Show new navigation
On
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal RESCAT-1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RESCAT-1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.


Archive Date Time Type From To By
9/15/2011 11:27 AM Status Draft <System>
Download 11/30/2011 10:00 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
2/16/2012 2:07 PM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
4/13/2012 4:33 PM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
2/26/2014 11:56 AM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Proposal Number:
  RESCAT-1995-013-00
Proposal Status:
Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
Proposal Version 1
Review:
Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Portfolio:
Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Categorical Review
Type:
Existing Project: 1995-013-00
Primary Contact:
Tod Sween
Created:
9/15/2011 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
Nez Perce Tribe

Project Title:
Nez Perce Trout Ponds
 
Proposal Short Description:
This mitigation project was initiated in 1995 for anadromous fisheries lost to the Nez Perce Tribe due to dam construction on the Clearwater River in north central Idaho. Three ponds are managed to provide harvest opportunities in small confined ponds (< 3 hectares) stocked with hatchery trout. The project goal of 4,750 kg of annual harvest is limited by insufficient carrying capacity in existing ponds due to eutrophication processes and the inadequate quantity of ponds (6-12 ponds planned).
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
This project began in 1995 as mitigation for lost anadromous fisheries due to construction of Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River which flows through the Nez Perce Reservation in north central Idaho. Three ponds are managed by the project to provide subsistence and recreational harvest opportunities for tribal members using trout fisheries in small, confined ponds (< 3 hectares) stocked with hatchery fish. The project goal of 4,750 kg of trout harvested annually is limited by insufficient carrying capacity and habitat volume due to eutrophication processes in existing ponds, as well as inadequate quantity of ponds (program originally called for 6-12 ponds). The project has completed restoration of two original ponds and construction of one new pond.

Purpose:
Harvest
Emphasis:
Harvest Augmentation
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:
None
Biological Opinions:
None

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
As described in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan Assessment, the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program substitutes resident fisheries in confined ponds as partial mitigation for loss of anadromous fisheries resulting from the construction of Dworshak Dam. Although this program does not operate a hatchery, nor propagate species or populations in a hatchery, it does use hatchery products to execute project objectives so within that context a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) was generated in 2001 for the program(Subbasin Inventory, Section 3.5), and addresses environmental risk assessment issues outlined in the Council's 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

  

The Nez Perce Resident Fish Substitution Program (“Trout Ponds Project”) partially mitigates for anadromous fisheries lost to the Nez Perce Tribe as a result of the construction and operation of Dworshak Dam, a component of the Federal Columbia River Power System, on the North Fork Clearwater River, constructed in 1972 on the Nez Perce Reservation.  By substituting resident fish of hatchery origin, the project implements the mitigation objectives of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) by increasing fish harvest opportunities for subsistence and recreational use.   The Tribe’s Department of Fisheries Resources Management Trout Ponds Project accomplishes this objective, which recognizes and respects the treaty-reserved harvest rights of the Nez Perce Tribe, by substituting resident species rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss and westslope cutthroat trout O. clarki lewisi, for anadromous species (chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and steelhead trout O. mykiss).  These resident fisheries are located on the Nez Perce Reservation in North Central Idaho in small, confined ponds (< 3 hectares) that use hatchery fish which minimize impacts on native species by “alleviating harvest pressure on the weak, naturally spawning populations” ( FWP). Early accomplishments include repair of the dams and renovations of two reservoir ponds that pre-date the project, to improve trout habitat at the two sites.  A third pond was designed and constructed by the project, using groundwater as the source, resulting in improved limnological conditions for trout.  The project goal is a sustained annual harvest of 4,750 kg.  The three existing ponds recently provided an estimated annual harvest of  3,571.4 kg , or 75.2% of that goal, (Sween T., 2010.  Annual Report), thereby demonstrating good use of limited funding and resources.       

This proposal seeks funding to continue the ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) phase of project work by continuation of rainbow trout stocking operations into and operation of confined pond fisheries, maintaining pond sites and access roads, conducting community outreach and education, and monitoring harvest, water quality parameters, and fish health in pond fisheries which includes associated data collection, analysis, and interpretation, as well as project management and administration, including quarterly progress and annual reporting.  In addition, it seeks additional funding for management of an additional  fourth existing pond, acquired by the Nez Perce Tribe in an earlier land acquisition.  Funding is also sought for maintenance of the sedimentation ponds at Talmaks Reservoir, and replacement of original equipment procured at project start up 16 years prior. 


What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Increase harvest by providing resident fishery mitigation harvest opportunities in put-and-take ponds. (OBJ-1)
Manage three put-and-take pond fisheries for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of hatchery origin in order to support a sustained annual harvest of 4,750 kg.

