Silver Bow Creek Watershed Restoration Plan Overview of the Silver Bow Creek Watershed Restoration Plan: why, what, how & lessons learned of developing this plan a good starting part for this session on the Upper Clark Fork since it is the headwaters subwatershed Team effort of NRDP and our consultants, Confluence Consulting and DTM Consulting with a lot of input from interested public & land resource managers

Injured Natural Resources Water, Fish, and Wildlife Resources Discuss injured resources covered in lawsuit groundwater, aquatic and terrestrial resources water, fish, vegetation, wildlife

Lost Drinking Water Services Lost Recreational Services Fishing Hunting Hiking Floating Wildlife Watching Lawsuit also sought damages for lost public use and enjoyment of those resources Lost Drinking water services tied to injuries to GW such as Berkley Pit Lost Recreational opportunities tied to aquatic and terrestrial injuries

Background Chapter 1 This lawsuit was partially settled in 1999. ARCO paid the State approximately $130 million for restoration of injured resources. State developed Restoration Plan Procedures and Criteria (RPPC) in 1999. State initiated restoration grants program in 2000. To date, Governor has approved 43 projects for $30 million. Public Impetus for watershed-scale planning to guide restoration State initiated Silver Bow Creek watershed planning effort in 2002 RPPC – legal and policy framework on how $$ be spent; only spending interest until done with litigation – $$$ to improve the natural resources covered under the lawsuit (water, fish, vegetation, wildlife resources) or the public’s use and enjoyment of those resources. Public comment seek to develop a vision based, watershed-scale restoration plan– a blue print for restoration and guide for funding SBC chosen as pilot effort for entire Basin plan Appropriate choice given that it is the headwaters of the UCFRB Chapter 1

Goals Develop a watershed scale planning tool for identifying and prioritizing restoration needs in the Silver Bow Creek watershed Provide guidance for grant applicants, and Assist with evaluation of grant proposals Goals of the plan. Resources considered surface water resources, soil, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources and recreational services Points applicants to areas deemed important by the process Not focused on groundwater, but did look at drinking water provided by surface water supplies Chapter 1

474 square miles 8 planning areas Planning areas represent sub-watersheds (with exception of SBC Corridor). SBC – Unique activities/needs tied to mining contamination and Superfund remediation and NRD 7 other areas – tributary subwatersheds – identify them 474 square miles 8 planning areas

Watershed Conditions and Restoration Needs Watershed scale characterization: Climate hydrology, geology, etc. Planning Parameters for 8 areas: Water Quality Water Quantity Fisheries Vegetation Wildlife Recreation Public Input Sources of Environmental Impairment Restoration Needs Data Gaps Chapter 6 Major Data Collection, Compilation, and Analysis Effort Chapter 6 – entire watershed Chapter 7 – The very meat of the document where we summarized all available information on indicated resources; largest in the document. Chapter 7

Public Participation Focus Groups Chapters 4, 5 & 7 Local Government and Economic Development Landowners and Conservation Districts Recreation (hunters, anglers, trail users) Conservation Groups Agency Resource Managers 11 focus group meetings with 25 different interests – even down to interviewing individuals. Met periodically at critical phases with an Ad-Hoc committtee that had representation of these interests Chapters 4, 5 & 7

Restoration Needs Instream Flow Stream Restoration Revegetation Examples of the types of restoration needs identified for each of the 8 planning areas through data compilation and analysis and public input Needs do not equate to projects e.g. need to protect WCT in German Gulch – various projects to address the need (e.g. fish barrier, elimination of non-natives – that’s the project level Revegetation Land Acquisition/Recreation

Prioritization Process Developed consensus vision statement and goals associated with them derived restoration strategy categories from general watershed restoration strategies adjusted for specifics of SBC watershed and vision statement Ranked categories in terms of relative importance in SBC watershed

Prioritization Process Categorized all the restoration needs according to these categories Develop a B:C matrix and definitions & numerical ranking process and applied to needs

