1 / 42

Aquatic Restoration Plan for Upper Clark Fork River Basin

This document outlines a comprehensive plan for aquatic restoration in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin, focusing on flow augmentation, fish passage improvement, habitat protection, and sediment reduction. It includes detailed goals, objectives, starting points, funding summaries, and specific actions for each watershed.

nbyler
Download Presentation

Aquatic Restoration Plan for Upper Clark Fork River Basin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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. 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

  3. 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

  4. Upper Clark Fork River Basin Aquatic Resources Restoration PlanUCFRB AC Meeting September 26, 2012

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Starting Point

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Aquatic Flow Cost

  12. Selected Alternative – Mainstems and 12 Priority Watersheds

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Table 3-2. Relationship of restoration plan components and limiting factors and encouraged activities for Browns Gulch

  17. Non Flow Aquatic Action Costs • Mainstem (Table 6-1)

  18. Non Flow Aquatic Action Costs • Priority Watersheds (Table 6-1)

  19. Upper Clark Fork River Basin Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Plan Natural Resource Damage Program Advisory Council Meeting September 26, 2012

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. Terrestrial Resource Priority Habitat Patches

  23. 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.

  24. Resulting Terrestrial Restoration Landscapes

  25. 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).

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Priority Acres by Landscape Area

  29. 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

  30. $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

  31. 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.

  32. Questions?

  33. 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

  34. Recreation Preferred Alternative • Table 6-1 • allocation split based on resource benefits

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

More Related