Local or MSRT Comments: There are several bull trout monitoring projects proposed here that provide good coverage of the basin. Other bull trout monitoring projects are proposed in the local subbasin processes. The MSRT would like to see a comprehensive picture of what bull tr

Local or MSRT Comments: There are two unresolved issues with the bull trout projects. First, the tie to the FCRPS Bull Trout BiOp and FCRPS responsibility. Second, coordination with USCOE bull trout projects would be expected and cost savings should be identified. The MSRT views this as an important project because it provides support to Proposal 200703300 by PIT tagging bull trout in Snake River reservoir tributaries. Three subbasins are included in this study. The USCOE currently provides funds to PIT tag bull trout in the Tucannon Subbasin; however, no funds are provided for efforts in the Grande Ronde nor Asotin subbasins. The MSRT recommends efforts associated with this project be focused on the Grande Ronde and Asotin subbasin. The MSRT recommends that the following tasks not be funded at this time: Bull trout movements in the Tucannon River – Funded by USCOE, Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation – Development of a bull trout monitoring plan should be completed through CSMEP and not individual projects (costs associated with developing the monitoring plan can be eliminated because this effort should be implemented through funds that WDFW receives to participate in CSMEP), and DNA analysis - deferred to a later data; however, tissue samples should be collected and archived.

MSRT General Comments: There are several bull trout monitoring projects proposed here that provide good coverage of the basin. Other bull trout monitoring projects are proposed in the local subbasin processes. The MSRT would like to see a comprehensive picture of what bull trout monitoring is being funded throughout the basin to insure there is a common strategy for monitoring bull trout (consistent with the MSRT desire to see a coordinated plan for monitoring salmon and steelhead). Basic monitoring and evaluation for bull trout is a Core Program activity, the additional research activities in some of the bull trout projects are a lesser priority.

The sponsors prepared a thorough response to the ISRP questions, which adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. The response provided a succinct summary of the past survey work by the sponsors, the anticipated sampling in the current proposal, and an improved perspective on bull trout in this fairly remote region of southeastern Washington. They have also clarified that they will not be conducting population estimates, but one-pass electrofishing, which seems acceptable.

In this proposed phase of their study, what they are gathering is the background data to prepare a plan for the species. The personnel identified for this phase of the study seem appropriate. For any future efforts, however, more expertise may be needed to fully deal with more complex ecological and genetic considerations.

A response is requested that provides a brief description of the currently understood population structure of bull trout, the location of the core populations in this region, more details on the sampling history in this region, a better summary of the sampling that needs to be completed from this area for the full initial status monitoring (species distribution) to be complete, a better rationalization why population size is needed - rather than just presence/absence and distribution, and that the sampling to be executed under this proposal will fill a reasonable portion of the outstanding tasks.

Some reporting of previous work is presented, but more could have been provided (specifically, a full listing of the previous sampling - Table 5 is only a sample). The results of the PIT tagging in the Tucannon need to be summarized (since this project will continue that work). The management implication of these previous efforts needs to be provided.

Objectives are mostly inventory; finding out what is where. It is do-able, but the implications of possible results should be more carefully articulated.

A more thorough listing of the miles (kms) of stream that are to be surveyed each year, and their location needs to be provided. The relationship of these areas to areas of "gaps" in the bull trout status review and recovery plans needs to be established. The need is there to continue the PIT tagging to monitor movement from the Tucannon to the Snake River. If the project is funded it most definitely should collect scales for aging and fin tissue for genetic analysis. Getting into the field to sample the fish is the challenge. Scales and fin tissue can be stored for long periods of time and analyzed as funds and the need for information arises.