Public Scoping Process • February 2012 Draft Process Plan • 80 Concept Proposals Submitted by Public • 6 screened out on eligibility • 15 State-generated (“G”)concept proposals • Intro to A/T Plans – how considered • Match to State’s Process Plan guidance - +++ • Appendix A indicates Sections where concept proposals addressed
2.4 Funding Summary and Appendix A • Groundwater Priority Accounts- $40.1 M • Aquatic Priority Account - $45.6 M • Terrestrial Priority Account - $19.9 M • Total Funding Covered in A/T Plans - $65.5 M • Aquatic Reserve Fund - $8.9 M • Terrestrial Reserve Fund - $3.5 M • Silver Bow Creek Remediation Remainder - TBD
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 Analysis of Alternatives • Federal Superfund Law & DOI NRD reg. • 2012 Process Plan – INJ & Priority 1 & 2 area • Approach Level Alternatives Analysis • No Action • Alternative 2 – INJ & Priority 1 • Alternative 3 – INJ & Priority 1 & 2 (Preferred) aquatic – 14 watersheds areas terrestrial – 9 priority landscape areas • 10 Criteria; Dominant: Cost:Benefit & Cost-effectiveness
Upper Clark Fork River Basin Aquatic Resources Restoration PlanUCFRB AC Meeting September 26, 2012
Goals • 1. Restore the mainstem trout fishery by improving recruitment of fish from tributaries; • 2. Replace lost trout angling in the mainstem by improving trout populations in tributaries; and • 3. Maintain or improve native trout populations in the UCFRB to preserve rare and diverse gene pools, and improve the diversity and resiliency of the trout fishery.
Objectives • Flow augmentation: water right purchase, lease, or irrigation system efficiency improvements; • Riparian habitat protection and/or Improvement: riparian fencing, grazing management, woody plant re-establishment, conservation easement, land purchase; • Fish passage improvement: culvert replacement, irrigation diversion improvements, fish screen construction on diversions; and • Sediment reduction/Bank stabilization: woody plant re-establishment, streambank/channel reconstruction, road improvements.
Aquatic Flow Action • Flow important part of UCFRB restoration • Flow Augmentation will: • Dilute metal in mainstems • Cool water temperatures • Improve fish passage, fish and aquatic habitat • Listed as the highest priority in 18 of 31 Priority Stream Areas • 24 Public Concepts for flow
Aquatic Flow Action • Funding 50% Aquatic Fund ~$20.5 million • 1st Group 1 : Augment flows to CFR between Galen & Deer Lodge and between Flint Creek & Rock Creek • 2nd Group 2: Augment flows in other Priority 1 or 2 areas that include injured areas • Group 3: Augment flow in Priority 2 areas outside of injured areas.
Aquatic Flow Action • Due Diligence Steps – flow quantity, protectable reach, DNRC change of use, valuation • Subsequent review/approval required – AC, TRC, Governor • No advance payments until Governor’s decision. • Programmatic Valuation, Monitoring / Oversight, Water Commissioner
Actions to be Implemented • Fish Passage Improvement: 9 of the 12 watersheds. Irrigation diversions, culverts, and bridges. Approximately $1.9 million. • Fish Entrainment Reduction: 9 of the 12 watersheds. Fish screen or alternative irrigation source. Approximately $4.2 million. • In-stream Habitat Improvement: 8 of the 12 watersheds. Streambank construction, channel construction, and /or channel function projects. Approximately $ 2.0 million. • Flow Quantities Improvements: Flow all watersheds. Flow Section 3.2.1. • Watershed Evaluations: 11 of 12 watersheds. Approximately $545,000. • Engineering and Design: 15% budget • Project Management Costs: 5% budget
Mainstem Actions • Remediation/Restoration dedicated funds • SBC: fish barrier • CFR: • Study and actions – Flint Cr. to Rock Cr • Milltown Monitoring • Various land easements/acquisitions (split) • Monitoring and Maintenance
Watershed Example: Browns Gulch • Actions specific to Browns Gulch in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3. • Water Quantity: Section 3.2.1. • Fish Passage: 9 of 14 diversions. Genetically pure westslope cutthroat implications., Diversions designed and reconstructed where appropriate. • Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement Implementation: Data collection performed to determine actions: installing riparian fencing, developing off-stream water sources, and developing grazing management strategies. • Channel Reconstruction/Bank Stabilization: Channel reconstruction implemented only after implementation of other actions, and evaluation • Fish Entrainment: All diversions potential fish entrainment. Evaluation performed. Screens designed and implemented if warranted.
Table 3-2. Relationship of restoration plan components and limiting factors and encouraged activities for Browns Gulch
Non Flow Aquatic Action Costs • Mainstem (Table 6-1)
Non Flow Aquatic Action Costs • Priority Watersheds (Table 6-1)
Upper Clark Fork River Basin Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Plan Natural Resource Damage Program Advisory Council Meeting September 26, 2012
Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration and Replacement Goals • Restore the injured terrestrial resources and associated ecological and recreational services… covered under the State’s natural resource damage lawsuit (Montana v. ARCO). • Replace injured terrestrial wildlife resources by protecting and enhancing grassland, shrub-steppe, riparian, wetland, and conifer forest habitats in the UCFRB that are similar to those injured. • Replace lost …wildlife-related outdoor recreational opportunities by enhancing wildlife habitat, and consequently, wildlife populations, and ensuring public access to these wildlife resources.
