Title
Montana Nautral Resource Damage Program: Upper Clark Fork Restoration Grant Funding - A Pilot Year
Abstract
Through partial settlement of its natural resource damage lawsuit against ARCO in 1998, the State obtained approximately $130 million for restoration of injured natural resources in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin (UCFRB). In 1999 the State of Montana developed a draft UCFRB Restoration Plan that provided the framework for expending these restoration funds. The State revised the draft based on input from the UCFRB Advisory Council and public comment and finalized the Restoration Plan in February 2000. Rather than embarking on a prescriptive process, the State elected to establish a granting process whereby various entities could apply for restoration funds based on procedures and criteria set out in the Restoration Plan. The criteria are aimed at funding the best mix of projects that will restore or replace the natural resources that were injured, and/or services provided by those resources that were lost, due to releases of hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing operations in the UCFRB. Among the preferences are those given to projects that actually restore injured natural resources and provide for ecosystem considerations.
The State is now testing this granting process with its launch of the Pilot Year 2000 Grant Cycle in February 2000. The State set out restrictions for the Pilot Year 2000 grant cycle that limit grant funding to $7 million (annual interest revenue), limit the number of projects to a range of between ten and twenty, and require demonstration of pilot year “urgency.” Restoration grant applications are due on April 14, 2000 and final funding decisions are expected in December 2000. The granting process is complicated by on-going natural resource damage litigation and Superfund remedy determinations. Based on lessons learned from what works well and does not work well in the Pilot Year, the State, in consultation with the UCFRB Advisory Council and other entities, will propose revisions to the Restoration Plan for the next grant cycle that will be subject of public comment. Stay tuned as we evolve a process that, combined with other restoration initiatives, will lead to a healthier UCFRB ecosystem.
Start Date
14-4-2000 9:00 AM
End Date
14-4-2000 9:30 AM
Document Type
Presentation
Montana Nautral Resource Damage Program: Upper Clark Fork Restoration Grant Funding - A Pilot Year
Through partial settlement of its natural resource damage lawsuit against ARCO in 1998, the State obtained approximately $130 million for restoration of injured natural resources in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin (UCFRB). In 1999 the State of Montana developed a draft UCFRB Restoration Plan that provided the framework for expending these restoration funds. The State revised the draft based on input from the UCFRB Advisory Council and public comment and finalized the Restoration Plan in February 2000. Rather than embarking on a prescriptive process, the State elected to establish a granting process whereby various entities could apply for restoration funds based on procedures and criteria set out in the Restoration Plan. The criteria are aimed at funding the best mix of projects that will restore or replace the natural resources that were injured, and/or services provided by those resources that were lost, due to releases of hazardous substances from mining and mineral processing operations in the UCFRB. Among the preferences are those given to projects that actually restore injured natural resources and provide for ecosystem considerations.
The State is now testing this granting process with its launch of the Pilot Year 2000 Grant Cycle in February 2000. The State set out restrictions for the Pilot Year 2000 grant cycle that limit grant funding to $7 million (annual interest revenue), limit the number of projects to a range of between ten and twenty, and require demonstration of pilot year “urgency.” Restoration grant applications are due on April 14, 2000 and final funding decisions are expected in December 2000. The granting process is complicated by on-going natural resource damage litigation and Superfund remedy determinations. Based on lessons learned from what works well and does not work well in the Pilot Year, the State, in consultation with the UCFRB Advisory Council and other entities, will propose revisions to the Restoration Plan for the next grant cycle that will be subject of public comment. Stay tuned as we evolve a process that, combined with other restoration initiatives, will lead to a healthier UCFRB ecosystem.