Determine carrying capacity of each pond environment in order to optimize trout harvest. (OBJ-2)
Monitor water quality conditions in each of three ponds in order to determine the maximum sustainable carrying capacity of hatchery rainbow trout (O. mykiss) for each fishery.

Education and outreach (OBJ-3)
Provide educational outreach opportunities for schools, groups, and communities to interact with and appreciate outdoor activities in natural settings and learn important biological lessons regarding ecological relationships, anthropomorphic influence on the environment, and the necessity of healthy ecosystems.

Develop new fisheries to increase harvest opportunities (OBJ-4)
Develop new pond fisheries to increase harvest and increase access to angling opportunities in underserved areas of the reservation.


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $217,316 $224,727

General $217,316 $224,727
FY2020 $217,316 $217,316 $207,175

General $217,316 $207,175
FY2021 $217,316 $219,316 $219,989

General $219,316 $219,989
FY2022 $217,316 $217,316 $195,515

General $217,316 $195,515
FY2023 $217,316 $217,316 $207,643

General $217,316 $207,643
FY2024 $226,878 $226,878 $218,889

General $226,878 $218,889
FY2025 $226,878 $226,878 $105,825

General $226,878 $105,825

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2024 (Draft)
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014 $6,500 3%
2013 $6,500 3%
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007 $0 0%

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
The differences between the Working Budget, Contracted Amount, and Expenditures is in large part explained by the timing of the project budget not corresponding to fiscal nor calendar year periods, but instead spanning across both time periods making coordination difficult.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
Field work at project inception in 1995-96 focused on renovation of two existing ponds, Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, built by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). In addition, the scope of project work focused on identification and development of 6-12 new pond fisheries, and extensive reconnaissance surveys were conducted to locate suitable sites. By 1997, nine sites were identified, and by 1998 efforts were concentrated at the High Falls/Deer Creek location, but excessive costs associated with development of this site, including a preliminary study by the US Army Corps of Engineers detailing access road construction at approaching $1,000,000 and a reservoir size of 40 acres quickly terminated further development. The project thereafter transitioned into an Operation and Maintenance(O&M)mode in 1999-2000 but was able to complete renovations and dam modifications at Mud Springs and Talmaks as well as initiate and complete construction of a third pond (Tunnel Pond) with remaining development funds. From this point the project remained at a flat line budgeting level until 2006 when a Within-Year Budget modification increased funding. Funding then remained flat line through 2008 when equipment replacement and pond treatment required another Within-Year modification. The funding returned to previous flat line levels through 2009, but in 2010 a 2.5% cost-of-living increase was included, through this current budget.

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):23
Completed:21
On time:21
Status Reports
Completed:99
On time:72
Avg Days Late:0

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
333 REL 40 6699, 22687, 27281, 32604, 36891, 41082, 46785, 52548, 56796, 61001, 64734, 68671, 72448, 75881, 74017 REL 27, 74017 REL 50, 74017 REL 69, 74017 REL 86, 74017 REL 102, 84044 REL 21, 84044 REL 49 1995-013-00 EXP NEZ PERCE TROUT PONDS Nez Perce Tribe 01/01/2000 04/30/2025 Issued 98 244 8 0 4 256 98.44% 0
84044 REL 61 1995-013-00 EXP NEZ PERCE TROUT PONDS Nez Perce Tribe 05/01/2025 04/30/2026 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 98 244 8 0 4 256 98.44% 0

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
27281 L: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/20/2006 6/20/2006
27281 M: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 6/30/2006 6/30/2006
27281 U: 132 Final FY 05 annual report 6/30/2006 6/30/2006
27281 J: 157 Total Ammonia-Nitrogen Data Collection at all three pond sites 12/12/2006 12/12/2006
27281 K: 162 Analysis of Total Ammonia-Nitrogen Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 1/31/2007 1/31/2007
27281 O: 162 Analysis of Phosphorus Data from Mud Springs Pond 2/10/2007 2/10/2007
27281 N: 157 Phosphorus Data Collection at Mud Springs 2/28/2007 2/28/2007
27281 B: 187 Operate and maintain Mud Springs pond on Tribal Unit 11 3/6/2007 3/6/2007
27281 G: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Tunnel Pond 3/9/2007 3/9/2007
27281 P: 157 Harvest Data Collection at Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 3/29/2007 3/29/2007
27281 C: 187 Operate and maintain Talmaks pond on Tribal Unit 14 3/30/2007 3/30/2007
27281 I: 162 Analysis of Water Quality Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/10/2007 4/10/2007
27281 D: 187 Operate and maintain Tunnel Pond along the Clearwater River on Tribal Unit 44 4/11/2007 4/11/2007
27281 E: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Mud Springs Reservoir 4/17/2007 4/17/2007
27281 H: 157 Water Quality Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, and at Tunnel Pond 4/19/2007 4/19/2007
27281 Q: 162 Analysis of Harvest Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/30/2007 4/30/2007
32604 L: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/25/2007 6/25/2007
32604 S: 132 FY 06 annual report uploaded to BPA website 6/29/2007 6/29/2007
27281 F: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Talmaks Reservoir 11/17/2007 11/17/2007
32604 G: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Tunnel Pond 3/11/2008 3/11/2008
32604 O: 162 Analysis of Phosphorus Data from Mud Springs Pond 4/5/2008 4/5/2008
32604 H: 157 Water Quality Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, and at Tunnel Pond 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 J: 157 Total Ammonia-Nitrogen Data Collection at all three pond sites 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 P: 157 Harvest Data Collection at Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 Q: 162 Analysis of Harvest Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 C: 187 Operate and maintain Talmaks pond on Tribal Unit 14 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 D: 187 Operate and maintain Tunnel Pond on the Clearwater River on Tribal Unit 44 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 E: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Mud Springs Reservoir 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
32604 F: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Talmaks Reservoir 5/1/2008 5/1/2008
32604 N: 157 Phosphorus Data Collection at Mud Springs 6/5/2008 6/5/2008
36891 L: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/5/2008 6/5/2008
36891 M: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 6/17/2008 6/17/2008
32604 K: 162 Analysis of Total Ammonia-Nitrogen Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 6/27/2008 6/27/2008
32604 M: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 7/7/2008 7/7/2008
32604 I: 162 Analysis of Water Quality Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 8/29/2008 8/29/2008
32604 B: 187 Operate and maintain Mud Springs pond on Tribal Unit 11 8/31/2008 8/31/2008
36891 S: 132 Final FY 07 annual report attached to this contract 9/30/2008 9/30/2008
36891 J: 157 Total Ammonia Toxicity Data Collection at all three pond sites 12/18/2008 12/18/2008
36891 K: 162 Analysis of Total Ammonia Toxicity Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 12/30/2008 12/30/2008
36891 G: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Tunnel Pond 3/18/2009 3/18/2009
36891 F: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Talmaks Reservoir 4/21/2009 4/21/2009
36891 I: 162 Analysis of Water Quality Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/28/2009 4/28/2009
36891 P: 157 Harvest Data Collection at Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 4/29/2009 4/29/2009
36891 H: 157 Water Quality Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, and at Tunnel Pond 4/29/2009 4/29/2009
36891 D: 187 Operate and maintain Tunnel Pond 4/29/2009 4/29/2009
36891 N: 157 Phosphorus Data Collection at Mud Springs 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
36891 O: 162 Analysis of Phosphorus Data from Mud Springs Reservoir 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
36891 Q: 162 Analysis of Harvest Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
36891 B: 187 Operate and maintain Mud Springs pond 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
36891 C: 187 Operate and maintain Talmaks pond 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
36891 E: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Mud Springs Reservoir 4/30/2009 4/30/2009
41082 L: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/30/2009 6/30/2009
41082 M: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 9/21/2009 9/21/2009
41082 S: 132 Final FY 08 annual report attached to this contract 9/30/2009 9/30/2009
41082 J: 157 Total Ammonia Toxicity Data Collection at all three pond sites 12/10/2009 12/10/2009
41082 K: 162 Analysis of Total Ammonia Toxicity Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 1/6/2010 1/6/2010
41082 G: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Tunnel Pond 3/9/2010 3/9/2010
41082 I: 162 Analysis of Water Quality Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 3/29/2010 3/29/2010
41082 H: 157 Water Quality Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, and at Tunnel Pond 3/30/2010 3/30/2010
41082 N: 157 Phosphorus Data Collection at Mud Springs 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 Q: 162 Analysis of Harvest Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 O: 162 Analysis of Phosphorus Data from Mud Springs Reservoir 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 B: 187 Operate and maintain Mud Springs Pond 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 C: 187 Operate and maintain Talmaks pond 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 D: 187 Operate and maintain Tunnel Pond 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 E: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Mud Springs Reservoir 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 F: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Talmaks Reservoir 3/31/2010 3/31/2010
41082 P: 157 Harvest Data Collection at Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 4/15/2010 4/15/2010
46785 L: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/8/2010 6/8/2010
46785 M: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 6/8/2010 6/8/2010
46785 T: 132 Final FY 09 annual report attached to this contract 9/30/2010 9/30/2010
46785 J: 157 Total Ammonia Toxicity Data Collection at all three pond sites 12/27/2010 12/27/2010
46785 K: 162 Analysis of Total Ammonia Toxicity Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 12/27/2010 12/27/2010
46785 G: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Tunnel Pond 3/9/2011 3/9/2011
46785 H: 157 Water Quality Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks Reservoirs, and at Tunnel Pond 4/27/2011 4/27/2011
46785 P: 157 Harvest Data Collection at Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 Q: 162 Analysis of Harvest Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 I: 162 Analysis of Water Quality Data from Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Ponds 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 B: 187 Operate and maintain Mud Springs Pond 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 C: 187 Operate and maintain Talmaks pond 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 D: 187 Operate and maintain Tunnel Pond 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 E: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Mud Springs Reservoir 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
46785 F: 60 Fish health monitoring/sampling at Talmaks Reservoir 4/28/2011 4/28/2011
52548 M: 157 Coliform Bacteria Data Collection at Mud Springs and Talmaks 6/8/2011 6/8/2011
52548 N: 162 Analysis of Coliform Bacteria Data from Mud Springs and Talmaks Ponds 6/9/2011 6/9/2011

