.  We work with local WDFW fisheries biologists on matters of mutual concern and have a formal meeting annually with WDFW personnel to discuss numerous issue.

In the years prior to 2006 Westslope cutthroat trout were planted into Summit, Gold and Cody lakes.  Today, Westslope cutthroat trout only remain in Gold Lake.   Gill net surveys were made in 2009, 2010 and 2011 in order to monitor fish condition.   Each year Westslope cutthroats were captured.

Table 9.  Westslope cutthroat from Gold Lake.

Although scale samples were not taken to determine age, it is clear that several age classes are represented. 

In 2011 the decision was made to no longer raise redbands for Reservation waters.  The primary goal of the Colville Tribal Hatchery is to raise fish for Tribal subsistence fisheries and Tribal and non-Tribal recreational fisheries.  The table below summarizes the reasons for this decision.

The redband trout stock used, Phalon Lake, was originally derived from a stream population. A fluvial stock is a poor choice for a program geared towards lake production. Additionally, a “redband stock” that has non-native genetics should not be used. Using an impure redband stock pose a higher risk to native species than triploid coastal trout. In additional to the difficulites in rearing redband trout compared to Spokane stock, they are not ecologically appropriate.

Table 10.  Differences between redband and Spokane (triploid) stocks