HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 04.10.2018ur QTOM
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
APRIL 10, 2018 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at
6:30 p.m. on April 10, 2018.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x Heidi Sparks @ 6:35 p.m.
x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr
x Scot Stokes x Iry Wilke
x Richard Klose Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT: Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer
Judge Jean Kerr, City Judge
Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering
Public Input
Jason Summers, 304 Cedar Avenue #3, thanked the Mayor for his work on the concerns he has
previously brought forward.
Mayor Nelson stated that he is working on a new website, and the hope is to be able to post articles,
like the one recently in the Outlook, to our website.
General Items
• Appointment of Taryn Massa to Emergency Service Committee.
Mayor Nelson stated the only letter of interest received for the vacancy on Emergency Services
Committee was from Taryn Massa. He asked Ms. Massa to introduce herself to Council.
Ms. Massa, 304 Cedar Avenue #3, introduced herself to Council and thanked Council for consideration
to fill the vacancy. She questioned when the next Emergency Services Committee meeting would be
held.
Emergency Services Committee meets on the 4th Monday of each month unless otherwise noted, at
5:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held on April 2Yd at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Executive Review
O Resolution —Accept Easement Agreement from Nutting Drain District
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated that during his meeting with Forrest to determine
outstanding items it was discovered that an easement between the Nutting Drain District and the City
of Laurel had been filed with the County. This easement will allow the developer of the Iron Horse
Subdivision the ability to build the road to begin Phase 11 of the subdivision. The City Attorney was
contacted in regards to what steps if any, the City would need to complete. It was advised for Council
to accept this easement.
It was questioned who would be responsible for paying for the bridge over the ditch.
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
The developer is responsible for all public infrastructure within the development. This ditch is not
large and should only require a culvert.
It was stated that the developer had brought forth concerns regarding the timing of being able to move
forward with Phase II of this development. It was questioned if Council will see Phase II come to
fruition soon.
Mayor Nelson responded that he is working with legal counsel to resolve any issues and possible
miscommunications with the developer at this time. Once all issues are resolved, then Phase II can
proceed.
It was questioned since this easement has already been filed if this resolution is a formality.
Correct, this is a formality. Approximately the same time this easement was filed, the City's Chief
Administrative Officer was in the process of leaving. The original copy of this document was found in
a pile of paperwork given to the Clerk/Treasurer during this time.
® Resolution — Amendment No. 3 to Task Order No. 29 — Water System Improvement Laurel
Engineering Services On -Call Great West Engineering, Inc. Project No. 2-07128.
Chad Hanson, Great West Engineering, stated that this past January he had met with Kurt, Tim, and
Nathan to review the plans for the SED Basin project, per request. This group looked for any items that
could be removed from the project, become additive alternates, or any cost-saving efforts they could
find, taking into account the cost saving measures as well as the unit prices off of the bids from last
year, with a three percent inflation increase, a cost estimate was compiled. The three percent increase
should account for the increase in the price of aluminum and steel due to the recent tariffs that were
imposed. It is unclear how these tariffs will affect the steel and aluminum prices. The amendment
presented to Council is to move forward to bid and construct this fall. The majority of the cost of this
amendment is to make the changes to the plans before going out for rebid. Clint Kampar, of Rosebud
Engineering, is retiring. He has been the integrator for both the Water Treatment Plant and the Waste
Water Plant; this is the computer system that runs both plants. In the past Great West Engineering
specified the proprietary provider, being as he is retiring Great West's Electrical Engineer will need to
specify in more detail of the existing system so outside integrators can effectively bid the project. This
amendment includes through construction costs as well as post -construction costs. This would include
items such as an on-site inspector, reviewing submittals, answering all contract questions, progress
meetings, record drawings, warranty work, etc.
It was questioned if the $1.3 million is included in the $5 or $6 million that was bid for the project.
Some of the $1.3 million has already been paid to Great West Engineering, this amendment if for
$675,000 for bidding and support during construction. This is in addition to the actual construction
cost for the project.
It was questioned what the estimated total cost for the SED Basin project is.
Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer, stated that total cost including the Cherry Hills booster station is
$9.697 million. Funding for this project is as follows: $500,000 from a TSEP grant, $125,000 through
a DNRC grant, $2 million from the City's cash reserves, $1.8 million from the CHS donation,
$100,000 from CHS, and the remainder will be a loan from the State. If this project is not awarded by
12/31/2018, the City will lose the approximately $2 million in CHS donations. If the City were to
2
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
replace the SED Basins in the future, the City would be responsible for making up for those donated
monies.
It was questioned if Great West Engineering would be in charge of applying for the TSEP and DNRC
grants.
Those services have already been rendered. They were applied for and approved for both the TSEP and
DNRC grants. This amendment is specifically line items E, F, and K. The summary includes the work
that has been completed to date.
It was questioned what the increase in construction cost is.
There is no simple answer to this question. The construction cost has been raised three percent from
the bids obtained last year. The $50,000 to revise the project falls within industry standard of ten
percent of the project; this fell approximately 8.4 percent.
It was questioned if this project is costing the City more now than it would have had the City approved
the SED Basins project the first time it was before Council.
That is not necessarily the case when the City bid the project previously it was not a competitive bid
environment. Currently, the bid environment is very competitive. The lowest bid last year was
approximately $7.4 million, with costs reduced to $6.5 million.
It was questioned if the cost of the project went from $6.5 million to approximately $9.5 million.
It was clarified that the $9.697 million is the total cost for the project. The $6.5 million was just the
construction cost of the project.
It was stated that it seems to be a pattern when a project is not approved the first time it is presented to
Council, it ends up costing the City more in the long run. It will be interesting to see after this project
is bid, how it compares to the cost the previous year.
It was clarified that the amount before Council tonight will not be spent unless the project moves
forward. The financial stability of the City is significantly better; the reserves are back up. With the
expected expenditure of $2 million, there will still be $1.96 million left in the cash reserves. The City
has recouped some money from FEMA. When the Council was reviewing this project last year, the
City did not have the $2 million to contribute.
It was stated that SED Basins are still in need of replacement, and have been in need for many years.
The City will need to replace the SED Basins at some point regardless. Approving the project the first
time around could have saved the City some money. It was noted that Council Member McGee was the
only Council Member to vote to approve this project when it was before Council last year. If Council
chooses not to move forward with the replacing the SED Basins and a catastrophe occurs, which has
been over 60 years in the making, the donated funds from CHS will not be available. CHS made it very
clear they will not grant the City another extension.
It was questioned if the Council wants to risk having to repair the SED Basins in an emergent situation.
It was clarified that when this project first came to Council, those funds were not readily available. The
City knew funds were coming but did not have them in possession. There was discussion on whether it
would have been feasible to move ahead with the project last year not knowing when the funds would
3
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
be received. It was stated that the project would have cost $6.5 million if the City would have moved
forward last year vs. $ 9.697 million.
It was clarified that increase was from $6.5 million to $7.475 million. The $9.697 million figure is
reference to the cost of the entire project. The cost increase is approximately $900,000 difference in
construction costs. Some of the other costs included in the $9.697 million figure have gone up since
last year as they are proportional to the cost of the project.
It was questioned if the Cherry Hills lift station was included in the $6.5 million bid brought forward to
Council last year.
It was clarified that the Cherry Hills lift station was not included in the project score last year, as it is a
small project, however it has always been part of the project and part of the grant applications. The
Cherry Hills lift station was budgeted in this Fiscal Year 2017-2018 budget. The expected cost of the
lift station is $207,000 with the purchase of land for approximately $40,000.
Resolution — Pool Fees
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated the recommendation to change the pool fees came from
Park Board. These fees were included in the Schedule of Fees at one point in time but were removed so
Park Board could discuss the rates closer to pool season. The current rates are $2.00 per day with $1.00
on Sunday. There is also books of pool passes that discount each pass to $1.50 instead of $2.00. Park
Board discussed with other communities what they charge for their pool entrance fees. Park Boards
recommendation is as follows: under 5 years of age with a paying adult — no charge, ages 5 years and
older -$3.00 per day, Individual membership - $40.00 for the season, and family membership for up to
six immediate family members - $75.00 for the season. The goal of Park Board was to increase
visitation to the pool.
In order to best serve the community, all three on-call supervisors are certified pool operators.
m Council Issues
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
There is no update at this time.
Mayor Nelson stated that on May 22nd, 2018 the Council will take a field trip to the Water Treatment
Plant and see what Kurt has been giving updates on. There will be drawings to explain further how the
intake works. Council will be asked to meet a bit earlier than usual, so there is plenty of light to do the
tour.
Iry stated that he works until 5:30 p.m. and most likely will not be able to meet too much earlier than
the standard start time. This tour is expected to take approximately a half hour to an hour.
The meeting with MMIA and the City Attorney will be held as a special meeting. The date and time of
this meeting has yet to be determined.
o Sidewalk Program Update — Scot
Scot clarified that he was asking for an update on the sidewalk replacement program, in which
residents who need their sidewalks replaced can choose to pay upfront or have the cost assessed on
their taxes.
