The proposal does not fully complete all of the required elements. There are no clear focal species, the assessment used to select the sites for upgrading culverts to bridges, or altering culverts is not explained. There is no monitoring. There are no objectives for benefits to fish.

There is confusion within the proposal regarding location. The cover material says Clearwater subbasin while the Introduction says Palouse River. No area map is provided to designate general location. There is no discussion of fish status in the streams where the culverts will be improved. There is a note that fish are present both above and below a culvert and that the culverts do not meet current standards. This leaves open the question of whether the culvert is actually impassible or just not at current standards. The fish species is not identified, so it is not clear whether or not they were the focal species. The status of the focal species in the streams is not provided.

The technical and scientific background is insufficient to evaluate the scope of the problem and the applicability of the proposed solution. Specific detail is required on the presence of fish, the suitability and quality of the habitat that would be opened by removing barriers, and the importance of this particular stream system to restoration of bull trout and rainbow (native redband or introduced hatchery?) trout.

There is inadequate rationale and significance to the subbasin plan and regional programs. The focal species for this project needs to correspond to those identified in the subbasin plan, and the link to resident fish restoration in the Clearwater subbasin plan and/or recovery documents for bull trout or redband rainbow trout needs to be established.

The objectives for the specific tasks are identified, but the larger purpose (biological objective) is not identified. How this project will benefit trout is not clear.