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 recommendation is for Colville Hatchery Operation and Maintenance (198503800) and Rufus Woods Redband Net Pens (200811700). The comments apply to both proposals, although specific comments on the progression of the Net Pens project are provided below.

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 and the Rufus Woods net pen proposals. The sponsors provided an informal description of the resident trout and net pen programs 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 culture 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 principals. 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 increased 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 in addition to 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 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.

The ISRP expresses concern about the fish culture performance at the hatchery. Hatchery performance data were provided by the sponsor 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 brood years 2006 and 2007. This level of success in the fish-rearing phase of the program is in need of investigation and improvement. Also, 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.

The ISRP previously concluded in 2009 that the Rufus Woods Redband Net Pen Project met scientific review criteria with the qualifications that the project be designed as a proof-of-concept test for native redband brood fish management, and that future proposals identify goals and monitoring results that are integrated with the overall Colville resident fish hatchery program. The current proposal indicated that net pen culture of redband trout did not meet the Tribe’s needs (see statement below).Although the net pen proposal identified some goals, for example harvest 30% of stocked fish, and provided some observations this information was incomplete, as noted above. 

The current proposal reflects major changes in the Rufus Woods Redband Net Pens (200811700) project direction. The original proposal was for rearing redband trout broodstock, and actual stocking of production fish was a minor element with numbers and locations of fish to be stocked unidentified. The sponsor has suggested that redband trout are not suitable for stocking in reservation lakes and perform poorly in the tribal hatchery, although conflicting statements were also provided in the proposal: “The project successfully reared and released over 16,960 kg of redband rainbow trout into Rufus Woods and reservation lakes. This amount constitutes 76% of the Colville Tribal Resident Fish Hatchery’s annual production goal (Shallenberger, E., 2010). Associated project costs calculated out to be less than a quarter of what it would cost to raise these fish at the hatchery. The project has provided a cost effective way to grow much larger fish, alleviate some pressure on the hatchery’s current resources and provided a wonderful spring fishery on North and South Twin Lakes and Lake Rufus Woods.” Nevertheless, the sponsor has transitioned this project from rearing redband broodstock to rearing triploid rainbow trout for direct stocking into Lake Rufus Woods, North and South Twin Lakes, and unspecified reservation streams. Justification for this production is needed in a Master Plan. The ISRP is unable to determine why triploid rainbow trout from the net pens are needed for Lake Rufus Woods since project 200740500 is purchasing triploid fish from net pen operators for stocking.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The original goal of the Rufus Woods Net Pens project (200811700) was to raise native redband trout broodstock and reduce capacity issues at the Colville Tribal Hatchery. After implementing the project, the sponsor stated that “the project successfully reared and released over 16,960 kg of redband rainbow trout into Rufus Woods and reservation lakes. This amount constitutes 76% of the Colville Tribal Resident Fish Hatchery’s annual production goal (Shallenberger, E., 2010). Associated project costs calculated out to be less than a quarter of what it would cost to raise these fish at the hatchery. The project has provided a cost effective way to grow much larger fish, alleviate some pressure on the hatchery’s current resources and provided a wonderful spring fishery on North and South Twin Lakes and Lake Rufus Woods.” Nevertheless, in the most recent proposal, the sponsor concluded that the performance of redband trout in the hatchery and Rufus Woods net pens was insufficient to meet program needs. Stocking native redband trout was deleted as a key objective in the 2011 proposal.

The project has transitioned to rearing and releasing triploid rainbow trout. The goal in 2011 was to release 20,000 large triploid trout into the Twin Lakes and 20,000 trout into Rufus Woods for tribal and sport harvests. A reported 10,000 trout were stocked into South Twin Lake, but no values were presented for North Twin Lake or Rufus Woods. In 2011, approximately 1,769 rainbow trout were harvested in Rufus Woods and 15,477 trout were captured in the Twin Lakes. This project needs to be incorporated into a resident fish hatchery Master Plan, improve upon its stocking plan, and carefully evaluate whether the project is achieving specific goals such as catch per hour or percentage of stocked fish harvested.

The proposal needs major revision including:

1. an expanded explanation of significance to regional programs/plans
2. a revised technical background giving a more complete history of lost fisheries and the need for resident fish substitution
3. objectives that are specific and measurable
4. deliverables and work elements that specifically describe the tasks needed to meet objectives
5. detailed methods for raising the net pen fish or a sub-contractors specifications and methods
6. a description of the evaluation and decision framework used to establish stocking location and numbers, and how this stocking is integrated in the Colville Tribal Hatchery rearing and stocking plans.

See the ISRP’s programmatic comments on fish stocking.