11
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
Due to the change in personnel, the Code Enforcement Officer was unaware how the program worked.
There was clarification towards the tail end of the budget cycle. However, at this point, it was too late
to bring forward any applicants for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018. The Code Enforcement Officer is
working with the Clerk/Treasurer to be able to present applicants this next budget cycle. Residents who
had previously had their sidewalks replaced will continue to be assessed. They can be assessed for up
to twelve years. There is $62,177.48 available for sidewalk replacement. Residents can volunteer for
this program or per ordinance be told a particular section is in need of replacement given the option to
either pay up front for that replacement or become part of this program.
o Sheriff's Community Service Program Update — Scot
Scot clarified that in the past this program was brought before the Council and it was deemed not
feasible at the time. There was concern regarding the types of people who would be doing community
services within our community. There were concerns about what costs the City would incur.
Judge Jean Kerr, City Judge, was present to answer any questions the Council may have had. She
clarified how this program works and why it could be a benefit to the community. There is a $25
application fee to be accepted into the program; this covers their paperwork and workman comp. The
applicant cannot be a violent offender, felonies, etc. Once accepted into the program, there is an
additional $25 fee to work their 8 -hour shift, which covers their uniform, lunch, and water during their
shift. They are expected to work an 8 -hour shift. For this shift, they receive $150 taken off of their
fines amount. A person can choose to spend a day in jail to pay $75 worth of fines. Someone who is in
this program essentially gets two days' worth of jail time for one 8 hour shift. The City would be
responsible for checking on these participants during the day. They do not need direct supervision. If
they walk off, they will be placed in jail to pay the rest of their fines off. They will also not be allowed
to continue with the program. Currently, the check-in is at the jail, but the program was willing to
create a check in at our local Police Department. A few years ago Judge Kerr had applied and was
approved for a grant a while ago to purchase tools, such as shovels and rakes, for a program like this.
Mayor Nelson wanted to explore what costs the City would have to incur to move forward with this
program. He would also like to speak with Union Employees on what work they would be ok with
people in this program completing. Once all questions have been answered this matter will be sent to
Emergency Services to further discuss the details prior to sending a recommendation to Council. Scot
expressed his interest in having Park Board look into this program instead of Emergency Services
under a later agenda item.
o Sign at High School Update — Bill
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, showed Council a picture of the sign, it has been set and
placed. There was concern about placing the sign in the concrete, one because of the temperature and
two because it would limit the School Districts ability to easily remove snow in the winter. The City
worked with the School District and placed the sign in the grass to solve both issues. The picture of the
sign is attached to these minutes.
It was questioned if someone were to park between the sign and the corner if they would receive a
ticket.
It was stated then yes; they would receive a ticket because it is an enforceable sign.
o Manhole cover leveling by Post Office — Bill
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated that last year the City was trying a new product to
rehab the sewer manholes. During this process, those manholes were leveled. The City prioritized the
5
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
manholes that needed the lining the most in determining which manholes to consider in the scope of
the project. The two near the Post Officer was not considered a priority like those south of them and
were therefore not included in the project. The City will continue to work on prioritizing the manholes
that are in most need of rehabilitation. After the liner is placed the top edge is encased in concrete,
which is used to level the manhole. Because of this fact it is in the City's best interest to pair both the
rehab and leveling services together. Another factor being taken into consideration when selecting
which manholes to rehab is when the street is slotted for replacement, the new road surface may be at a
higher elevation than the existing level of the manhole, creating the same problem. Manhole lids rest
on rings. These rings keep the lid on the street surface. In replacing the manholes on East Main Street,
some of those rings were severely deteriorated. The cost to just level the manhole is approximately
$1,400.
Many of the manholes in Laurel are 22 inches in diameter. The current standard is 24 inches in
diameter. During the rehab process on East Main Street, those 22 -inch diameter manholes were
increased to the standard. The City did keep the old manhole lids in case one is damaged or missing.
The pictures of the condition of the manholes that were recently replaced are attached to these minutes.
It was questioned if the leveling would need to wait for the street replacement project that is done
every two years.
Not necessarily, the scheduling of a street rebuild is only one factor used to select which manholes to
replace The City will work to have the manholes identified so that when the contractor is in our area
the work can be approved by Council. Otherwise, there would be additional costs for mobilization.
It was questioned if we know what the lifespan is for the leveled manholes.
The manholes are surrounded by concrete, which will last quite a while. What is unknown is how the
de-icer in the sand, that is put down each winter, will affect the concrete. The ones done last year have
held up very well.
It was questioned why the manholes were not leveled when the State redid 1St Avenue.
The State milled the asphalt and laid new asphalt down. They did not adjust any of the manhole
elevations.
The contract has already been approved. To have a change order to amend the amount to include more
manhole leveling will take time. The Public Works Director will look into any options, but the
contractor will be finished this week. However, these manholes could be included in next year's
project.
o Emergency Services Survey Idea — Bruce
Emergency Services Committee had a presentation regarding the volunteer program that assists the
Billings Police Department in small tasks, such as writing parking tickets, monitoring abandoned
vehicles, etc. Emergency Services would like to poll our community to see if a program of this nature
would be of interest to the community. There was concern that an idea, such as this program may take
considerable amounts of time and may never come to fruition. The Emergency Services would like to
poll the community to see if this is a good use of their time. The purpose of the program is to take care
of simple tasks in order to free up the time of Billings Police Officers.
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
Before being able to move forward and poll our community the City would need to look at how
feasible this program would be. Items such as vehicles to drive and fully understand the cost associated
with the program. While this town has been very successful in implementing programs run by
volunteers, there is a significant shift in our culture and volunteers are becoming more difficult to find
and keep.
Scot expressed the interest for Park Board to take on the discussion of the Sherriff's Comrnunity
Services Program.
Mayor Nelson stated that he would investigate if this program is feasible for the City to implement
prior to moving forward with the survey of our community.
o Purchase benches and shade with interest from the Billie Riddle fund.
In the early 2000's the City was gifted money from Billie Riddle's Trust Fund for the purpose of
building a new pool. The City received a total of $99,733.23. In 2005 the City did a pool study for
$7,197. In order to use the money for the pool survey, the City held a public hearing prior to voting to
approve the use of those funds. Currently, these funds have accrued $19,546.67 of interest. The City
Attorney was consulted on if the interest could be used to purchase benches and shade for the pool.
The trust stipulates how the money from the trust can be spent, but does not address how the interest
accumulated on the principal amount can be used. This is not a budgeted item and would require a
budget amendment. The Clerk/Treasurer is working to determine if a public hearing will be needed for
the budget amendment. These improvements most likely will not be ready for this pool season, but
Council will be kept up to date on if this item can move forward in a timely manner.
o Written comments on the draft Recreation Project Priority Plan
The comment period has been opened for the Recreation Project Priority Plan. The entire document is
137 pages in length; the first 25 have been attached to these minutes. These pages include the scope of
each project. Laurel's submitted projects rank number one, number two, and number six on the priority
list. If the Council would like to respond as a whole, they would need to do so via resolution by April
30`x'.
The Riverside Park campground request was initially $400,000; the committee reviewing and ranking
each project reduced the potential award amount by $50,000. The Public Works Director asked for
consideration to have those funds awarded back to the City. If a project lower on the list fails to meet
the requirements, those funds may be reallocated to that project. Some projects may not be able to
move forward due to land accusation.
The Lions Club project, ranked number six, is planning to apply for a grant through Lions Club
international, it requires a 1:1 match. They would like to use these funds to apply for the grant to
obtain additional funds to upgrade the park further.
Council expressed interest in having a joint letter drafted and brought forward for next weeks City
Council meeting.
Other Items
There were none.
Review of Draft Council Agenda for April 17, 2018
Council requested the letter in regards to written comments on the draft Recreation Project Priority
Plan be added to next week's Council agenda.
7
Council Workshop Minutes of April 10, 2018
Attendance at the April 17, 2018, Council Meeting
All in attendance will be present at the next City Council meeting.
Announcements
Mayor Nelson stated that the City Planner position is officially closed. The position will be opened this
summer to include the job titles of City Planner I to Planning Director, with appropriate wage ranges,
in hopes to receive a deeper pool of applicants. Planning services will continue to be performed by the
City's Interim Planner, Forrest Sanderson until a replacement is found. The Mayor stated he would be
monitoring what the City is spending each month to ensure the best use of funds.
Mayor Nelson stated that per Councils interest in repairing the electrical work on the outside of the
Horseshoe building he had approved the work to be completed. The cost to complete this work was
$170.00.
Mayor Nelson reminded Council to let the Administrative Assistant know if they are interested in
attending the Elected Officials Boot Camp and Workshop. Please have your registration information to
the Administrative Assistant by April 25th at 5 p.m.
Emelie gave kudos to the Laurel Public Library. The Library applied for the ELSA (Excellent Library
Service Award) award. They met 31 out 34 criteria for this award, which is eight more than needed to
be considered for the award.
