bSfi.^M»><, lAT* 'i •«■• u> t ■! lim:ifil^W?B #1^ fK SM -^sl^ ■rim* MONTANA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION NEEDS 4::^ INVENTORY STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION JAN 29 1996 HELENA, MONTANA 59520 \- ■ MONTANA CONSERVATION NEEDS COMMITTEE January 1962 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY S333,72S3m 1962C.1 i-.un«n I Montana 501I and water conservation need ■ ■■■'■■ i|l||" ■ "" 3 0864 00054012 r MONTANA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION NEEDS INVENTORY The Inventory was made under the supervision of the State Committee repre- senting agencies and organizations with conservation responsibilities and interests. The chairmanship was assigned to the Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana, U. S. Department of Agriculture. The following agencies, institutions and groups were represented on the Montana State Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Economic Research Service Farmers Home Administration Forest Service Soil Conservation Service Statistical Reporting Service UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service STATE OF MONTANA Agricultural Experiment Station Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Cooperative Extension Service Department of State Lands and Investment Office of the State Forester State Fish and Game Department State Planning Board State Soil Conservation Committee The State Committee acknowledges the cooperation and assistance received from other sources. CONTENTS Page Summary ]_ Land Resource Area Map (Opposite Page 4) Introduction , 4 Land Capability Definition 8 Inventory Acreage 9 Land Groups Included in the Inventory 9 Table 1. Land Area of Montana and Use of Inventory Acreage, 1958, and Expected, 1975 11 Table 2, Use of Inventory Acreage 1958 and Expected 1975 . . 12 Estimating the Present Use of Land 13 Estimating Expected Changes in Land Use by 1975 13 Table 3. Use of Inventory Acreage by Class and Sub-Class , . 15 Needs for Conservation Treatment 16 Table 4. Estimate of Needs for Conservation Treatment on Expected Irrigated Cropland Acreage, 1975 17 Table 4A. Estimate of Needs for Conservation Treatment of Dry Cropland Acreage, 1975 18 Table 5. Estimate of Needs for Conservation Treatment on Expected Acreage of Tajne Pasture, Native Range, Grazed Woodland and Irrigated Native, 1975 .... 20 Table 6, Estimate of Needs for Conservation Treatment on Expected Acreage of Forest and Woodland, 1975 ... 21 Table 7. Estimate of Needs of Conservation Treatment on Expected Acreage of Other Land, 1975 23 Inventory by Counties , ....... . 24 Watershed Project Needs 25 Table 10. Watershed Project Needs (Montana 1959) 26 Appendix 1. Department Policy 28 Appendix 2. Procedure for Developing Basic Data 30 Appendix 3. Land Capability Classification ..... 32 SUMMARY Why the Inventory Although we are blessed with an abundance of land and water resources, they are not inexhaustible. They must be cared for and used wisely for their pro- ductiveness to continue. To assure their wise use basic facts are needed about the physical problems of conservation, their magnitude and relative urgency. This Inventory contains these basic facts. It will be modified and kept current with advances in technologj'^ and increased knowledge. How the Inventory Was Made The Inventory was initiated in 1957 as part of a National Inventory author- ized by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is based upon statistical sampling and upon the knowledge and judgment of people well acquainted with conditions in each county. Detailed soil surveys were made of l60-acre samples drawn in a randomized, statistically sound manner. The data from these samples were scientifically expanded to represent actual conditions in each county and the state. The data were carefully considered by county committees who developed the county reports which were reviewed by the State Committee and in turn by the Department Committee in Washington, D. C. Who Did It The Inventory was developed by county committees composed of available rep- resentatives of the agencies, institutions and groups listed at the begin- ning of this report. The county committees received training, guidance and assistance from both the Area Committee and the State Committee. Conservation Needs Soil and water conservation includes adjustments in land use; protecting land against soil deterioration; rebuilding eroded and depleted soils; sta- bilizing runoff and sediment-producing areas; improving cover on crop, forest, pasture and range, and wildlife areas; retaining water for farm and ranch use and reducing water and sediment damage; and water management, distribution, and disposal obtained by draining or irrigating land on existing farms or ranches. The owners and users of the land would appear to have the immediate respon- sibility for effecting conservation, and under mai^ circumstances they have tiie primary interest in it. Many have taken direct action but others may not be expected to evidence this interest until deterioration of the land or water resource is obvious and the effects immediate and costly. Action can be ex- pected when the anticipated direct returns will equal or exceed the costs, usually from a relatively short-term point of view. Many individuals contribute much more than this to conservation for a great many