PLEASE mm' It BOCIMNTS COLLECTIOII MAR 2 6 1982 MONTANA STATE UBfJARY 930 £ Lyndsle Ave. Het«na, Montana 59601 I^R 2 ttes m 2 9 1386 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY S 333.72 Cl2rc.1 Resource conservationplan,19B1-1985/ lii'ii|i|p!ir 3 0864 00038597 4 MONTANA'S LAND BASE IN 1977 >> LAND AREA USE STATUS OF NONFEDERAL LAND WATER OTHER LAND IN FARMS AND FARMSTEADS URBAN AND DEVELOPED ROADS AND RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ir> RESOURCE COINSERVAnON PLAN 1981 -1985 CONSERVATION DISTRICTS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 32 S. EWING, HELENA, MT DECEMBER 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I. INTRODUCTION Approach 1 Problem Survey 1 Planning Levels 1 Sources and Status of Assistance and Funding Needs for Conservation Districts 1 II. MAJOR CONCERNS DEALT WITH IN THE PLAN Soil Erosion 7 Irrigation Water Management 9 Food and Fiber Production 10 Water Supply ^2 Noxious Weeds 13 Changes in Land Use 14 Rural Development 15 Socio-political Concerns 16 Rangeland Improvement 17 Prime Agricultural Land 18 Recreation 19 Water Quality 20 Saline Seep 22 Flooding 23 Wildlife Habitat 24 Forestry 25 Mining 26 Fish Habitat 27 III. WORK PLAN IV. CONCLUSION APPENDIX A. Conservation District Division Policies and Duties 49 B. Sample RCA Worksheets 50 C. Formation and Purpose of the Resource Conservation Advisory Council; Members of the Council 55 D. Meetings, Attendance, and Distribution of Questionnaires 57 E. Literature Cited 58 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Conservation District Major Concerns 2 2. Major Concerns by Conservation District 4 3. Conditions of State and Private Rangeland in Montana in 1976 17 4. Schedule of Objectives 42 LIST OF TABLES 1. Project Proposals Funded by 1981 Legislature 5 2. Reallocation of Renewable Resource Development Funds by 1981 Legislature 5 3. Fossil Fuel-Related Costs for Agricultural Production in Montana 10 4. Noxious Weed Infestation in Montana, 1978 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared for the Conservation Districts Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) under the direction of Ole Ueland, who this year marks twenty years of service to the Department. The report was compiled by Deeda Richard and edited by Peggy Todd. The Division acknowledges the guidance and support of the members of the Resources Conservation Advisory Council, who are named in the appendix. Additional assistance was provided by the Department of State Lands, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Forest Service of USDA, the Montana Association of Conser- vation Districts, Montana's 59 Conservation Districts, and the Agricultural Experiment Station at Montana State University. Special thanks go to Carole Massman and Frank Culver of DNRC's Special Staff for their advice and cooperation. Susan Mohl typed the report, )une Virag did the graphics, Dan Nelson designed the cover, and Don Howard made the layouts. Cordon Taylor supervised production. Also contributing to the report were the staff of the Conservation Districts Division, Kay Maroney, Terry Wheeler, and Parham Hacker. IV I. INTRODUCTION APPROACH This plan is a natural resource management plan for the Conservation Districts Division (CDD) of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) which addresses the major concerns and problems on private land identified by Montana's conservation districts (CDs). It is not a total natural resource plan for the state of Montana. It does, however, call for cooperation with state and federal agencies that plan for and manage public and trust lands. In many cases, cooperative agreements are in effect between the conservation districts and these agen- cies. Therefore the Conservation Districts Division expects that the agencies will cooperate to accomplish the plan's objectives. The duties and policies of the CDD are presented in Appendix A of this report. The CDD resource management plan could be com- bined with similar plans from other agencies to contribute to a statewide planning effort. Such a statewide plan is needed to accomplish resource conservation objectives effectively for Montana. PROBLEM SURVEY In 1978 CDs were asked to help identify the major resource concerns and problems for their districts. This identification was done with the cooperation and direc- tion of the conservation district supervisors through public participation. This process involved holding 200 public meetings attended by 3,732 people, as well as making presentations to service clubs and Agricultural Stabiliza- tion and Conservation committees. Questionnaires were used to gather the information; they were either handed out at the meetings or mailed to the CD members. Each Soil Conservation Service (SCS) field office district conser- vationist entered the data for each CD on a worksheet (Appendix B). Meeting attendance and questionnaire results are shown in Appendix C. After the data were entered on the worksheets for each CD, the information was sent to the SCS state office, which then summarized and compiled it for all the CDs. The results are shown as major concerns by conservation district in figure 1, and major concerns in figure 2. The plan sets objectives for the major concerns; these are shown in the work plan in section III. PLANNING LEVELS Under the Resource Conservation Act (RCA PL95-192), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was directed to make a continuing appraisal of the soil, water, and related resources on nonfederal land, develop a 5-year program for their conservation, and make annual reports to Congress, until the termination of the law on December 31, 1985. In carrying out the RCA law, USDA cooperates with state soil and water agencies, other ap- propriate state natural resource agencies, conservation districts, other local units of government, and land users. Montana laws enacted in 1939 provide for the establishment, administration, and operation of conserva- tion districts for resource conservation. These districts are empowered to plan and carry out measures for the con- servation of resources in their jurisdiction. A cooperative agreement established as a result of the Resource Conser- vation Act is one of the tools used to accomplish this goal. This agreement ensures that resource appraisal continues, that plans responsive to local needs are developed, and that necessary action is carried out. The Conservation Districts Division of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has entered into a joint agreement with the Soil Conservation Service of USDA to develop a plan designed to conserve, protect, and enhance soil, water, and related resources in Montana. A grant provided through the Resource Conser- vation Act funded the production of the plan. SOURCES AND STATUS OF ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Local Sources: Conservation district supervisors have authority through county commissioners to cause taxes to be levied not to exceed 1.5 mills on all real property within the district to fund district programs. Also, 50 percent of the qualified electors in an area can petition to create a pro- ject area. An election must be held for the voters in the proposed project area; a majority vote will result in the creation of a project area. To pay for all or part of the pro- ject expenses the regular 1 .5 mill levy can be used; part of FIGURE 1 MAJOR CONCERNS BY CONSERVATION DISTRICT \ CONCERNS m^ CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (CDs) \ z o CO O DC LU _l o 1- Z LU LU O < z < DC LU < z o 1- < o DC Z o H o 13 Q O QC ^>. LU Q CD Q Q U o^ O 5 Li- 5 CO - Q J LU L LU 3^ ■) CO . 3 jO lo I z UJ CO =3 Q Z < _l H Z LU a. O _i LU > LU Q —I < DC =) DC < O 1- _J o a. 6 O O CO H Z UJ ^ UJ > O QC a. CO Q Z < LU o z < DC LU > < Z CO Q z < _J DC < 1- z < (- DC O a. UJ 3 g z LU DC a. z o 1- < UJ DC O UJ DC >- h- _l < o DC LU 1- < « a. UJ LU CO LU z _J < CO z Q O O _i U. 1- < (- □Q < X UJ LL —I Q -I 3" < DC LU Q LU U. z o z > DC (- CO LU DC O U. O z z < \- < I X CO LL 5 c E c o > c LU o •^- c o O c 0 O DC a. to « CO o 'c CO u> O o lo CO o to b c CO _l o CO c CO Q "cO O < c o cfl 2 LU c CO n E CO QJ k_ CO to ■D c jO 5 BEAVERHEAD CD • < > • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BIG HORN CD • » » • • • • • • • BIG SANDY CD • • BITTERROOT CD • < > • • • • • • • • • • • BLAINE COUNTY CD • • BROADWATER CD • • CARBON CD < > • • • CARTER COUNTY CD • • • CASCADE COUNTY CD • • • • • • • • CHOTEAU COUNTY CD • • • • CULBERTSON - BAINVILLE CD • • < • • • CUSTER COUNTY CD • • I • • • • • • • DANIELS COUNTY CD • < • • DAWSON COUNTY CD • • < • • • • • DEER LODGE VALLEY CD • • I • • • • EASTERN SANDERS COUNTY CD • i • • FERGUS COUNTY CD • • < • FLATHEAD CD • • < • • • • FROID CD • • • • GALLATIN CD • • • • • • GARFIELD COUNTY CD • • • GLACIER COUNTY CD • < • • • GRANITE CD • • • • • • GREEN MOUNTAIN CD • • • • • HILL COUNTY CD • • JEFFERSON VALLEY CD • • i • • • • • • • • • • JUDITH BASIN CD • t • • • • • LAKE COUNTY CD • • • • LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY CD • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LIBERTY COUNTY CD • • • • • LINCOLN CD • • • • • LITTLE BEAVER CD • » • • *These concerns were not listed on pre-printed worksheets, but Conservation Districts felt they were nnajor con- cerns in their areas. Each Conservation District was allowed only one of these "others". If saline seep and nox- ious weeds had been listed, more CD's may have named them a major concern. CONCERNS CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (CDs) LOWER MUSSELSHELL CD MADISON CD MCCONE CD MEAGHER COUNTY CD MILE HIGH CD MINERAL COUNTY CD MISSOULA CD NORTH POWELL CD PARK CD PETROLEUM COUNTY CD PHILLIPS CD PONDERA COUNTY CD POWDER RIVER CD PRAIRIE COUNTY CD RICHLAND COUNTY CD ROSEBUD CD RUBY VALLEY CD SHERIDAN COUNTY CD STILLWATER CD SWEET GRASS COUNTY CD TETON CD TOOLE COUNTY CD TREASURE COUNTY CD UPPER MUSSELSHELL CD VALLEY COUNTY CD WIBAUX CD YELLOWSTONE CD TOTAL 4544 LU 4432302927242317 17 16 15 13 10 10 O 5 c E c o > LU o c o O QJ ■o o tr o6 a) a. to u5 o 'c CO O) O o o Q. CO b "D c CT3 —I 0) m c CO ^- Q O < c o c CO E CO Q) 55 CO ■D c jO • • • • • • • • • • • 6 6 5 3 3 3 2 •These concerns were not listed on pre-printed worksheets, but Conservation Districts felt they were major con- cerns in their areas. Each Conservation District was allowed only one of these "others'. If saline seep and nox- ious weeds had been listed, nnore CD's may have named them a major concern. FIGURE 2 CONSERVATION DISTRICTS' MAJOR CONCERNS % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % EROSION WATER MANAGEMENT FOOD & FIBER PROD. WATER SUPPLY NOXIOUS WEEDS LAND USE RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIOPOLITICAL RANGE IMPROVEMENT PRIME AG LAND RECREATION WATER QUALITY SALINE SEEP FLOODING WILDLIFE HABITAT FORESTRY (NON-FED.) MINING FISH HABITAT ENVIRONMENTAL PEST & RODENT CONTROL LAND DISP. WASTE DRAINAGE AIR QUALITY STREAMBANK EROSION WETLANDS ii M>>>>>;Mi;t.M'.M.'.'-;.>->.^| w^M>!^0■'.M■*^^^'.':'r-■';'>XO!OX'>)!'y''.*>.M-*.'.*.'■'■'.*■';'!^'^ LEGEND Concerns addressed in plan (based on review of CDs' plans) Concerns not addressed r the project can be paid for by a special assessment not to exceed 3 mills on all taxable real property within the designated project area. Conservation districts have authority to charge fees for services they provide, but this has been done only in special cases. Historically districts operated equipment from which revenues were derived, but since private contractors now provide many of these services, revenues from this source are limited. State Sources: The state legislature in recent years has appropriated $100,000 a year, of which by law 75 percent is distributed according to acreage and 25 percent according to need. However, in place of the $100,000 the 1981 Legislature has allocated 0.5 of 1 percent of the coal tax to be made available to districts for projects based on need. (The Resource Conservation Advisory Council will develop guidelines to allocate the money.) This will amount to ap- proximately $240,600 for 1982 and $275,000 annually for 1983-1985. The state Renewable Resource Development (RRD) fund is available for district-sponsored projects. Table 1 shows project proposals funded by the 1981 Legislature and table 2 shows reallocation of RRD funds. TABLE 1, Recipient Ruby Valley CD Cascade and Teton CDs Triangle CD CDD CDD Water Resources Division, DNRC DHLS PRO)ECT PROPOSALS FUNDED BY 1981 LEGISLATURE Amount of Funding Purpose $490,000 300,000 275,000 350,000 30,000 350,000 41,000 East Bench gravity sprinkler project Muddy Creek water-quality project Saline seep control Continuation of Rangeland Improvement loan program Leafy spurge control Small water-development loans CDs water-quality project feasibility; project proposals studies Total 37,266,642 91,164,000 TABLE 2. REALLOCATION OF RENEWABLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS BY 1981 LEGISLATURE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1983 Type of Project Water Agriculture Forestry Water reservations (CDs) Miscellaneous Percent of funding 40 20 20 10 10 Amount of Funding $500,000 250,000 250,000 125,000 125,000 The 1981 Legislature passed Senate Bill 409, creating a water development program for Montana to be carried out by the Water Resources Division of DNRC. The Water Development Program will earmark revenue from state- owned projects; 30 percent of the interest from the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund and 0.625 percent of the coal severance tax will go to a water development ac- count. These revenues, about 3.5 million dollars each biennium, will fund water resource projects such as: ir- rigation systems, saline seep abatement, offstream and tributary storage, canal lining, water-based recreation, streambank stabilization, erosion control, rehabilitation of existing projects, and development of conservation district water reservations. In addition, the Water Development Program will use the coal severance tax proceeds flowing into the perma- nent trust fund to back bonds sold to finance water pro- jects. Only if recipients are unable to fully repay project costs will the severance tax proceeds actually be depleted. The legislature must approve each project before bonds can be sold. Also, 15 percent of the earnings from the permanent trust fund are reappropriated to the trust fund to offset any depletion of proceeds going into that trust fund. The Water Development Program is of specific interest to conservation districts because the pro- gram will be providing two engineers beginning in fiscal year 1 982 for assistance to CDs to improve and implement water reservation plans on the Yellowstone River. The Water Development Program will also be providing small water development grants and loans beginning July 1, 1983. It is anticipated that the CDs will be closely involved in the grant and loan portion of the program. The Forestry Division of DNRC maintains a tree and shrub nursery in Missoula that provides stock for shelterbelt plantings for a nominal fee. The Montana Cooperative Extension Service provides resource conservation education and information assistance to districts. Federal Sources: Most federal assistance comes from the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. The Soil Conservation Service pro- vides technical help to districts by cooperative agreement. SCS resource conservation programs are available, such as: the Great Plains Contract Program, Watershed and Flood Prevention (PL566) programs, Resource Conserva- tion and Development programs. Rural Abandoned Mine Program, Plant Materials Center, Soil Survey, Snow Survey, and the Inventory and Monitoring Program. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service cost- sharing programs and the Farmers Home Administration conservation loan programs make important contribu- tions to resource conservation. All these sources contribute a considerable amount of funding to resource conservation and development in Montana, and, with the investments of ranchers and farmers, provide a substantial financial base. The demand and opportunity exists to expand these programs; however, if such expansion is not possible with the help of the Resource Conservation Advisory Council, the Na- tional Association of Conservation Districts, and the Mon- tana Association of Conservation Districts, the Conserva- tion Districts Division will work to maintain present fun- ding and assistance levels. If federal funding is not available, more state support will be needed to fund the programs. II. Major Concerns Dealt with in the Plan After an examination of the CDs' long-range plans published since 1978, it was determined that the first 18 concerns identified by the CDs shown in Figure 1 , closely parallel the concerns addressed in the CDs' local long- range plans. Therefore the CDD will be addressing those 18 concerns in this section. Each concern is dealt with separately, although some are so closely interrelated that the means of resolution may be identical. For every con- cern a brief statement of "Situation" explains the current conditions. A statement called "Concerns" follows. Then the proposed CDD objectives are listed, along with the reason for their selection. SOIL EROSION Situation Soil is being blown and washed from Montana's land at a rate that threatens productivity. Amounts of erosion depend on several factors: soil erodibility, soil cover, amount of soil disturbance, snowmelt conditions, amount and intensity of rainfall, volume of runoff, distance be- tween protected areas, wind speed, direction, and dura- tion. There are areas of natural or geologic erosion that cannot be economically or effectively controlled per- manently. Unprotected croplands are particularly vulnerable to erosion, especially wind erosion. Pasture, hay, range, and forest lands that have a good cover are less susceptible. It is estimated that 10 million acres of land in Montana have a high degree of erosion. Of Montana's 15 million acres of cropland, about 2 million acres (13%) are eroding from wind and water at a rate above that considered tolerable, called the "T" value, which varies with different soil types. Of the state's 48 million acres of range, forest, and pasture, 8 million acres (16%) are losing soil from water erosion at a rate above tolerable limits. In compar- ing these soil loss rates, the soil types for pasture, range, and forest land generally have a tolerance limit much less than the soil types for cropland. Another major difference in soil loss from range and forest land is that much of it may be natural geologic erosion which cannot be con- trolled; however, nearly all erosion on cropland is con- trollable by some conservation means (SCS 1977). Wind causes most of the erosion on Montana's cropland. In 1980 Montana was ranked as having the se- cond worst wind erosion problem in the nation (SCS 1980). An average of 417,000 acres yearly are being damaged by wind erosion. Montana's most critical wind erosion occurs in the north-central "triangle" area, and extends easterly across the Highline. Other critical wind erosion areas are in east-central and south-central Mon- tana (SCS 1977). Many of the conservation districts have documented soil erosion problems in their district long-range plans. Missoula CD is one such district, which documents its soil erosion problem as follows. Missoula County has 15,387 acres of dry cropland; 1,162 acres (16%) are suffering from sheet, rill, and gully (water) erosion. Of the 34,293 acres of irrigated cropland, 1,858 acres (5.4%) are being eroded by water. There are 81,720 acres of rangeland in Missoula County and 2,1 18 acres (2.6%) have water ero- sion. Forestland in the county encompasses 1,158,327 acres and 5,214 acres (.45%) are affected by sheet, rill, and gully erosion. There is little wind erosion in Missoula County (Missoula Conservation District 1981). Dawson County CD, on the other hand, does have wind erosion problems identified in its long-range plan. Of Dawson county's 391,206 acres of dry cropland, 8,400 acres (2.1%) are being affected by severe wind erosion (Dawson County Conservation District 1980). Conflicts in management of the soil resource have resulted in poor use of the land. Oftentimes landowners realize they have soil erosion problems, but not all land- owners nor the public are fully aware of the effects and control of soil erosion. Often soil erosion controls only in- volve a change of management practices. Many solutions are possible: use of flexible, minimum, and no-till crop- ping systems to supplement crop-fallow systems, improv- ed crop varieties for no-till crop systems, grassed water- ways, windbreaks and tall wheatgrass barriers, and willow plantings and alternate livestock watering systems for streambank protection. Concerns Water and wind remove topsail from Mon- tana's land and deposit it on other land or in lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers. Not only is the pro- ductive capability of the land that has lost the top- soil reduced, but if topsoil reaches water, the quality of the water is reduced. Sediment can deposit biological and chemical pollutants in water, further degrading water quality. Soil erosion control methods are available; they often require short-term capital investments, and mainly offer long-term capital returns. The landowner is not always compensated in the short- term for his erosion control installations and management changes. However, the public benefits from the resultant maintenance of long- term soil productivity and improved water quality. Objectives A) To continue soil surveys for Montana the CDD will assist CDs to secure funds for work on their county soil surveys. See Part A, Objective I in the Work Plan. Rationale: Ranchers, farmers, and forestland owners will benefit from current soil surveys that give data on soil depth, slope, stability, and com- position. B) To complete soil surveys in Montana the CDD will seek funds to implement the Montana Soil Survey Plan. The plan, compiled by the Mon- tana Soil Survey Committee, will take 18 years to complete, at a cost of $525,000 annually beginn- ing in Fiscal Year 1984. See Part B, Objective 2 in the Work Plan. Rationale: Ranchers, farmers and forestland owners will benefit from current soil surveys that give data on soil depth, slope, stability, and com- position. C) To help begin 2 soil erosion control pro- jects. Projects will be considered in the Bitterroot, Beartooth, or Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) areas and in conserva- tion districts. See Part A, Objective 3 in the Work Plan. Rationale: These RC&D areas and districts have identified several projects in their resource conservation plans. Critical areas identified in these plans need treatment and the RC&Ds and CDs are prepared to address such problems as soil erosion. D) To increase the amount of funds available for conservation projects through the Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service Long Term Agreement cost-share programs from $3,500 per year to $5,000 per year, per contract. See Part B, Objective 21, of the Work Plan. Rationale: The Long Term Agreements are popular incentives for applying conservation prac- tices. Often, however, the $3,500 limit does not cover the cost of soil conservation installations. E) To increase the total amount of funds available to Montana from Long Term Agreement cost-share programs the CDD will request USDA to make a 15 percent increase in funds. Long Term Agreement funds available for Fiscal Year 1981 total $564,000 for the State of Montana. See Part B, Objective 22, of the Work Plan. Rationale: The Long Term Agreements are popular incentives for applying conservation prac- tices; however, there are not enough Long Term Agreement funds to cover costs of all proposed projects. F) To plant and improve shelterbelts for the prevention of soil erosion and the provision of wildlife habitat. The CDD will encourage CDs to participate in the Montana Interagency Tree or Shrub Improvement Study (MITOSIS) to further the use of shelterbelts. The MITOSIS program is cooperatively run by the Forestry Division of DNRC, the SCS, and other forestry agencies. The program is intended to find superior tree and shrub species for field barrier and environmental plantings. CDs can assist in collecting superior seed stock and finding cooperators interested in running a planting test area. See Part B. Objective 23, of the Work Plan. Rationale: Many shelterbelts have been removed from the Montana plains and many areas have never been protected by shelterbelts. These fragile areas subject to soil blowing need the pro- tection such plantings can provide. Also tree and shrub plantings provide wildlife habitat and if planted along streams provide fish and wildlife 8 habitat, streambank protection, and water quality improvement. G) To apply soil and water conservation to the land. The CDD will encourage CDs to annually review their conservation plans with their cooperators. See Part B. Objective 24 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Conservation plans, when proper- ly followed up, can give conscientious attention to soil and water conservation. IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT Situation Irrigation water is vital to Montana. Over 95 percent ot the water withdrawn from Montana drainages is used for irrigation. More than 2.5 million acres in the state are fully or partially irrigated. Total water use for irrigation amounts to 12.4 million acre-feet of water over a six- month irrigation season each year. Surface water provides 99 percent of the irrigation water; 1 percent comes from ground water (DNRC 1975). Nearly 80 percent of Mon- tana's irrigated land is in hay or pasture. Other major ir- rigated crops include small grains, corn siilage, sugar beets, beans, and potatoes (SCS 1980). Although gravity ditch and lateral systems have been by far the most extensively used, sprinkler systems are becoming more and more popular, using easily portable aluminum pipe with pumps or gravity feed drawing from streams, ponds, or wells (DNRC 1975). Where gravity flow sprinkler systems can be used they save substantial amounts of electrical power. In many places in Montana there is sufficient fall to generate the pressure needed. In Ravalli County five such projects have repaid their cost by irrigating several thousand acres efficiently with almost no power input. Drip systems are available that do not re- quire high-pressure application of water. Because water is delivered slowly, less water is lost by evaporation or runoff. Both the water and energy used by a drip system is about 50 percent of conventional systems (MHD 1977). Inefficient irrigation water delivery and application is often a problem. It is estimated for Montana that only 47 percent of the water diverted actually reaches the farm. Of this 47 percent, 52 percent is consumed by the crop; the other 48 percent is lost because of delivery and on- farm inefficiencies (DNRC 1975). However, this situation can be improved. For example, in the Montana portion of the Missouri River Basin, overall irrigation efficiency is a poor 20 percent. If an additional 600,000 acre-feet of ir- rigation water were provided by implementing structural and management improvements, reservoir storage for late season irrigation would result and overall efficiency could be increased by 35 percent for a total efficiency of 55 per- cent (Missouri River Basin Commission 1980). A further look at irrigation water management shows that one- fourth of the irrigated lands in Montana do have adequate on-farm irrigation systems but only half of these lands receive good irrigation water management (SCS 1978). The water saved by good irrigation water manage- ment can be put to several beneficial uses depending on the area's needs and the water rights in the area where the water savings are made. Concerns Irrigation efficiency in Montana needs to be upgraded. Even though water supply may be ade- quate, if irrigation methods are ineffective, water will be wasted. Managerial as well as structural im- provement is recommended by the CDs. Increas- ed use of gravity flow sprinkler systems and drip ir- rigation is needed to conserve water and energy. Objectives A) To provide increased assistance to irriga- tion operators for irrigation water management training and irrigation systems improvement. The CDD will support efforts of the Montana Cooperative Extension Service and SCS to provide increased irrigation assistance; the CDD will also assist the Cooperative Extension service to publicize its irrigation scheduling models. See Part B, Objective 25 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Irrigators need assistance with ap- plying current irrigation technologies in order to improve their efficiencies. B) To improve irrigation efficiency informa- tion systems the CDD will encourage interested CDs to develop their ability to test and monitor ir- rigation efficiency, including delivery and applica- tion structures and equipment. See Part B, Objec- tive 26 in the Worl< Plan. Rationale: Irrigators need assistance with ap- plying current irrigation technologies in order to improve their efficiencies. FOOD AND FIBER PRODUCTION Situation The production of food and fiber is a broad subject and encompasses all of Montana's resources. Future food and fiber production is dependent on the proper care of our soil, water, agricultural land and forest land. However, these particular resources are addressed in other sections of this plan; in following the conservation districts concerns this section will address increased costs and increased energy consumption as it relates to food and fiber production in Montana. Closely tied to the problem of increasing costs of food and fiber production is increased energy consumption on the farm and loss of productive land (see Land Use Changes section for more information on loss of produc- tive lands). To decrease production costs and assure a continued source of food and fiber, in light of decreasing fossil fuel supplies, the long range solution must involve a transition to a food production system that is minimally dependent on fossil fuels. Quenton M. West, administrator of USDA's Economic Research Service, notes, "while we have about doubled farm output in the last 30 years, we have more than quadrupled our fuel consumption— so that farm out- put per gallon of fuel has declined by half" (MHD 1977). It is estimated that U.S. agriculture could reduce energy consumption 20-30 percent by substituting alternative production methods by using machinery more efficiently (MHD 1977). In Montana expenditures on fossil fuel for agricultural production have increased dramatically. From 1964 to 1974 agricultural expenditures for petroleum products in- creased by 76 percent, and expenditures for commercial (synthetic) fertilizers rose by 418 percent (U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce 1969, 1974). Table 3 shows the amounts spent by Montana agricultural producers for fossil fuels or fossil fuel-related products. Irrigators who use electrically powered systems can expect an increase of 429 percent in the price of electricity, if a current ap- plication for rate increase to the Public Service Commis- sion by Montana Power Co. is accepted (Docket No. 80.4.2 Phase II 1981). TABLE 3. FOSSIL FUEL-RELATED COSTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN MONTANA 1964 1974 Gasoline $19,858,653 Diesel oil 5,999,430 LP gas, butane, and propane 976,763 Motor oil, grease, fuel oil, and kerosene 2,965,605 Commercial (synthetic) fertilizer 7,466,191 Total 37,266,642 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969, 1974. $30,491,000 15,142,000 2,472,000 4,374,000 38,685,000 91,164,000 10 In Montana crop and livestock production involve two-thirds of the state's land area, but only consume 4.4 percent of the state's energy (MHD 1977). Thus, the total impact of energy conservation in Montana's agricultural sector will be minimal. However, the benefits to agriculturalists in decreased costs from energy conserva- tion make the effort worthwhile to the producer. The reasons for increased agricultural energy con- sumption and costs are: higher labor costs, increased farm size, more use of marginal lands, and increased demand for energy-intensive crops by a growing population. Also causing increased energy consumption are declines in crop diversity, soil fertility, and quality of soil structure. A suggested energy savings strategy would involve the following elements. Fertilizer and pesticides consume 44 percent of the energy used in Montana's agriculture— syn- thetic fertilizer use could be reduced by use of legumes for fertilizer in summer fallow areas, and use of manure where readily available. Field research could determine other methods of using fertilizer for energy savings (soil and plant tissue testing, synthetic and nonsynthetic nitrify- ing inhibitors, spring fertilizer application, biological con- trols, and natural processors). Field operations consume 23.3 percent of Montana's agricultural energy, and farm vehicles consume 22.8 percent. Efficient transportation patterns can be established by analyzing the marketing distribution of specific crops. Rail transportation can be used more and farm deliveries can be synchronized with farm shipments to save trips. Also, using machinery that is precisely scaled to the job, running at efficient speeds, and properly maintained, could reduce fuel consumption by 10 percent in Montana. Research is needed on other methods to reduce energy consumption by farm vehicles and field operations. These methods include appropriate coupling of machineries, spring plowing, and reduced till or no-till operations. Other farm operations consume 9.5 percent of the total agricultural energy used. These ac- tivities include: irrigation, crop drying, milking and milk cooling, heating, cooling, and ventilation of animal shelters, and water heating (see Irrigation Water Manage- ment section). It will be necessary to develop ecologically sound and energy sufficient farms to reduce long-range costs. Ap- propriately scaled farms can grow a mixture of livestock and crops adapted to local soil and climactic conditions. In addition local industries can be developed to use non- forage crops. Low energy farm activities lend themselves to wind, solar, geothermal, and biogas applications. Alcohol is a source of renewable energy that uses wheat and corn; however, a balance will have to be maintained betwen alcohol production and food and fiber produc- tion. Concerns Agriculturalists are experiencing increasing costs mainly due to increased dependence on high priced fossil fuels. In order to assure continued food and fiber production agricultural systems must decrease their dependence on the shrinking supplies of fossil fuels and develop more energy ef- ficient operations. Objectives A) To increase the use of renewable energy in agricultural production. The CDD will en- courage CDs to find cooperators interested in developing small-scale, decentralized energy pro- duction projects. Emphasis will be placed on pro- jects that convert pump systems to gravity irriga- tion systems. The cooperator or CD with such a proposed project can apply for a grant from the Alternative Renewable Energy Sources Program of the Energy Division of DNRC. See Part B, Objec- tive 27, of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives are needed to make a transition in agriculture from nonrenewable to renewable energy sources. These projects can also serve as demonstrations of innovative renewable energy applications. B) To further research on the application of energy conservation in Montana agricultural pro- duction. The CDD will encourage the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station to carry out research in agricultural energy conservation and work towards application of such research. See Part B, Objective 28, in the Work Plan. Rationale: Montana needs agricultural energy conservation technology. C) To decrease costs of agricultural produc- tion the CDD will encourage the CDs and SCS to design conservation plans to reduce long range costs by lowering consumption of synthetic fer- tilizers and fossil fuels. See Part B, Objective 29 in the Work Plan. Rationale: Purchase of synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels is the principal expense to agriculturalists. Conservation plans can be design- ed to conserve or find alternate sources of fer- tilizers and fuels. This would be a direct benefit to the producer and a benefit to the public. 