Emelie stated that a draft agenda had been made for next week's Public Works Committee meeting
(April 16th at 6:00 p.m.). The draft agenda does have eight agenda items currently, if Council has any
agenda items, please send them to the Public Works Director.
Recognition of Emnlovees
• Bruce Lefler
37 years on April 6th
City Shop
• Tim Reiter
32 years on April 2nd
WTP
• Kelly Strecker
13 years on April 11 th
City Clerk
• Brenda Sell
13 years on April 28th
Police
• Jodi Kinn
1 year on April 24th
Police
The council workshop adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully sub 'tted,
Brittney Moo n
Administrative Assistant
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
N.
.tom- - .. -_ ..
� ���
DRAFT YELLOWSTONE RIVER RECREATION PROJECT PRIORITY PLAN
MARCH 2018
Prepared By:
THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER RECREATION PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
rT►Is
All
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background......................................................................................................1
1.1 Yellowstone River Recreation Project Advisory Committee...........................................................3
1.2 Purpose and Scope of this Recreation Project Priority Plan...........................................................3
2.0 Development of the Recreation Project Priority Plan....................................................................5
2.1 Application Process.........................................................................................................................5
2.2 Public Participation..........................................................................................................................5
2.3 Criteria for Decision Making............................................................................................................7
2.4 Submitted Projects........................................................................................................................11
2.5 Prioritization of Restoration Projects, Funding Recommendations and Contingencies
...............13
3.0 Project Implementation.............................................................................................................25
4.0 References................................................................................................................................
27
AppendixA Criteria Evaluations.................................................................................................A-1
AppendixB Environmental Assessment Checklists......................................................................B-1
AppendixC Copy of Project Application......................................................................................0-1
List of Tables
Table 2. Applications Submitted for Consideration...................................................................................12
Table 3. Ranking of Projects and Recommended Funding Amounts.........................................................14
List of Figures
Figure1. Map of Injured Area......................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction and Background
On or about July 1, 2011, a 12 -inch diameter pipeline (Silvertip Pipeline) owned by ExxonMobil Pipeline
Company ruptured near Laurel, Montana, resulting in the discharge of crude oil into the Yellowstone
River and floodplain (Figure 1— map).
The discharge is estimated to have been approximately 63,000 gallons (about 1,500 barrels) of oil. The
discharge occurred during a high-flow event, with oil affecting approximately 85 river miles and
associated floodplain. The discharge, along with associated response activities, adversely affected
natural resources within the jurisdictions of the United States and the State of Montana, the
Yellowstone River and adjoining shorelines, including, but not limited to, the floodplain, shoreline,
wetlands and other riparian areas, islands, fields, pastures, bottomlands, grasslands and shrublands.
Overview of Settlement Agreement
In September 2016, the United States and the State of Montana announced a settlement with
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company and the availability of a restoration plan. The final Programmatic Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
July 1, 2011 Yellowstone River Oil Spill (restoration plan) was prepared by the State of Montana and the
U.S. Department of the Interior, collectively acting as Trustees for the restoration of natural resources
and public use services that were exposed and/or injured by the Yellowstone River oil spill (February
2017). The restoration plan specifically allocated just over $12 million in natural resource damages, plus
interest, to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured natural resources from the
2011 Yellowstone River Oil Spill. The Trustees paid particular consideration to the adequacy of the
settlement to restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of the injured natural resources
and services. Sums recovered in settlement, other than reimbursement of Trustees' costs, may only be
expended in accordance with the restoration plan.
Injured Resources and Restoration Alternatives
In the restoration plan, the Trustees identified several categories of natural resource injury and human
and ecological service losses that occurred because of the spill and response activities. Injuries to the
following resources were described in the restoration plan:
• Terrestrial/riparian habitat and supported biota, through exposure to oil and disturbance caused
by response and cleanup activities.
• Large woody debris piles, through exposure to oil and disturbance by response and cleanup
activities.
• Riverine aquatic habitat and supported biota, including fish injuries, caused by exposure to oil.
• Birds, through exposure to oil and disturbance by response and cleanup activities, specifically
injuries to cavity -nesting birds and American white pelican.
• Human use service losses, including recreational angling and park use.
Figure 1. Map of Injured Area
Recreational Human Use Injuries
Major impacts to recreational human uses occurred due to the presence of the spilled oil and because of
the closure of facilities and river access for response and cleanup activities. Injuries to recreational
human use are described in Section 3.3.5 of the restoration plan. More information about recreation
injuries and damages is included in Appendix E of the restoration plan, Recreational Lost Use Analysis.
Recreational human uses that were identified in the restoration plan include general recreation
activities at parks or other recreation areas along the shoreline: walking, dog walking, running, cycling,
nature and wildlife observation, photography, horseback riding, environmental education, hunting,
picnicking, camping, and sightseeing. Water-based recreational activities identified in the restoration
plan include: recreational fishing, motor -boating, paddling, floating, swimming, and boat -based hunting
and trapping. Loss of access to the river, river access sites, and parks was the main reason for these
recreational human use services losses.
1.1 Yellowstone River Recreation Project Advisory Committee
In winter 2017, the Natural Resource Damage Program (NRDP) convened a Yellowstone River Recreation
Project Advisory Committee (Committee) to prepare a recreation project priority plan, for approval by
the Governor. The priority plan would identify how approximately $2.3 million in natural resource
damage settlement funds, earmarked for the recreational human use injury category, will be spent on
recreation projects on or along the Yellowstone River related to the spill. The Committee consisted of
seven individuals:
Appointed by Billings: Jim Ronquillo
Appointed by Laurel: Kenneth E. Olson, Jr.
Appointed by Yellowstone County: Gary Connelley
John Moorhouse
Bradley Shoemaker
Appointed by the Governor: Kathleen Aragon
Ted Lovec
1.2 Purpose and Scope of this Recreation Project Priority Plan
This recreation project priority plan identifies preferred projects and funding amounts to meet the
restoration plan goal of providing additional recreational human use opportunities to offset those lost
due to the oil spill by improving city parks and public lands bordering the Yellowstone River, improving
urban fishing opportunities adjacent to the Yellowstone River, and developing additional access
locations or preserving existing access on the Yellowstone River.
This recreation project priority plan includes compensatory restoration components for recreational
human use service losses that address specific injuries associated with the oil spill. The overall goal of
this recreation project priority plan is to identify projects that singly or in combination restore,
rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured recreational resources. Following
consideration of public comment, the State will recommend a final version of this plan for consideration
and recommendations by the Committee; to NRDP and the Governor.
The Governor, as Trustee of the natural resources, after considering public input and the
recommendations of the Yellowstone River Recreation Project Advisory Committee and the NRDP, will
make the final decision on the recreation project priority plan to be implemented.
This draft recreation project priority plan is organized as follows:
• This introductory Section 1 describes the purpose and scope of this draft document and provides
background on the site and the restoration planning steps that led to the development of this
draft plan.
• Section 2 describes the process used to develop the recreation project priority plan, the application
process, public participation, and lists the selected restoration projects in the order of priority
assigned bythe Committee. This section also includes a summary of the project evaluation criteria
and how they are applied to the projects.
• Section 3 is a summary of the recreation project priority plan implementation process.
• Appendix A includes the criteria evaluations.
• Appendix B includes checklist EAs for each project.
• Appendix C includes a copy of the recreation project application.
4
2.0 Development of the Recreation Project Priority Plan
The restoration plan identified the following goal for restoration of recreational human use injuries:
Provide additional recreational human use opportunities to offset those lost due to the oil spill. The
objectives identified for meeting this goal are:
• Improving city parks and public lands bordering the Yellowstone River.
• Improving urban fishing opportunities adjacent to the Yellowstone River.
• Developing additional access locations or preserving existing access on the Yellowstone River.
Recreational human use restoration project types and examples are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the
restoration plan, and include improving public parks and recreation areas, improving urban fishing
opportunities, and increasing fishing access to the Yellowstone River.
2.1 Application Process
The Committee and the NRDP developed an application process for soliciting recreation projects from
the community for consideration. The Committee determined that the best way to solicit recreation
project ideas was to request a project abstract application. The application is included in Appendix C.
The applications were made available to the public on June 23, 2017 and were due on August 25, 2017.
Governmental entities, private individuals, non-government private entities, and other private entities
were eligible to apply. Applicants were permitted to submit more than one project proposal, but were
required to submit a separate application for each project. Entities who proposed a project during the
restoration plan comment period were requested to apply using this project abstract process.
Eligible Projects
Before submitting an abstract, applicants were encouraged to attend a project development workshop.
The Committee and NRDP hosted three workshops in August 2017, described in more detail in the
public participation section below. Eligible projects that were submitted for consideration include
projects that are conceptual in nature and some that are ready to implement.
2.2 Public Participation
The Committee and NRDP have engaged the public, local groups and organizations, and State and
Federal agencies since starting to prepare this recreation project priority plan. The Committee and NRDP
recognize the importance of public input and participation in the restoration planning process to better
decision making.
