< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200200300 - Secure & Restore Resident Fish Habitat

Sponsor: Salish & Kootenai Confederated Tribes

Budgets: FY07: $5,265,000 | FY08: $5,905,000 | FY09: $5,911,000

Short description: The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will jointly pursue the protection of fisheries habitat through land acquisitions and conservation easements to offset losses due to the construction of Hungry Horse Dam.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Capital

Recommended budgets: FY07: $5,265,000 | FY08: $5,905,000 | FY09: $5,911,000

Comment: Funding contingent on Council review of revised proposal, with improved selection criteria and objectives. Revised proposal due end of December, 06. Determine if expense element is needed.

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable

Comment:

The response is not adequate. The sponsors do not seem to understand the nature of a funding proposal. They are defensive about having to supply needed information for a technical evaluation of their project. Reviewers suggest that if their proposal is "substantiated by the science," as the authors say, then it is the obligation to outline that science, as they understand it. Apparently there have been no results from the 2002 funding. Their strategy of land acquisition for ecosystem protection is fine, but the proposal must go beyond that. The response gives statements about what they intend, but these are not given as measurable objectives. It is understandable that they do not want to show their hand on specific properties, but the objectives for a generic property can be given (in the context of the paper cited in the ISRP review, which was intended to be helpful for formulating a response). Development of criteria for selecting properties ought to have been the first objective for the 2002 funding, and given as results in this proposal. Ironically, many of the comments in the response, if presented in proposal format and not as a criticism of the ISRP and its reviewers, could have constituted several elements in a logical proposal and useful response. As the ISRP commented, this project has elements that make it a very worthwhile. The problem is that the sponsors have inadequately presented it and have shown no progress from the previous funding. These deficiencies give a technical reviewer no justification for recommending it. A defensive response criticizing the ISRP reviewers is not helpful. Sponsors of this proposal need to organize their approach and thoughts regarding this process and develop a sound, science-based proposal. Other issues include the lack of justification for acquiring properties based on limiting factors. They need to come with criteria for future acquisitions. What criteria did they use for the 2.36 km of credited property they have already purchased?

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable

Review group: Mtn Col

Recommended budgets: FY07: $5,265,000 | FY08: $5,905,000 | FY09: $5,911,000

Comment: Provincial Oversight Group (OG) expects this project to stay with a capital designation.