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
This project has consistently completed work tasks and contract objectives on time, as reflected in completed contract deliverables tracked by the Pisces system. Manifold tasks are scheduled into a monthly planner that is altered according to weather conditions, allowing sufficient flexiblilty to complete weather-dependent tasks on a priority basis and thus all deliverables in a timely manner. Annual Progress Reports, in a non-technical, Statement of Work format, are completed and submitted on a timely basis. Status Reports in the Pisces system are updated and submitted on time.This has at times been challenging, since completion of many tasks is dependent on decent weather conditions and thus often have to be rescheduled and crowd the reporting deadlines. As discussed earlier, staff prioritizes outdoor field work to maximize opportunities for completion of these tasks and does office work during periods of inclement weather.

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

This project began in 1995 to develop and enhance harvest opportunities for tribal members to partially mitigate for lost anadromous fisheries as a result of hydroelectric dam development on the Nez Perce Indian Reservation with the construction of Dworshak Dam in 1972.  Early project work in 1996 and 1997 included renovation of the Talmaks Pond as well as reconnaissance of potential sites on the reservation for future fish pond construction and development.  Eleven sites were considered but feasibility analysis initially narrowed the number down to three sites, Cold Springs, Deer Creek, and Tunnel Pond.  During 1998 consideration of two sites was eliminated, Cold Springs due to ownership issues and Deer Creek due to scope of project concerns.  In 1999 construction of Tunnel Pond began with completion and opening to the general public in 2000.  Since then the Trout Ponds Project has been in an O&M mode due to project downsizing and reduction in scope of work.

During this O&M mode of operations the project has focus on the basic tasks of stocking fish in ponds, maintaining facilities at the pond sites, and monitoring water quality conditions, fish health, and harvest, as well as administration and other management duties.  One of the issues of primary concern during this phase of the project has been the continued degradation of water quality conditions at Mud Springs resulting in two fish kills (2007 and 2011).  Several treatments were applied, including trial barley straw applications in 2005-06.  The fish kill in 2007 required more decisive action, with an aluminum sulfate ("alum") treatment applied to the pond in May, 2008, which lowered the TP by one order of magnitude and clarified the water.  Unfortunately, the 7-10 year average duration for an alum treatment did not occur at Mud Springs, and within two years the water quality had reached eutrophic levels by the summer of 2010.  Additional treatments and managment options are currently being considered in order to address this problem.



The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-NPCC-20210317
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review
Approved Date: 10/27/2020
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Supported as reviewed. Bonneville and Manager review ISRP comments and implement to the extent possible.

[Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fw/reviews/2019RFS]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-ISRP-20210322
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review
Completed Date: None
Documentation Links:
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-1995-013-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2017. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications as part of contracting.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1995-013-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - identify the location and descriptive information about site characteristics
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.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Fundable in part, no expansion, maintain existing ponds as per past Council decisions and current ISRP review comments.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
In light of past ISRP reviews and comments, the project has proactively addressed management issues at the three pond fisheries, resulting in consistently good harvest levels with total 2010 harvest from all three ponds at 3,571.4 kg, or 75.2% of project goal of 4,750 kg. annual harvest. This was achieved with only three ponds out of the program mandate for 6-12 ponds. Tunnel Pond alone yielded 2,592.3 kg in 2010 which is over half (54.6%) the program goal, from the one pond that the project constructed. Mud Springs, with its eutrophic water quality problems, and Talmaks combined for a harvest of 979.1 kg, or only 21.0% of program harvest objective, but the Tunnel Pond fishery is of a more urban nature and received and estimated 3,581.9 hrs of fisher effort (67.9% of total angler effort), while the other two fisheries combined for 1,694.7 hrs, or just 32.1% of total use. Thus, the one fishery developed entirely by this project demonstrates the potential yield and impact that a properly constructed and managed fishery can have on a community.