The development of this draft recreation project priority plan provided multiple opportunities for
meaningful public participation. First, because the Committee members represent the community, input
from the Committee serves as an avenue of public input. The Committee met six times between May
2017 and February 2018, and held three project workshops in the community, to solicit, evaluate, and
rank the recreation projects included in this draft recreation project priority plan for submission to the
public for consideration and comment.
The Committee held its first introductory meeting on May 15, 2017, at the Yellowstone County
Commission offices, with thirteen members of the public attending. The meeting was announced
through emails to the NRDP 2011 Yellowstone oil spill project email list and was posted on the NRDP
Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill web page. The second meeting to discuss how to solicit the public for
recreational projects and an application was held on Monday, June 12, 2017, at the Billings Southside
Community Center at 901 S. 30th St. The Billings Gazette posted an article about the meeting on June 9,
2017. Eight members of the public attended the meeting on June 12. The meeting was announced with
emails to the NRDP 2011 Yellowstone Oil Spill project email list and was posted on the NRDP
Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill web page.
On June 23, 2017, the Committee and NRDP solicited proposals from the public for a total of 60 days
until August 25, 2017, when applications were due. The proposal application is included in Appendix C.
Notification of this request for proposals was sent to the NRDP Yellowstone oil spill project email list,
was posted on the NRDP Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill web page, and the Billings Gazette posted
information about the request for proposals on June 26, 2017.
The Committee and NRDP held three workshops at the Billings Southside Community Center, 901 S. 30tn
St., one on Wednesday, August 9, 2017, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, and two on Tuesday, August 15,
from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. These workshops were advertised in the Billings
Gazette on August 3 and August 10, the Yellowstone County News on August 4 and August 11, and the
Laurel Outlook on August 3 and August 10. The Billings Gazette also announced the workshops in an
article on August 8, 2017. The times and dates of the meetings were also posted on the NRDP
Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill web page.
Thirty-six people attended the three workshops. At all of the meetings NRDP provided an informational
presentation about the project proposal process followed by an opportunity for the public to ask
questions, with NRDP providing answers and guidance to prospective project applicants. The Committee
and NRDP were able to connect some workshop attendees with other entities having similar
recreational project interests. In addition, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) staff attended the
meetings and provided helpful information to potential applicants. One or more Committee members
attended each of the workshops.
The Committee and NRDP hosted public meetings at the Billings Southside Community Center, 901 S.
30th St. on October 11 and 12, 2017, for applicants to present their project ideas to the Committee and
allow the Committee an opportunity to ask questions. These presentation meetings were advertised
with legal ads in the Yellowstone County News and the Laurel Outlook on October 5, and the Billings
Gazette on October 10. The Billings Gazette also printed a news article about the upcoming
presentations on September 27, 2017. The meetings times and dates were also posted on the NRDP
Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill web page.
More than 41 members of the public attended the presentations on October 11 and 12, 2017. Each
applicant was given approximately 15 minutes to present information about their project to the
Committee members and the public. The Committee had an opportunity to ask questions of the
applicants. In addition, the public was provided time for questions and comments.
The Committee and NRDP hosted another public meeting on February 12, 2018 at the Billings Southside
Community Center, 901 S. 301h St., attended by 18 members of the public. At this meeting NRDP
presented its project criteria evaluation and funding recommendations. NRDP also presented a Google
Earth flyover of all the projects, providing the Committee members and the public with an aerial view of
each project location. The meeting was advertised in the Yellowstone County News legal ads on January
26 and February 2, and the Laurel Outlook legal ads on February 1 and February 8. The Billings Gazette
published an ad announcing the meeting on February 8. There was an opportunity for public comment.
On Thursday, February 15, 2018, the Committee and NRPD held a public meeting at the Billings
Southside Community Center, 901 S. 30th St, attended by 19 members of the public, and determined the
priority and recommended funding for the projects. The Committee discussed each project and made
priority and funding recommendations. The public was provided an opportunity for comment prior to
Committee's voting on each project. The meeting was advertised in the Yellowstone County News legal
ads on January 26 and February 2, and the Laurel Outlook legal ads on February 1 and February 8. The
Billings Gazette published an ad announcing the meeting on February 8.
The public also had access to information pertaining to this recreation planning and the overall
restoration effort via the NRDP web site at https:Hdoimt.gov/lands/. Included on the web site were
draft and final documents, status reports, and information related to the Committee meetings, including
notices of upcoming meetings. The NRDP also has an electronic mailing address (nrdp@mt.gov) to
enhance the public's ability to communicate with the NRDP.
2.3 Criteria for Decision Making
The selection of recreation projects must comply with the Oil Pollution Act regulations. This section
identifies and discusses the criteria that were used to analyze recreation projects and to decide on the
preferred projects. These criteria are discussed further in Chapters 4 and 7, and in Appendix F of the
restoration plan. The criteria are either legal criteria or policy criteria. Criteria 1-7 are legal criteria
derived from the Oil Pollution Act natural resource damage assessment regulations. The regulations
describe specific project evaluation criteria. Criterion 8 is a policy factor the State has used for funding
decisions at other natural resource damage sites in the State of Montana and is consistent with Oil
Pollution Act requirements regarding cost -benefit and cost-effectiveness.
In applying these criteria to evaluate proposed recreation projects, the criteria were evaluated
qualitatively rather than quantitatively. The importance of each criterion as applied to individual
projects varied depending upon the nature of the project and the unique issues it raised. Given the wide
array of potential restoration projects, the State and Committee strove to evaluate what is best for the
injured recreational resource services. This non -quantitative process in which the criteria and the
proposed projects were balanced and ranked against each other allowed greater flexibility in selecting
projects with the highest probability of success to address natural resource injuries and impaired
services related in the injured area.
The criteria evaluations and NRDP recommendations that were provided to the Committee for review
before the project prioritization meeting are included in Appendix A.
Oil Pollution Act Legal Criteria
Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations under the Oil Pollution Act require consideration of
six criteria when evaluating restoration options (15 Code of Federal Regulations 990.54(a) and (b)).
1) Project cost and cost effectiveness
The cost of a project, both implementation cost, long term maintenance, and monitoring were
considered against the relative benefits of a project to the injured natural resource service losses.
The NRDP and Committee evaluated whether the project would accomplish its goal in the most cost-
effective way possible. Projects that return the greatest and longest lasting benefits for the cost will
be preferred. The NRDP and Committee considered the time necessary before the project benefits
are achieved, and the sustainability of those benefits. Using the Committee and the Montana
Environmental Policy Act public review process, projects will be reviewed for their public acceptance
and support. Additional consideration was given to projects that leverage other financial resources.
Implementation Cost: This information was provided by the applicants.
Long term maintenance and monitoring cost: This information was provided by the applicants
Benefits to Service Losses:
Net Benefits: The project benefits are clearly related to the recreational services losses caused
by the oil spill.
Uncertain: There are some uncertainties to the project that make it difficult to tell if the stated
benefits will occur to the recreational service losses.
Cost Effectiveness:
• Cost effective: The applicant provided enough information to determine that the selected
alternative is most cost-effective.
• Likely cost effective: Although the applicant only provided a limited analysis of alternatives,
based on available information, the State concludes that the selected alternative is likely to be
cost effective.
• Potentially cost effective: There are some unknowns regarding the project such that the State
cannot definitively conclude whether it is or is not cost-effective, but the applicant proposed an
adequate approach to reach a cost effective alternative.
• Uncertain cost effectiveness: Insufficient information is available to conclude that the selected
alternative is likely to be cost-effective.
Time to achieve benefits and sustainability: The applicants provided the expected schedule
information.
Public Acceptance: This analysis describes how projects were vetted by the applicants and sponsors
in the community, public comment at restoration plan meetings, and public comment letters
submitted to or received by NRDP.
Leveraged Financial Resources: Describes matching funds and in-kind support and the expected
percent match contribution.
2) Project goals and objectives
This criterion considers the extent to which each restoration project helps to compensate for
interim service losses. Projects should demonstrate a clear relationship to the recreational use
services lost. Projects located within the area affected by the spill are preferred, but projects located
within the Yellowstone River watershed that provide benefit to the resource services lost in the
affected area were also considered.
Relationship to services lost: The goals of each proposed project were compared to the restoration
plan goals to see how they aligned.
Location: The restoration plan identified the injured area. All projects were evaluated to determine
if they were in the injured area or not.
3) Likelihood of project success
The State and Committee considered the technical feasibility of each project in achieving the
restoration project goals, including the likelihood the project will be implemented as proposed, and
the risk of failure or uncertainty that the goals can be met and sustained. The State trustee will
generally not support projects or techniques that are unproven or projects that are designed
primarily to test or demonstrate unproven technology.
Technical feasibility in achieving restoration plan goals:
• Reasonably feasible methods: There is a reasonable degree of confidence that the project
methods can be applied to achieve the project goals. The project sponsor demonstrates the
management skills needed to implement the project.
