Local or MSRT Comments: The MSRT adopted a principal that ISRP Not Fundable proposals were not going to be included in the budget balance exercise.

The ISRP preliminary review found weakness in the proposal because of apparent duplication of radio telemetry studies between this proposal and ongoing work in the mainstem Columbia River, and a lack of management purpose and linkage between the life-history investigations proposed and actions to protect or restore bull trout populations.

Sponsors clarify the relationship between the proposed radio telemetry and other investigations. They also identify how telemetry investigations and genetic assignment are needed to fully understand the inter-relationships of the fish from different subbasins and tributaries.

The response portion could have provided more convincing evidence of the management need for the data they are proposing to collect. However, when combined together with the additions to the narrative, a reasonable case is made for the need for this data to adequately protect bull trout. There is a continuing need to identify how this information can be used to develop management strategies to restore bull trout.

The genotyping to complete the population structure assessment of bull trout and hybridization dynamics is justified. However, given that bull trout move around so much, it is not clear what will be measured by evaluating allele frequency differences of fish from different streams. Many of them may reshuffle in another year or so, and the sponsors have not addressed that difficulty. For these same reasons using assignment tests may be meaningless under these biological conditions.

A more thorough justification is needed to conclude that the telemetry work is not adequately being covered by other projects in the basin. In view of previous work on this topic by these people, it is disappointing that they did not clearly frame the bull trout problems based on their ongoing work. Before funding would be considered, the results of the ongoing study should be clearly used, evaluated, and understood, and there is no indication yet that they are, either with reference to the basin or more broadly in bull trout conservation in the basin and beyond.

Chelan and Douglas PUDs are implementing radio telemetry within the mainstem Columbia River. The proposed work will extend that effort to the full basin. The technical background does not establish the necessity of this expanded work. How will this proposal lead to more complete assessments of bull trout, and reduce uncertainty in the management options facing the region?

Reiman and Allendorf (2001) is not in the citations; Manel et al. (2005) has an incomplete citation.

Deficiencies in the methods section include a lack of information on the number and location of samples needed to complete the genetic survey of population structure of bull trout. In the background section, a table of the locations that have been analyzed to date could be included, with a summary of the needed sampling to complete this effort in the Columbia River basin. More detail is needed on how each of the seven hypotheses will be evaluated. It is not clear what Hypothesis 5 means (Movements of bull trout depict how they are assigned using genetic assignment tests). If fish being tracked with telemetry go to reaches without arrays, how do you know it and incorporate that into the movement and survival estimates?

Completing the population structure analysis will benefit bull trout management. It is much less clear that the telemetry work will add to the broader understanding of life-history diversity in bull trout. At what point can migration and life-history variation studies in other subbasins be generalized and incorporated into the habitat, water quality, and water diversion standards needed to protect and restore bull trout?