reasons. They look further ahead for their own direct benefits. They include in their gains the pride in a job well done, the expectation that the son and the son' s son ad infinitum will live on the particular land and the heritage should be left intact, and concern for the future of the Nation and its people. Despite this, the extent to which the individual land owner and user is in- terested in conservation tends to lie within his own direct experience, with his actual participation governed by economic considerations. But conserva- tion has much broader implicationso Looked at from progressively broader points of view — local, state, national, and even international — conservation assumes importance far beyond the limits of the direct use of the land. Destruction of the land on one farm can ruin another that is downstream or downwind and it can cause social problems by reducing the population and the economic base of the community. A more complex relationship may be illus- trated by a small watershed, occupied by several farms and perhaps a popu- lation center. No one farmer can solve the problems of the watershed - - stabilize runoff and control production of sediment in the upper reaches or protect his farm or the town from flood and sediment damage if either lies in the lower reaches. Community effort may be necessary in the application of conservation practices to solve the problems when there are several owners and users of the land and where others may be the beneficiaries. Moving further from the personal relationship with the land itself to larger social groups, the interest in conservation becomes more general, just as in- sistent, and in a sense more enduring or far sigh ted. Public concern is for an adequate and continuing supply of food, fiber, industrial raw materials, a reliable yield of useable water in the streams, protection from excessive flooding and silt deposition; preservation and development of other values associated with the land, and water resource such as recreation and wildlife. These have a set of values to the state consistent with its functions as a political entity in relation to the welfare of its own residents, and its relation with other states and the Nation, It is the policy of the State of Montana to provide for conservation of all soil and water resources. It provides the legal framework enabling contrac- tual arrangements and group action. It is responsible for management, devel- opment and use of the resources it owns. All the people have major responsibilities for conservation and development of the nation's resources, beyond the immediate interest of the individual owner and user. This represents accumulated common interest, both now and for the future. To this end they share with owners and users of land the costs of those practices with extended and enduring benefits. By this means they insure continuity of the Nation's strength, which arises from the full development and wise use of her varied, and abundant resources. In carrying out these responsibilities in providing for adequate conservation of the Nation's soil and water resources, the Department of Agriculture has constant use for current information on conservation needs. The purpose of the Montana Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory is to contribute to the assemblage of such information and to report specifically the needs within the state. Assumptions Montana's population will increase to 750,000 by 1975, a rate of growth significantly less than the projected national average. The increased population will be located in urban and industrial areas, expanding resi- dential, industrial and commercial, and recreational areas onto agricul- tural land. The acreage of cropland is expected to increase by 1975, accompanied by further irrigation development and local shifts among other land uses. Demands for the recreation facilities Montana can provide will increase greatly, resulting in further development and increased conflict with agricultural and other uses. At the same time, competition for Montana's water resources will increase, leading to fuller development and utilization. i USE OF INVENTORY ACREAGE MONTANA FIGURE I 40-1 35- 30- 25 20- 15- 10- 93,123,467 ACRES 19 58 " 1975 93,123,467 ACRES NET CHANGE INTO INVENTORY- 227,200 ACRES MILLION DRY IRRIGATED PASTURE FOREST OTHER ACRES CROPLAND CROPLAND AND RANGE AND WOODLAND LAND PRESENT LAND USE - TREATED NON IRRIGATED CROPLAND ••-^:« About 50% or approximately 6, 584, 200 acres are adequately treated ■-"SS^vi^ilfei^.^^JI ^" ^-iSi-^*** IRRIGATED IdSJo^^-'^iSSi*^ CROPLAND About 45% or approximately 867,200 acres are adequately treated TAME PASTURE About 28% or approximately 493, 000 acres are adequately treated } NEEDS TREATMENT HON IRRIGATED CROPLAND About 50% or approximately 6, 57 3, 300 acres need treatment and are feasible to treat IRRIGATED CROPLAND A. yrjs^ About 55% or approximately 1, 069, 300 acres need treatment and are feasible to treat wim^'^' TAME PASTURE f About 72% or approximately 1, 253, 000 acres need treatment and are feasible to tr eat PRESENT LAND USE - TREATED f -, RANGE About 29% or approximately 11,703, 000 acres are adequately treated WOODLAND «&l fUjSS H' fli II s?^ m H[^- jl j?--^»a£^^~.^^J^^^^^J ^^^•■i•Sl^5^f^^«>{~[^ ^:~ U^ ' •**r^!