• Uncertain outcome: Some projects have not fully defined the methods that will be used to
complete the projects or the methods defined are unproven. The technical feasibility of
these projects is unknown and therefore uncertain.
Risk of failure:
• Low: Risk of failure is considered low if the sponsor has proposed reasonable methods to
accomplish and maintain the goals, the project is likely to be implemented as proposed, and
the project has support in the community.
• Medium: If the project has proposed reasonable methods but has some uncertainties
because of project unknowns regarding the capacity of the sponsor or the project plans.
• High: If the project has too many uncertainties or technical difficulties to determine its likely
outcome.
Certainty that goals can be met and maintained:
• High: If the project methods are technically feasible, the sponsor has the capacity to
complete the project, the community supports the project, and there is an acceptable plan
for long-term maintenance.
• Medium: If there are uncertainties about the methods, the sponsor's capacity, community
support, or long-term plans.
• Low: The project has technical difficulties that would make it impossible to meet the goals.
• Uncertain: There are too many unknowns to determine if project goals can be met and
maintained.
4) Avoidance of Adverse Impact
Projects were evaluated for the extent to which they prevent future injury because of the oil spill
and avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative. All projects shall be lawful and
likely to receive any necessary permits or other approvals prior to implementation.
Prevent future injury as a result of the spill: The recreation projects compensate for losses during
the spill and response, but do not prevent future injury.
Collateral injury: Each project is evaluated for the possibility of negative impacts during
implementation.
5) Multiple Resource and Service Benefits
Projects that provide benefits that address multiple resource injuries or service losses, or that
provide ancillary benefits to other resources or resource uses are preferred.
6) Public Health and Safety
This criterion is used to ensure that the projects will not pose unacceptable risks to public health
and safety.
Other Legal Considerations
7) Policies, Rules, and Laws
Oil Pollution Act regulations require compliance with worker safety and natural resource protection
laws. The NRDP and Committee considered the degree to which each project is consistent with
applicable policies of the State of Montana. In addition, projects must be implemented in
compliance with all applicable laws and rules, including the consent decree.
Montana Policy Criteria
8) Normal Government Function
The NRDP will not fund activities for which a governmental agency would normally be responsible or
that would receive funding in the normal course of events. With this criterion, the NRDP evaluated
whether an alternative would be implemented if recovered natural resource damages were not
available. The settlement funds may be used to augment funds normally available to government
10
agencies to perform a particular action if such cost sharing would result in the implementation of a
restoration action that would not otherwise occur through normal agency function.
Land Acquisition Criteria: Any property acquisitions must be at or below fair market value. The NRDP
must determine if the land, easements, or other property interests proposed to be acquired are being
offered for sale at or below fair market value. The NRDP will make this determination before proceeding
with any acquisitions set forth in the recreation project priority plan.
2.4 Submitted Projects
As described above in Section 2.2, the Committee solicited recreation project ideas from the greater
community during the summer of 2017. Twenty-eight project abstracts, listed in Table 2, Applications
Submitted for Consideration, were submitted for consideration.
The goal of the restoration plan recreation projects is to provide additional recreational human use
opportunities to offset those lost due to the oil spill. Projects were reviewed according to the criteria
described in Section 2.3. Each project was assigned into the broad objectives identified in the
restoration plan:
• Improve public parks and recreation areas
• Improve urban fishing opportunities
• Increase fishing access to the Yellowstone River
Broad project types that were proposed under those objectives include: developing and improving boat
launch sites, development of new fishing access sites, urban fishing opportunity improvement, nature
trails, and other park improvements.
Three projects did not meet the minimum qualifications of legal and/or location thresholds:
• City of Billings Fire Department - Rescue Watercraft River Access
• YRPA -John H Dover Memorial Park caretaker cabin
• Brennan's Wave - Recreational and Stability Enhancement Project
After the proposal presentations from the applicants on 26 projects, the NRDP worked with the project
applicants to gather additional information and consolidate the abstracts where there was overlap in
project goals and locations. Examples of consolidated projects are listed below.
• Matthew Sather's proposed project for a River Front Park Boat Ramp is now included in the City
of Billings Riverfront Park Hand Launch project.
11
• LuAnne Engh's proposal to address the access road at Buffalo Mirage is now included in the
Montana FWP proposal Yellowstone River Fishing Access Site (FAS) Acquisition and
Development.
• Pheasant Forever's proposal for improvements to terrestrial acquisitions is now included in the
Montana FWP proposal Yellowstone River Fishing Access Site (FAS) Acquisition and
Development.
• Woody Wood's proposal for a fishing access site development and trail at Arrow Island was
withdrawn.
Table 2. Applications Submitted for Consideration
Applicant
Project Title
Amount Requested
Big Sky Economic Development
Coulson Park Infrastructure
$500,000
Big Sky Economic Development
Coulson Park Master Planning
$30,000
Billings Chamber of Commerce
William Clark Recreation Area
$762,905
Billings, City of
Coulson Park Improvement
$110,000
Billings, City of
Josephine Lake Fishing Habitat Improvement
$150,000
Billings, City of
Riverfront Park Hand launch
$100,000
Billings, City of
Riverfront Park Multiuse Trail
$800,000
Billings, City of, Fire Department
Rescue Watercraft River Access
$50,000
Brennan's Wave
Recreational and Stability Enhancement Project
$1,300,000
Engh, LuAnne
Buffalo Mirage access, Park City
$20,000
Laurel, City of
Riverside Park Campground & Boat ramp
$400,000
Laurel, City of
Riverside Park Vault Toilets
$37,000
Laurel, City of and Lion's Club
Lion Family Park
$80,000
Montana Audubon Center
Billings Urban River Trail
$40,000
Montana FWP
Yellowstone River Fishing Access Site (FAS)
Acquisition and Development
$500,000
Our Montana
Clarks Crossing Fishing Access Site
$65,000
Our Montana
Explore the Yellowstone River
$18,000
Our Montana
Two Bridges Fishing Access Site
$200,000
Our Montana
Yellowstone River Private Islands
$140,000
Pheasants Forever
Improvements to Terrestrial Acquisitions
$40,000
Sather, Matthew D.
River Front Park Boat Ramp
$20,000
Woods, Woody
Arrow Island -- Hana Hou Trail
$265,700
Yellowstone County Board of
Park Commissioners
Two Moon Park Recreation Hiking and
Emergency Access
$25,000
YRPA
Joel's Pond
$13,900
YRPA
John H. Dover Memorial Park caretaker cabin
$50,200
YRPA
Norm's Island
$96,500
YRPA
Sindelar Ranch Acquisition
$300,000
YRPA
Washington St. Bridge
$30,000
Total Request
$6,144,205
Notes: YRPA—Yellowstone River Parks Association, FWP = Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
12
2.5 Prioritization of Restoration Projects, Funding Recommendations and Contingencies
The NRDP completed detailed project criteria evaluations for each project, included in Appendix A. Each
evaluation presents a proposal summary, an evaluation summary, a funding recommendation, and an
evaluation of how each project meets the Oil Pollution Act legal criteria, other legal considerations, and
Montana policy criteria.
Project proposals that NRDP considered for funding demonstrated strong natural resource-based
recreation benefits under the criteria listed in Section 2.3 and demonstrated a clear relationship to the
recreation services injured.
On February 12, 2018, the NRDP staff presented criteria evaluations for all the projects and made
funding recommendations to the Committee but did not identify priorities. The Committee discussed
each project and then each Committee member submitted a preliminary draft ranking of the projects to
NRDP. The NRDP averaged those preliminary rankings and prepared a preliminary ranking for
Committee discussion on February 15, 2018.
The Committee evaluated, considered and discussed each project at their February 15 meeting.
Consideration was given to the OPA criteria, public comment, recreational benefits, matching funds, and
timing of implementation. The final Committee priority ranking and funding recommendations are
shown in Table 3.
The total amount available for recreation project funding is approximately $2.3 million. It was the
Committee's recommendation that if there are any remainder or unused funds from higher ranked
projects, after all projects have been funded as recommended in Table 3, the first $50,000 will be
offered to the City of Laurel for Project #1 to complete the campground development. If additional
funds are left after that, they would be provided to FWP for fishing access site maintenance in the area,
subject to NRDP criteria.
