The revised narrative and response to the ISRP questions from the preliminary project review are insufficient to form the basis for the ISRP to find that this proposal has sufficiently defined objectives (biological or physical habitat) that are to be accomplished within a specified period and are measurable for assessment and evaluation. There is insufficient information provided for the ISRP to find that continuing to implement this proposal is likely to benefit the focal species.

Past surveys and environmental and watershed assessments are cited as justification for this creek to support steelhead and reintroduced coho salmon. However, there is little quantitative support for the very general statements made. For example, reporting that Fuller et al. (1986) determined that the Big Canyon Creek was one the top steelhead producing streams on the Nez Perce reservation and that Kucera et al. (1983) concluded that of the 23 streams surveyed in the lower Clearwater, Little Canyon and Big Canyon creeks had the highest and 4th highest densities of over yearling steelhead respectively does not inform us of the actual status of the populations, only their status relative to other presumably degraded environments. Further, it tells little about the restoration potential.

It is very likely that installing agricultural Best Management Practices throughout the watershed would improve a number of water quality challenges facing the creek and Clearwater subbasin. The proposal, however, is insufficient for the ISRP to determine whether the actions proposed will actually benefit the focal species. On this basis, the proposal is Not Fundable.