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
The scope of project work was modified by removal of the construction component from the previous reviews. The project has therefore operated in an O&M mode maintaining the three pond fisheries. Subsequently,a new opportunity has arisen, since the tribe acquired land that has an existing pond (with approximately one acre surface area) with good water quality. The project therefore proposes adding this pond, with no construction costs, to the project and managing it to increase total harvest to near program goals.

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
00022687-1 Nez Perce Trout Ponds Progress (Annual) Report 05/2005 - 04/2006 22687 7/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
P102681 2006 NPT Resident Fish Substitution Program Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 05/2006 - 04/2007 32604 6/29/2007 7:46:58 PM
P105622 04 Progress Report Trout Ponds Progress (Annual) Report 07/2004 - 04/2005 22687 2/19/2008 12:02:01 PM
P108506 2007 NPT Resident Fish Substitution Program Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 05/2007 - 09/2008 36891 10/3/2008 1:27:36 AM
P113542 Resident Fish Substitution Program Annual Report FY 2008 Progress (Annual) Report 05/2008 - 04/2009 41082 9/30/2009 2:45:04 PM
P118212 NPT Resident Fish Substitution Program FY09 Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 05/2009 - 04/2010 46785 9/30/2010 3:37:03 PM
P123132 Resident Fish Substitution Program - Trout Ponds Project Progress (Annual) Report 05/2010 - 04/2011 52548 9/30/2011 2:57:47 PM
P128394 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program; 5/11 - 4/12 Progress (Annual) Report 05/2011 - 04/2012 56796 9/30/2012 11:23:02 AM
P132597 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program FY 2012 Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 05/2012 - 04/2013 61001 7/2/2013 9:59:30 PM
P138377 Resident Fish Substitution Program; 1/13 - 12/13 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2013 - 12/2013 64734 8/25/2014 8:54:10 AM
P142948 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program RM&E; 1/14/- 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 64734 4/2/2015 10:02:10 AM
P144259 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program; 1/14 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 68671 7/23/2015 11:09:17 AM
P147592 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program Annual Report, 01/15-12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 68671 2/22/2016 10:00:56 AM
P154197 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program 2016 Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 72448 4/6/2017 10:34:45 AM
P159734 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program; 1/17 - 12/17 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 75881 3/15/2018 4:15:01 PM
P167153 Nez Perce Trout Ponds Project; 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 74017 REL 27 8/27/2019 5:50:39 PM
P171653 Nez Perce Trout Ponds Project; 1/19 - 12/19 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 74017 REL 50 3/13/2020 1:23:22 PM

Other Project Documents on the Web

None


The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

NA


Primary Focal Species
Trout, Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Secondary Focal Species
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope (O. c. lewisi)
Trout, Interior Redband (O. mykiss gairdnerii)
Wildlife

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
Non-native invasive species are a major concern at project pond sites as all three are accessible to the general public (Mud Springs and Talmaks pond sites) and open to use by the general public (Tunnel Pond site) in addition to Tribal members.  Public access as a introduction vector has been problematic in the past.  Release of exotic species (intentional and unintentional) has been noted, with illegal use of live bait (goldfish, Carassius auratus auratus) as well as harvest of non-stocked species such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) as evidence of such activities.  A population of the non-native American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) is found at the Tunnel Pond site (predating project involvement there) raising concerns that it could serve as a source population for the surrounding area.  A non-native brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) population at Mud Springs Reservoir has problematic for anglers at that pond site.  Introduction of invasive plant species at all three pond sites has also been a concern.  

This project has been working with the NPT Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Wildlife Division in efforts to educate the public regarding exotic species and their impact on native species, as well as control/eradication efforts of bullfrogs.  Efforts to control nuisance bullhead populations have included draining Mud Springs Reservoir in 1998 and using rotenone chemical in an attempt at eradication but results were limited (bullhead population eventually rebounded).  Project staff work with NPT DNR Land Services Division on control efforts of invasive plant species at all three pond sites.

