Local or MSRT Comments: No change from proposed.

The response addressed the issues raised by the ISRP in their preliminary review of this project. At issue remains the need to develop an acceptable biological monitoring effort in this project. The nature of the habitat rehabilitation is arguably difficult to adapt to a treatment and control approach and a fish response, given that this work deals primarily with road deactivation, culvert improvement, and some riparian work. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to selection of stream and tributary sections that might act as treatment and control areas.

The ISRP recognizes that some assistance may be required to establish this type of investigation, and this may not be an ideal area for such research. However, given that this area is also part of intensive supplementation studies, and that parr monitoring occurs within the related project 199107300, some attempt at development of a monitoring and assessment framework seems possible. Funding should be contingent on making this attempt. The response included some data on steelhead and Chinook redds, and juvenile densities, which served to indicate that with further analysis and comparison (e.g., estimates of parr density/spawner), a monitoring program is possible, and one that is much needed for the basin.

For full comments on "restore and protect" type projects, please see heading “General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to protect and restore various watersheds” at the beginning of the ISRP comments on project # 199607702, Protect & Restore Lolo Creek Watershed.

The objectives are well stated; however, the methods listed (Table 4) for achieving the objective of increasing habitat diversity and complexity do not appear to be adequate. The proposal contains comprehensive discussion and in-depth analysis of factors thought to be impacting fish; work is limited to sediment management through addressing roads, culverts, and exotic weeds. The narrative and response, however, need to better describe what constitutes habitat diversity and complexity (and reference scientific literature that supports statements about this), and then explain exactly how the increased diversity and complexity will be achieved.

The work elements describe standard details for road and culvert rehab. However, it is preferable to see replacement culverts identified as clearspan bridges (where floodplain is significant) or, at the least, bottomless culverts.

The proposal lists appropriate general monitoring and evaluation objectives, but the response needs to include revision that provides adequate design and method details.

Undefined acronyms, for example, CRPS, FCRPS, and CRLOLs, often make it difficult for reviewers.

Finally, in the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit?