In the response, the project sponsors only provided a brief discussion of the impacts of sedimentation on salmonid spawning habitat. The proposal remains incomplete, inadequate, and is thus "Not fundable."

ISRP comments (June 2006): This project includes five miles of road decommissioning and reconstruction, dam removal and other fairly dramatic actions without specifying where these actions will occur or what results are expected except to "reduce sediment." It appears some culverts would be evaluated and perhaps replaced and that vegetation will be planted and maintained, possibly with some fencing. There is the sense that these are all possible actions in a plan that has not yet been developed. The proposed budget seems inadequate for these types of activities. Only turbidity monitoring is presented in detail, but sometimes as a monitoring technique, other times as research. Details of time, location and measurable benefits are generally lacking. There is not enough detail to assess adequacy of the methods or design. Overall, it is unclear what would be done, and where or how it would benefit fish and wildlife.

The proposal is tied to the subbasin plan, Bull Trout Restoration plan and relevant state and Tribal plans. There are 2 section Bs in the proposal. The first deals with land use impacts, the second is a mini-proposal addressing sediment issues related to roads. Most proposed actions address the second, while many situations outlined in the first (e.g., non-native fish species) suggest that the impact of addressing only sediment issues would be minor. The proposal should include analysis of specific local problems and relate functionally to focal fish and wildlife.

The vitae of two program managers are provided, but their roles aren't described. Data will be used in reports, but no mention is made of larger databases. The proposal is not specific enough to be convincing that focal species will benefit, although that is the stated intent, especially for bull trout.