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 or net pen including in-pen survival and growth, disease monitoring or other health inspections, percentage of triploid trout, net pen water quality compliance inspections, and food conversion as well as post-release performance including survival for stated intervals, harvest, and fish condition. These should be identified and reported for the time period since the last ISRP review. The Rufus Woods net pen project provided data for in-pen survival and growth, but there was no information on survival and harvests of these fish in Twin Lakes and Rufus Woods. The proposal should also identify impacts of the stocked fish on resident fishes in each of the receiving waters, including elevated harvest rates on native trout in response to higher fishing effort for example in Rufus Woods. The ISRP understands that post release data may come from other projects, but the information should be summarized in the net pen proposal.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: Insufficient information was provided. The proposal identifies that the CCT Fish Management Plan includes elements that the project fulfills, but those elements should be described. The linkages to elements in subbasin plans beyond the San Poil are likely since fish are intended for release in Lake Rufus Woods. The proposal should identify how it is linked to other relevant regional planning efforts such as the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document, the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Project, and the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Additionally, the numbers of fish to be purchased and released into Lake Rufus Woods by this project should be described. Interactions with the Lake Rufus Woods Creel and Supplementation (2007-405-00) project and the Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (1997-004-00) need to be stated. 

Technical Background: Insufficient information is provided. 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 specific lakes on the Colville Reservation that might be stocked using fish from this project. A decision framework, for example a regional resident fish stocking plan, that identifies the policy and scientific guidance from tribal management plans to direct the annual stocking is needed. This framework should be described in a comprehensive residence fish stocking plan that encompasses all hatchery activities in the upper Columbia region. A brief description with references of lost anadromous fisheries is needed to demonstrate the need for the resident fish substitution.

Objectives: Incomplete information is provided. There are three objectives identified: supplement fishery to provide harvest; increase efficiency and decrease the cost; relieve pressure on Colville Tribal Hatchery. These objectives need quantitative standards identified as goals that can be evaluated by metrics. There are no quantitative objectives for fish rearing success or for subsequent harvest. There should be quantitative objectives for fish harvesting metrics such as catch per effort, total harvest, angler days, and angler satisfaction as well as quantitative objectives for fish growth and survival. None are provided in the proposal. Monitoring is needed to evaluate whether the objectives are achieved.

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

Accomplishments: The project has one year of fish rearing experience from net pens stocked with 22g redband trout in June 2010 and released fish in the spring of 2011, under emergency circumstances because of gas super-saturation. Accurate estimates of survival are needed and observed survival should be compared with a goal in order to evaluate effectiveness of net pen rearing. The proposal did not describe whether or not juvenile fish, presumably rainbow trout, were stocked into net pens during the spring/summer of 2011 for release in 2012. No information is provided on harvest from the fish stocked.

Adaptive management: The evaluation of redband trout culture and switch from redband trout to triploid rainbow trout was provided as a management response.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The first year of operation (2010) determined that the performance of redband trout in the hatchery and Rufus Woods net pens was insufficient to meet program needs. The project plans to transition to rainbow trout, but no information on rainbow trout net pen operations was provided for 2011.

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

Project Relationships: The proposal notes that the Rufus Woods Net Pen Project works directly with the Colville Hatchery O&M (#1985-038-00) and Rufus Woods Creel and Supplementation (#2007-405-00). However, the project also interacts with the Twin Lakes oxygenation project and Resident Fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (#1997-004-00). The full scope of the interactions 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. Standards for fish release, yield in fisheries, disease management, etc. established by the State of Washington, that may apply to this project are not discussed.

Emerging limiting factors: The proposal focuses primarily on limnological conditions, dissolved gas in Lake Rufus Woods and fish health concerns during net-pen rearing. Both of these limits need to be discussed in more detail in the problem statement and/or accomplishments section. The brief discussion of the health issues, in addition to dissolved gas, needs additional details.

Tailored Questions: Adequately answered and discussed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The general description of the primary deliverable consisting of purchasing triploid trout eggs from WDFW, hatching eggs and rearing fish to 22g, and then contracting for rearing to catchable size for a put-and-take fishery is clear. There needs to be quantifiable elements attached to the deliverables. For example, the explanation of how the deliverables meet the objectives needs additional detail. How will objectives 2 and 3 be evaluated, and what is the threshold for success?

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

Apparently, no protocols or methods were submitted to MonitoringMethods.org.

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

The project sponsors cite that the project goals follow those in several subbasin plans including the Upper Columbia and Columbia River plans, the CCT Fish and Wildlife Management Plan, and the MERR document guidelines when monitoring and evaluating fish planting strategies. The project is adequately described in the context of regional trout enhancement efforts. In the Annual Report for 2010 (April 2011), one of the goals of this project is stated to be enhancement of the population of interior rainbow ("redband") trout in both North and South Twin lakes so that they can support a sustainable fishery without the need for hatchery augmentation. However, at present both lakes are stocked with hatchery rainbow trout, and the decision to switch from redband trout to rainbow trout needs to be included here.

The objectives (below) are straightforward and measurable - when linked with deliverables.