Elements of Terrestrial Restoration Projects: • A large conservation footprint is preferred. • Adjacent to public lands or conservation easements preferred vs projects surrounded by unprotected private land or highly developed land. • Address several targeted habitats. • Meet fisheries restoration goals. • Provide access for wildlife-related recreation without adverse impacts • Projects that cover small areas can be of high value if they provide connections between landscapes or enhance, or protect, key habitats.
Nine Terrestrial Landscape Areas • Clusters of Priority 1 & 2 areas were grouped based on geography and restoration opportunities. • Boundaries along major roads, highways, and creeks. • Incorporated information from the 2012 DraftNational Wetland Inventory for wetland/riparian habitats. • 2011 NAIP imagery (aerial photos) used to include some grasslands that were misclassified as agricultural fields, and exclude new developments. • Landscape boundaries were simplified, rather than convoluted to exclude all non-priority land uses.
Terrestrial Restoration Actions • Protection of high priority lands through perpetual conservation easements or public acquisitions. • Enhancement of riparian and wetland habitats to benefit wildlife by restoring habitat structure and functions. • Enhancement of grasslands and shrub-grasslands by improving habitat condition. • Enhancement of forests via prescriptions for wildlife benefit. • Management activities, beyond normal FWP management activities on WMAs. • Information gathering (for project planning, fill in data gaps).
Analysis of Priority Landscapes • Assessed each Priority Landscape, focusing on terrestrial resource values, habitat conditions, and habitat protection.. • Assessed concept proposals to determine which ones addressed terrestrial restoration goals. • Identified restoration gaps: what areas and activities should be added to further meet restoration needs, beyond those covered through the public scoping process. • Developed terrestrial actions and associated budgets for each Priority Landscape. • Assessed habitat protection and enhancement restoration needs for existing FWP Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) acquired with NRD funds • Developed a list of necessary monitoring activities and associated budgets, as provided for in the 2012 Process Plan.
Allocation of Funding Among Landscapes • Funding allocated by quantity of Priority 1 and 2 lands in each landscape area. • Priority 1 lands were given more value than Priority 2 lands. • Less funding allocated to Deer Lodge North, due to large amount of past funding (Spotted Dog). • Final allocations may vary as projects are considered.
Philipsburg West Priority Landscape • Landscape Description • Restoration Needs/Objectives • Proposed Actions • Protect high priority habitats through conservation easements or acquisitions.. • Enhance riparian areas for wildlife benefits. • Enhance native grasslands for wildlife benefit. Concept proposals • Riparian habitat protection/enhancement along Flint Creek (#8); • Placement of conservation easements in the John Long Mts (#49); • The improvement of wildlife winter range (#74). • Restoration Budget
$16 Million Allocated Among 9 Landscapes • Philipsburg West Landscape Area $3.2 million • Lower Flint Creek Landscape Area $1.4 million • Garnets Landscape Area $2.2 million • Avon North Landscape Area $1.4 million • Deer Lodge North Landscape Area $1.2 million • Deer Lodge South Landscape Area $1.4 million • Anaconda Area Landscape Area $1.0 million • East Flint Landscape Area $1.4 million • Clark Fork River Landscape Area $2.5 million
Habitat Enhancement and Monitoring • $2.36 million habitat enhancement and monitoring. • Enhancement and monitoring beyond normal FWP functions. • Habitat enhancement work on WMA lands acquired with NRD funding on 44,216 acres plus Mt Haggin • Monitoring includes compliance, habitat, wildlife, and contaminants. • Monitoring allows for better planning and implementation of projects, assuring better outcomes.
Recreation • 10% of Aquatic/Terrestrial Funds - $6.5 M • Key elements • By restoring resources, restore services • Must offer resource benefits • Preferred project types – prevent resource degradation; enhance existing recreational projects; & resource-protective fishing and hunting access • Injured Areas and Priority 1&2 resource areas • Highest priority to Injured Areas • Silver Bow Creek Greenway funded via grant & 2011 LRGP • Public and FWP Concept Proposals
Recreation Preferred Alternative • Table 6-1 • allocation split based on resource benefits
Total Costs Table 6-1 • Aquatic Flow $20.5 million • Aquatic Non Flow $15.8 million • Total Aquatic $40.9 million • Terrestrial $18.1 million • Recreation $6.5 million • Total Restoration Plan $65.5 million
6.0 Implementation • Project Development & Design • Negotiate SOW & Contract Agreements with partnering entities for concepts included in RPs • Project management capped at $25,000; bid out environmental/engineering tasks • Other partnering entities may be identified • Matching Funds to be pursued • Project Implementation/Construction – state procurement • Reimbursement Basis • All property and/or water right acquisitions require subsequent review and approval • Annual Report on development & implementation • Willing landowner a MUST; INCREMENTAL APPROACH
Next Steps • Sept. 27 Public Comment Period Begins • Oct. 12 TRC Mtg 9:00 am • Recommendation on final GW Plans $ draft BAO Plan • Briefing on Aquatic & Terrestrial Plans • Oct. 17 Advisory Council Mtg 1:00 pm • Further briefing on Aquatic and Terrestrial Plans • Oct. 17 Public Hearing in DL 6:00 pm • Oct. 26 Public Comment Ends
Next Steps, cont. • Nov. 14 Advisory Council Mtg • Recommendation on final Aquatic and Terrestrial Plans • Possible 2nd Mtg • Dec. 3 Trustee Restoration Council Mtg • Recommendation on final Aquatic and Terrestrial Plans & final BAO Plan • December 2012 Governor Decisions