Work Classes
Program Name:  
Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Type:  
Segregated
Fish Species:  
Trout, Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?
In 2003, Cutthroat trout fingerlings obtained from the private hatchery Sweetwater Aquaculture were stocked in Mud Springs, Talmaks, and Tunnel Pond in an effort to use resident species in the mitigation harvest fisheries. Under intense angling pressure in the small pond fisheries, and due to thermal stress experienced with high water temperatures during summer months, these fish did not thrive and disappeared from the fishery. Only one specimen, in notably poor condition, was captured the following year at Tunnel Pond.
Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?
No
Describe how the project addresses the loss assessment. If a loss assessment is in progress or being proposed, describe the status and scope of that work.
This project completed an Hatchery Genetic Management Plan in 2001 as part of the Clearwater Subbasin Plan (2003) which addressed, in part, some aspects of a loss assessment. This project has a loss assessment (Recommended Environmental Risk Assessment For Evaluating the Use of Non-Native Fish in Resident Fish Substitution Projects, ISAB 2008-04) in progress. This assessment was initiated concurrent with the Resident Fish Categorical Review and includes a review of all work associated with the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program (Trout Ponds Project 1995-013-00).
If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?
No
Please describe: for the production of non-native fish, what are the potential impacts on native fish populations, including predation, competition, genetic impacts, and food web implications?
Due to the confined nature of project ponds and the use of primarily triploid stock, impacts on native fish populations is negligible.
Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?
No
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
Raw data and meta data will be captured, validated, and stored (securely) electronically. Raw data and meta data will be stored and backed up in the field and at office locations. The NPT Department of Fisheries Resources Management (DFRM) continues to develop a Data Management Plan for secure storage and efficient exchange of science-based information using Data Exchange Templates (DETs), Data Analysis Flow Diagrams (DAFDs), and meta data standards.
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
Access will be consistent with ready access needs indicated in the 2009 Program guidance, and will contribute to the FCRPS BiOp goal of establishing a coordinated and standardized RME information system. Data will be electronically accessible to stakeholders, ensuring that individual stakeholder data is captured with appropriate meta data. This process will be transparent and readily transferrable to other stakeholders. While raw data may have some restrictions, derived data will be available to the general public.
What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Project Implementation Monitoring
Status and Trend Monitoring
Project Compliance Monitoring
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Willow Creek (170603060102) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Big Creek-Clearwater River (170603060504) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1
Upper Lapwai Creek (170603061201) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 1

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Stock hatchery trout into each of three project ponds to sustain annual harvest goals (DELV-1)
Live fish are transported from each of three sources of hatchery trout to project ponds to stock fish over the course of an eight month field season, for a total of 9 or 10 trips total per year, transporting up to 4,750 kg. of trout.

Project staff members Tod Sween and Elmer Crow, Jr. are responsible for completion of this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
187. Put and Take Fisheries

Monitor water quality at each of three project ponds (DELV-2)
Monitor water quality parameters at each of three project ponds by using water quality instrumentation to measure depth, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, and pH at regular intervals in order to determine extent of suitable trout habitat. These sets of measurements are conducted twice per month from March through October, once in the first half of the month and once during the second half. From November through February one set of water quality parameters are measured while ponds are typically under a cover of ice.

In addition, periodic water quality sampling for additional parameters is conducted to further determine suitability of pond environments as trout habitat. Sampling includes testing for Total Phosphorus and toxic ammonia. Sampling for fecal coliform bacteria is to test pond water for secondary contact purposes.

Project lead Tod Sween is responsible for all monitoring of pond water quality.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
60. Maintain Fish Health
187. Put and Take Fisheries
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Monitor fish health (DELV-3)
Monitor fish health at all three ponds by periodically sampling trout in pond fisheries to determine fish growth, and relative health and condition. Samples of fish are seined at each pond, weighed and measured in order to determine their condition, as determined by the Relative Weight Index, Wr (Wege and Anderson, 1978).

Project Lead Tod Sween is responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
60. Maintain Fish Health
187. Put and Take Fisheries
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Maintain pond sites (DELV-4)
Perform routine maintenance tasks at three pond sites including access road repair, exclusionary fencing inspection and repair, dam and spillway inspection, and terrestrial and aquatic vegetation control.

Project Lead Tod Sween is responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
60. Maintain Fish Health
187. Put and Take Fisheries

Monitor harvest (DELV-5)
Monitor harvest and regulation compliance at project pond fisheries. Total harvest, harvest rates, and angler effort are estimated based on analysis of data collected during harvest surveys.

