< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200702400 - Coeur d'Alene Trout Ponds

Sponsor: Coeur D'Alene Tribe

Budgets: FY07: $201,345 | FY08: $236,007 | FY09: $220,998

Short description: Tribal trout ponds provide alternative fishing opportunities for tribal harvest while reducing/eliminating adverse pressure on native stocks within targeted tributaries on the CDA Reservation in both the CD'A and Spokane subbasins.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: Tier 2. 7th priority on Intermountain Province Tier 2 list. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments as funding becomes available.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part


This proposal is for continuation of trout stocking for a put-and-take fishery in three existing ponds, for building and operating two new ponds for expanding the same function, and to conduct a “feasibility” study for a central holding/transfer facility for rainbow trout. The ponds are stocked annually with trout purchased from hatcheries. Expanded subsistence harvest is needed to partially mitigate for loss of anadromous fish and to make up for tightened restrictions on trout fishing in natural waters of the area. 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.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable when money available

Review group: Intermountain

Recommended budgets: FY07: $201,345 | FY08: $236,007 | FY09: $220,998

Comment: No change to proposed budget.