1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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 •

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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