OBJ-1:Improve the trout fishery in North and South Twin Lakes

OBJ-2:Oxygenate North and South Twin Lakes

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

The proposal itself presents several graphs pertaining to limnological investigations and net captures, but figure captions and an adequate discussion of the data they portray are needed. More details are in the 2010 annual report. Results indicate that the two lakes are similar in some respects but somewhat different in others. For this reason, the response of fishes and aquatic invertebrates to the proposed oxygenation of South Twin Lake, which was not oxygenated in the past, cannot be predicted with certainty. Results do show, however, that oxygenating North Twin Lake has created conditions more suitable for benthic invertebrates and that trout now use the cool hypolimnion during warm summer months.

It would be easy to assume that increased angler catch rates with oxygenation would make North Twin Lake a better place to fish; however, Table 6 and Table 7 suggest that catch per unit effort in South Twin exceeded that of North Twin in some months, even with the higher carryover rate of trout in North Twin. This raises the question of how stocking has been carried out in the lakes and how hatchery supplementation has influenced harvest during the initial period of oxygenation. It also raises the more general question: will the relatively high cost of oxygenation, especially if the oxygen generating plant is constructed, result in enough fish and/or enough larger fish to justify the expense?

The work in 2009, 2010, and 2011 clearly showed that once North Twin Lake was oxygenated, fish utilized the hypolimnion and survived at a higher rate than at South Twin Lake. Differences were statistically significant. As a result of the success at North Twin Lake, stocking strategies changed which confounds the growth rate and condition factor data collected during the study. Angling pressure, catch-per-unit-effort, survivability of marked release groups of trout, growth and condition of fish have been measured to establish if goals of project have been met. As a result stocking numbers have been reduced by 60%, but the size of fish caught has increased from 230g to 435g, while reducing CPUE by only 10%. The percentage of carryover fish increased by five times and angler satisfaction has increased.

A short paragraph on adaptive management only indicates that the management changes which have occurred have been adjustment of stocking numbers in response to oxygenation effects. However, during the project site visit we were told that a switch in type of fish planted from redband stock to triploid rainbow occurred because the redbands were emigrating from the lakes. This discussion plus the rationale for the switch could/should also be added as an example of adaptive management.

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

In general, the project sponsors have made progress in addressing the questions posed by the ISRP. Additional research to understand the limnological processes in the two lakes will be very helpful. One emerging factor that deserves more discussion is the presence of non-native largemouth bass and golden shiners in the lakes. What is being done to monitor the effects of oxygenation on these species?

Several long-term issues are of concern: (1) what are the long-term effects on macroinvertebrates and will changes effect fish growth, and (2) hypolimnetic anoxia is a result of sediment oxygen demand (SOD) and now that external nutrient loading has been reduced, will SOD be reduced as the hypolimnion continues to be oxygenated and will future oxygen supplementation continue to be required? Some evidence indicates that SOD will be reduced, but this needs to be monitored and documented for a longer period of time. Mercury analyses from the two lakes have been confusing to date. More information is needed over time. Another issue of concern is how will the oxygenation affect uptake of methylmercury in fish. Present levels are below EPA cautionary guidelines.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project should consider expanding the number of sites for continuous oxygen measurements in the lakes. According to the descriptions of the sampling program in MonitoringMethods.org, only a single site from each lake will be continuously monitored. More sampling locations are needed, especially if trout prefer different places in the lakes over the course of a year.

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

The methods published in MonitoringMethods.org have sufficient detail for the most part but should also include the stocking regimes for the two lakes, including species and size at release. Additional details on the benthic and plankton surveys would also be helpful.

The qualification is that, in future proposals, integration and linkage with the Colville Hatchery Project should be demonstrated with sufficient detail. Moreover, the proposed approach should be set up and considered a proof-of-concept test for a native brood fish management effort. See the attached memo for details.

This proposal lacks sufficient technical justification, background information, and detail in other areas (including study design, objectives, and methods) to enable the ISRP to evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal. The ISRP requests a response for the proponents to provide the following information in order to complete this review: Summary results and reports (with web based links to reports if available) from the three years of redband trout studies in Twin Lakes by the Colville Confederated Tribes should be included in the Technical Justification section. What is the source(s) of anthropogenic phosphorous loading to Twin Lakes? The proposal does not present basic limnological data about the project lakes. Included should be such data as catchment basin area, water surface area, maximum and mean water depth, shoreline development, water sources and flux, and the characteristics of lakebed sediments and aquatic macrophytes. Lacking such basic information, the ISRP cannot evaluate reasonability of the project. Include a discussion of how redband trout can be re-established in an already diverse fish community dominated by non-native species. Section E indicates that this is a new project, but clearly this project is ongoing (~three years?). Please explain. Unless there are mortality or growth data on redband trout available from Twin Lakes studies, the objectives in Section F will need to be revised. Work Elements (WE) 2 and 3 (the main ones) are too general, and much more detail is needed on hydroacoustic and creel survey designs and methods. Can golden shiner be used to monitor changes in methyl mercury during the study?