11 WATER SUPPLY Situation The three major river basins in Montana, the Colum- bia, the Missouri, and the Yellowstone, have a total outflow averaging nearly 44 million acre-feet per year. In addition to the streamflows of the three major river basins the state has over 1,500 natural lakes and more than 60,000 reservoirs (DNRC 1976). Water supply is dependent upon the watershed characteristics, the amount of precipitation within the watershed and the amount of water that can be stored along Montana's waterways. There is a large variation in seasonal and annual flows. As a result, water supply short- ages and drought are experienced at some times in some areas of the state. Drainages with localized water shortages, especially during late summer months, include but are not limited to the Powder, Tongue, Bitterroot, Madison, Gallatin, Jeffer- son, Big Hole, Smith, Dearborn, Sun, Milk, and the Mussellshell. The Jefferson Valley CD Long Range Plan, for example, identifies 6 streams totaling 107 miles in length that have dewatering problems. Demands for Montana's water are increasing, and water availability is becoming crucial for agricultural pro- duction. Claims for large amounts of water for industry, hydropower, and maintenance of water quality and fisheries may overtake the needs of agriculture. Coopera- tion between all water users is vital in establishing multiple-use water projects. The Montana Water Use Act provides that govern- mental bodies such as conservation districts can reserve water for future beneficial needs and can receive a priority date when such reservations are granted. Districts must give water reservations high priority in their planning ac- tivities. A development plan must be submitted with an application for water reservation. After the reservation is granted, the Board of Natural Resources and Conserva- tion requires the submission of a comprehensive plan within three years. The plan must identify in some detail where the water will be used, where the diversions and storage will be made, the planned dates for development, and a demonstration of diligence toward implementation of the plan, based on economic and technological ad- vancements. Such plans are especially needed by the CDs along the Yellowstone River to maintain their water reser- vations. Concerns Present and future requirements for agricultural water must be met. Increased surface storage is needed to meet future agricultural water requirements. Also CDs will need additional assistance if they are to take advantage of the water reservations available to them. Objectives A) To provide incentives for water supply im- provement projects the CDD will continue its at- tempts to secure $112,000 biannually as a state match for PL566 Watershed Project Planning. The PL566 program involves construction of multiple use water projects. The CDD will support efforts of Congress to provide sufficient federal funds for the rest of the project costs. See Part A, Objective 4 in the Work Plan. Rationale: The PL566 watershed planning must be continued to provide incentives for plan- ning of multiple use water projects. B) To make loans for water development projects the CDD will work with the Water Resources Division of DNRC to carry out the water development loan portion of the Water Develop- ment Program. See Part A, Objective 30 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives are needed for further development of Montana's water supply. C) To assist the 14 CDs along the Yellowstone River with their water reservations implementation plans; the CDD will work with the Water Resources Division of DNRC to carry out the water reservations implementation portion of its Water Development Plan. Two engineers will be available to assist CDs beginning September, 1981. The implementation plans are to be submit- ted to the Board of Natural Resources and Conser- vation by December 15, 1983. See Part A, Objec- tive 31 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The CDs need to secure a future source of water for agricultural production. 12 D) To assist 25 CDs in the Clarks Fork and Missouri River Basins to research water availability, and it possible, to secure water reservations: the CDD will work with the Water Resources Division, DNRC to carry out this objective. See Part A, Ob- jective 32 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The CDs need to secure a future source of water for agricultural production. NOXIOUS WEEDS Situation Noxious weed infestation is increasing statewide and is a serious threat to Montana's cropland and rangeland resources. It is estimated that loss of production caused by noxious weeds is costing the state a total of 100 million dollars per year (Montana Department of Agriculture 1981). Many of the CDs' long-range plans identify pro- blem weed species and infested acreages. Estimated acres of noxious weed infestation in Montana are shown in table 4. TABLE 4 Weed NOXIOUS WEED INFESTATION IN MONTANA, 1978 Affected Acreage Canada thistle 1,038,546 Field bindweed 278,730 Russian knapweed 57,407 White top 62,635 Source: ASCS, 1978 Note: In 1979, leafy spurge infestations affected 548,323 acres. In 1980 individual operators paid 22.5 million dollars for noxious weed control (Montana Department of Agriculture 1981). Proper tillage practices on cropland can be effective in controlling weeds; however, infested areas on rangeland are often inaccessible and difficult to treat mechanically or chemically. Proper range manage- ment will help to control noxious weed problems. Biological controls offer some possibilities for weed con- trol in inaccessible areas but increased research is needed in the state. The 1969 Montana Weed Law was enacted to minimize the prennial noxious weed problem. Every county now has a weed district with boards to administer the noxious weed law. The law lists five noxious weeds: Canada thistle, leafy spurge, wild morning glory (field bindweed), white top, and Russian knapweed. Counties can add to this noxious weed list if they wish. Some weed districts have problems with financing weed control pro- grams, hiring and retaining well qualified personnel, and carrying on a sufficient educational program for their districts (Montana Committee for Rural Development 1979). Concerns Noxious weed infestation is degrading the quantity and quality of Montana's cropland and rangeland. There is lack of sufficient research and technology on biological weed control in Mon- tana. Furthermore, some local governments (weed districts) do not have the resources to deal effec- tively with their noxious weed problems. Objectives A) To provide loans for weed control the CDD will include weed control loans in Rangeland Improvement Loan Program packages (see Rangeland Improvement section). See Part A, Ob- jective 5 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives to control noxious weeds must be provided in order to alleviate the problem. 13 B) To control noxious weeds the CDD will provide funds for demonstrating the effectiveness of TORDON in controlling leafy spurge. Thirty dervonstration plots will be set up throughout Montana: $1,000 is available from the Renewable Resource Development Funds for each plot; pro- jects will run for 5 to 10 years. See Part A, Objec- tive 6 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Many farmers and ranchers are unaware that TORDON will, with proper applica- tion and management, eradicate leafy spurge. C) To increase the amount of information available on weed control the CDD will support funding of the Montana Experiment Station for research and education projects on weed control for Montana, with special emphasis on biological controls. See Part B, Objective 33 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Research on weed control must be accelerated. Research is especially needed on biological controls in order to control weeds on rangeland and in areas where water pollution may occur if herbicides are used. D) To increase efficiency of local weed con- trol programs the CDD will encourage CDs to coordinate weed control activities with their local weed districts. See Part B, Objective 34 of the Work Plan. Rationale: With districts and the weed con- trol boards working more closely together, noxious weed control programs will be more effective and better accepted. CHANGES IN LAND USE Situation Changes in land use are happening every day in Mon- tana. Those that particularly concern farmers, ranchers, foresters, and the people who use their products are the changes that take agricultural and commercial forest land out of production permanently. Probably no one is more aware of the consequences of converting agricultural land and commercial forest to other uses than is the farmer, rancher, or forester (see Forestry section). This problem has received national attention. (Farmlands Preservation 1980). With a ready reserve of 40 million acres of cropland in the U.S. that is dwindling at the rate of 3 million acres a year, it should be apparent that it will not be long before we reach a point when we will have no reserve land. It will then be too late for remedial measures. Although American agriculturalists are respected worldwide for their skill at producing max- imum yields per acre, there is a limit to how much a given piece of land can produce, even with the most advanced and intensive methods. Production cannot be forced up- ward indefinitely on a limited land base. Most of Montana's land-use change has occurred in Flathead, Missoula, Ravalli, Gallatin, Yellowstone, Cascade, Lewis and Clark, and Lake counties. Taking Missoula County as an example, nearly half of the county's best agricultural land has been subdivided and is no longer in production, according to the Missoula Coun- ty Subdivision Report by the Environmental Information Center (EIC 1980). Since mid-1974, 37,182 acres in the county have been subdivided. Forty-eight percent of the 7,552 acres of land in Missoula County classified by SCS as prime agricultural land has been subdivided. Of the 4,672 acres of the county classified as important agricultural land, 33 percent has been subdivided. A total of 42 per- cent of Missoula County's 12,353 acres of prime and im- portant farmland has been lost to residential develop- ment. The National Agricultural Lands Study released in January 1981 warned that the U.S. is facing a land crisis in the next decade, unless policies are changed to stop the sprawl of suburbia, shopping centers, highways, and other development over productive croplands. In a speech at the National Agricultural Lands conference in Chicago in February 1981, Agriculture Secretary John R. Block urged state and local governments, with federal support, to begin steps to stop farmland conversions. "In the next 20 years we cannot realize a 60-85 percent in- crease in demand for U.S. agricultural products while ur- banizing 3 million acres of productive land each year and maintaining current low productivity rates." Montana farmers and ranchers need to join with others nationwide to recognize and work for solutions to the problem of loss of productive land. Several potential solutions are available: land banking, agricultural zoning, 14 and the acquisition of development rights (conservation easement) to agricultural land by local governments. Concerns Rationale: The rate of farmland loss in some districts is so critical that the ability of farmers and ranchers to maintain their operations under pressure of increased costs is threatened. Programs and incentives to preserve agricultural land in these areas are needed. In Montana, conservation districts are the logical entity to act, with local planning boards and other local governmental agencies, to mitigate this problem. Objectives A) To provide local level incentives to keep productive land in production. The CDD will assist interested CDs with the development of agricultural preservation programs. See Part A, Ob- jective 7 of the Work Plan. B) To increase support of farm and ranch organizations and real estate agencies for preserva- tion of prime agricultural land. The CDD will en- courage CDs to incorporate preservation of agricultural land in their education and informa- tion programs and to emphasize reaching farm organizations and real estate agencies. See Part B, Objective 35 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Farm organizations and real estate agencies can influence where development takes place. Their support is needed in placing develop- ment on lands that are not agriculturally produc- tive. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Situation Agricultural land must be considered as a natural resource necessary to the well-being of the citizens of Montana, and as such, it must be guarded from loss. Changes in land use present a serious constraint on agricultural production throughout the U.S. From 1967 to 1975, 30.5 million acres were lost to agriculture nation- wide. In Montana 350,000 acres of agricultural land were converted to urban, built-up, transportation, and water uses from 1967 to 1977 (National Agricultural Lands Study 1980). In the past two decades, outmigration from urban areas, speeded by severe problems in the cities, has turn- ed thousands of acres of prime farmland into one-acre "country estates." Other losses of agricultural land are due to strip mining, commercial development, highway easements, airports, and other uses. Expansion of urban development into rural areas causes many problems: demand for increase in public ser- vices such as roads and utilities, conflicts between farm and urban activity, and depletion of land that might be held in reserve for the future. Often "leapfrog" develop- ment puts pressure on farmers to sell, or makes it difficult for them to conduct their normal activities such as spray- ing crops or moving farm machinery. Inflated land prices sometimes make it financially un- profitable to pass a farm on from one generation to the next; this situation threatens the future of the family farm or ranch. Some states, Wisconsin for example, mitigate the problem by allowing limited sale of agricultural land for homesites on a sliding scale that depends on the size of the principal holdings. This solution makes it possible for farmers and ranchers to benefit from escalating land prices without sacrificing extensive crop and pasture lands to development. Canada's Saskatchewan Province uses a land-bank system that allows the government first pur- chase rights on farmland when it is sold; it is then leased to the operator with an option to buy; Oregon provides tax benefits as one facet of its comprehensive Agricultural Lands Protection Plan, which has a farm-zone mechanism established by the Oregon legislature. Whatever solution is decided upon, retention of productive land in its pre- sent use for cropland and pasture is basic to food and fiber production. Concerns Loss of Montana's agricultural land is an urgent problem, and so is loss of rangelands. Tradi- tional family farm and ranch operations are also threatened. 