Information on the distribution and status of bull and brook trout populations in these subbasins would be very valuable. However, this proposal is very brief and unconvincing; therefore, the ISRP does not recommend funding at this time. The proposal cannot be evaluated unless much more detail is included on the project design and methods. Where will the surveys be conducted and why? How will data on fish populations be collected? How will habitat conditions be assessed? How will data on water quality be collected and analyzed?

Technical and scientific background: The nature of the problem is briefly described. More specific information related to five potential projects listed in the proposal should have been presented to indicate why these had been identified as priority actions.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The relationship of this project to the subbasin plans is briefly described. The lack of data on the distribution and status of bull trout populations hindered the identification and prioritization of projects for bull trout in these plans. Presumably, the survey effort proposed here would provide some of this information.

Relationships to other projects: The relationship of this effort to the Draft Columbia Basin Research Plan is provided but there is very little discussion about the relationship of this project to other BPA, state, or federal efforts to address bull trout. Some discussion of the state and federal efforts, in particular, should be included to place this project in context.

Objectives: The need for better information on the status of headwater bull trout and brook trout populations is clearly a key information gap in these subbasins. Collecting this type of information is a reasonable objective. The inclusion in the proposal of potential projects seems premature. A more logical approach for this effort would be to focus only on collection of the appropriate data to enable prioritization of projects in the future.

It does not appear as though funding for the proposed projects is included in the budget proposal. Other than chemicals for fish eradication, no supplies or equipment that would be used for the possible projects appears in the budget.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: This section is a list of tasks. There is no discussion of methods in the proposal. The type of data to be collected for the status assessment is listed in the objectives but no indication of how these data are to be collected or analyzed is provided. Similarly, there is only very general information provided about the methods to be used in implementing the potential restoration projects.

Monitoring and evaluation: The determination of current status of the fish and habitat is basically an evaluation effort. However, as noted above, very little detail as to how this task will be accomplished is provided. For the potential projects, the proposal simply states that the response to project implementation would be monitored. No specifics are given as to what would be measured or how.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This cannot be fully determined without a more complete description of the methods to be used. Based on the limited information in the proposal, the equipment available and the skills of the personnel appear adequate.

Information transfer: Information transfer is not addressed.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Collecting the information on fish and habitat status would be of value to the focal species. But given the inadequate description of methods, it is impossible to judge the potential for the project to generate useful information. The use of chemical treatment to remove brook trout would have a detrimental impact on co-occurring native species. Collection of the status information should have minor impact.