Numerous items need clarification in a response. Are these culverts actually a barrier for fish passage? How did they select the culverts they plan to work on? What is the value of the habitat they are opening up? Further it should be clarified how many miles of upstream habitat will be accessed. The proposal says 7 in one place and 16 in another. This is basically the same as proposals 200736300 and 200737300, even in that access to 7 miles of stream will be enabled. Does the latter mean that each of the project will provide that much access or that the three projects will in total?

A logical case is made to replace these culverts with bridges, but these are two of probably many in the subbasin, so it is unclear why these are the highest priority. Fish (no species indicated) have been observed below the culverts, but no mention is made of occupation of upstream habitat. What is the evidence fish are not passing now, except that culverts do not meet specs? Fish frequently do pass sub-standard structures. The subbasin plan identified fish passage problems such as those that apparently exist here. The Idaho Forest Practices Act and Snake River Basin Adjudication agreement are also cited as justification. This is a stand-alone project. However, the Kootenai Tribe, USFS and others are likely active within this watershed. Perhaps stand-alone means this is not related to any other IDL projects, but it would be useful to know if this project is related to actions on other lands within these stream systems. Collaboration with the county and USFS are listed; the nature of that collaboration is not described, but should be.

No monitoring is described for fish passage, use of habitat, or sediment production. Provision for basic M&E, probably by others, should be described in the response.