15 objectives A) To expand "outreach capacity" by 15 percent for education in estate planning. The CDD will request the Montana Cooperative Extension Service to carry out this objective. See Part B, Ob- jective 36 of the Work Plan. Rationale: More ranchers and farmers need to be educated in estate planning so they will be able to keep their family operations. Often these operations are sold for nonagricultural uses to pay for taxes. SOCIO-POLITICAL CONCERNS Situation Landowners need to exercise some control over local resource situations; CDs are expected to influence legislators and help to meet local resource conservation needs. CDs have recently acquired new responsibilities. Some of these new tasks are carrying out the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975 (SB 310), acting as the local management agency to protect and maintain water quality, and making and implementing water reservations. The CDs may sponsor water develop- ment projects under the Water Development Program. The CDs have long been considered agricultural in- terest groups. However, with CDs' added responsibilities their role is changing and they are no longer involved only in agricultural activities. When examining any of the districts' long-range plans it becomes clear that the CDs work with a wide variety of resources. The resources covered in this plan are often the resources covered by a district's plan. These local level long-range plans are the key to making the public aware that CDs benefit everyone by protecting Montana's resources. Concerns Several problems face the CDs. They need more active local leadership; another serious con- cern is that their legislative authority is not being used fully. Furthermore, the CDs need to expand their agricultural oriented image through their long-range planning activities. Objectives A) To train supervisors and CD employees for their responsibilities the CDD will hold annual training workshops for CD supervisors and employees. See Part A, Objective 8 of the Work Plan. Rationale: These training workshops will help the supervisors to become more effective in managing CD programs and taking full advantage of their authority. B) To make the public, resource agencies, and legislators aware of CD projects and functions, the CDD will hold a conservation education tour of CD projects. See Part A, Objective 9 of the Work Plan. Rationale: This tour will help get public sup- port for CD projects and programs. C) To educate supervisors on operations of a district the CDD will develop a procedure manual for CD supervisors and CD employees. See Part A, Objective 10 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Supervisors (and CD employees) need a current document that will aid them in managing their programs. D) To plan for resource conservation on the local level the CDD will assist CDs with their long- range (5-year) plans by developing updated guidelines for planning activities. See Part A, Ob- jective 1 1 of the Work Plan. Rationale: CDs are authorized by law (MCA 76-15-402) to develop and publish comprehensive soil and water conservation plans for lands in the district. E) To facilitate a comprehensive statewide resource conservation planning effort the CDD will encourage the Resource Conservation Ad- visory Council to pursue such an effort. See Part B, Objective 37 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Currently any resource planning is fragmentary and carried out by individual agen- cies. A statewide planning effort would avoid duplication. 16 RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT Situation About 65 million acres in Montana is rangeland or woodland that is suitable for grazing. This range is the main resource for Montana's livestock production in- dustry. Range also makes important contributions to the state's well-being through water production, recreation areas, and wildlife and fish habitat. It is estimated that 41 percent of Montana's rangeland is in less than good condition (DNRC 1977). Figure 3 shows the condition of state and private rangeland in Montana. Montana's rangelands are producing at only 59 percent of their potential (DNRC). Montana's rangeland has historically been abused through overgrazing and mismanagement. Range management specialists estimate that range conditions may be reasonably increased by one condition class. This increase, when converted to dollars, could represent an increased income of $1 .40 per acre to the rancher (Montana Committee for Rural Development 1979). Further range improvements will result in an in- crease in production on range and pastures, reduction in soil loss from wind and water erosion, water quality im- provement, and wildlife habitat increase and improve- ment. Examples of these range improvements are planned grazing systems, rest rotation, deferred grazing, fencing, development of improved varieties of grasses, reseeding, water development, fertilizing, water retention practices, and in some cases, weed, brush, and scrub timber con- trol. From 1975 to 1977 approximately 887,144 acres of rangeland were converted to cropland (DNRC 1977). Often this land is best suited to rangeland uses and when the protective grass cover is plowed under the land is sub- ject to wind and water erosion. This "break-up" of rangeland is contributing to Montana's erosion problems and is damaging the rangeland resource. The 1977 Montana Rangeland Resources Coordina- tion Act objectives are to promote the coordination of ac- tivities intended to maintain and enhance the rangeland resources of Montana. The Montana Rangeland Resources Program of DNRC is carrying out these objec- tives and will continue to do so. To assist in maintaining range resources the 1979 Legislature provided $300,000 of Coal Severance Tax money through the Renewable Resource Development Program to implement a pilot Rangeland Improvement Loan Program (for 1981 figures see Sources and Status of Assistance and Funding Needs section). This program provides for interest free loans to make rangeland improvements that would otherwise not be made. Applications are made through local conserva- tion districts and are based on long term conservation plans. As of January 1 981 , 22 loans have been made total- ing $299,770. Concerns SOURCE: Monldnd Rangeland Resource Pf(>(^t.irii FIGURE 3 CONDITION OF STATE AND PRIVATE RANGELAND IN MONTANA IN 1976 Clearly too much of Montana's rangeland is overused and in less than good condition. Increas- ed applications of range improvement practices (managerial and structural) are needed. Also, rangeland "break-up" is damaging Montana's range resources and contributing to problems v^ith soil erosion, v^/ater quality, and saline seep. Objectives A) To target areas for resource priorities the CDD will prioritize all counties in Montana on the basis of their potential for range improvement and will direct funds and manpower on this basis. See Part A, Objective 12 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The potential for range improve- ment must be known in order to direct funds and manpower to those areas that have the greatest potential. 17 B) To provide incentives for improvement of rangeiand resources $500,000 is needed each biennium to establish a 5-million-dollar revolving fund for interest free range loans. The CDD will seek continued financing for the Rangeiand Im- provement Loan Program. See Part A, Objective 13 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives for range improvement practices are needed. C) To provide current information on rangeiand conditions in Montana and to assess the rangeiand goals set by the CDD in 1970 the CDD will update its plan for the Montana Rangeiand Resources Program. See Part A, Objective 14 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The Rangeiand Resources Pro- gram is 5 years old and needs to be updated. D) To prevent breakup of land unsuitable for cropping; the CD will attempt to find a CD in- terested in passing a model ordinance to stop this breakup of rangeiand. See Part A, Objective 15 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The problem of rangeiand breakup and wind erosion in Montana has become severe enough to justify CDs' use of their land use regulation authorities. E) To distribute range managment informa- tion to 1,000 additional range operators; the CDD will request that the Montana Cooperative Exten- sion Service, the Montana Experiment Station, the SCS, and the Forestry Division of DNRC provide this information annually. See Part B, Objective 38 of the Work Plan. Rationale: More range operators must be reached so range management information will be used to improve range conditions in Montana. F) To prevent operators from drawing federal payments on classes of land unsuitable for crop- ping, the CDD will request USDA to make a policy change. These federal payments include Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing funds, federal crop disaster payments, and federal crop insurance. See Part B, Objective 39 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Sometimes agricultural operators take advantage of programs for soil conservation on land that should never have been cropped. This objective is aimed at stopping breakup of rangeiand. LOSS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND Situation High on the list of problems plaguing Montana CDs is the loss of production acreage, particularly cropland; loss of rangeiand and pastureland are also of concern. Loss of agricultural land, changes in land use, and development in rural areas are all part of the same problem, and all seem bound to continue. (See sections on Changes in Land Use and Rural Development). The conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses such as residential and commercial development results from several pressures; increased population, in- dustrial expansion, demand for recreation areas, and land speculation are among them, in any case, the irrevocable conversion of agricultural land has reached proportions that concern all those interested in the future welfare of agriculture. Although the term "prime land" is used to generally describe any good land, there are marked differences be- tween certain types of land. Prime land is any land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing any crop that could be grown in the area, and that has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically pro- duce sustained high yields under acceptable farming prac- tices. Equally valuable are those unique farmlands with a special combination of soil, location, growing season, and moisture supply, able to sustain high quality yields of a particular crop. In Montana, the land around Flathead Lake, where cherry orchards make up the main use of farmland, is a good example of unique land. 18 A third type of agricultural land is that called "impor- tant." Land in this category is of statewide or local impor- tance for production of crops and forage. It includes those lands that are nearly "prime" and that economically pro- duce high yields of crops when treated and managed ac- cording to acceptable farming methods. Some produce as high a yield as prime farmland if conditions are favorable. As mentioned in the section on Changes in Land Use, when farmers and ranchers must resort to marginal land for crops and pasture, costs of production go up. It takes more treatment to bring such land up to standards of pro- duction comparable to those of the three best types of land. Getting irrigation water to such land is often difficult and expensive. This type of land could be more profitably used for nonagricultural purposes. Concerns Loss of Montana's farm and range lands is a critical problem that must be slowed by proven methods of preserving agricultural land. Objectives A) To provide local level incentives to keep productive land in production. The CDD will assist CDs with the development of agricultural preser- vation programs. See Part A, Objective 7 in the Work Plan. Rationale: The rate of farmland loss in some districts is so critical that the ability of farmers and ranchers to maintain their operations under pressure of increased costs is threatened. Programs and incentives to preserve agricultural land in these areas are needed. RECREATION Situation Montana offers many forms of dispersed recreation, such as camping, fishing, photography, and nature study. The state park system is extensive, now numbering 300 recreation sites. Both public and private lands throughout Montana are important for recreation and the wildlife often associated with it. But projected upswings in population, complicated by increased demands on a shrinking land base, are expected to reduce the land available for recreation. Design for Tomorrow (the executive summary of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1978) developed by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP) for future recreation manage- ment, is based on the premise that the state's population will exceed one million by 1995. The plan indicated that availability of recreational resources will be jeopardized by declining access to public and private lands and waters. Using hunting as an example, a trend documented by DFWP in 1973 and 1975 showed that landowners were increasingly reluctant to admit deer hunters to their land. Vandalism and damage to livestock were cited as principal reasons for this attitude. Although DFWP is working to improve relations between land- owners and sportsmen, the problem is likely to remain. If population estimates are correct, the resident hunters alone could exceed current numbers of both resident and nonresident hunters. DFWP defines the resulting problem as "an increasing stress upon a decreasing resource base." Part of the problem is an increase in conversions of land to such uses as energy development, urban expan- sion, rural subdivision, and agricultural use of marginal land. These in turn reduce recreational access, wildlife habitat, and water resources. Private enterprise could work with agencies to develop solutions to these prob- lems, as well as work cooperatively with CDs to provide local recreation services. Concerns The CDD is concerned about these trends because such added pressures strain the capabilities of both rangeland and agricultural land. The primary problem that the conservation districts pointed out is related to recreation access for such kinds of recreation as hunting, fishing, floating, snowmobiling, and trail bicycling. Objectives A) To increase recreational access the CDD will conduct an education and information pro- gram on conservation easements and their benefits to landowners and the public. In turn supervisors will be able to encourage landowners in their district to obtain a conservation easement. See Part A, Objective lb of the Work Plan. Rationale: Many district supervisors have misconceptions of conservation easements; if they 19 were educated on the benefits of easements they could be instrumental in clearing up misconcep- tions other landowners may have. B) To provide recreational access the CDD will encourage the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP), USDA Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Managment to enter into cooperative agreements with landowners in ex- change for their services according to the terms of the agreement. See Part B, Objective 40 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Public access to recreation sites is needed and these agreements will give incentives to landowners to provide access sites. C) To promote greater involvement of private recreation enterprises in DFWP's statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation planning the CDD, with the cooperation and assistance of SCS and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts, will provide DFWP with information on outdoor recreation activities offered by private enterprise. See Part B, Objective 41 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Outdoor recreation is a land and water use, and inasmuch as conservation districts serve private enterprise in soil and water conserva- tion, this will be an attempt at coordinating recrea- tion activity use. WATER QUALITY Situation Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL92-500, Section 208, Montana's governor designated the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau, as the responsible water quality planning agency for the state. As a result, the Water Quality Bureau's Statewide Water Quality Management Plan has been adopted by the State of Montana. CDs have agreed with the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences to be the local management agencies for water quality improvement pro- grams. The CDs havp also adopted water quality manage- ment plans for their districts. Although intensive management in the recent past has nearly alleviated point source pollution there are still some localized point source water quality problems in the state. Cities and towns cause most of this remaining point source pollution, but the state's programs for wastewater discharge permits and construction grants should virtually eliminate any remaining problems. The most significant water quality problems originate from nonpoint sources such as irrigation dewatering and return flows, saline seep, and sediment from agriculture, urban and stormwater runoff, logging, and mining (DHES 1979) (note: these sources are not listed in order of their severity). The extent of Montana's water quality problems has been documented by the Conservation Districts in An Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Management Plan for the Statewide Water Quality Management Plan. This report covers all of Montana except for the 1 3 coun- ties in 208 Areawide Planning Organizations (DHES 1979). Irrigation can severely reduce stream flows, as it has in tributaries to the Beaverhead, Bitterroot, West Gallatin, Big Hole, Jefferson, and other rivers. The CD inventory identified 873 miles of streams with severe annual irriga- tion dewatering. Excessive water withdrawals cause a reduction in fisheries potential due to loss of aquatic habitat, elevated temperatures, depressed dissolved ox- ygen levels, increased dissolved substances, algae blooms, and salinity increases. Drinking water, water sports, irrigation, and industrial uses are impaired by such decreases in water quality. In addition irrigation return flows bring added problems. Each new acre of irrigated land can contribute as much as Vi to 2 tons of salt to streams each year. Salinity has already reached high levels on the Musselshell, Teton, Lower Yellowstone, Milk, and other river basin drainages (DHES 1979). Saline seep af- fects both surface and underground water; however, the extent of damage to water quality is not fully documented because no detailed saline seep records have been kept (see Saline Seep section). Excessive sediment is still the most common water quality problem in Montana (DHES 1979). (see Soil Erosion section) Natural geological processes release sediment, but human activities hasten its production and magnify its ef- fects. The CD inventory indicated that 3,700,000 acres of dry cropland, 4,900,000 acres of rangeland and pasture, and 144,000 acres of irrigated cropland are being eroded by wind and water because of poor grazing or tillage prac- tices. Furthermore, the inventory identified 1,108 miles of streambank that are being eroded. Urban stormwater runoff and construction activities discharge nutrients, minerals, heavy metals, oil and grease, and sediment to surface waters. Logging and its accompanying activities 20 have caused substantial water quality degradation. In ad- dition, 133 polluting mine operations have been iden- tified. The inventory points out that 50 percent or more of these sediment problems could have been avoided if pro- per conservation practices had been used (DHES 1979). A profile of one stream identified by a conservation district as a water quality problem is Prickly Pear Creek in Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Valley CDs (Lewis and Clark CD 1979, Jefferson Valley CD 1980). Briefly, the problems identified on the Prickly Pear are due to hard rock mining in the upper tributaries which has discharged heavy metals into the creek. Placer mining along the mainstem above East Helena has altered the channel and caused sedimentation; also highway and railroad construction has resulted in numerous channel changes. Some major industries are affecting the water quality of the creek. Water withdrawal for irrigation below East Helena has fre- quently dried up the stream. Sand and gravel operations, suburban growth, agricultural practices, and other ac- tivities have damaged the riparian zone below East Helena. The cities of Helena and East Helena both discharge partially-treated sewage to the stream. The Prickly Pear has been found by the Water Quality Bureau to be one of the poorest quality streams in southwestern Montana (DHES 1980). Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Valley conservation districts are (through their water quality management pro- grams) jointly working on a project with water quality agencies and interest groups to clean up the Prickly Pear. problems are to be solved on the local level, the conservation districts w/7/ need the active support of vi/ater quality agencies and the state legislature. Concerns Montana's major water quality problems originate from nonpoint sources. The most serious of these problems result from irrigation dewatering and return flows, saline seeps, sediment carrying chemical and biological pollutants from agricultural activities, urban and storm runoff, log- ging, and mining. The conservation districts have identified their most severe water quality problems in their water quality management plans. If these Objectives A) To improve water quality the CDD will accept 6 CD water quality management proposals to be funded for preparing feasibility studies, fun- ding proposals, and other project planning ac- tivities. The CDD will work with the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES) to carry out this objective. See Part A, Objective 1 7 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The CDs have identified water quality problems in their water quality manage- ment plans. Several of these problems are severe enough to warrant special attention. Project pro- posals will allow the CDs to obtain funding assistance. B) To improve water quality the CDD will assist CDs to secure funding for water quality pro- jects. See Part A, Objective 18 of the Work Plan. Rationale: CDs will need funding assistance to solve their water quality problems. C) To identify water quality problems on streams that require inventories according to CDs water quality management plans. The CDD will request the SCS, DHES, and the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to give accelerated assistance to these stream inventories. See Part B, Objective 42 of the Work Plan. Rationale: These CDs have not been able to identify problems on a site-specific basis in their districts because the problems are too complex. A stream inventory is needed to pinpoint these diverse problems and provide data for requests of funding from public assistance programs. 21 SALINE SEEP Situation Saline seeps are salty areas that have developed within the last 40 years on nonirrigated cropland. The soil is wet some or all of the time, and salt crusts may result; the salinity can reduce or eliminate crop or grass growth. Saline seeps result from a combination of geological and soil conditions, cropping practices, and to some extent, higher than average annual precipitation. Summer fallowing accelerates the rate of saline seep development. It allows the soil to store more water than can be used by the crop in one growing season. This unus- ed water moves down through the soil and permeable subsoils, dissolving the naturally occurring salts enroute. When the salts and water reach an impermeable layer, they move horizontally, and most eventually reach the surface. As the water evaporates, salt deposits are left behind, forming a saline seep. The 1978 estimate of Montana drylands affected by saline seep was 200,000 acres and growing at a rate of 10 percent a year (SCS 1979). However, careful evaluation of the saline seep mapping project by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and reports by the Triangle Conser- vation District Saline Seep Team suggests that the 200,000 acre figure may be too low. Seep-affected areas in northern and central Montana appear to be considerably greater than previously estimated; conversely, in southern and eastern Mon- tana the seep areas appeared to be less than previous estimates. On a region wide basis, the acreage of saline seep appears to be expanding at a rate exceeding 10 percent per year. ..Expansion of seep areas by 20 to 200 percent in wet years is not uncommon, whereas expansion of only a few per- cent may occur in dry years (Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 1979). No current statewide acreage estimate of saline seep- affected area in Montana is available. However, the Na- tional Resource Inventory being carried out by the SCS does include an inventory of saline seep acreages for Montana. This information will be available in 1983. Also, several conservation districts have identified saline seep problems in their long-range plans. Teton CD reported 10,000 acres are being affected by saline seep, and Stillwater CD reported from 1 5,000 to 20,000 acres are be- ing affected by saline seeps (Teton CD 1 980, Stillwater CD 1980). Analyses have been made of water collected by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology near Fort Benton and Sidney, Montana; Mott, North Dakota; and Lethbridge, Alberta. The resulting data strongly suggested that in addition to the loss of thousands of acres of valuable farmland to saline seeps, mineralized water was rapidly contaminating nearby reservoirs, streams, and shallow aquifers. In some cases, the water was more saline than sea water (water tested was approximately 35,000 parts per million total dissolved solids) and was un- fit for domestic, livestock, and irrigation use. Reported livestock and wildlife kills in certain areas may be related to salinity problems (Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 1979). Solving saline seep problems can become a com- plicated landownership problem, which occurs when the area that is the source of excess moisture is under different ownership than the area where the seep surfaces. Cooperation between landowners is often necessary when trying to solve saline seep problems. Concerns Saline seeps affect Montana's water quality, wildlife resources, soil resources, and rangeland, severely curtailing the yield of crops or taking cropland and rangeland entirely out of produc- tion. Objectives A) To demonstrate the effectiveness of flexi- ble cropping in controlling saline seep and soil ero- sion, and in achieving water quality improvement. The CD will assist interested CDs to set up four demonstration plots in Montana. See Part A, Ob- jective 19 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Farmers have been reluctant to use a flexible cropping system to control saline seep. Demonstration plots will help educate agriculturalists on the use of flexible cropping systems. B) To make more assistance available in saline seep prevention and control. The CDD will request the SCS to provide more trained technical 22 assistance for control and prevention of saline seep. See Part B, Objective 43 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Often it is difficult for a farmer, untrained in saline seep problems, to identify recharge areas, and to prescribe prevention and control methods for saline seep. C) To cost-share saline seep control prac- tices, the CDD will vi/ork with Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service on the Na- tional Farm Program to allow implementation of flexible-cropping systems without penalty to the farmer. A cost-share program for well drilling and other field work necessary to develop a reclama- tion plan for individual farmers will be considered. See Part B, Objective 44 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives are needed to en- courage agricultural producers to control saline seep. D) To support locally operated saline seep control programs such as the Triangle Saline Seep Program. See Part B, Objective 45 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The Triangle program has been very successful in identifying and controlling seeps in the 9-county Triangle area. FLOODING Situation Flood damage presents serious health, environmen- tal, economic, and safety problems. The Upper Missouri River Basin Level B Study estimated flood damage in the Montana portion of the basin for 1975, a flood year, at a cost of over $7.5 million, affecting over 1 million acres of land. Flood damages projected for 1990 and 2000 are estimated to be $8.5 and $8.9 million, respectively. But the Upper Missouri study estimated that, if accelerated enforcement of flood-plain regulations is implemented, flood damages are expected to be reduced by about 11 percent (from $8.5 million) in 1990 and 16 percent (from $8.9 million) in 2000. Only one county in Montana has developed a con- tingency plan for evacuation in the event of a flood; that plan was prepared by the Carbon County Conservation District. Several measures providing varying degrees of flood control have been instituted throughout the state. Some flood control protection is provided by several large-scale projects built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation (Hungry Horse, Canyon Ferry, Yellowtail), and by small watershed projects constructed by the SCS under PL566. Montana owns 25 dams, as well; most have agricultural water storage rather than flood control as their chief function. Nonstructural approaches to flood control, such as flood-plain regulation, limit the types of developments on the flood plain or require flood proofing of structures already in the flood plain. Federal flood insurance has helped to reduce monetary damages suffered by flood-plain residents but cannot reduce actual damage. Under state law, flood-plain regulation provides for local administration of standards. Local governments need to take the responsibility for regulating their flood plains. Concerns The major concerns pointed out by the districts for flooding are the negative environmen- tal and economic impacts caused by flooding, and the need to lessen these impacts. Objectives A) To increase watershed protection and flood prevention by increasing funding for PL566 projects. The CDD will support efforts of Congress and the Montana legislature to increase funding for the PL566 program. See Part B, Objective 46 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Incentives are needed to en- courage the construction of small flood prevention projects. B) To reduce damages caused by flooding, the CDD will encourage CDs to work with their local planning boards to enforce local floodplain regulations. See Part B, Objective 47 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Floodplain regulations are necessary to reduce flood damages; CDs could be instrumental in enforcing these laws. 23 WILDLIFE HABITAT Situation The greatest problem facing wildlife today in Montana is loss of habitat. Human encroachment has accelerated in recent years as land uses change rapidly. Habitat is be- ing destroyed or severely altered by energy development, urban expansion, rural subdivision, highway easements, and conversion of marginal land to agricultural use. Farm and forestry cultural practices disturb or destroy habitat, and overgrazing can reduce the food available to wildlife of many species. As wildlife habitat decreases or loses its ability to sup- port certain birds and animals, those populations decline. Wildlife under stress do not reproduce at a normal rate; young often fail to survive, due to inadequate food and in- sufficient range. Montana's big game populations are hard hit as development encroaches on their natural habitat, and changes their migration patterns. Nongame species, too, are forced to areas that are inadequate or incompati- ble to their needs. Many are unable to adapt to changes in their environments. Private rangelands are vital to Montana's wildlife; they provide two-thirds of the food needed by our wildlife; private forestlands offer habitat (DNRC 1977). Some of the private land affords ponds, sloughs, and waterways for waterfowl, as well. Concerns As the human population increases, its demands for food, land, and water grow. This add- ed pressure strains the capabilities of the land that remains. Managers of wildlife have an obligation to provide areas for its preservation. Objectives A) To increase good riparian management the CDD will educate CDs on the importance of riparian habitat management. The district super- visors will then be able to encourage landowners in their district to employ good riparian manage- ment practices. See Part A, Objective 20 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Many supervisors are not aware of the importance of the riparian habitat in providing fish and wildlife habitat, maintaining water quali- ty, and preserving streambanks. B) To improve or protect wildlife and fish habitat the CDD will, with the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP), set up a joint CDD and DFWP committee. This committee will in- vestigate and recommend methods for providing incentives to landowners for habitat im- provements or protection. Based on committee recommendations pilot programs will be establish- ed,and these programs will be supervised by the committee. See Part B, Objective 48 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Pilot programs are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of incentives in im- proving and protecting habitat, and the benefits of these incentives to landowners. C) To develop fish and wildlife habitat plans in conjunction with farm conservation plans, the CDD will request the SCS and CDs to ask all land- owners to consider developing habitat plans in conjunction with their conservation plans. See Part B, Objective 49 of the Work Plan. On rangeland, emphasis should be given to rest- rotation systems. Rationale: Many landowners need incentives to develop wildlife and fish habitat on their land to replace habitat lost because of land use changes. D) To develop fish and wildlife improvement projects and educational programs, the CDD will request the CDs to give fish and wildlife improve- ment projects high priority in their planning ac- tivities. See Part B, Objective 50 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Some agriculturalists and other land users may not recognize the importance of providing habitat for Montana's fish and wildlife. As local level influencing agencies CDs need to educate these people as well as give concrete sup- port by initiating habitat improvement projects. 