The ISRP requested a succinct summary of the fish rearing program for Lake Roosevelt since it involves three projects that rear fish, and a fourth project that is responsible for evaluating post-release survival, growth, and harvest.Sponsors of the Spokane Tribal Hatchery (1991-046-00), Sherman Creek Hatchery (1991-047-00), and Lake Roosevelt Trout Net Pen (1995-009-00) projects responded to ISRP questions in a single document and provided adequate information. Ideally, the sponsors would have text and data tables such as those in the response in concise annual reports. 

The projects producing rainbow trout and kokanee for release into Lake Roosevelt to provide resident fish substitution for lost anadromous production above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams have established metrics for performance in culture (hatchery and net-pens) including egg collections, egg-to-fry survival, fry-to-release survival, fish health maintenance as well as post-release monitoring to collect survival and harvest information. Since the last review in 2006 (2007/2009 review) the co-managers have developed harvest objectives for kokanee and rainbow trout and a decision tree for kokanee egg production from Lake Roosevelt hatchery kokanee collected at Hawk Creek. The decision tree includes performance thresholds that would terminate the effort.

The data show that performance in the hatchery and net pens is adequate for both trout and kokanee. However, the percentages of released rainbow trout and yearling kokanee that are harvested are very low, averaging only 4.6% and 0.3%, respectively. These harvest levels are much lower than the harvest goals. Presumably, the harvest rate of kokanee resulting from fry releases is much lower. Are the low harvest rates associated with low survival after release, low angler effort, or both? While the hatchery program has released numerous trout and kokanee and has contributed to harvests of resident fishes, it is not clear that the program has “greatly enhanced Lake Roosevelt fishing opportunities” as stated on page 35 of the sponsor response.

The Lake Roosevelt Evaluation Project has done a good job in RME for these projects and has provided the post release metrics for these projects. Information on the harvest of wild redband trout and actions to minimize harvests of wild kokanee through harvest regulations is appreciated. 

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

Collectively, the Spokane Tribal Hatchery (199104600), WDFW Sherman Creek Hatchery (199104700), and Lake Roosevelt Net Pens (199500900) plan to rear 750,000 yearling rainbow trout (5/lb) for release into Lake Roosevelt in May after draw-down is complete. Rainbow trout will grow in the reservoir and recruit to the fishery the following fall and winter. These projects also rear 2 to 3 million kokanee fry (300/lb) and 250,000 kokanee yearlings (7/lb) for release into the reservoir. Kokanee broodstock from Lake Roosevelt are being developed using Hawk Creek as a broodstock collection location. For rainbow trout, triploid eyed eggs are obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Spokane Hatchery. For kokanee, Meadow Creek stock eggs are obtained from British Columbia (based on availability), and Lake Whatcom stock eggs are obtained from WDFW. Kokanee egg availability is dependent on adult run size in the source locations and is a limiting factor for achieving fry and yearling release goals.

For rainbow trout, eggs are incubated at the Spokane Tribal hatchery, and fry split between the Spokane Tribal Hatchery and Sherman Creek Hatchery. In October juvenile rainbow trout are transferred to net pens for production rearing for eventual release the following May. For kokanee, eggs are received at the WDFW Spokane Hatchery for thermal marking. Kokanee fry releases are hatched and reared at the Spokane Tribal Hatchery. Kokanee yearling releases are hatched at the Spokane Tribal Hatchery and split and reared at both the Spokane Tribal Hatchery and Sherman Creek Hatchery.

These projects have life-stage survival goals of 80% egg survival to feeding fry, 90% survival from fry to fingerlings, and 90% survival from fingerlings to yearlings.

For rainbow trout, at the Sherman Creek Hatchery there have been unaccounted losses of juvenile fish ranging from 13.5% to 19.1%. The source of these losses needs to be identified, and efforts to remedy them are warranted. The Lake Roosevelt Trout Net Pen Project released, on average, 638,000 triploid trout per year, which is slightly under the goal of 750,000 trout as a result of low numbers of fish (259,000) released in 2007.

For kokanee the release numbers have been variable with shortfall in release numbers owing to the unavailability of eggs.

Survival from release to harvest has not meet program goals. The co-managers and stakeholders express satisfaction with the rainbow trout program despite not having achieved the harvest targets. For rainbow trout the harvest goal is 50,000 to 150,000 fish; this has only been achieved in 2010 for the four years 2007 to 2010. The other three years had harvest of 11,547, 18,333, and 31,204. Approximately 28,200 trout have been harvested each year; the percentage of released trout that are harvested is low, averaging 4.6%. For kokanee, the goal is 18,500 fish from stocking fry and 12,500 from stocking yearlings. Table 9 in the response provided kokanee harvest for yearling hatchery production of 122; 368; 1,086; and 1,842 fish. This is a harvest yield ranging from 0.04% to 0.80%, well below the 5% goal for yearling kokanee. The harvest of wild redband trout has averaged 3,270 trout per year.