Project Lead Tod Sween is responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
187. Put and Take Fisheries
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Outreach and Education (DELV-6)
Project staff will conduct presentations, classes, and and seminars conducted both on-site at the ponds or in classroom settings. The purpose of this deliverable is to educate the public at all levels, from elementary schoolchildren to adults, in order to increase awareness of fisheries and other natural resources, their management, and anthropogenic impacts upon natural resources and the environment. Students and other attendees will be engaged and encouraged to participate through interactive media, story teaching and other traditional Native American methods. The desired outcome is for the audience to reconnect with their natural surroundings (as opposed to becoming increasingly isolated and detached in an electronic "virtual" world) and realize the impact that their lifestyle choices have upon the environment and natural resources.

Staff member Elmer Crow, Jr. and Project Lead Tod Sween will be responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
187. Put and Take Fisheries

Provide annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data (DELV-7)
Provide timely exchange of science-based information in accepted performance measures to centralized and standardized data base.

Project Lead Tod Sween is responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
60. Maintain Fish Health
187. Put and Take Fisheries
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Develop new pond fishery (DELV-8)
Develop new fishery at existing pond on NPT land aquisition (Budd Herr property). Pond site will be surveyed and a management plan developed in order to bring this fishery under project management. Site improvements will be completed including access road upgrades, vegetation removal and control, pond drain repairs, and repair of floating dock and picnic tables.

Project staff member Elmer Crow, Jr. and Project Lead Tod Sween are jointly responsible for this deliverable.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Hatchery
60. Maintain Fish Health
187. Put and Take Fisheries
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data


Objective: Increase harvest by providing resident fishery mitigation harvest opportunities in put-and-take ponds. (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Stock hatchery trout into each of three project ponds to sustain annual harvest goals (DELV-1) The stocking of hatchery trout into project ponds at targeted levels provides opportunities for sustained yields of resident fish that partially mitigates for lost anadromous fisheries.

Monitor water quality at each of three project ponds (DELV-2) Monitoring water quality at project ponds allows project to determine appropriate fish densities at each site and adjust stocking schedules, and lessen densities in some cases by seining and transferring trout to other ponds with better habitat conditions.

Monitor fish health (DELV-3) Monitoring fish health assists project staff in determining state of pond environment as trout habitat and assists in management of stocking densities, thereby maximizing harvest and fish quality.

Maintain pond sites (DELV-4) Pond sites are in relatively remote locations and regular maintenance is necessary to allow access to tribal members and angling to maximize harvest opportunities. Where and when possible, upgrades are conducted, especially to access roads which tend to degrade rapidly under heavy precipitation conditions associated with spring and fall storms. In addition, such storms result in periodic tree windfall which necessitate removal. Routine maintenance tasks that ease angler access and encourage site use include vegetation management (mowing grass areas, pruning limbs), trash collection and removal, facilities upkeep (picnic table painting and repair, updating signs on bulletin boards), providing sanitation services, inspection and repair of exclusionary fencing to deter livestock entry and damage, and in one case (Tunnel Pond near Orofino) controlling public access (to daylight hours only) via gated entry to limit vandalism.

Monitor harvest (DELV-5) Monitoring the harvest at each pond allows for better management of each fishery through optimization of stocking schedule to more closely mirror angler effort and harvest by maintaining high trout densities and harvest rate as habitat conditions permit.

Outreach and Education (DELV-6) Outreach and education serve to increase public awareness of harvest opportunities and encourage usage through interpretive interactions with the general public, that occur both on-site with visitors and in more formal classroom settings and presentations.

Provide annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data (DELV-7) Water quality data collection and analysis is integral to project management for optimal harvest strategies.

Develop new pond fishery (DELV-8) Development of existing pond on Tribal land into an additional trout fishery will serve to increase harvest opportunities for tribal members and increase total harvest towards program goal of 4,750 kg annually. Reconnaissance for possible ponds sites in the southern and eastern sections of the Nez Perce Tribe Reservation will serve to identify potential areas for development of new fisheries in the future that would be more proximal to remote populations of tribal members.


Objective: Determine carrying capacity of each pond environment in order to optimize trout harvest. (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Monitor water quality at each of three project ponds (DELV-2) This deliverable is the primary means of determining the carrying capacity of each pond in order to maintain optimal trout densities that result in high harvest rates and maximum harvest levels.

Monitor fish health (DELV-3) Determination of relative fish health through seine sampling and comparison against the Relative Weight Index value Wr results in the best indicator of the condition of trout habitat in each pond. Better management actions are the result of insight gained into habitat condition trends in each pond allowing project staff to transfer fish biomass from ponds with deteriorating habitat conditions to ponds with relatively better, more stable habitat.