13
Table 3. Ranking of Projects and Recommended Funding Amounts, in Order of Priority
Priority
Rank
Project Applicant/Sponsor
Project Name
Recommended
Amount
Cumulative
1
Laurel, City of
Riverside Park Campground
$350,000
$350,000
2
Laurel, City of
Riverside Park Vault Toilets
$37,000
$387,000
3
Montana FWP
Yellowstone River FAS Acquisition
& Development
$400,000
$787,000
4
Our Montana
South Billings Bridge
$160,000
$947,000
5
Yellowstone River Parks
Association
Sindelar Ranch Fishing Access Site
$160,000
$1,107,000
6
Laurel, City of & Lions Club
Lion's Family Park (Phase 1)
$62,000
$1,169,000
7
Big Sky Economic
Development & Billings, City
of
Coulson Park Master Plan
$45,000
$1,214,000
8
Billings, City of
Josephine Lake Fishing Habitat
Improvement (Task 1)
$50,000
$1,264,000
9
Billings, City of
Coulson Park Infrastructure
$250,000
$1,514,000
10
Yellowstone River Parks
Association
Norm's Island Latrines
$68,500
$1,582,500
11
Billings, City of
Coulson Park Improvement
$110,000
$1,692,500
12
Billings, City of
Riverfront Park Multi -Use Trail
$420,000
$2,112,500
13
Our Montana & Montana
Audubon
Explore Yellowstone River App &
Billings Urban River Trail
Combination
$25,000
$2,137,500
14
Yellowstone River Parks
Association
Washington St. Bridge Acquisition
$30,000
$2,167,500
15
Yellowstone River Parks
Association
Joel's Pond
$10,000
$2,177,500
16
Yellowstone County Parks
Board
Two Moon Park Recreational
Access
$8,250
$2,185,750
17
Laurel, City of & Lions Club
Lion's Family Park (Phase 2)
$15,000
$2,200,750
18
Billings, City of
Josephine Lake (Tasks 2-4)
$100,000
$2,300,750
19
Billings Chamber of
Commerce
William Clark Recreation Area
Construction
$358,953
$2,659,703
14
The Committee's final funding recommendations and funding conditions for all projects, in order of
priority, are listed below. This list also includes a summary of each project.
Project Rank: 1
Project Sponsor: Laurel, City of
Project Title: Riverside Park Campground
Project Summary: The City of Laurel is the sponsor and the applicant for this project. The application
seeks $400,000 to install a 6 -inch heated waterline from the Laurel Treatment Plant or cisterns to
accommodate camping in Riverside Park, to create 36 camping/RV sites with hookups for electric, and to
replace waterlines throughout the park to current standards. As this project has developed further, the
applicant revised the request to $400,000 for eligible park components such as construction of
sanitation facilities, a campground, picnic facilities, parking improvement, a trail, tree and shrub
plantings, and lighting. These components are part of the 2018 Master Plan for Riverside Park.
Funding Recommendation: $350,000
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package for eligible park improvement projects such as construction of sanitation
facilities, a campground, picnic facilities, parking improvement, a trail, tree and shrub plantings, and
lighting.
Project Rank: 2
Project Sponsor: Laurel, City of
Project Title: Riverside Park Vault Toilets
Project Summary: The City of Laurel is the sponsor and the applicant for this project. The application seeks
$37,000 to install one or two double stall vault toilets for the river access and boat ramp at Riverside Park.
Funding Recommendation: $37,000
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package. The City of Laurel must coordinate with FWP for the installation of the
vault toilets.
Project Rank: 3
Project Sponsor: Montana FWP
Project Title: Yellowstone River Fishing Access Site Acquisition and Development
Project Summary: Montana FWP is the sponsor for this project. FWP requested up to $500,000 to
develop fishing access sites along the Yellowstone River between Reed Point and Custer. FWP has
identified three priority stretches of river where additional access is a high priority and would strive to
locate at least one fishing access site within each stretch, although suitable property acquisitions for
new fishing access sites can be very hard to find and complete. The three stretches are: 1 -from
Columbus to Park City, 2- between Park City and Huntley Dam, and 3- below Huntley Dam to Custer.
FWP can acquire land in fee title, acquire easements, or enter into leases for river access. FWP would
like the flexibility, if necessary, to use the funds for either fee title purchase of properties, acquisition of
recreation easements at properties, development of fishing access site infrastructure, a combination of
development and acquisition, or other means to meet the project purpose. All awarded funds would go
15
to the acquisition and/or development of fishing access sites. Suitable fishing access locations are very
hard to find, acquire, and develop.
Working with other project partners, the funds would be used for either fee title purchase of properties,
acquisition of recreation easements at properties, development of fishing access site infrastructure, a
combination of development and acquisition, or other means to meet the project purpose. All awarded
funds would go to the acquisition and/or development of fishing access sites. FWP would also work with
a bridge engineer to evaluate the engineering needs for the bridge at Buffalo Mirage Fishing Access Site
(proposed by Luanne Engh and sponsored by City of Laurel) or work to preserve access at other existing
fishing access locations.
Funding Recommendation: $400,000
Funding Conditions: FWP must use the funds to acquire and develop three fishing access locations
between Columbus and the Big Horn River. FWP will have the flexibility to use the awarded funds for
either fee title purchase of properties, acquisition of recreation easements at properties, development
of fishing access site infrastructure, a combination of development and acquisition, or other means to
meet the project purpose. All awarded funds must go to the acquisition and/or development of fishing
access sites or maintenance of existing access. All funding awarded would be contingent on NRDP
approval of the final project scope of work, schedule, administration, budget, and funding package.
FWP must attempt to maximize the amount of match contributed to these projects. If any funds are
used for property acquisition, purchase must follow the NRDP land acquisition process outlined in
Section 3, Project Implementation. Funds may also be used for maintaining fishing access at existing
fishing access sites.
Project Rank: 4
Project Sponsor: Our Montana/ YRPA/FWP
Project Title: South Billings Bridge
Project Summary: The applicant, Our Montana, seeks $160,000 to help purchase and develop a new
fishing access site with a concrete boat ramp on a 15.13 -acre parcel on the south side of the river
adjacent to South Billings Bridge. Two entities may sponsor this project. FWP may sponsor this project
because the location would be part of the FWP regional fishing access site network, or YRPA may
sponsor the project because it is presently working on a deal to purchase the property and is expected
to be the property owner. The application originally requested approximately $65,000 to help purchase
and develop the new fishing access site. As this project has developed further, the project sponsor is
requesting $160,000 to help meet the project purpose. Working with FWP and other project partners,
such as YRPA, the funds would be used for either fee title purchase of the property (as proposed in the
abstract), acquisition of a recreation easement at the property, development of the fishing access site
infrastructure, a combination of development and acquisition, or other means to meet the project
purpose. All awarded funds would go to the acquisition and/or development of the fishing access site. At
this stage of project planning, Our Montana anticipates that the funds would be used for development
of the fishing access site.
Funding Recommendation: $160,000
16
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package. If the funds are used for acquisition, the following contingencies would be
required: Any land purchase must follow the NRDP land acquisition process outlined in Section 3,
Project Implementation
Project Rank: 5
Project Sponsor: YRPA
Project Title: Sindelar Ranch Fishing Access Site
Project Summary: The YRPA is both the project sponsor and the applicant for this project. YRPA
requested $300,000 to make a down payment on purchase of approximately 289 acres (Dover Island) at
the Sindelar Ranch in Billings Heights along Five Mile Road and Dover Road, adjacent to John H. Dover
Memorial Park. The project purpose is to develop a public park at the property that will be part of the
John H. Dover Memorial Park. The proposal was to use the restoration funds as a down payment to buy
the ranch and fund the rest of the purchase through fundraising and long-term commitments from local
financial institutions. YRPA states that this acquisition is part of an overall John H. Dover Memorial Park
development plan that would take 10 to 20 years.
As this project has developed further, YRPA has revised the funding request to $160,000 to help meet
the project purpose by developing a fishing access site at the Sindelar property. At this stage of project
planning, YRPA anticipates that the funds would be used for fishing access site development at the
Sindelar parcel of the John H. Dover Memorial Park. As a contingency, YRPA would like the flexibility, if
necessary, to use the funds for either fee title purchase of the property (as proposed in the abstract),
acquisition of a recreation easement at the property, development of the fishing access site
infrastructure, a combination of development and acquisition, or other means to meet the project
purpose. All awarded funds would go to the acquisition and/or development of the fishing access site.
Funding Recommendation: $160,000
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package. The funds for the fishing access shall not be contracted until the YRPA has
completed the purchase of the Sindelar Ranch Property, committed in writing to its use as a park
accessible to the public, and committed to the construction of a public fishing access at the location.
After a more site-specific conceptual plan is drawn up, the award shall be limited to the amount FWP
estimates it would cost to develop a fishing access at the site. YRPA must provide a copy of the
agreement with FWP to maintain and monitor the property. YRPA has said that it is working with
Montana Department of Transportation on a right-of-way agreement for the Billings Bypass project and
that the funds used to purchase the right-of-way would be set aside for long-term operations and
maintenance of the entire park. YRPA must provide a copy of the agreement with Montana Department
of Transportation and document the long-term operations and maintenance plan. If the funds are used
for acquisition of the property, the acquisition must follow the NRDP land acquisition process outlined in
Section 3, Project Implementation.
17
Project Rank: 6
Project Sponsor: Laurel, City of
Project Title: Lion's Family Park (Phase 1)
Project Summary: The City of Laurel is the sponsor and applicant for this project and is acting as a
sponsor for the Lion's Club. The application seeks $80,000 to add a handicap 10x20 shaded dock, dredge
the pond deeper to improve fish habitat, to add benches, and improve the walking path around the
Lions Family Park at South Pond.