It is likely that reservoir environmental conditions including operational constraints and the biological community structure are unsuitable for rainbow trout and kokanee survival to the levels desired.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

These Qualifications and Comments apply to the following projects:

Spokane Tribal Hatchery (199104600)

Sherman Creek Hatchery (199104700)

Lake Roosevelt Net-Pens (199500900) - Please note that comments for rainbow trout only, not kokanee, apply to this project.

The harvests of both net-pen reared yearling rainbow trout and kokanee fry and yearlings are substantially below the program goals. For rainbow trout the harvest goal is 50,000 to 150,000 fish. Over the period 2007-2010, this goal has been achieved only in 2010. The other three years had harvest of 11,547, 18,333, and 31,204. Kokanee have fared even worse. The kokanee goal is 18,500 fish from stocking fry and 12,500 from stocking yearlings. Harvests from yearling hatchery production from 2007 to 2010 were 122; 368; 1,086; and 1,842 fish. This is a harvest yield ranging from 0.04% to 0.80%, well below the 5% goal for yearlings.

It is likely that reservoir environmental conditions including operational constraints and the biological community structure is unsuitable for rainbow trout and kokanee survival to the levels desired.

The project sponsors should continue efforts to evaluate why harvest rates are so low on stocked trout and kokanee. The sponsors need to develop future plans for revising harvest goals for kokanee due to the continuing low harvest rates or provide plans for addressing their two major limiting factors: entrainment and predation by invasive non-native species (specifically walleye). Furthermore, in view of the partial success, developing plans for experimental fish culture work (even if modest) as part of the hatchery program to address post-release shortcomings needs consideration. Some effort to understand variation in past return to creel results would also be useful, including an assessment of past practices and their results (positive or negative). Such a scientific addition to this work could add a valuable and non-routine, adaptive management dimension to the fish-rearing.

They should also continue to evaluate whether wild redband and kokanee can withstand the harvest rates they encounter in response to harvests on hatchery fish. The attempt to fin clip 100% of yearling kokanee and trout should be evaluated after all fish have been presumably marked, because poorly marked fish may cause bias in fish metrics.

Our opinion from the current set of results with kokanee is essentially the same as our last review of the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document. With entrainment and predation, the kokanee goals are just not being met. The kokanee stocking likely provides a forage base for predatory non-native fish in Lake Roosevelt. The ISRP believes there is a need to take a hard look at whether kokanee are a scientifically realistic fish to attempt to produce a mitigation fishery, despite past kokanee production in Lake Roosevelt and cultural values.

An economic analysis of the various stocking efforts in Lake Roosevelt and the harvest benefits would be useful. This might be a good task for the IEAB or the sponsors.

In order for the ISRP to complete evaluation and provide retrospective reporting to the Council on progress since the last review a response containing a table and brief narrative is required that summarizes the production including eggs received, fish hatched, fish reared, fish transferred, and fish released as well as post release survival and harvest for each stock and year since the last ISRP review. The response should also include a diagram of fish transfers and relationships between the Spokane Tribal Hatchery, Sherman Creek Hatchery, and the Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Project.

The ISRP understands and appreciates that the Spokane Tribal Hatchery uses monitoring data collected and then analyzed by the Lake Roosevelt Monitoring Project to complete evaluation. Even if much of the data and analysis are presented in the monitoring project, these items should have been incorporated into the accomplishments section, and perhaps adaptive management section of this project’s proposal. At this point in time these items should be included in the response to the ISRP.

The Council’s 1999 Artificial Production Review (NWPCC 1999-15) established that evaluating hatcheries 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, and fish condition. There may also be facility related metrics for discharge water quality. These should all be identified and reported in the response to the ISRP for the time period since the last review.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal is adequate with linkages to the Fish and Wildlife Program and individual subbasin plan elements provided in reasonable detail.

Technical background: A lengthy explanation of the history of Fish and Wildlife Program kokanee and rainbow trout artificial production programs within the Lake Roosevelt watershed is provided. The summary included information on the original justification for selecting kokanee as a focal species, challenges the program has encountered since its inception with entrainment from Lake Roosevelt, predation by walleye, and more recently by smallmouth bass, difficulties with assessment, and current production targets and harvest goals. The length of text and information extending beyond the proposal distracted from the primary elements of what was being proposed. The background section would be improved by including a flow chart of egg and fish transfers among projects at Lake Roosevelt.

Objectives: The overall objective of providing harvest and an egg source for kokanee production and harvest for rainbow trout is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program and this project. 

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

Accomplishments and results: The information provided is inadequate. A clear description of the metrics used for evaluation of the hatchery and post release performance including survival, harvest, and interactions with native resident fishes needs to be presented in tabular form along with a brief narrative. The extensive text in the problem statement provides a comprehensive narrative about the history of the program but does not identify metrics for the hatchery and post release project phases and an indication that performance standards have, or have not, been achieved. Some of this information does appear in annual reports. However, the ISRP needs this concise presentation for both evaluation of the proposal and retrospective reporting to the Council. The questions are: Can the project obtain the rainbow trout and kokanee eggs it needs? What are the survival of eggs to hatch or first feeding, survival to distribution, condition factor, fish health, and facility monitoring for water quality and discharge? What are the growth, survival, condition factor, and harvest post release into Lake Roosevelt? This should be presented for each year since the project was last reviewed by the ISRP. 