Monitor harvest (DELV-5) Harvest monitoring results assists in monitoring pond carrying capacity by giving early indications of deteriorating trout habitat conditions when fish feeding activity decreases, or when abnormal fish activity at the surface is noted.

Provide annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data (DELV-7) Data collection and analysis is an integral part of monitoring pond environments and determining carrying capacity of trout habitat.


Objective: Education and outreach (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Maintain pond sites (DELV-4) Maintenance activities at pond sites provides frequent informal education and outreach opportunities for project staff with the angling public and visitors to pond sites. Routinely scheduled tasks place staff in situations where they are accessible to visitors for interpretive discussions regarding pond operations and natural resource management.

Monitor harvest (DELV-5) Monitoring harvest through conducting angler surveys at pond sites provides frequent opportunities for informal education and outreach for project staff with the angling public and visitors to pond sites. Regularly scheduled surveys place staff in situations where they are accessible to anglers and visitors for interpretive discussions regarding pond operations and natural resource management.

Outreach and Education (DELV-6) Scheduled presentations in classroom settings as well as outdoor workshops and seminars provide an opportunity to educate students about natural resource managment issues and increase public awareness of the importance personal responsiblity and involvement.


Objective: Develop new fisheries to increase harvest opportunities (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*

Develop new pond fishery (DELV-8) Development of an existing pond into a project fishery would increase harvest opportunities, augment existing fisheries, and may increase overall harvest to program goal levels. The Budd Herr pond site will contribute to seasonally improved (summer) trout habitat due to its design, physical characteristics, and its watershed location.


*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Stock hatchery trout into each of three project ponds to sustain annual harvest goals (DELV-1) 2013 2017 $120,000
Monitor water quality at each of three project ponds (DELV-2) 2013 2017 $250,000
Monitor fish health (DELV-3) 2013 2017 $75,000
Maintain pond sites (DELV-4) 2013 2017 $283,147
Monitor harvest (DELV-5) 2013 2017 $250,000
Outreach and Education (DELV-6) 2013 2017 $50,000
Provide annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data (DELV-7) 2013 2017 $50,000
Develop new pond fishery (DELV-8) 2013 2017 $100,000
Total $1,178,147
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2012
2013 $218,950 Requested budget is $5,000 greater due to necessary equipment replacement (seine net and dip nets)
2014 $230,313
2015 $239,600
2016 $241,532
2017 $247,752
Total $0 $1,178,147
Item Notes FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Personnel $153,000 $161,500 $165,500 $169,500 $174,000
Travel $2,000 $2,050 $2,100 $2,150 $2,200
Prof. Meetings & Training $150 $1,025 $1,050 $1,075 $1,100
Vehicles $13,500 $13,838 $14,184 $14,539 $14,902
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000
Rent/Utilities $100 $100 $100 $100 $100
Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Overhead/Indirect $39,500 $40,950 $40,666 $43,018 $44,150
Other $5,700 $5,850 $6,000 $6,150 $6,300
PIT Tags $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $218,950 $230,313 $239,600 $241,532 $247,752
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
This project operates with an office at the main NPT Fisheries Department headquarters in Lapwai and an office at the Fisheries field office in Orofino. Each FTE (2) has a computer with high-speed internet access. Two GSA lease vehicles (full sized pickups) are utilized in project tasks, along with a 12 ft. aluminum boat (with two gas outboard motors and one electric motor) and trailer, two ATVs and trailer, two snowmobiles and trailer, with three small tool sheds in Lapwai (Sweetwater compound) to store equipment. Project technical instrumentation includes a Hach Hydrolab with minisonde for monitoring water quality, and an OxyGuard Handy Polaris dissolved oxygen meter and two oxygen flow meters for fish transport use. Field equipment includes a 200 ft. seine and assorted dip nets, a chainsaw, two water pumps, two push lawn mowers, and assorted weed trimmers, hand tools and lawncare equipment to maintain pond sites. It should be noted that this project has been operating for 16 years and much of its equipment is original from project inception and approaching the end of service life and due for replacement. Water quality instrumentation, computer upgrades, the seine net, and an electrical winch for one pickup will require replacment over the next five years, as reflected in the Facilities/Equipment line item expense in the budget above.

Ecovista. 2003. Draft Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan. NPT Lapwai, ID 163 pgs. ISAB 2008-04. Council Document for Risk Assessment Process. Sween, T. 2010. Annual Report Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program, Trout Ponds Project

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-013-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 1995-013-00 - Nez Perce Trout Ponds
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-1995-013-00
Completed Date: 4/13/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - identify the location and descriptive information about site characteristics
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.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: