Montana 319 NPS Funding Trends

1. Water Activities Work Group June 24, 2009 Helena, MT Montana 319 NPS Funding Trends • Program Evolution: TMDLs to Projects to • Integrated Watershed Restoration • Category Trends from 2002 to 2009 • Project Trends • Closing Questions and Thoughts Watershed Protection Section

2. Influences on Montana’s 319 Program • 1997 TMDL Law and 2001 TMDL Court Order – ‘complete all Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) by year 2007’ pushed early and rapid TMDL activity emphasis • Presently moving to emphasize on-the-ground projects within an overall decline in 319 funding • Based on leadership by local watershed groups with capacity and interest in restoration as guided by a TMDL (or other approved water quality) restoration strategy • Emphasis on implementing “Watershed Restoration Plans” – local integrated watershed “road maps” using identified funding sources, activities, priorities, and timelines (coordinating multi-faceted WRP’s)

3. Trends in Overall 319 Funding • Total Montana 319 funding from EPA has notably declined, from ~ $1.95 million in 2002/3 to $1.20 million presently.

4. TMDL Planning 319 Trends • Funds for TMDL plans have greatly decreased, from ~$1.15 million to $ .33 million annually

5. Watershed Restoration 319 Trends • 319 funds to Watershed Restoration have greatly increased, from ~ $ .3 million to $ .6 million annually

6. Education/Outreach & Groundwater • 319 funds to Education/Outreach have moderately decreased, from ~ $ .4 million to $ .2 million annually. • 319 funds to Groundwater have gradually decreased, from ~ $ .2 million to $ .1 million annually.

7. Montana’s 319 Program Framework • Comprehensive NPS Management Program (319 requirement) • The year 2007 NPS Management Plan identifies BMPs to address pollutants • Plan also identifies: • programs supporting implementation of BMPs • a schedule of NPS program implementation milestones • Annual 319 Grants Program (required)

8. 319 Geographic Trends • Court Settlement Agreement prioritized early TMDL plans (until year 2006) toward fish-sensitive western Montana watersheds • 319 Funds for TMDL work require active local watershed group partnerships with many active local watershed groups located in central and western Montana • These TMDL watershed partnerships have strengthened many central and western Montana watershed groups • Recent 319 funds have tended to be awarded to watershed groups around the continental divide, since these groups have completed TMDLs and are interested in developing “Watershed Restoration Plans” • CDs, local, state and federal agencies have been key stakeholders in watershed groups and have provided critical technical and project guidance

9. All Montana 319 Projects - Geography

10. Watershed Restoration Projectsare focused in headwaters watersheds

11. Groundwater Projects

12. Education and Outreach Projects

13. 319 Project Trends • 319 restoration has shifted from demonstration projects toward “watershed projects” using TMDL or WRP guidance • TMDLs (required) and 319 watershed grants (to active groups) have been concentrated around headwaters areas • Gallatin, Flathead and Bitterroot drainages have notable concentrations of TMDL Planning Projects • Education and Outreach projects tend to have a statewide educational focus (60% are statewide) • Groundwater projects tend to be in populated communities with potential valley aquifer pollution issues • 319 partnerships require an active watershed group, which tend to be concentrated around headwaters watershed areas, with Lower Missouri group as downstream exception

14. TMDLs in Active Development TMDL Planning Area Contact • Columbia • Bitterroot Mainstem: Banning Starr, Darrin Kron • Flathead Lake – Phase II: George Mathieus • Flint: Darrin Kron, Jim Bond • Little Blackfoot: Lisa Kusnierz; Banning Starr • Lower Blackfoot:Tim Byron- Submitted to EPA • Lower Clark Fork Tributaries: Jim Bond; Christina Staten • Upper Clark Fork: Jim Bond; Lisa Kusnierz • Tobacco: Banning Starr; Christina Staten • Lower Missouri River Basin • Redwater: Tim Byron • Upper Missouri River Basin • Beaverhead: Pete Schade; Dean Yashan • Middle & Lower Big Hole: Darrin Kron; Lisa Kusnierz • Upper & North Fork Big Hole: Darrin Kron - Submitted to EPA • Lower Gallatin: Pete Schade; Lisa Kusnierz • Upper Gallatin: Pete Schade; Banning Starr • Upper Jefferson: Darrin Kron; Banning Star • Boulder River (Big Timber Area) Pete Schade - Submitted to EPA • Shields River: Lisa Kusnierz - Submitted to EPA

15. National and Montana Questions • CWA assumed watersheds would be rapidly restored (in >10 years) likely creating unrealistic expectations • Tepid government restoration funding (declining 319 funding and exclusion from 2009 federal stimulus) indicates lower priority • Watershed “success stories” appear not to be motivating governments or systemic local actions • EPA water delisting goals are very difficult to attain (PAMS metrics may create “delayed accomplishment” or “failure” stories) • Current federal trends(PAMS and 319 funding) are pushing state programs to focus restoration efforts on fewer “highly restorable” watersheds • Montana TMDLs in areas without an active watershed group may lack locally-led restoration efforts • Are new ideas and new policy frames needed?

16. Closing Thoughts • Local watershed groups and government agency cooperation and coordination continues to be critical in Montana’s NPS program • Local watershed groups need technical and financial assistance – federal and state agencies participating at local levels is important • 319 Program presently has ongoing flexibility – the ability to fund many different activities (e.g. planning, coordination, outreach, monitoring, revegetation, or channel restoration)