Funding Recommendation: $62,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommended two phases of funding for this project. Phase 1 of
funding is for the dock, benches, and walking path. The second phase of funding for the dredging is
listed below with a priority rank of 17. If the Lions Club is successful in raising funds for the project, the
award would be reduced dollar for dollar by grants or other funds received. Match funding received
must be documented. NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget, and funding package.
Project Rank: 7
Project Sponsor: Big Sky Economic Development Authority/ Billings
Project Title: Coulson Park Master Plan
Project Summary: The applicant, Big Sky Economic Development Authority (EDA), seeks $30,000 to
$45,000 to write a master plan for Coulson Park, a 56 -acre City of Billings park located on the left
(northwestern) bank of the Yellowstone River between the interstate and the river. The City of Billings
has agreed to be the sponsor for this project because Coulson Park is a City park. Coulson Park is. The
park presently has little development. A 1995 master plan for the park identified the need for parking
and sanitary facilities, as well as other park improvements, although these improvements have mostly
not been built. The applicant proposes to hire a contractor to write a master plan to identify critical
infrastructure needs, to host three public meetings, to host focus group meetings, to create and
complete a public use survey, to raise awareness in the community, to prepare a concept design for the
park, and to rank priorities for implementation.
Funding Recommendation: $45,000
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package. Documentation must be provided for match funding. If the Big Sky
Economic Development Trust Fund grant is not received, the City of Billings and Big Sky EDA must
demonstrate that the project can be completed with available funding before the restoration plan funds
are contracted. The City of Billings' agreement with Big Sky EDA to complete the project must be
submitted to NRDP. NRDP shall approve the scope of work for the master plan to ensure scoping of
projects that will directly address the lost recreational use services from the oil spill.
Project Rank: 8
Project Sponsor: Billings, City of
Project Title: Josephine Lake Fishing Habitat Improvement (Task 1)
Project Summary: The City of Billings is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The application seeks
$150,000 to improve access to fishing opportunities by implementing the following tasks: 1- installing
18
an on -lake fishing pier (floating dock) and building trails to additional fishing access points, 2- improving
the fishery by increasing water depth, 3- improving water flow into and through the lake, and 4 -
improving shoreline habitat.
Funding Recommendation: $50,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommended two phases of funding for this project. Phase 1 is
funding for Task 1, the on -lake fishing pier and associated fishing trails. Before starting work on the
project, the City of Billings must provide a copy of the lease for use of the State land for Lake Josephine,
and document that the proposed improvements were part of the 2008 master plan for Riverfront Park,
or that the Riverfront Park master plan will be updated. The second phase of funding for tasks 2 through
4 is addressed below with a project priority of 18.
Project Rank: 9
Project Sponsor: Big Sky Economic Development Authority/Billings, City of
Project Title: Coulson Park Infrastructure
Project Summary: The applicant, Big Sky Economic Development Authority (EDA), seeks $500,000 to
construct the priority projects identified in the master plan for Coulson Park. The City of Billings would
be the sponsor for this project because Coulson Park is a City park.
Funding Recommendation: $250,000
Funding Conditions: The City of Billings must document that match funding of 50% for construction has
been secured. NRDP shall review the eligibility of projects selected from the master plan for
implementation using restoration funds. NRDP must approve the final project scope of work, schedule,
administration, budget and funding package.
Project Rank: 10
Project Sponsor: YRPA
Project Title: Norm's Island Latrines
Project Summary: The applicant, YRPA, seeks $96,500 to purchase and install a permanent double
vaulted latrine with handicap concrete access near the Norm's Island trailhead, picnic tables, and a
12x24 shelter at the Montana Audubon Center. The City of Billings is the project sponsor because the
improvements would be located on City property.
Funding Recommendation: $68,500
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommends funding up to the amount of $68,500 for the double
vaulted latrine with handicap concrete access and two picnic shelters, upon NRDP approval of the final
project scope of work, schedule, administration, budget and funding package. The City of Billings must
agree to sponsor the project, provide a schedule for updating the park master plan, and a schedule for
design and construction. The City of Billings must also provide commitment from the Billings City Council
for long-term maintenance funds.
19
Project Rank: 11
Project Sponsor: Billings, City of
Project Title: Coulson Park Improvement
Project Summary: The City of Billings is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The applicant seeks
$110,000 to reconstruct the Coulson Park boat launch ramp, make it accessible to 2 -wheel drive
vehicles, install a vault toilet near the ramp, enhance the parking lot to accommodate more vehicles and
trailers, and add picnic facilities at Coulson Park.
Funding Recommendation: $110,000
Funding Conditions: NRDP must approve the project scope of work, schedule, administration, budget,
and funding package. The City of Billings must document that these improvements were part of the
1995 Master Plan. The funds for these park improvements will not be contracted until after the master
plan is completed. Volunteer labor identified in the budget must be documented.
Project Rank: 12
Project Sponsor: Billings, City of
Project Title: Riverfront Park Multi -use Trail
Project Summary: The City of Billings is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The application seeks
$800,000 to build and improve 2.4 miles of paved riverfront recreational trail in Riverfront Park from
Josephine Crossing subdivision through Riverfront Park to Washington Street.
Funding Recommendation: $420,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommends funding for building and improving 2.4 miles of
Riverfront Park trail, upon NRDP approval of the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
budget and funding package. This amount is calculated based on construction of 2.4 miles of trail at $33
per linear foot (see discussion in Appendix A about price per linear foot). Restoration plan funds must
not be used to protect the river bank from erosion to protect the trail. The City of Billings must
document the public's desire for a paved trail versus a trail with a softer surface and the desire to
maintain a paved trail. The City of Billings must provide the permit/lease from the Montana DNRC or
FWP for the areas where the trail crosses State land.
Project Rank: 13
Project Sponsor: Our Montana and Montana Audubon Center
Project Title: Billings Urban Trail and Explore the Yellowstone River App Combination
Project Summary: The Committee recommended combing two applications. Our Montana submitted an
application for up to $18,000 to produce an "App" and website that would provide the public with
recreation information such as access, fishing, boating, camping, wildlife /bird viewing, safe swimming
areas, historic trails, museums, points of interest, and other activities on the Yellowstone River from
Gardiner to the North Dakota border. Putting all this information in an App would make it easier for
people to find and use, thus enhancing their experience. This project is part of an ongoing effort by Our
Montana to gather recreation information on the river and produce this App. NRDP is the sponsor for
this project for the purposes of contracting the funds for the applicant's use.
20
The other application, submitted by the Montana Audubon Center, seeks up to $38,350 to help establish
motorized and hand -launch boat ramps and sites including parking, signage, restrooms, etc., to create
and distribute a detailed map of boat launch sites including suggested stopover areas, points of interest,
recommended routes, hazards and mileage, to develop transportation options for returning to the
starting point, and develop and implement facilitated program options like "river rangers" guided canoe
float trips, safe boating training, and certification. The applicant also proposes to establish an
organization advocating for access and programming on the Yellowstone near Billings, and develop
organization goals, objectives and strategies related to conservation and recreational and educational
use of the river. The applicant updated the application funding request from $40,000 to $38,350. NRDP
is the sponsor of this project for the purposes of contracting the funds for the applicant's use.
Funding Recommendation: $25,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommended that Montana Audubon and Our Montana work
together on a joint project that includes aspects of both the proposals. The funding includes $25,000 for
preparation of a printed map and signs and an App, upon NRDP approval of the final project scope of
work, schedule, administration, budget and funding package. Our Montana would take the lead on the
project.
Project Rank: 14
Project Sponsor: YRPA
Project Title: Washington Street Bridge Acquisition
Project Summary: The YRPA is both the project sponsor and the applicant for this project. The
application seeks $30,000 to purchase six acres at the South Frontage Road at the old location of the
Washington Street Bridge. The purchase of the property would secure access to the City of Billings island
immediately to the south of the property. The former Washington Street Bridge site is blocked and
closed to the public. YRPA intends to deed the property to the City of Billings and make it part of the
adjacent island the City of Billings owns.
Funding Recommendation: $30,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommends funding in an amount up to $30,000 for purchase of
the Washington Street Bridge property, upon NRDP approval of the final project scope of work,
schedule, administration, budget and funding package. Before the funds are awarded, YRPA must
document that the property owners are willing to sell the property to YRPA. The City of Billings must
document that it is willing to accept property from YRPA. If the City of Billings is not willing to accept the
property, YRPA must submit to NRDP a commitment to hold and manage the property to meet
restoration plan goals. Any land purchase must follow the NRDP land acquisition process outlined in
Section 3, Project Implementation. Any remainder funds must be used for trailhead improvements such
as signage, gravel parking, trail work and landscaping.