^ ^Slli^^^^S About 19% or approximately 1, 328,400 acres are adequately treated OTHER LAND About 86% or approximately 532, 000 acres are adequately treated i NEEDS TREATMENT w ^fliitt. ' ^B ■I ^^^^^^^^^^K^ ^ J^^H HHR^^sM?Xi RANGE ^ " About 71% or approximately 28, 614, 000 acres need treatment and are feasible to treat WDODLAND About 81% or approximately 5,416, 200 acres need treatment and are feasible to treat OTHER LAND ^ About 14% or approximately 85, 000 acres need treatment and are feasible to treat WATERSHEDS Construction Storage Use Problems Treatment Other benefits Of 565 small watersheds studied, 245 involving 41 million acres need project type action INTRODUCTION The Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory for Montana was developed as a part of the National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs established by the Secretary of Agriculture (appendix 1) „ Data for this report were developed in accordance with the objective, policies, and pro- cedures and within the assumption established for the National Inventory. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, other federal agencies, state agencies, and organizations have a constant need for current information on conser- vation needs that will aid in carrying out their responsibilities in pro- viding for adequate conservation of the Nation' s soil and water resources, A systematic collection of facts is needed for each county, watershed and river basin regarding soil and water resources, problems in their use, and an estimate of areas needing treatment to maintain and improve their public services. The Inventory assembles such facts for Montana. Soil, water, forest, range, and wildlife conservation is the protection, use, maintenance, and improvement of these resources to best serve both private and public interest in providing adequate food, fiber, forest pro- ducts, recreation, and wildlife now and in the future. Conservation is accomplished through making adjustments in land use; protecting land against soil deterioration; rebuilding eroded and depleted soils, sta- bilizing runoff and sediment-producing areas; improving cover on crop, forest, pasture and range, and wildlife land; retaining water for farm and ranch use and to reduce water and sediment damage; and water manage- ment, distribution, and disposal obtained by draining or irrigating land. Areas with excess or inadequate water (or having adverse climatic condi- tions) were considered as needing conservation treatment when necessary for solution of land use or management problems on farms and ranches, but were not included when treatment was primarily to develop new land or for more intensive use of land in production. For the purpose of this Inventory, conservation needs were expressed in terms of the acres that require treatment in order to maintain production in line with the national interest as interpreted from the economic frame work. Consideration was given to regional and local conditions and the needs of the people for family income. Inventory estimates were made in accordance with the following assumptions (National assumptions are stated first under each number, followed by fur- ther interpretation in relation to Montana conditions) s 1. There will be a population increase in the United States for the period 1953 to 1975 from 162 to 210 million. The projected in- crease in population and moderate rise in per capita consumption of farm products will increase requirements in 1975 to about i^P percent above 1953. Since production is in excess of utilization, an increase in farm output of around 30 percent will meet pro- jected requirements. state estimates J, now (1958) projected only to 1970, visualize for Montana a rate of increase well below the National average because of net out-migration. Extrapolating the 1970 estimate for Montana in relation to the National increase, Montana's population in 1975 should be about 750,000, If the present trend to larger and fewer farms continues, or even if it should stabilize, the increased population will be located in urban and industrial areas. Therefore, population changes in Montana will result in further encroachment by urban areas on agri- cultureil land. This will be of particular significance in those counties that already have large urban areas and those where there are major opportunities for industrial and commercial development by 1975. Increased urban development will require agricultural land for recreational uses also, such as golf courses and parks. While the total land areas of the counties is involved, most of the larger urban areas are located adjacent to and will expand onto the best agricultural land, 2, Total acreage of crops in the United States, including cropland pasture, will be about 6 percent greater in 1975 than in the per- iod 1951-53, It is expected that cropland increases in Montana will exceed the National average and will be about eight percent. Additional cropland wiU come from selected areas of present rangeland suit- able for dryland farming, further irrigation development, and clearing such areas as brushland and woodland along streams, 3. With the expected National cropland acreage and fuller adoption by farmers of available technical knowledge in crop production, it appears that market demands in 1975 can be met if certain ad- justments are made. Significant shifts will be required in the crops grown. There will also be need for shifts in major land