The current project leads are new, but they are beginning to examine past results of this program and develop management approaches. Concurrent with this review, they developed a Five-Year Report looking at results from 2006-2010. The report was helpful but inconclusive in establishing whether the program is on track. The first issue is whether there is winter kill or summer kill, and how that should guide fish stocking. Winter water sampling began in 2012. This should be valuable, but it does not require the monitoring of a suite of variables throughout the winter. The critical issue is whether or not winter kill is occurring, and monitoring should be tailored to specifically assess that, with dissolved oxygen as the key variable. From the data given in the Five-Year Report, ISRP reviewers think that summer kill might be expected in Lake Billy Shaw in mid to late summer. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) generated by respiration of the massive beds of aquatic macrophytes might lower dissolved oxygen to the point of an anoxic level for trout, but typically this occurs only for a brief period before dawn on days when there is no air motion. To detect this, BOD must be monitored by measuring dissolved oxygen at the critical time, not in mid-day as it has been to date. Sentinel fish held in cages might also be utilized. For these studies, Lake Billy Shaw should receive the most careful scrutiny and Sheep Creek Reservoir the least.

Each reservoir has been stocked with fingerlings, and these usually are intended to provide a put-grow-and-take fishery, in contrast to the stocking of catchable trout which provide put-and-take fisheries. If over-winter survival or if survival during the hot spell is poor, especially in Lake Billy Shaw due to low DO and high temp, then stocking fingerlings may not be accomplishing anything. Stocking fingerlings may also be providing forage for yellow perch. The program needs to move beyond ad hoc stocking to a biologically based program whose activities are measured and evaluated. Removal of yellow perch and tui chubs needs to be designed and evaluated including details on trapping. Tui chubs and Lahontan cutthroat trout and redband trout coexist in a number of large lakes in California, Nevada, and Oregon, so we know that trout fisheries and tui chubs can be compatible. 

In general, presenting mean values for fishery metrics such as catch and effort is marginally useful. Annual data should be reported.

The description of the proposed actions to deal with the canal headcut is an engineering issue, not biological as it currently stands, so additional details are needed to help reviewers better visualize the project.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

Three reservoirs on the DVIR receive hatchery trout to provide subsistence and sport fisheries. Sheep Creek Reservoir (SCR) was built in the mid-1950s and has a surface area of 855 acres. Mountain View Reservoir (MVR) was constructed in 1969 with 640 acres and the 430 acre Lake Billy Shaw (LBS) Reservoir was completed in 1998.

A mix of sterile and fertile trout stocks are planted at SCR and MVR, with LBS having only sterile fish planted in the reservoir. In Fiscal Year 2011, a total of about 133,000 catchable rainbow trout were planted in the DVIR reservoirs. Of these, 16,000 sterile rainbow trout were planted in LBS, 54,000 sterile and fertile rainbow trout were planted in MVR, and 63,000 fertile rainbow trout were planted in SCR. Additionally, due to the recent increase in the amount of area colonized by Eurasian milfoil in MVR and LBS, 4,000 triploid (UFSWS certified) grass carp were introduced (3,200 in MVR and 800 in LBS).

The average annual fish harvest in Mountain View Reservoir (MVR) is approximately 14,500 fish. Assuming each fish harvested has grown since the time of initial stocking (average of 30 cm, 0.58 g), growth in length is proportional to weight (evidenced by the average Wr of 97.9), and that the Length Frequency histogram is representative of the population as a whole and that the largest proportion of fish are in the 35-40 cm range, most fish harvested should weigh approximately one pound. A harvest of 14,500 pounds of fish is equivalent to a 42% mass harvest rate. This allows surviving fish, beyond the initial year of stocking, to increase in size, resulting in a more desirable fishery. It must be kept in mind that much of the harvest is not reported, particularly in regards to tribal member subsistence fishing. Implementation of a new creel survey methodology is anticipated to collect more accurate data beginning in the summer of 2012.

Utilizing the same assumptions for Sheep Creek Reservoir (SCR), with an annual fish harvest of approximately 8,000 individuals, results in a 44% mass harvest rate.

Lake Billy Shaw (LBS) has been managed for a trophy fishery since construction. Following along with the same assumptions as described above, with an annual reported fish harvest of approximately 250 individuals (ca. 6300 were caught with most released), results in a 2% mass harvest rate. This is an exceedingly low amount of biomass removed from the system each year given the previous stocking levels. Stocking levels will be further reduced in 2012 and beyond, trying to achieve a balance between stocking levels, production, and harvest.As a side note, this reservoir is the most popular fishery for the local population, though none are reported.

Within 18 months the program should develop a Management Plan for the three reservoirs, and that the plan should be reviewed by the ISRP. The plan needs to summarize the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the three reservoirs and the watersheds they are in; establish subsistence and recreational harvest objectives for trout stocking; establish whether economic objectives from recreational fish are appropriate indicators of the program and what the standards and objectives might be; and develop a monitoring plan to collect and analyze the data to determine if the program is achieving its goals and in an efficient manner.

The Duck Valley Indian Reservation trout stocking program needs a comprehensive summary of the fish stocking, creel census, fish growth, and environmental limnological data for the ISRP to make a judgment on whether the project meets scientific review criteria. The ISRP understands that the comprehensive summary is nearing completion and will be provided for review during the response period. If the summary does not clearly respond to the responses requested below, the sponsors should provide appropriate responses.

1. Describe the significance of the project to regional programs.
2. Provide a quantitative description of the desired fish harvest, whether that harvest has been achieved, and the current status of environmental challenges and problems.
3. An explanation of the approach that will be used to evaluate the scale of the threat to the put-and-take fishery by emerging limiting factors should be provided.
4. Information on factors limiting the growth, survival, and catchability of stocked fish is requested.
5. Provide a response containing additional details on Deliverables as specified below.

