This is a straight-forward and self-contained proposal, is technically sound, and presents no major issues or concerns. The qualifications are that the sponsors should identify the location and descriptive information about site characteristics and what developmental work is needed before recreational benefits begin. The sponsors should also identify how sedimentation ponds at Talmaks Reservoir will be maintained, including how sediment will be removed. The ISRP recommends that these items be addressed in the Council's decision making process and BPA contracting.

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

The background describing the purpose and history of the project and its significance to regional programs is clearly presented. Most of continuing funding is sought for O&M of existing pond programs.

Objectives of the long-standing project are largely to provide fish for recreational use, principally by tribal members but also by non-members, and to provide a valuable outreach function.

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

The proposal very briefly summarized project accomplishments in a section that would have been inadequate in communicating results in terms of basic metrics like number of hours of recreational effort and trout catch rates to date in the absence of the site visit and the Portland presentation. It appears that 3,000 to 3,700 kg of trout are harvested annually from the three ponds.

Reviewers agree with sponsors' assessment regarding the severe environmental limitations and shortcomings of the Mud Creek and Talmaks ponds. They also understand the traditional value of those two sites. The factors limiting return-to-creel of stocked trout at Mud Creek and Talmaks ponds that have sub-optimal performance appear to be well identified and understood by the sponsors.

It is equally apparent that the Tunnel pond is performing well to provide good recreational opportunities, both in terms of quality and quantity.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 4:33:16 PM.

This project's purpose is to provide pond fishing for stocked trout under the resident fish substitution program (mitigation for lost anadromous fisheries). The sponsors propose continuation of the project, augmented by construction of two new ponds (and apparently increasing the number of trout stocked) in an effort to double the angling harvest to about 4,750 kg/year. The program already has three ponds, two of which, according to prior proposals, have had poor results due largely to faulty pond siting and design by a predecessor agency. The proposal did not provide convincing evidence that the new ponds would produce better results.

The ISRP commented that project has a long history from which fishery results should have been presented, and that there are physical and chemical problems in the ponds that should have been covered in narrative and described with statistics. Although the project has apparently continued to collect data on angling pressure, fish harvest (creel census), and pond conditions (some of the information from that monitoring effort was included in past proposals), no quantitative results were presented in this proposal. The ISRP also questioned project cost per pound of fish harvested. The response was helpful in providing added information. It indicated improvement of the project since past reviews, including attempts to re-structure the ponds in accordance with past ISRP recommendations. It described pond conditions in more detail and gave information on fishery results and benefits to the community. The ISRP encourages submission of similarly thorough information in future proposals for continuation of the project.

The sponsors need to revamp the project's management plan by engaging a team of qualified fishery and hydrologic scientists. The team members should possess expertise in trout pond design and management in the region. In the future, proposals embodying a proper plan for creating and managing pond fisheries are needed.

The project is fundable in part to continue work described in the response. The non-fundable element is the construction of new ponds, which was shown in the original proposal but has been withdrawn by the sponsors.