24 FORESTRY Situation Montana's land area totals approximately 93.1 million acres, of which approximately 23 million acres are forested; of this, about 62 percent (14.4 million acres) is classified as commercial forest land. A third of Montana's commercial forest land is under small private and large in- dustrial ownership. Sixty-seven percent of Montana's commercial forest land is under state, U.S. Forest Service, and other public management (DNRC 1980). communities are disrupted, wildlife habitat is af- fected, vistas are altered, watersheds are damaged, and man becomes a more frequent visitor. The districts are particularly concerned over land use conversions affecting forest and related resources, sedimentation problems caused by improper forestry activities, erosion, and a need for increas- ed reforestation activities. Loss of commercial forest land is discussed in the sec- tions on Food and Fiber Production, Changes in Land Use, and Rural Development, but it is primarily addressed in this section. In the small private sector, subdivisions have depleted the commercial forest land base. For exam- ple, the number of forest landowners in Montana has in- creased from about 9,500 in 1969 to over 25,000 in 1979, an increase of over 163 percent. As the larger ownerships are divided into smaller ones (often as small as 3 to 5 acres), the land is essentially lost as a source of commer- cial timber (DNRC 1980). In 1978 projections indicated that the demand for timber is expected to remain at current levels in the 1990's with a gradual increase of approximately 30 percent oc- curring by 2030. An increased share of the forest produc- tion is expected to come from small forestland (both privately- and state-managed), with much more assistance needed by individual landowners (DNRC 1980). Objectives Concerns Improper timber harvest and related forestry activities can result in serious environmental damage. Sometimes roads are poorly built, plant A) To make contact with the small forest landowner through additional state foresters work- ing on the Forestry Assistance Programs of the DNRC Division of Forestry. The CDD will support efforts to obtain these additional state foresters. See Part B, Objective 51 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Since the number of forest land- owners is expected to increase, foresters are need- ed to make these forest landowners aware of the management programs available to them. B) To adopt forestry practices for the CDs' water quality management plans; the CDD will assist CDs to use the practices outlined by the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The CDD will obtain the DNRC Forestry Division's approval of the forestry practices prior to recommending them to the CDs. See Part B, Objective 52 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The CDs need to make forestry product producers aware of water quality maintenance practices. 25 MINING Situation The Statewide Water Quality Management Plan has identified 133 polluting mining operations (DHES 1979). The most serious problems are created by hard rock mines which cause acid mine drainage and sediment. The 1971 Metal Mine Reclamation Act requires that these mines be reclaimed. However, the Small Miner Exclusion Statement in the act exempts from reclamation mines moving less than 36,500 tons of overburden and ore, or disturbing less than 5 acres of land. Also, mines abandon- ed before 1971 are not covered by this law. Therefore, small hard rock mining operations, more numerous and less carefully scrutinized than larger, less remote mines, are and will continue to be major local sources of water pollution (DHES 1979). Several CDs have identified a concern over coal strip mining in their long-range plans. These districts. Powder River, Treasure County, and Rosebud County, are mainly concerned over the temporary loss of productive agricultural land to strip mining and the disruption of aquifers. Since the passage of the 1973 Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act, the Montana Department of State Lands has been issuing permits for coal strip mining. As of February 1981, 22,818 acres have been permitted under the Strip-mining Act. Of these 22,818 acres, 10,793 are permitted for mining level distur- bances (actual area of extraction); 3,184 acres are permit- ted for mining facilities (coal crushers, haul roads, sedi- ment ponds, diversion ditches, storage, offices, etc.); 8,842 acres are permitted for associated disturbances (power lines, light roads, etc.) (Montana Department of State Lands 1981). Most of the strippable coal in Montana is overlain by rangeland. Few of the strip mine leaseholds have significant amounts of small grain and hayland on a site by site basis. However, mining may occur on alluvial soils which are often valuable agricultural lands. For example, the proposed expanded mining operations near Colstrip in southeastern Montana, depending on the size of actual mine areas, may physically destroy 5 peren- nial reservoirs, 4 springs, and 26 water wells. In addition, storage yields from 3 springs and 9 wells and storage in 4 other reservoirs may be diminished (Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 1977). Concerns Acid mine drainage from hard rock mines is causing serious water quality problems in the state. Strip mining in eastern Montana will cause a disruption in local aquifers and undoubtedly affect other water users. Also there is concern over loss of productive agricultural land to strip mining. Careful attention must be given to preserve these areas. Objectives A) To carry out a stream reclamation project on the Prickly Pear drainage for abatement of acid mine drainage problems, the CDD will support ef- forts of the Montana Department of State Lands to use Abandoned Mine Land Program money for the Prickly Pear project. Also the CDD will request that the CDs support this project and recommend use of these funds on other mine drainage projects identified in some of the CDs' water quality management plans. See part B, Objective 53 of the Work Plan. Rationale: Solving the problems of acid mine drainage problems from hard rock mining is very costly. Financial assistance is needed. According to the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology: "...water levels or hydrostatic pressures in aquifers penetrated by mining will decline because of increas- ed, reversed, or interrupted hydraulic gradients. Such observations cause no astonishment: the principles of hydrology demand that they occur. It has also been shown without surprise that under certain vertical- flow conditions, hydrostatic pressures in aquifers below an active mine can decline because of reduced pressures in above lying disturbed aquifers (Montana Bureau of Mines and Ceology 1977)." B) To assist CDs with land use conversion and aquifer disruption problems with coal strip mining. Emphasis will be placed on preserving prime, unique, and statewide important farmland (see Changes in Land Use section), and determin- ing effects of proposed coal strip mining on aquifers. See Part B, Objective 54 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The CDD can help CDs coor- dinate activities involving coal strip mining, on the state level, with other agencies. 26 FISH HABITAT Situation Montana's streams and rivers provide some of the finest fish habitat in the nation. The western two-thirds of Montana has 12,050 miles of trout streams. About 70 per- cent of the state's trout fishery is bordered by private land (DFG 1978). This habitat can only be protected by expen- sive land acquisition, or by in-stream reservations; its future condition depends on its preservation. The unique paddlefish inhabits the larger rivers in eastern Montana where fishing access is generally not a problem. The whitefish, kokanee, and grayling, however, live in streams that are bordered by private land to a large extent. In- creased recreation use and changes in land ownership or use may affect this fishery. Where agricultural and other uses co-exist with fish habitat, its preservation can be achieved if those responsi- ble protect stream banks and avoid channelization. The areas along streams are often the most vulnerable to ero- sion, breakdown, and the sedimentation that follows. Stream banks can be protected by maintaining vegetation that resists erosion, fencing livestock, establishing riprap that can be bermed and planted, and tilling away from stream banks. Landowners should avoid clearing vegeta- tion from stream banks since overhangs of trees and shrubs afford needed cover in pools that fish like to fre- quent (DFWP 1981). Other problems, likedewatering, are discussed in the Water Quality section. Concerns Because so much of Montana's fish habitat borders private land, the cooperation of land- owners is essential for its preservation. Objectives A) To provide adequate in-stream flows for fish habitat, the CDD will encourage fish and wildlife management agencies to work with CDs and irrigators to research the feasibility of con- structing off-stream storage sites for joint irrigation and in-stream flow needs. See Part B, Objective 55 of the Work Plan. Rationale: The possibility of off-stream storage for fish habitat preservation should be researched in coordination with irrigators. 27 III. WORK PLAN The Conservation Districts Division has developed a plan of work for carrying out this resource conservation plan. The work plan contains two parts; the first part con- tains the objectives within CDD control, and the second part contains the objectives influenced by the CDD. PART A: OBJECTIVES WITHIN CDD CONTROL objectives 1-20 are to be completed in their entirety by the Conservation Districts Division of DNRC. The ob- jectives are grouped under the concern they are intended to address; each objective is followed by a list of tasks which are units of work necessary to complete the objec- tive. To the side of each task is a column showing the hours required to complete each task. The second col- umn shows the cost of completing the task in CD salaries, benefits, and travel (where significant); please note that rents, telephone, utilities, and administrative costs are not included. The third column records "pass-through monies," which includes loan and grant money for pro- jects in the objective. The fourth column shows total costs, and tallies the second and third columns. Costs are based on 1980 dollars. Following the objectives in Part A is a time schedule showing the periods when objectives 1-20 will be carried out during Fiscal Years 1982-1985. CONCERN: SOIL EROSION Objective and Tasks Hours Cost ($) Pass Thru ($) Total Cost ($) To continue soil surveys for Montana the CDD will assist CDs to secure funds for work on their county soil surveys. 01. Contact 30 CDs 02. Secure 15 interested CDs 03. Assist CDs to develop funding pro- posals 04. Examine possible funding sources with CDs 05. Assist CDs to select funding source 06. Support funding request Subtotal To complete soil surveys in Montana the CDD will seek funds to implement the Montana Soil Survey Plan. The plan will take 18 years to complete, at a cost of $525,000 annually beginning in Fiscal Year 1984. 01. Examine possible funding sources 02. Select desired source 03. Develop funding request 04. Support funding request 05. Secure funding Subtotal 16 60 180 144.00 576.00 1,728.00 120 1,152.00 120 1,152.00 60 576.00 556 $5,328.00 144.00 576.00 1,728.00 1,152.00 1,152.00 576.00 $5,328.00 20 283.20 283.20 06 84.96 84.96 12 169.92 169.92 32 453.12 453.12 08 113.28 1 ,050,000.00 1,050,113.28 78 $1,104.48 $1,050,000.00 $1,051,104.48 29 3. To help begin 2 soil erosion control pro- jects. Projects will be considered in the Bitterroot, Beartooth, or Headwaters Resource Conservation and Develop- ment (RC&D) areas and in conservation districts. 01. Contact RC&Ds and CDs 02. Identify interested RC&Ds or CDs 03. Review RC&D and CD plans to evaluate potential projects 04. Meet with RC&Ds or CDs 05. Inspect project sites 06. Assist to develop project proposals 07. Examine possible funding sources with CDs and RC&Ds 20 283.20 283.20 08. Assist CDs or RC&Ds to select desired funding source 09. Support funding request Subtotal Total for Soil Erosion 08 113.28 20 283.20 30 424.80 32 453.12 16 226.56 80 1,132.80 113.28 283.20 424.80 453.12 226.56 1,132.80 06 84.96 84.96 32 453.12 453.12 244 $3,455.04 $3,455.04 878 $9,887.52 $1,050,000.00 $1,059,887.52 30 ! CONCERN: WATER SUPPLY To provide incentives for water supply improvement projects the CDD will con- tinue its attempts to secure $112,000 biannually as a state match for PL566 Watershed Project Planning. The PL566 program involves construction of multiple-use water projects. 01. Examine possible funding sources 02. Select desired funding source 03. Develop funding request 04. Support funding request 05. Secure funding Subtotal Total for Water Supply 20 283.20 283.20 06 84.96 84.96 12 169.92 169.92 32 453.12 453.12 08 113.28 224,000.00 224,113.28 78 $1,104.48 $224,000.00 $225,104.48 78 $1,104.48 $224,000,00 $225,104.48 31 CONCERN: NOXIOUS WEEDS 6. 02. 03. 04. 05. To provide loans for weed control the CDD will include weed control loans in Rangeland Improvement Loan Program packages (see the Rangeland Improve- ment section). 01. Meet with the Rangeland Executive Committee to set up addition of weed control loans to a rangeland loan package Finalize loan package Develop criteria for loan accep- tance Develop guidelines for loan ap- plications Inform CDs and general public of addition of noxious weed controls to range loan program through CD workshops and news articles Subtotal To control noxious weeds the CDD will provide funds for demonstrating the ef- fectiveness of TORDON in controlling leafy spurge. Thirty demonstration plots will be set up throughout Montana; $1,000 is available from the Renewable Resource Development Funds for each plot: projects will run for 5 to 10 years. 01. Set up demonstration plot plan (to include plan for final evaluation of the project) Inform CDs of program and ask for their sponsorship Obtain demonstration plots Fund plots Set up public information program Subtotal Total for Noxious Weeds 02. 03. 04. 05. 16 432.08 24 230.40 40 384.00 40 384.00 80 200 40 768.00 $2,198.48 566.40 432.08 230.40 384.00 384.00 768.00 $2,198.48 566.40 08 113.28 113.28 60 849.60 849.60 60 543.60 30,000.00 543.60 08 113.28 113.28 76 $2,186.16 $30,000.00 $32,186.16 76 $4,384.64 $30,000.00 $34,384.64 32 CONCERN: CHANGES IN LAND USE To provide local level incentives to keep productive land in production. The CDD will assist interested CDs with the development of agricultural preservation programs. 01 . Research CDs legal authority for us- ing present methods of agricultural land preservation 60 950.40 950.40 02. Research present methods used by other states for preservation of agricultural land 160 1,324.80 1,324.80 03. Recommend best methods for use by Montana's CDs 48 397.44 397.44 04. Develop information packet for CDs 120 993.36 993.36 05. Hold seminars on agricultural land preservation in conjunction with the Montana Association of Conser- vation Districts area meetings to gain the CDs support in preserving prime agricultural land 100 1,092.40 1,092.40 06. Assist interested CD with setting up an agricultural land preservation program; this will be considered a pilot program 165 1,374.48 1,374.48 Subtotal 653 $6,132.88 $6,132.88 Total for Changes in Land Use 653 $6,132.88 $6,132.88 33 CONCERN: SOCIO-POLITICAL CONCERNS To train supervisors and CD employees for their responsibilities, the CDD will hold annual training workshops for CD supervisors and CD employees. 01. Select workshop material 02. Plan agenda 03. Notify supervisors and CD employees 04. Hold workshops; 3 workshops in each of the 6 SCS work unit boun- daries Subtotal To make the public, resource agencies, and legislators aware of CD projects and functions, the CDD will hold a conserva- tion education tour of CD projects. 01. 02. 03. 04. Select tour site Organize tour (plan agenda) Inform the public and natural resource agencies and legislators Hold tour Subtotal 10. To educate supervisors on operations of a district the CDD will develop a pro- cedure manual for CD supervisors and CD employees. 01. Develop a questionnaire for CD supervisors and district employees to obtain information they need in a procedure manual 02. Send questionnaires 03. Tally and analyze questionnaires 04. Prepare outline for procedure manual 05. Prepare text of procedure manual 06. Edit and review 07. Complete graphics 08. Complete printing (not DNRC time) 09. Distribute copies Subtotal 160 24 24 662.40 198.72 198.72 1,152 11,056.88 1,360 $12,116.72 48 679.68 48 679.68 120 950.40 24 339.84 240 $2,649.60 30 248.40 06 45.36 24 198.72 20 165.60 96 794.88 40 324.00 24 187.20 00 1,000.00 08 260.00 48 $3,224.16 662.40 198.72 198.72 11,056.88 &12, 116.72 679.68 679.68 950.40 339.84 $2,649.60 248.40 45.36 198.72 165.60 794.88 324.00 187.20 1,000.00 260.00 $3,224.16 34 11. To plan for resource conservation on the local level, the CDD will assist CDs with their long-range (five-year) plans by developing updated guidelines for plan- ning activities. 01. Revise data in 1974 guidelines 48 397.44 397.44 02. Develop new outline 40 331.20 331.20 03. Write text of guidelines 160 1,324.80 1,324.80 04. Review and edit 60 496.80 496.80 05. Complete graphics 24 198.72 198.72 06. Complete printing (not DNRC time) 00 1,000.00 1,000.00 07. Distribute 08 66.24 66.24 Subtotal 340 $3,815.20 $3,815.20 Total for Socio-Political 2,188 $21,805.68 $21,805.68 35 08 76.80 18 172.80 18 172.80 20 192.00 08 76.80 22 211,20 94 $902.40 76.80 172.80 172.80 192.00 76.80 211.20 $902.40 CONCERN: RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT 12. To target areas for resource priorities the CDD will prioritize all counties in Mon- tana on the basis of their potential for range improvement and will direct funds and manpower on this basis. 01. Select rating group 02. Determine rating group 03. Design rating form 04. Hold rating session 05. Research/revise 06. Issue final list and completed rating matrix Subtotal 1 3. To provide incentives for improvement of rangeland resources $500,000 is needed each biennium to establish a 5-million- dollar revolving fund for interest-free range loans. The CDD will seek con- tinued financing for the Rangeland Im- provement Loan Program. 