Prioritization of Restoration Needs Primary Prioritization Benefits to the entire watershed (x 2) Benefits to the local area (planning area) Numeric Rankings (Based on definitions) Very High 4 High 3 Moderate 2 Low 1 Costs – reverse order Simple numerical system tied to best B:C relationship Judge benefits to watershed scale, planning area –definitions of high, very high, moderate, low for each restoration category Best Professional Judgment used watershed – scale benefits given greater weight, e.g., tributary fishery enhancement that also improves SBC fishery – a greater priority than one that only improves local fishery. Estimate costs – reverse order (<$250,000 (4); $250,000-$500,000 (3); $500,000-$1,000,000 (2) ; $1,000,000 (1) Chapters 4 and 8

Prioritization of Restoration Needs 2nd Prioritization Based on: Restoration Categories Preserve/Protect Existing Resources 5 Mitigate Pollution 5 Improve Water Quantity (instream flow) 4 Fisheries Restoration 3 Vegetation / Wildlife Restoration 2 Recreation 1 3rd Prioritization Based on: Mining Pollution Mitigation (1 extra point) The tie breakers – watershed concepts plus vision statement 2nd prioritization based on categories 3rd prioritization based on mining impacts Chapters 4 and 8

Prioritization of Restoration Needs 11 Very High 15 High 19 Moderate 11 Low 5 Deferred Needs Regardless of Funding Relative priorities established on B/C relationships Guide to applicants as to where the best restoration opportunities are in the watershed from a watershed-scale perspective Not specific to funding source – general watershed scale priorities EMPHASIZE Chapter 8

Very High • High Moderate • #15 Enhance fish habitat in SBC mainstem #1 Protect Basin Creek water quality #15 Enhance fish habitat in SBC mainstem #35 Improve fisheries habitat in lower Browns Gulch Moderate •

Proposal Development UCFRB Restoration Plan Procedures & Criteria (RPPC) Ecosystem Considerations Watershed Restoration Plan consistency Ranking # Funding Recommendations Flexibility Built In Favor projects that are consistent with this Plan Evaluate that through ecosystem criteria. Inconsistency does not translate to rejection – somebody can offer compelling reasons why it’s worth funding Our process is flexible, not too prescriptive on specific projects to be funded -Resource conditions change Knowledge increases Regulatory status changes - An imprecise process with deficiencies Document is not an absolute – one of the tools in the toolbox No funding predeterminations (e.g. #1 need project may not be funded) Chapter 9

Major Input Received Injured resources priority not diminished No bias against projects outside watershed General agreement-content, approach, priorities Elevate rank of native species needs More emphasis on Butte Hill & active mine area Debate on effect of Plan on funding decisions 2 months of input on Pre-Draft 60 public comment period on draft Limited comment (5) – due to extensive public involvement or lack of interest? Developing Response to Comments

Lessons Learned Keep it simple General steps Overall vision Goals and objectives tied to vision Goals and objectives prioritization Public input Limiting factors analysis Scientific opinion Best professional judgment needed Programmatic limitations Technical Advisory Committee Food for thought for other sessions KISS GIS-spatial based model too complex for available data & incorporating public input; better to use information available through public input & existing scientific data Could not go to the specific project level Vision process & developing watershed specific restoration strategies very worthwhile strengthen if done together Technical Advisory Committee – agency personnel & public – on the B:C categorization & prioritization steps more robust & defensible

Lessons Learned, cont. Public involvement critical Data compilation/analysis valuable Data transfer critical Critical link to RPPC Flexibility needed $200,000 or greater budget Periodic review/update needed Public input – our process greatly benefited from the local knowledge provided; improve with review of interim products and review closer to when input gathered Data complication a major accomplishment; will help with the TMDL; But it’s outdated soon thereafter Budget: double what we anticipated - SBC complex issues (superfund issues, urban area, myriad of impairments, multiple pollution sources) that a lot of other watersheds don’t have; - with lessons learned, save 15 to 25% and complete in shorter timeframe

Lessons Learned, cont. ….TO BE DETERMINED Whether it’s worthwhile tied to whether and how its used. Assess with time. Already used to support some projects submitted this year. Still need to brainstorming amongst staff & with our Advisory Council on what we would do differently if we were to attempt comprehensive planning effort to the whole basin after litigation completed. ….TO BE DETERMINED