Local or MSRT Comments: No change to proposed budget.

This project appears fundable for all components except the feasibility study for construction and operation of the transfer/holding facility.

The information provided (in the response document) on use of the ponds for angling indicates that the recreation provided is a distinct asset to the community. Therefore, the overall project has much merit beyond purely scientific considerations.

The ISRP considered the general background and logic for the put-and-take fishing reasonable, but requested a response having sufficient detail to justify the new ponds. They asked that the response show an assessment of the benefits associated with the existing ponds, including fishing pressure (angler trips and hours), harvest estimate (fraction of the number stocked that are caught, number caught per hour fished), and economics (annual program cost per trout harvested and per pound of trout harvested). The response’s year-by-year narrative on angling and population estimates helps toward understanding the history of the fishery. It also reveals the need for better monitoring measurements in the future. In addition to making proper harvest estimates, the method of population estimation should be more fully described in future proposals (the basic equation, gear and procedure), and the resulting estimates should be shown with upper and lower confidence limits. In future reports, the sponsors need to define "maximum benefit," show how they will "use information from the angler surveys to improve upon the existing program," and, explain how "we will use it such that we balance the expense fishing opportunity for the reservation community."

The ISRP asked for more information on proposed pond construction and on water supply and hydrologic analyses. The response to this was adequate.

The ISRP requested information to support the feasibility study for the envisaged central holding/transfer facility (for out-year construction and “designed to hold up to 50,000 lbs.” of rainbow trout). The original proposal did not justify the possible need for such a facility. The sponsors did not respond. The proposal does not present a basic rationale for the facility and does not consider elementary issues. Holding fish in a transfer facility is likely to be a challenging management problem, considering the routine difficulties maintaining fish at high density, providing proper storage of food supplies, preventing and treating disease, etc. The sponsors have not said why present arrangements for supplying fish from hatcheries might be so inadequate as to necessitate a holding facility.

In addition, the proposal did not contain adequate description of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for the project. It was proposed only to develop a plan for M&E. The ISRP requested an M&E plan covering design and procedures of creel census and data analysis—and response on some apparent technical problems. The response was adequate, but M&E methods should be improved (according to ISRP suggestions detailed in original review), and reporting of results should be more thorough in the future.

The ISRP considers the general background and logic for the put-and-take fishing project reasonable, but a response is needed with sufficient detail to justify the new ponds. The response should show an assessment of the benefits associated with the existing ponds. The proposal’s Table 2, showing for each past year and pond the pounds of trout stocked and the number of trout harvested does not furnish enough information. What is the fishing pressure (angler trips and hours), harvest estimate (fraction of the number stocked that are caught, number caught per hour fished), and economics (annual program cost per trout harvested and per pound of trout harvested)?

Apparently, the proposed new ponds will resemble the ponds previously built. Thus, it is probably known what the general type of pond structure will be, whether excavated pit, dammed, combination of dam or dike and dug pit, or whatever. It would help to have the anticipated structure types and construction methods described. The proposal’s methods involve providing water to existing and new ponds. Have hydrologic analyses been done to assess feasibility of the envisaged wells?

A proposed Work Element (4c) is to conduct a “feasibility” study for a central holding/transfer facility (for out-year construction) “designed to hold up to 50,000 lbs.” of rainbow trout. Justification for this was not presented in the proposal. The need for such a facility and its feasibility study cannot be supported without more information. A response is needed on this issue.

In addition, the proposal does not contain adequate description of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for the project. It was proposed only to develop a plan for M&E. A satisfactory M&E plan should be set forth before project approval. Within it, the design and procedures of creel census and data analysis need to be spelled out. What will be the criteria for judging adequacy or success of the project? Also, the procedure (and evaluation use) for the “population estimate” function that is apparently being carried out under the present program should also be described, if it is to be included in M&E.