01. Study available funding sources 02. Choose a source 03. Prepare budget and request 04. Submit request 05. Support funding request 06. Secure funds Subtotal 14. To provide current information on rangeland conditions in Montana and to assess the rangeland goals set by the CDD in 1970; the CDD will update its plan for the Montana Rangeland Resource Program. 01. Obtain updated statistics 105 1,008.00 1,008.00 02. Compare condition to 1980 goals 08 76.00 76.00 03. Develop new goals 08 76.00 76.00 04. Revise remainder of text 80 768.00 768.00 05. Edit and review 80 700.80 700.80 06. Complete graphics 24 187.20 187.20 07. Complete printing (not DNRC time) 00 1,500.00 1,500.00 08. Distribute copies 08 76.00 76.00 Subtotal 313 $4,392.00 $4,392.00 32 307.20 307.20 12 115.20 115.20 40 384.00 384.00 04 30.24 30.24 60 576.00 576.00 08 76.80 500,000.00 76.80 56 $1,489.44 $500,000.00 $501,489.44 36 1 5. To prevent breakup of land unsuitable for cropping; the CDD will attempt to find a CD interested in passing a model or- dinance to stop this breakup of rangeland. 01. Research legality of ordinance 02. Develop a draft ordinance 03. Develop informational program on the ordinance 04. Gain CDs support (presentation at MACD area meetings) 05. Find CD interested in passing model ordinance 06. Assist CD v^ith gathering baseline data 07. Assist CD with final language of or- dinance Subtotal Total for Rangeland Improvement 24 80 80 100 40 80 24 428 991 380.16 662.40 662.40 1,092.40 331.20 768.00 380.16 $4,276.72 $11,060.56 $500,000.00 380.16 662.40 662.40 1,092.40 331.20 768.00 380.16 $4,276.72 $511,060.56 37 CONCERN: RECREATION 16. To increase recreational access the CDD will conduct an education and informa- tion program on conservation easements and their benefits to landowners and the public. In turn supervisors will be able to encourage landowners in their district to obtain a conservation easement. 01 . Meet with DFWP to compile a pre- sentation on conservation ease- ments 12 99.36 99.36 02. Prepare an easement information packet for supervisors 120 993.60 993.60 03. Hold programs at MACD area meetings 100 1,092.40 1,092.40 04. Send additional information to follow up with CDs on easements 32 264.96 264.96 05. Refer interested agriculturalists to DFWP 12 99.36 99.36 Subtotal 276 $2,549.68 $2,549.68 Total for Recreation 276 $2,549.68 $2,549.68 38 I CONCERN: WATER QUALITY To improve water quality the CDD will accept 6 CD water quality management proposals to be funded for preparing feasibility studies, funding proposals, and other project planning activities. The CDD will work with DHES to carry out this objective. 01. Assist with writing of proposals 144 1,382.40 1,382.40 02. Review applications 96 921.60 921.60 03. Inspect project sites 144 2,102.40 2,102.40 144 1,382.40 96 921.60 144 2,102.40 72 691.20 456 $5,097.60 04. Choose applications 72 691.20 691.20 Subtotal 456 $5,097.60 $5,097.60 To improve water quality the CDD will assit CDs to secure funding for water quality projects. 144.00 576.00 1,728.00 1,152.00 1,152.00 576.00 $5,328.00 Total for Water Quality 1,012 $10,425.60 $10,425.60 01. Contact CDs 16 144.00 02. Secure interested CDs 60 576.00 03. Assist CDs to develop funding pro- posals 180 1,728.00 04. Examine possible funding sources with CDs 120 1,152.00 05. Assist CDs to select funding source 120 1,152.00 06. Support funding request 60 576.00 Subtotal 556 $5,328.00 39 CONCERN: SALINE SEEP 19. To demonstrate the effectiveness of flexi- ble cropping in controlling saline seep and soil erosion, and in achieving water quality improvement. The CDD will assist interested CDs to set up 4 demonstration plots in Montana. 01. Draw up program plan (revise Old West Proposal) 02. Present plan at MACD area meetings 03. Follow up with meetings with in- terested districts 04. Secure CDs sponsorship 05. Assist CDs to find farmer to sponsor demonstration plot 06. Assist CDs to seek funding 07. Assist CDs to set up contracts with farmer 08. Assist CDs to obtain an agronomist 09. Assist CDs with educational tours of the projects 64 529.92 529.92 10. Assist CDs to set up evaluation of projects 80 1,132.80 1,132.80 Subtotal 676 $8,119.60 $8,119.60 Total for Saline Seep 676 $8,119.60 $8,119.60 120 1,699.20 100 1,092.40 64 529.92 32 453.12 64 529.92 80 1,132.80 40 566.40 32 453.12 40 1,699.20 1,092.40 529.92 453.12 529.92 1,132.80 566.40 453.12 / CONCERN: WILDLIFE HABITAT 20. To increase good riparian management the CDD will educate CDs on the impor- tance of riparian habitat management. The district supervisors will then be able to encourage landowners in their district to employ good riparian management practices. 01. Meet with DFWP and DHES to make up a presentation on riparian management 12 99.36 99.36 02. Hold programs at MACD area meetings 100 1,092.40 1,092.40 03. Send additional information to CDs on riparian management 32 264.96 264.96 Subtotal 144 $1,456.72 $1,456.72 Total for Wildlife Habitat 144 $1,456.72 $1,456.72 41 TOTAL COSTS OF OBJECTIVES 1-20 (IN 1980 DOLLARS) Soil Erosion Water Supply Noxious Weeds Changes in Land Use Socio-Political Rangeland Improvement Recreation Water Quality Saline Seep Wildlife Habitat GRAND TOTALS 878 9,887.52 1,050,000.00 1,059,887.52 78 1,104.48 224,000.00 225,104.48 376 4,384.64 30,000.00 34,384.64 653 6,132.88 6,132.88 2,188 21,805.68 21,805.68 991 11,060.56 500,000.00 511,060.56 276 2,549.68 2,549.68 1,012 10,425.60 10,425.60 676 8,119.60 8,119.60 144 1,456.72 1,456.72 7,272 $76,039.84 $1,804,000.00 $1,880,927.36 Fl CURE 4 SCHED lULE OFOBJECTI VES 1-20 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY 1985 Objective No. 12 3 4 12 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1. Soil surveys H,^^ **+ *t:f *** + *+ ♦♦* *♦* *** 1 2. Soil survey plan * * ♦ 1 3. Erosion projects *** * * * + + * + * * 1 4. PL 566 *** *** **♦ * * ♦ 5. Weed control loans *iti* *4c* *** 6. TORDON projects 4c** ♦** ♦** * + * * * * 7. Agland preservation program *** *** *** «** * ** *** * * ♦ 8. Supervisor workshops * * * * * * * * * * ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ * * * * * « * * * ♦ 9. CD projects tour *** ** ♦ * ♦ * ♦ * * 10. Procedure manual * 4c * * * * *4< * 11. Planning guidelines « * * * * « *** 12. Range potential * * * * * * 13. Range loan program *** «** *** *** *** ««* ^c** ** * 14. Update range publication «** *** *»* * *■ * 15. Wind erosion ordinance *** *** *** *♦* *** *** * * * * ** 16. Conservation easements *** ♦♦♦ *♦* 17. Water quality proposals *** *** *** *♦* *** **♦ *♦* *** 18. Water quality funding *** *** *** *** ♦** *** ♦ * * ** * 4r t * * * * * * * 19. Flexible cropping * * * ** * ^* * * * * * * ♦ 20. Riparian management ♦ ♦ * ♦ * * TOTAL HOURS BY FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 FY 1985 FISCAL YEAR 12 3 4 12 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 QUARTERS 391 439 505 448 467 452 452 402 452 472 472 507 531 529 458 295 42 PART B: OBJECTIVES INFLUENCED BYCDD The following objectives will ultimately be achieved by other state and federal resource agencies and organiza- tions. The Conservation Districts Division will influence and work cooperatively with conservation districts, agencies, and organizations to carry out objectives 21-55 by prepar- ing justification statements and presenting written and verbal testimonies. The Division will meet periodically with the heads of state branches and with the state bran- ches of federal agencies in Montana, as well as annually with the heads of federal agencies in Washington, D.C. \rj some cases the Conservation Districts Division will obtain support from the conservation districts, the Mon- tana Association of Conservation Districts, state and federal agencies, legislators, and the public. The division may sponsor projects for CDs or inform CDs of programs they may wish to sponsor. The Conservation Districts Division may assist with writing, reviewing or revising policy changes, job descriptions, and project or program guidelines. CONCERN: SOIL EROSION 21. To increase the amount of funds available for conservation projects through the Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service Long Term Agreement cost-share programs from $3,500 per year to $5,000 per year, per contract. 22. To increase the total amount of funds available to Montana from Long Term Agreement cost-share programs the CDD will request USDA to make a 15 percent increase in funds. Long Term Agree- ment funds available for Fiscal Year 1981 total $564,000 for the State of Montana. 23. To plant and improve shelterbelts for the preven- tion of soil erosion and the provision of wildlife 24. habitat. The CDD will encourage CDs to par- ticipate in the Montana Interagency Tree or Shrub Improvement Study (MITOSIS) to further the use of shelterbelts. The MITOSIS program is cooperatively run by the Forestry Division of DNRC, the SCS, and other forestry agencies. The program is intended to find superior tree and shrub species for field barrier and environmental plantings. CDs can assist in collecting superior seed stock and finding cooperators interested in running a planting test area. To apply soil and water conservation to the land. The CDD will encourage CDs to annually review their conservation plans with their cooperators. CONCERN: IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT 25. To provide increased assistance to irrigation operators for irrigation water management train- ing and irrigation systems improvement. The CDD will support efforts of the Montana Cooperative Extension Service and SCS to pro- vide increased irrigation assistance; also, the CDD will assist the Cooperative Extension Service to publicize their irrigation scheduling models. 26. To improve efficiency information systems the CDD will encourage interested CDs to develop their ability to test and monitor irrigation efficien- cy including delivery and application structures and equipment. 43 CONCERN: FOOD AND FIBER PRODUCTION 27. To increase the use of renewable energy in agricultural production. The CDD will encourage CDs to find cooperators interested in developing small-scale, decentralized energy production pro- jects. The cooperator or CD with such a proposed project can apply for a grant from the Alternative Renewable Energy Sources Program of the Energy Division of DNRC. 28. To further research on the application of energy conservation in Montana agricultural production. 29. The CDD will encourage the Montana Cooperative Extension Service to carry out research in agricultural energy conservation and work towards application of such research. To decrease costs of agricultural production the CDD will encourage the CDs and SCS to design conservation plans to reduce long range costs (lower costs by reducing consumption of syn- thetic fertilizers and fossil fuels). CONCERN: WATER SUPPLY 30. To make loans for water development projects the CDD will work with the Water Resources Division of DNRC to carry out the water develop- ment loan portion of the Water Development Program. 31 . To assist the 14 CDs along the Yellowstone River with their water reservation implementation plans. The CDD will work with the Water Resources Division of DNRC to carry out the water reservations implementation portion of its 32. Water Development Plan. Two engineers will be available to assist CDs beginning September 1 981 . The implementation plans are to be submit- ted to the Board of Natural Resources and Con- servation by December 15, 1983. To assist 25 CDs in the Clarks Fork and Missouri River Basins to research water availability, and if possible, to secure water reservations; the CDD will work with the Water Resources Division, DNRC to carry out this objective. CONCERN: NOXIOUS WEEDS 33. 35. To increase the amount of information available on weed control the CDD will support funding of the Montana Experiment Station for research and education projects on weed control in Montana, with special emphasis on biological controls. 34. To increase efficiency of local weed control pro- grams the CDD will encourage CDs to coordinate weed control activities with their local weed districts. CONCERN: CHANGES IN LAND USE To increase support of farm and ranch organiza- tions and real estate agencies for preservation of prime agricultural land. The CDD will encourage I CDs to incorporate preservation of agricultural land in their education and information programs and to emphasize reaching farm organizations and real estate agencies. 44 CONCERN: RURAL DEVELOPMENT 36. To expand "outreach capacity" by 15 percent for education in estate planning. The CDD will re- quest the Montana Cooperative Extension Service to carry out this objective. 37. To facilitate a comprehensive statewide resource conservation planning effort the CDD will en- courage the Resource Conservation Advisory Council to pursue such an effort. CONCERN: RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT To distribute range management information to 1,000 additional range operators, the CDD will request that the Montana Cooperative Extension Service, the Montana Experiment Station, the SCS, and the Forestry Division of DNRC provide this information annually. 39. To prevent operators from drawing federal payments on classes of land unsuitable for cropp- ing, the CDD will request USDA to make a policy change. These federal payments include Agricultural Conservation Program cost-sharing funds, federal crop disaster payments, and federal crop insurance. CONCERN: RECREATION To provide recreational access the CDD will en- courage the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP), USDA Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to enter into cooperative agreements with landowners in ex- change for their services according to the terms of the agreement. 41. To promote greater involvement of private recreation enterprises in DFWP's statewide com- prehensive outdoor recreation planning, the CDD, with the cooperation and assistance of SCS and the Montana Association of Conservation Districts, will provide DFWP with information on private enterprise outdoor recreation activities. CONCERN: WATER QUALITY 42. To identify water quality problems on streams that require inventories according to CD's water quality management plans. The CDD will request the SCS, DHES, and the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to give accelerated assistance to these stream inventories. 45 CONCERN: SALINE SEEP 43. To make more assistance available in saline seep prevention and control, the CDD will request the SCS to provide more trained technical assistance for control and prevention of saline seep. 44. To cost-share saline seep control practices, the CDD will work with Agriculural Stabilization and Conservation Service on the National Farm Pro- gram to allow implementation of flexible- 45. cropping systems without penalty to the farmer. A cost-share program for well drilling and other field work necessary to develop a reclamation plan for individual farmers will be considered. To support locally operated saline seep control programs such as the Triangle Saline Seep Pro- gram. CONCERN: FLOODING 46. To increase watershed protection and flood prevention by increasing funding for PL566 pro- jects. The CDD will support efforts of Congress to increase the PL566 program. 47. To reduce damages caused by flooding the CDD will encourage CDs to work with their local plan- ning boards to enforce local floodplain regula- tions. 48. To improve or protect wildlife and fish habitat the CDD will, with the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP), set up a joint CDD and DFWP committee. This committee will investigate and recommend methods for providing incentives to landowners for habitat improvements or protec- tion. Based on committee recommendations pilot i programs will be established, and these programs j will be supervised by the committee. j 49. To develop fish and wildlife habitat plans in con- i junction with farm conservation plans, the CDD '\ will request the SCS and CDs to ask all Ian- ; downers to consider developing habitat plans in conjunction wih their conservation plans. I 50. To develop fish and wildlife improvement pro- ] jects and educational programs, the CDD will re- quest the CDs to give fish and wildlife improve- ment projects high priority in their planning ac- 1 tivities. CONCERN: FORESTRY 51. To make contact with the small forest landowner through additional state foresters working on the Forestry Assistance Programs of the DNRC Divi- sion of Forestry. The CDD will support efforts to obtain these additional state foresters. 52. To adopt forestry practices for the CDs' water quality management plans, the CDD will assist CDs to use the practices outlined by the Depart- ment of Health and Environmental Sciences. The CDD will obtain the DNRC Forestry Division's ap- proval of the forestry practices prior to recom- mending them to the CDs. 46 CONCERN: MINING 53. To carry out a stream reclamation project on the Prickly Pear drainage for abatement of acid mine drainage problems, the CDD will support efforts of the Montana Department of State Lands to use Abandoned Mine Land Program money for the Prickly Pear project. Also the CDD will request that the CDs support this project and recommend use of these funds on other mine drainage pro- jects identified in some of the CDs' water quality management plans. 