Adaptive Management: The explanation of the project history in the problem statement provides a reasonable summary of the changes in management. 

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

To be completed by the ISRP following sponsor’s response.

The kokanee portion of the project is showing some improvement. The goal of 5% kokanee harvest following release should be compared with other systems to justify this small level of survival and harvest after only a few months in the reservoir. The goal for the rainbow trout program of 50,000 to 150,000 fish harvested or 20% of release also needs to be considered in comparison to other large reservoir systems for the ISRP, Council, BPA, and stakeholders. This comparison will help place this program in context with other similar put-grow-and-take efforts, for example Lahontan cutthroat trout in Pyramid Lake, Nevada and rainbow trout in Flaming Gorge in Wyoming/Utah.

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

Project Relationships: The proposal is adequate for consideration of Lake Roosevelt BPA projects. Additional consideration is needed with Washington trout stocking programs, and whether this project is consistent/compliant with the State of Washington policies on hatchery operations, fish release, harvest yields, and native species interactions.

Emerging Limiting Factors: Consideration of predation on project fish by walleye, smallmouth bass, and northern pike is mentioned and discussed in detail in the problem statement. Reservoir operations and other environmental considerations, namely climate change, are briefly identified. Absent from the list is interactions with native redband trout and native kokanee. The problem statement suggests the status of kokanee remains unsolved. The wild kokanee might be progeny from reservoir spawning local fish, but spawning locations and documentation of early life stages remains undocumented. The problem statement also identifies that native redband trout inhabit reservoir tributaries and regions below Lake Roosevelt. The project seems to have been initiated with little explicit consideration of these native populations. Some genetic and tagging efforts are intended to improve the knowledge of interactions, and the project is using triploid rainbow trout to avoid introgression. Explicitly addressing the effects of the hatchery/harvest program on native resident fish is needed. If consequential impacts are detected it could influence the fate of the project.

Tailored questions: 

1. Describe opportunities to restore or reintroduce resident native fish: The response indicates that other projects are involved in sturgeon and redband trout restoration and habitat enhancement. If so, descriptions and linkages should be provided more clearly in the proposal.
   
   
2. A resident fish loss assessment has not been completed.
   
   
3. Impacts of non-native fish releases on native fishes need to be more clearly identified and discussed. The sponsors’ statement that the rainbow trout and kokanee released by the project are "native," may be technically true, but operationally it is not. The rainbow trout are a stock derived from the coastal California subspecies, and the kokanee from Lake Whatcom are from a coastal location in Washington, substantially differentiated from the interior wild fish, namely redband trout, based on recent genetic investigations. The sponsors include an adequate discussion of the operating hypothesis that stocked rainbow trout and kokanee are primarily planktivores. The monitoring plan for the program needs to continue to evaluate the potential for impacts on native kokanee, redband trout, and non-game fish. Impacts to forage fish species could have trophic affects that would require management decisions.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are presented clearly as 750,000 triploid rainbow trout, 3.7 million kokanee fry, and 250,000 kokanee yearlings.

The metrics for fish production including life-stage survival, condition factor, and fish health as well as facility operations including water discharge and invasive species inspections are not presented and need to be included.

The RM&E protocols and methods section states: "There are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal." The ISRP questions this and believes M&E needs to be sufficient to meet the Council Program’s Artificial Production standards.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 1:11:02 PM.

The response includes a lengthy passage taken apparently verbatim from a response to an ISRP review of the Lake Roosevelt kokanee hatchery program - Project 199404300. While there do appear to be some parallels between the Lake Roosevelt and Galbraith Springs situations, there was very little in the response that directly addressed the ISRP's specific concerns about funding the kokanee propagation effort at Galbraith Springs. According to project sponsors, the kokanee hatchery effort will be continued "for the Tribe to engage in a long awaited opportunity to revitalize its connection to the Spokane and Columbia River fisheries; culturally, religiously and in ways that can't be explained scientifically." Therefore, it does not appear that their argument for funding this work rests primarily on scientific grounds, and there appears to be little basis to re-evaluate the proposal scientifically.

The ISRP maintains its preliminary recommendation of "Fundable in part" for the continued redband and triploid rainbow production only. The ISRP recommends that only female triploids be stocked, because male triploids (in mixed sex production lots) will engage in courtship behavior with native trout, possibly leading to gamete waste (from the native trout). The ISRP notes that standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocols are not yet established for using sterile female triploids to provide recreational angling in waters inhabited by native trout. Large-scale production of triploid female rainbow trout is not 100% effective. Sponsors should have the production lots they stock evaluated for the percentage of triploids, and report this as part of the project monitoring. The efficacy of avoiding hybridization between stocked and native trout is unknown when less than 100% of the stocked fish are triploids. Ongoing evaluation of hybridization in contemporaneous native trout populations will be needed in the future. Stocking triploid females to provide recreational angling in regions with highly sensitive native populations is not yet justified. See Kozfkay, J. R., J. C. Dillon, and D. J. Schill. 2006. Routine use of sterile fish in salmonid sport fisheries: are we there yet? Fisheries 31(8):392 - 401.