uses, including such changes as the clearing, draining, and ir- rigating of land for cropland and pasture, reforestation of less productive croplands, and loss of agricultural lands to nonagri- cultural uses. In Montana the major shifts in land use will be to increase crop- land, irrigate more land, and at the same time lose some of the best agricultural land to urban and highway development. There will be some local shifts between forest and agricultural uses, with a net increase in cropland, 4.. The projected increase of population and growth of the Nation's economy will expand the demand for timber products. The 1975 de- mand for wood products in total (industrial wood and fuel wood) may be as much as 30 percent above 1952 consumption. To meet these timber requirements, more intensive management of all available commercial forest land will be neededo It will be im- perative that commercial forest lands presently nonstocked or poorly stocked be restored to productive conditions. The more critical problems will relate chiefly to increasing the growth of softwood sawtimber and the improvement of productivity of farm and other small forestland ownerships. Increasing demands for timber products will lead to maximum uti- lization of Montana's forest resources. Response to the demand will be in terms of improved management of farm and other private woodlands, 5. National demands for recreation facilities and for wildlife will increase more rapidly than the increase of population, Montana has recreational facilities that are important nation- ally. The demand for these, including fish and game, will in- crease even more rapidly than the population. Production of game on public land and recreational uses of forests, mountains, and streams will encroach on agricultural uses. This encroach- ment will be in the form of balanced grazing use on public land, expansion of restricted-use stream flow control in favor of fisheries and other recreational uses. Presently the State Fish and Game Commission is purchasing land for wildlife graz- ing land, 6. To meet the National water requirements of the increased popu- lation which will be accompanied by expansion of industry inten- sified agriculture, and other uses, there will be increased competition for available water supplieso This will result in an expansion of water-resource development. Competition for Montana's available water supplies will increase. Expanded water resource development will lead toward fuller uti- lization of available water in Montana, in the form of more irri- gation, expanded storage facilitiesj and a greater degree of control oriented to downstream uses. 7. Land owners and operators will be expected to spend no more on conservation measures than will yield a reasonable return to their capital and labor. 8. The public will provide expenditures for soil and water conser- vation measures in addition to expenditures by land owners and operators when deemed necessary in the public interest to prevent serious permanent damage to soil and water resources. The Inventory covers two major types of estimates, namely (1) land use, conservation problems, and acreage needing treatment on the inventory acreage, and (2) watershed-project needs on the total acreage. The Inventory acreage includes all land excepts (1) urban and built-up areas as defined on page 9 .^ and (2) land owned by the Federal Government other than cropland operated under lease or permit, 1/ The Inventory was developed from basic data regarding (1) present acreage in major uses and (2) acreage of each land use classified by physical problems affecting its use (appendix 2) , The estimates of needs for conservation treatment, for each major land use, were based on acreages expected for 1975 and the con- dition of the land or of the vegetative cover as of January 1, 1958, with due regard to the basic economic framework and the locally applicable in- formation and experience in solving conservation problems. The inventory of watershed project needs is an estimate of the nature and scope of water-management problems thatj, if met, would require watershed projects of a type and size that are exemplified by those which qualify for assistance under Public Law 566, as amendedo All lands were included without regard to type of ownershipo The data were reported by water- shed-planning units and summarized for the state. The Department Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee developed the policies, procedures, and national economic assumptions under which the Inventory was developed. It furnished guidance so the Inventory would be compatible with inventories for other states and it has reviewed and ap- proved the data on which this report is based. The Montana Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee acted in a similar capacity with the Area and County Needs Committees, A County Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee with agency repre- sentation similar to that of the State Needs Committee and with guidance from Area Committee members developed the Inventory for each county. After review and approval, data from county inventories were combined to form the State Inventory, The County Needs Committees were responsible for determining the basic data on land use for the Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. These estimates of land use are summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3, Data by counties are given in Table 8, The estimates of land use were based on soil-survey data provided by the Soil Conservation Service and on other basic information supplied by the Forest Ser^/ice and on that avail- able from State and other Federal agencies. The Montana Inventory was begun November 7, 1956, and accepted by the USDA Department Committee January 13, 1961, 1/ Conservation needs estimates are already available for most of the land under the jurisdiction of Federal agencies. *SJ^v£^« LAND CAPABILITY DEFINHION SniTABLE FOR CULTIVATION CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III CLASS IV Very Good Land Good Land Moderately Good Fairly Good Land No Limitations Minor Land with Major Occasional Cultiva- Limitations Limitations tion with Severe Limitations NOT SUITABLE FOR CUUIVATION CLASS V* 1 CUSS VI* 1 CLASS VII CLASS VIII Suitable for Pasture, Range and Woodland Suitable for Wildlife and With no LimitiFition.s With Minor With Major Limitations Limitations Watershed Increasing Permnnftnt. T.-imitnt-iona ^^ * Some soils in Classes V and VI can be used for crops with unusually intensive management. 8 The Inventoary Acreage Inventory acreage was the acreage after deduction of Federal land except cropland operated under lease or permit, urban and built-up areas, and water areas less than AO acres in size or streams less than one-eighth of a mile wide from the total land area of the county. This was the acreage for which the County Needs Committee estimated changes in land use ex- pected to occur by 1975. The approximate land area, 1954. Cenfeus of Agriculture of the county, was used as the total land area of the county. The land areas reported by the Bureau of the Census do not include permanent inland water surface, such as lakes, reservoirs, and ponds having 40 acres or more of areaj streams, sloughs, one-eighth of a statute mile or more in width; and islands less than 40 acres. The 1954 Census of Agriculture data were adjusted for some counties to ex- clude areas inundated by the construction of new reservoirs, lakes, or ponds of 40 acres or more in size since 1949 when the last adjustment in the land area of counties was made by the Bureau of the Census. The acreage of water areas of less than 40 acres in size and streams less than one-eighth of a mile wide were determined from the soil surveys and from other sources of information. This acreage was subtracted from the land area of the county in order to arrive at the acreage included in the Inventory. The acreage of Federal land except that used as cropland was subtracted from the total land area in arriving at the acreage that was included in the Inventory. Cropland owned by the Federal Government and operated unt- der lease or permit was included in the Inventory. Urban and built-up areas as defined for the Inventory included cities, villages, other built-up areas of more than 10 acres, industrial sites; roads, railroads, railroad yards; cemetaries; airports; golf courses; shooting ranges, and institutional and public administrative sites and similar types of areas. Land Groups Included in the Inventory Land groups included in the Inventory acreage were cropland, pasture and range, forest and woodland, and other land. Separate estimates were made for (1) forest and woodland in farms or operated for the production of forest products and (2) other forest and woodland. Other land was subdi- vided into land in farms and not in farms. A farm as defined for the In- ventory is a unit of one or more tracts of land under one management, some ;;ortion of which normally is used for the production of field crops, pas- ture, or range other than for use of the producer's family. It includes forest and woodland or other land commonly considered as part of such a unit. The following additional subdivisions were mades dry cropland, irrigated cropland, tame pasture, range, irrigated native grassland, and grazed wood- land. These subdivisions were additions to, rather than substitutions for, the four main land use groups. The following definitions of land use were used in making the Inventory: Cropland — Land currently tilled including cropland harvested, crop fail- ure, summer fallow, idle cropland, cropland in cover crops or soil-improve- ment crops not harvested or pastured, rotation pasture, and cropland being prepared for crops or newly seeded crops. Cropland also includes land in vegetables and fruits, including those grown on farms for home use. All tame hay was included as cropland. Meadowland was considered as cropland when (1) it had soil and water conditions capable of producing a hay crop in normal years, (2) was used primarily for the production of hay which is harvested nearly every year, and (3) was locally considered as cropland rather than as pasture or range. Non-irrigated cropland — Land to which no supplemental water is applied artificially. Irrigated cropland ~ Land to which water is usually applied by artificial means. The 1958 acreage includes only land which was considered as irri- gated cropland in 1957. Permanent grassland — All land in grass for five years or longer. Pasture ™ Land in tame grass or other long-term forage that is used pri- marily for grazing. Does not include pasture in crop rotation. Range — Natural grazing land. Forage produced primarily by native grass, forb, legume