Additionally, the actions proposed in this project (199501500) should be part of an overall Master Fisheries Management Plan for the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (DVIR) that describes an overall fisheries and habitat management program for the DVIR. The DVIR Fisheries Master Plan does not presently exist, but if developed, could provide considerable overall guidance and coordination among the potentially conflicting fisheries management goals for native redband trout in DVIR streams and watersheds with management of the three large reservoirs where non-native rainbow trout are stocked to provide angling opportunities. The ISRP recommends that such a plan be developed to guide fisheries actions on the DVIR prior to the next project solicitation.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: No response is provided. Clearly the project is related to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the Owyhee subbasin plan, and perhaps a tribal fisheries plan or environmental document. The program may also have relationships with Idaho or Nevada trout stocking plans and/or policies. This section needs to be completed; the NA given in the proposal is not accurate. 

Technical Background/Problem Statement: The general goal and objective to replace lost anadromous salmon fisheries with a put-and-take trout fishery is sufficiently presented. The problem statement provides a clear summary of the history of stocking and creating fisheries in three reservoirs on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. However, the problem statement does not provide an adequate quantitative description of the desired fish harvest, whether that harvest has been achieved, and the current status of environmental challenges and problems. For example, grass carp have been stocked to graze and reduce aquatic macrophytes and trapping programs are proposed for Lake Billy Shaw and Mountain View Reservoir to remove yellow perch and tui chubs. While some detail on these issues and solutions are summarized in the 2008/2009 annual report, a more complete presentation is needed in the proposal.

Objectives: A single objective is identified – Remediate loss of anadromous salmonids to the DVIR. The purpose is to provide and enhance subsistence fishing for Tribal members. Objectives are needed quantitative standards that can be evaluated by metrics. None are provided in the proposal. Monitoring needs to provide data to evaluate whether the objectives are being achieved.

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

Accomplishments: The accomplishments/results section is too brief. The proposal text identifies the trout stocking that has taken place, along with native vegetation work, and grass carp introduction. The concluding paragraph states that a comprehensive report will be completed in January 2012. The ISRP needs to have that report for a final evaluation of the proposal/program. The 2008/2009 annual report provides some information, but it needs to be addressed in the context of achieving the fishery goals. In the annual report stocking information is provided, but the table is not legible. Summary statistics and observations from the creel census are provided, but not interpreted. There is no identification of whether Tribal members have used fish from the program for subsistence harvest, and how this goal is reconciled with potential mercury contamination. In the annual report it appears that fish growth has only been modest. There was no presentation of limnological findings.

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

Project Relationships: No project relationships are identified. The sponsor should confirm that this project is or is not integrated and complementary to other Fish and Wildlife Program projects, BIA activities, or other programs.

Emerging limiting factors: Climate change, non-native species, and predation increases were identified as emerging limiting factors. The problem statement, accomplishments, and adaptive management identify these problems, but a structured approach to evaluating the scale of the threat to the put-and-take fishery is not developed.

Factors limiting the growth, survival, and "catchability" (water turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, etc.) of the stocked trout in each reservoir are not discussed in specific terms. This information is needed.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Sixteen deliverables are itemized under the single objective. A few are self-evident and require no additional justification, but most require additional information regarding need and alternate approaches considered:

Delv-7 is to collect field and lab data, but details are not specified. Delv-7 and Delv-8 need more development. The reservoirs are stocked with trout, and creel census, fall gill-netting, and limnological data are collected at various times. A description of how the data are analyzed is needed as is evidence that the precision and accuracy are adequate for making stocking decisions. A plan for evaluating post-stocking survival, growth, and lake-ecosystem function needs to be developed. Are the reservoirs too hot, oxygen depleted, too turbid, or what?

Delv-12 Highline Canal headcut stabilization – The proposed action is outlined to stabilize what is apparently a large headcut. While this might be a necessary action if turbidity is rendering Sheep Creek Reservoir unfishable, the problem and solution are not adequately described and the headcut was not seen on the field tour. Map, photos, and details need to be provided.

Delv-13 Quagga mussel – This is needed if it is clear that boats entering the reservation from contaminated waters have not already been inspected.

Delv-14 Mapping – This might be useful, but a $75K activity needs justification beyond saying that data are lacking.

Delv-15 Habitat enhancement – Several possible techniques are mentioned in a vague sense. More detail and explanation are needed.

Delv-16 Tissue sampling (mercury) – Why are Hg levels high and how high? If this was a problem why was sampling discontinued?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 4:36:00 PM.

Reviewers were pleased to note a proposal that is substantially improved by the inclusion of synthesized results, providing important evidence that the project is meeting its goals. About 188,000 trout are annually stocked in three impoundments and about 32,000 caught (4,000 killed, reflecting lots of catch and release). Relatively comprehensive, up-to-date data from creel census are presented, as they should be but seldom are for similar projects. Staff should be commended. Data from limnological surveys are also included. Such information yields a proposal that is of higher quality than in the past.

Sterile non-native rainbows are being stocked and that is commendable. Based on information in the proposal it appears that growth, especially of medium and larger fish, is slower than might be expected. Either the temperature-dissolved oxygen "crunch" is more severe than believed (the apparent poor survival of larger fish supports that), and/or forage for larger fish might be limited. If a forage base of prey fish does not currently exist, consideration might be given to developing one.

More specific performance goals should now be developed for each fishery (for fish growth, survival and harvest) so success/failure can be monitored and biological bottlenecks identified that may need management attention. The reliance on annual gillnet CPUE data will probably prove to be of limited value. Extra care is necessary because of their size selectivity. Trapnets might be useful.

Data are transferred to Streamnet.