This comprehensive proposal clearly takes into account past ISRP advice. The proposal is clearly written and is very thorough, except for needing to complete the biological components. The proposal was a pleasure to review. The proposal contains clear multiple objectives to restore watershed functions and processes, matched to subbasin plan objectives with high priorities (tabulated), etc. Relationship to other projects is not given in as much detail as might be expected. There could be overlap among these several Clearwater projects. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, but how they all fit together should be better explained.)

Monitoring is factored into the objectives, except that the biological M&E is missing. A biologist is needed on the team. The project history is adequate for the short time project has existed (as a 2002 designation). However, it is stated in the facilities and equipment section that "This project has been on-going since 1996 with the cooperation of the Clearwater National Forest." If so, greater explanation of physical and biological results should appear in the history section.

For full ISRP comments on "protect and restore" 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.