Project Rank: 15
Project Sponsor: YRPA
Project Title: Joel's Pond
Project Summary: The YRPA is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The application seeks $13,900
to improve the dock ramp handicap accessibility, to import top soil and seed native grasses, and surrey
21
and improve the trails at Joel's pond. The project purpose is to continue park build out of this private,
publicly -accessible urban pond. As this project developed further, YRPA revised the requested amount
to $16,000 for other components of the park buildout that were described in the application abstract,
specifically the trail. Montana Dakota Utilities is contributing concrete for the construction of the
Heritage trail to the pond. YRPA would use the requested funds to pay for labor to install the donated
concrete, to apply a gravel surface to the remaining trails, to update the master plan and park brochure,
and to survey the bridge and trail location.
Funding Recommendation: $10,000
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommended up to $10,000 for park buildout components, upon
NRDP approval of the final project scope of work, schedule, administration, budget and funding
package. YRPA must document all match received for this project.
Project Rank: 16
Project Sponsor: Yellowstone County Board of Park Commissioners
Project Title: Two Moon Park Recreational Access
Project Summary: The Yellowstone County Board of Park Commissioners is the sponsor and applicant for
this project. The application seeks $25,000 to widen the main trail corridor around Two Moon Park by
removing brush and trees for a 12 -foot trail corridor around the park, adding some new trail, adding a
gate, and raising the parking lot using road mix and gravel. The project is to improve the perimeter trail,
so vehicles can access the park.
Funding Recommendation: $8,250
Funding Conditions: The Committee recommended funding for parking area improvements. NRDP must
approve the final project scope of work, schedule, administration, budget and funding package. The
County must provide a budget for the parking area improvement.
Project Rank: 17
Project Sponsor: Laurel, City of
Project Title: Lion's Family Park (Phase 2)
Project Summary: The City of Laurel is the sponsor and applicant for this project and is acting as a
sponsor for the Lion's Club. The application seeks $80,000 to add a handicap 10x20 shaded dock, dredge
the pond deeper to improve fish habitat, to add benches, and improve the walking path around the
Lions Family Park at South Pond.
Funding Recommendation: $15,000
Funding Conditions: This project is phase 2 of funding for the Lions Family Park projects and is for pond
dredging. Phase 1 is addressed above with a project priority of 6. The City of Laurel and Lions Club must
develop the task beyond the conceptual phase presented in the abstracts and provide NRDP with a viable
final scope or work, schedule, administration, and budget. NRDP must approve the project scope,
schedule and budget.
22
Project Rank: 18
Project Title: Josephine Lake Tasks 2-4
Project Summary: The City of Billings is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The application seeks
$150,000 to improve access to fishing opportunities by implementing the following tasks: 1- installing
an on -lake fishing pier (floating dock) and building trails to additional fishing access points, 2- improving
the fishery by increasing water depth, 3- improving water flow into and through the lake, and 4 -
improving shoreline habitat.
Funding Recommendation: $100,000
Funding Conditions: Funding for Task 1 is addressed above with a project priority of 8. Task 2 - installing
an island and increasing the lake depth, Task 3 - improving water flow, and Task 4 - improving shoreline
habitat must be developed beyond the conceptual phase presented in the abstracts. The Billings Parks
and Recreation Department must provide NRDP with a viable final scope of work, schedule,
administration, and budget for each task. Each of these tasks could be completed independent of the
others. The City of Billings must provide a copy of the lease for use of the State land for Lake Josephine
and document that the proposed improvements were part of the 2008 master plan for Riverfront Park,
or that the Riverfront Park master plan will be updated.
Project Rank: 19
Project Sponsor: Billings Chamber of Commerce
Project Title: William Clark Recreation Area Construction
Project Summary: The applicant, Billings Chamber of Commerce, seeks $762,905 to develop a 47 -acre
park with 3,800 lineal feet of Yellowstone River frontage. The City of Billings is the sponsor for this
project because the City of Billings is the recipient of the easement on the Western Sugar Property and a
new park at this location would be a City park. The applicant proposes a new park that would be open to
the public and provide greenway trails, scenic overlooks, and river access. In addition to recreation, the
site would be an area for education and tourism. Proposed signs would share the story of the agriculture
industry in the Yellowstone Valley because of Western Sugar's donation of a land easement. The park
would preserve a historical site recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey as a documented location
where Captain William Clark led an expedition across the Yellowstone River. Plans included interpretive
signs celebrating the historical significance of the Lewis and Clark Expedition with an emphasis on Clark's
return voyage. The park could provide recreational and educational opportunities for residents and
visitors alike and be a monumental park addition to the City of Billings community.
Funding Recommendation: $358,953
Funding Conditions: The NRDP had recommended funding for a master plan for the William Clark
Recreation Area. The Committee recommended no funding for a master plan. However, the City of
Billings will require a master plan for the proposed park. After a master plan is completed using other
funds, the City of Billings must confirm it will sponsor the construction project. The NRDP must review
and approve the projects selected for construction from the master plan for eligibility using the
restoration plan criteria. Eligible project components would restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of injured recreational human use services and meet the goal of providing additional
recreational human use opportunities to offset those lost due to the 2011 oil spill. Construction funding
is recommended upon NRDP approval of the final project scope of work, schedule, administration,
23
budget and funding package. Before the funds are contracted, the City of Billings must obtain a
permanent easement or fee title on the Western Sugar property and document that the permanent
easement or fee title of the property is in the City of Billings' name to protect the investment of public
funds. The City of Billings must also provide written documentation of the value of the Western Sugar
easement and other committed match with an explanation of how the match will be applied to the
project.
Projects not recommended for funding:
Project Sponsor: Billings, City of
Project Title: Riverfront Park Hand Launch
Project Summary: The City of Billings is the sponsor and applicant for this project. The application seeks
$100,000 to build a hand boat launch site, improve the existing access road, and expand the existing
parking area in Riverfront Park. This project was also proposed by Matthew Sather, a member of the
public.
Funding Recommendation: $0
Project Sponsor: Our Montana
Project Title: Yellowstone River Private Islands
Project Summary: The applicant, Our Montana, seeks up to $92,488 to attempt to acquire by donation
islands on the Yellowstone River that are in private ownership. The original application requested up to
$140,000 for this project but was updated in a subsequent submittal. NRDP would be the sponsor for
this project for the purposes of contracting the funds for the applicant's use. The process explained in
the application starts with selecting priority areas, Billings to Laurel or an area next to Yellowstone River
State Park and Wildlife Management Area, because these two areas have already had much technical
work done on them and are important environmentally. The applicant intends to hire the technical help
of a geomorphologist to prepare an island study and report. The study would look at the fluvial
geomorphology overtime, patent records, survey records, aerial photos, channel migration, soil
characteristics and vegetation. The process described requires a site visit as well as use of online data. A
real estate representative would then make landowner contacts and negotiate and complete donations.
Appraisals and surveys of the properties may be required.
Funding Recommendation: $0
24
3.0 Project Implementation
Upon approval of a recreation project, the project sponsors will be required to enter into a contract
agreement with NRDP before any funds can be expended or received. Detailed scopes of works,
budgets, and project schedules are required in all agreements, and must be approved by NRDP before
any work paid for by Yellowstone River 2011 Oil Spill restoration funds can begin. Expenses incurred by
project sponsors before the contract agreement becomes effective will not be reimbursed.
The NRDP will ensure that all approved projects implemented by the project sponsors are consistent
with scope and budget of the project as approved. NRDP will not fund aspects of projects that are not
consistent with the approved project or Oil Pollution Act requirements.
NRPD will work with project sponsors to make the funds available for approved projects that are within
the available funding. NRDP will also use recreation project funds to ensure that projects are monitored
sufficiently to meet the Oil Pollution Act requirements. As provided for in the 2016 Consent Decree,
NRDP administrative costs incurred by the State related to the implementation of this plan will be
funded from Yellowstone recreation funds. These costs will include, as needed, design, implementation,
oversight, operation and maintenance, monitoring, permitting, MEPA analysis, integrating the
recreation projects with projects for other injured resources and services, and other related activities, to
ensure the selected priority recreation projects meet the restoration plan goals.
Other Information for Project Sponsors
• Project sponsor costs for project administration activities will be capped at 5 percent of the total
estimated project development and design costs.
• As part of the project development efforts, project sponsors should pursue opportunities to
obtain matching funds or in-kind services for the full project to increase the project's cost-
effectiveness.
• Procurement for all projects must comply with State procurement requirements, including legal
procurement for all environmental consulting, engineering, and design activities.
• If a project is completed under budget, the remainder funds will be used for the same
restoration project type. Some projects may not reach implementation phase, depending on the
results of the project development phase.
• All restoration work on private or public land will require landowner agreement to protect
projects for a specific length of time.
• Specific projects may require additional MEPA review and public participation during project
development and implementation.
• Entities contracted for project implementation must obtain all required permits.
• Projects selected will be required to initiate implementation within two years of the plan
finalization. The implementation will take place over a period not to exceed five years.
• The implementation will include necessary oversight and review by NRDP, with funds distributed
to project partners on a reimbursement basis.
99