54. To assist CDs with land use conversion and aquifer disruption problems with coal strip min- ing. Emphasis will be placed on preserving prime, unique, and statewide important farmland (see Changes in Land Use section), and determining effects of proposed coal strip mining on aquifers. CONCERN: FISH HABITAT 55. To provide adequate in-stream flows for fish habitat, the CDD will encourage fish and wildlife management agencies to work with CDs and ir- rigators to research the feasibility of constructing off-stream storage sites for joint irrigation and in- stream flow needs. 47 IV. CONCLUSION The preservation and wise use of Montana's water, soil, farmlands, forestlands, and wildlife habitat are all part of a complex responsibility. All these resources are in- terdependent and the duties of those who work to preserve them are also closely related. The management of Montana's diverse resources on private land is being ac- complished by members of conservation districts working with each other and with state and federal agencies. In this plan, the Conservation Districts Division has brought together the needs ex- pressed by many farmers and ranchers across the state. They indicated what their pro- blems were and how they thought they might be solved. CD members then worked with the CDD to develop a plan that would help to correct these problems. This plan provides a guide for tasks directed at specific objectives, with projected time lines and costs for each. Incentives and assistance are needed from cooperating agencies for the ac- complishment of some of these objectives. Where such cooperation was needed, the possible sources of funding and other sup- port are indicated. In many cases local CD members can achieve the objectives themselves. The Conservation Districts Division believes that this plan will prove to be a useful tool for the members of Montana's conservation districts. 48 APPENDIX A Policies of the Conservation Districts Division The policies of the Conservation Districts Division are consistent with those set forth in MCA 76-15-102, which provide for the preservation of Montana's resources, and specifically are to: 1) provide for the control and prevention of soil erosion; 2) provide for the prevention of damage by flood water and sediment; 3) provide for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; 4) provide for the protection and development of fish and wildlife habitat; 5) protect and improve water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution; 6) provide for the optimum quality and quantity of rangeland; 7) preserve Montana's prime, unique, and important farmlands; and 8) protect streambeds. Duties of the Conservation Districts Division The Conservation Districts Division is bound by MCA 76-15-105 to carry out the duties specified for the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, as follows: 1) offer assistance to the supervisors of conservation districts carrying out their pro- grams; 2) keep the supervisors of each of the districts informed of the activities of all other districts and promote an interchange of advice and experiences between the districts, and cooperation between them; 3) coordinate the programs of the conservation districts by advice and consultation; 4) secure the cooperation and assistance of the federal government and of agencies of Montana in the work of the districts; 5) disseminate information throughout the state concerning the activities and programs of the conservation districts; and 6) encourage the formation of districts in areas where their organization is desirable. 49 APPENDIX B RCA WORKSHEET NO. 1 Resource Concerns and Problems xxxxxxxxxxx I X Field Office x j X Use X j xxxxxxxxxxx i Page 1 of 5 (01) State Code County Code State Name County Name Location Code Field Office _ District Name Recorder Date Items of Concern Concern/ Problem Codes Degree of Concern Major Minor 1. II. III. IV. V. Food and Fiber Production a. Loss of production acres 1. Cropland 2. Pastureland 3. Rangeland k. Forest land b. Energy consumption c. Increased costs d. Brush encroachment e. Other Land Use a. Effect of public facilities b. Urban sprawl c. Migration to rural areas d. Publ ic ownership e. Soil limitations f. Land ownership g. Leased land farming h. Growing recreation demand I. Other Flooding a. Economic Impact b. Environmental Impact c. Other Wetlands a. Loss b. Degradation c. Other Prime, Unique, Important Farmland a. Conversion to irreversible uses b. Overlying, strlppable, mineral resources c. Other 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 Ok Ok Ok Ok 05 05 05 05 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 09 10 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 09 10 01 02 03 Ok 01 02 03 0^4 01 02 03 Ok 502-44 50 (01) State Code County Code Location Code RCA WORKSHEET NO. 1 Resource Concerns and Problems Page Rev. 2 of 5 6/16/78 Items of Concern Concern/ Problem Codes Degree of Concern Major Minor VI. VII. VIM. Water Management a. Irrigation 1. Water availability 2. Efficiency of systems 3. Efficiency of application k. Erosion 5. Costs 6. Use of municipal or Industrial effluent 7. Depletion of ground water 8. Degradation of water quality 9. Degradation of aquatic habitat 10. Salinity 11. Other 12. Inpact on fish and wildlife 13. Maintenance of facilities Water Supply a. Increased demand b. Sediment and related pollutants c. Lack of water d. Depletion of ground water e. Surface storage f. Other Soil Erosion a. Water erosion 1. Cropland 2. Pastureland 3. Forest land k. Rangeland 5. Urban land 6. Mined land 7. Effect on productivity 8. Sediment damages 9. Shore erosion 10. Impacts on water quality 11. Costs of control 12. Effects xyn aquatic habitat 13. Scouring on floodplain I't. Deposition on floodplain 15. Other 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 15 16 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 08 16 08 17 1 502-45 51 State Code County Code Location Code Page 3 of 5 RCA WORKSHEET NO. 1 Resource Concerns and Problems VI I I IX. XI XII Items of Concern Soil Erosion (continued) b. Wind erosion 1 . Cropland 2. Rangeland 3. Coastal areas k. Mined land 5. Effect on productivity 6. Sediment damages 7. Costs of control 8. Impact on air quality 9. Loss of windbreaks 10. Other Mining a. Water qual ity b. Land use conversions c. Sediment damage d. Aesthetics e. Reclamation f. Effect on wetlands g. Effect on fish and wildlife h. Other Land Disposal of Organic Waste a. Municipal sludge b. Health hazard c. Pollution of environment d. Publ Ic acceptance e. Lack of available disposal sites f. Other Recreation a. Increased demand b. Lack of diversity c. Operation and maintenance of existing areas d. Lack of facil ities e. Other Wildlife Habitat a. Effect of farm and forestry cultural practices b. Land use conversions c. Loss of habitat through overgrazing d. Other Concern/ Problem Codes Degree of Concern Major Minor 08 18 19 20 21 22 23 2k 25 26 27 28 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 09 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 01 02 03 Ok 05 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 502-46 52 (01) State Code County Code Location Code RCA WORKSHEET NO. 1 Resource Concerns and Problems Page ^ of 5 Items of Concern Concern/ Problem Codes Degree of Concern Major Minor XIII. Fish Habitat a. Impact of sediment and related pollutants b. Availability c. Effect of human activity d. Channel modifications e. Other XIV. Forestry (Non Federal Land) a. Land use conversions b. Lack of markets c. Erosion control d. Overgrazing e. Reforestation (need for) f. Other XV. Water Quality a. Sediment and related pollutants b. Eutrophication c. Livestock wastes d. Irrigation Impact e. Other XVI. Air Quality a. Industrial pollution - effect on vegetation b. Dust from wind erosion c. Other XVII. Rural Development a. Ownership - Land held for development, absentee, etc. b. Viability of family, farm/ranch c. Under employment d. Lack of availability for agricultural products e. Population migration f. Adequacy of facilities and services g. Other XVIII. Environmental a. Lack of habitat for threatened and endangered species. b. Loss of historical and archaeological sites c. Loss of visual resources d. Loss of natural and scenic areas e. Loss of riparian vegetation f. Loss of wildlife migration routes g. Loss of windbreaks h. Other 13 13 13 13 13 13 ]k 1^4 \k ]k \k 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 01 02 03 OA 05 06 01 02 03 Ok 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 08 09 502-47 (01) State Code County Code Location Code RCA W0R!-^-H::ET NO. 1 Resource Concerns and Problems XIX, XX. XXI I terns of Concern: Socfo-Poli tical Concerns a. Effective local leader^iiip Adequate legislative autnor i t les Effective use of existing authorite Adequate local capital Capability of local units of govern. ,t to meet resource need Need for cooperative arrangements with other units of government Other b. c. d. e. f. Other (list) a. b. c. d. e. Drainage a. Effect of excess wetness in crop , elect i^- ity and productivity b. Impact of drainage proble.s on c Itural operations and use of enet gy Need for surface drainage syst :n,s Need for water table confol Effectiveness of existing systems Lack of ditch and structural maintenance Cost of installation and .'aintmance Impact on fish impact on wi Idl i fe Other c. d. e. f. g. h. i . J- Concern/ Problem Codes 19 19 19 i9 9 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 2) 21 21 21 21 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 01 02 03 Ok 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Page 5 of 5 Rev. 6/16/78 Degree of Concern Major Minor 502-48 54 il 1 APPENDIX C Formation of Resource Conservation Advisory Council e The Governor of the State of Montana was given the power to set up the council by th _ Administrative Procedures Act (MCA 2-15-122); the 12 council members are appointed by the Governor and serve at his pleasure. Purpose of Resource Conservation Advisory Council The purpose of the Resource Conservation Advisory Council is to: (1) Advise and assist the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation on all programs and activities relating to conservation entities, including programs and activities relating to the: (a) formation, organization, and operation of districts; (b) control and prevention of soil erosion; (c) conservation, development, utilization and disposal of all water resources; (d) prevention of floodwater and sediment damages; (e) conservation, protection, restoration, and proper utilization of soil and vegetative resources of the state; (f) development of the rangeland resource program; (g) cooperation with other state and federal agencies, and citizen groups, in land uses related to natural resources and environment. (2) (a) Advise and assist the Department in approving applications for assistance under PL-566 (Watershed Act) prior to submission to the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation; (b) Advise and assist the Department in approving applications for assistance under the Food and Agriculture Act for Resource Conservation and Develop- ment (RC&D) projects prior to submission to the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation; (3) Recommend changes, if necessary, in existing state or federal laws or regulations to protect and conserve the soil, vegetation and water resources of the state; (4) Provide a liaison between the Department, conservation districts, grazing districts, the Montana Association of Conservation Districts, and the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts. 55 Members of the Resource Conservation Advisory Council (RCAC) Walt Dion Box 1529 Havre, MT 59501 398-5361 James McCann Route 1 Harlem, MT 59526 353-2398 Dale Marxer Millegan Route Great Falls, MT 59401 866-3259 Shirley Parrott Box 266 Roundup, MT 59072 323-1662 Ole Ueland Silver Bow, MT 59750 782-6190 John Vanisko 1311 Bowman Road Deer Lodge, MT 59722 693-2360 John Teigen, )r. Capitol MT Route Camp Crook, SD 57724 972-4587 Van K. Haderlie, State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service Box 970 Bozeman, MT 59715 587-5271 Charles H. Rust Montana Extension Service Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717 994-3451 Gordon McOmber Department of Agriculture 303 Robert Helena, MT 59620 449-3144 Dr. )ohn ). Drynan Environmental Sciences Division Dept. of Health & Environmental Sciences Cogswell Building Helena, MT 59620 449-3946 James Flynn Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks 1420 E. 6th Helena, MT 59620 Attn: Norm Peterson 449-3815 56 APPENDIX D Meetings, Attendance, and Distribution of Questionnaires. USE OF QUESTIONNAIRES Handed Out Returned 1,836 275 3,305 166 6,311 393 2,573 282 5,680 752 3,315 456 0 0 TOTAL 148 146 294 1,992 1,759 3,732 23,020 2,324 NUMBER OF MEETINGS ATTENDANCE SCS Work Area RCA other Total RCA Other Total 1 17 9 26 230 88 318 2 27 26 53 466 318 784 3 28 25 53 487 357 844 4 14 9 23 143 55 198 5 33 46 79 474 541 1,015 6 18 24 42 102 243 345 SCS State Off. n 7 18 90 157 228 57 APPENDIX E Literature Cited Block, John R., Speech to National Agricultural Lands Conference, Chicago. February 1981. Cooperative Extension Service, Montana State University. Project 80. Bulletin 352. 1980. Bozeman, Montana. Dawson County Conservation District. 208 Water Quality Management Plan, A Supplement to Dawson County Conservation District Long Range Plan. May 1980. Missoula, Montana. Environmental Information Center. Missoula County Subdivision Inventory. August 1980. Missoula, Montana. Jefferson Valley Conservation District. Jefferson Valley Conservation District RCA Five Year Plan for Resource Conservation, 1980-1985. 1980. Whitehall, Montana. Krause, Kenneth R. Foreign Investment in the U.S. Food and Agriculture System: An Overview. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 456. May 1980. Washington, D.C. Lewis and Clark Conservation District. Long Range Program for Total Resource Conservation. 1979. Helena, Montana. Missoula Conservation District. 208 Water Quality Management Plan for the Missoula Conservation District. 1981. Missoula, Montana. Missouri River Basin Commission. Upper Missouri Level B Study. 1980. Billings, Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Hydrogeologic Conditions and Projections Related to Mining Near Colstrip, Southeastern Montana. Bulletin Number 102. 1977. Butte, Montana. Regional Assessment of the Saline Seep Problems and a Water Quality Inventory of the Montana Plains. Open File Report 42. 1979. Butte, Montana. Montana Committee for Rural Development. Montana Situation Statement. March 1979. Bozeman, Montana. Montana Department of Agriculture. Personal communication with Gary Gingery, Administrator, Environmental Management Division. February 1981. Helena, Montana. Montana Department of Fish and Game. Design for Tomorrow 1977-1990. November 15, 1978. Helena, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Personal communication with Ralph Boland. March 1981. Helena, Montana. 58 Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Environmental Sciences Division. Water Quality Bureau. Prickly Pear Physical Features Streambank Inventory. 1980. Helena, Montana. Environmental Sciences Division. Water Quality Bureau. Statewide Water Quality Management Plan: Recommendations of the Statewide 208 Water Quality Planning Project. October 1979. Helena, Montana. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Conservation Districts Division. Conversion Figures (Rangeland to Cropland) for Montana's Conservation Districts. May 16, 1977. Helena, Montana. ., Conservation Districts Division. Montana Rangeland Resources Program. June 1977. Helena, Montana. , Forestry Division, Montana Preliminary Forest Resources Plan. July 1980. Missoula, Montana. Water Resources Division. The Framework Report. October 1976. Helena, Montana. _, Water Resources Division. Water Use in Montana. 1975. Helena, Montana. Montana Department of State Lands, Reclamation Division. Personal communication with Craig Howard. March 4, 1981. Helena, Montana. Montana Energy and MHD Research Development Institute, Inc. Montana Energy Conservation Plan, Working Paper No. 5, Agricultural Energy Conservation. 1977. Butte, Montana. National Agricultural Lands Study. Interim Report No. 2. June 1980. Washington, D.C. Public Service Commission. Application by Montana Power Company. Docket No. 80.4.2 Phase 11. 1981. State Soil Survey Advisory Council. Montana Soil Survey Plan. December 1980. Helena, Montana. Steiner, Frederick and John Theilacker, Eds. Farmlands Preservation: The State of the Art. Washington State University. January 1980. Pullman, Washington. Stillwater Conservation District. Stillwater Conservation District Nonpoint Water Quality Plan. March 1980. Columbus, Montana. 59 Teton County Conservation District. A Program for the Conservation of Teton County's Natural Resources. April 1980. Chouteau, Montana. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Noxious Weed Surveys for Montana. 1978. Bozeman, Montana. , Soil Conservation Service. Montana's Multiyear Plan for Resource Conservation. 1979. Bozeman, Montana. , Soil Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory. 1977. Bozeman, Montana. _, Soil Conservation Service. Water Conservation and Salvage Report for Montana. 1978. Bozeman, Montana. , Soil Conservation Service. Wind Erosion Report. 1980. Bozeman, Montana. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture. 1969. Washington, D.C. Census of Agriculture. 1974. Washington, D.C. 60 (^R4pMiCS bv ihf C4RI0C,RAp(l> bcRtAL DNR&C MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION 600 copies of this public document was published at an estimated cost of 3.562 per copy for a total cost of $2,137.04 which includes $1,937.04 for print ing and $200 for dis tribution.