and browse species. May contain scattered trees with less than 10 percent canopy, but the natural vegetation is such as to identify its use primarily as permanent grazing land. Irrigated native grassland — Natural meadows, lowlands and benchlands irrigated to increase production when water is available. Forage may be cut for hay, as in the Big Hole area in Beaverhead County, or harvested by grazing. Forage produced consists primarily of native species. Forest and woodland — (a) Lands which are at least 10 percent stocked"""^ 1 by forest trees of any size and capable of producing timber or other for- / est products, or capable of exerting an influence on the water regimej / (b) lands from which the trees described in (a) have been removed to less I than 10 percent stocking and which have not been developed for other use; / and (c) afforested (planted) areas. i Grazed woodland — This is land which meets the definition of wood- ' land (10 percent or more stocked or cut-over woodland) but which is grazed. Problems are determined in relation to management and im- provement of the forage resource, in addition to those associated with woodland management. 10 TABLE 1. — LAND AREA OF MONTANA AND USE OF INVENTORY ACREAGE, 1958, AND EXPECTEDj, 1975 Item 1958 1975 Acreage 1/ Acreage Inventory acreages Total Cropland 2/' » « . . . . o U,426,223 15,093,917 Irrigated .» ...,..» » Ip 619, 500 1,936,4.62 Dry ..,.,,,, 12,806,723 13,157,455 Total Grassland Pasture . . . . « . , . . o , 1,016,927 1,74-6,718 Range . , 41,504,391 40,317,512 Irrigated Native o . « , <, . . 620,965 652,4.16 Total Forest and Woodland » . , 6,796,198 6,744,625 Grazed Woodland <, . (3,688,091) 6/ (3,638,105) Other Land .<,.,. o .». . 576.987 613.913 Total inventory acreage . o o 64,941,894 65,169,101 ^ Non- inventory acreage? Federal land 2/ .,..<. o » . 27,190,245 XXX ij Urban and built-up areas , , , 800,858 XXX ij Water areas ^ o » o o o . » » 166,720 XXX ij Total non- inventory acreage, . 36,057,523 XXX Total land area , . , o » , o 93.099,717 XXX iJ 1/ Conservation Needs Inventory was begun November 7, 1956, and completed December 21, I960. 2/ Federal land leased or used by permit for cropland is included in inventory. ^ Of less than 40 acres in size and streams less than l/2 mile in width. Water areas larger than this are not included in total land area. ij Not available. ^ 151,331 acres out of agricultural use - 378,538 acres into agricultural use - net of 227,207 into agricultural use, primarily from Federal land, 6/ Acreage included in total for Forest and Woodland. 11 In farms or operated for production of forest products — Forest and woodland which is part of a farm, and all other forest and woodland which is producing or physically capable of producing usable forest crops, is economically available now or prospectively and is not with- drawn from timber utilization. Other forest and woodland — Forest and woodland not a part of a farm, which is withdrawn from timber utilization by public agencies, corpora- tions, or private persons, or incapable of yielding usable wood products because of adverse site conditions or so physically inaccessible as to be unavailable economically in the foreseeable future. This will in- clude forest land set aside for special uses other than timber product- ion, such as state parks, monuments, natural areas, and game preserves. Other land — Farmsteads, idle land, wildlife areas, and other areas not classified into cropland, pasture and range, forest and woodland, and ur- ban and built-up areas. Idle land includes land formerly used for crops and pasture, now abandoned and not yet reforested or put to other use. In farms — Farmsteads, lanes, canals, drains, waste land including all farm land not classified as cropland, range, pasture or woodland. Not in farms — Such uses as crossroad filling stations, rural non- farm residential sites, country churches and school grounds, except where any of these uses occur in built-up areas of 10 acres or more, as well as tracts of any size of open, idle rural nonfarm land were classified as other land not in farms. TABLE 2. USE OF INVENTORY ACREAGE 1958 AND EXPECTED 1975 ITEM CROPLAND PASTDRE- RANGE FOREST- WOODLAND OTHER LAND TOTAL 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Use in 1958 U,-;26c2 43,142,2 6,796.2 577.2 64,941.9 Use in 1975 Cropland 13,599.2 1,444.0 36.4 5.0 15,093.9 Irrigated 1,655.0 257,9 20,5 1.6 1,936.5 Nonirrigated 11,9U.2 1,186,1 15.9 3.4 13,157.5 Pasture-Range 761.7 41,572,1 20.9 8.2 42,716.6 Tame Pasture 559.1 1,172,4 7.8 1.5 1,746,7 Range 184.. 7 39,768,3 11.4 6.7 40,317.5 Irrig. Native 17,9 631.4 1.7 652.4 Forest-Woodland 13.4 9.2 6,709.7 .1 6,744.6 Grazed 1,2 102.6 69.0 3,638.1 Commercial 6.2 6,9 6,004.2 6,029.1 Non-Commercial 7.2 2,3 705.5 715.5 Other Land 9.5 35,5 4»0 561.8 613.9 Out of Inv. 42.5 81.4 25,3 2.2 151.3 Urban-Built Up 35.4 58,2 15.9 1.7 111.2 Into Inventory 9.4 353.8 12.3 3.0 378.5 12 Estimating the Present Use of Land For guidance of the County Needs Committees, the State Needs Committee provided data about the laijd use groups from several sources. Soil survey data were developed by the Soil Conservation Service showing the acreage and capability classification (Appendix 3) . The "Timber Resources for America' s Future" prepared and published by the Forest Service showed forest and woodland acreages. In mapping land samples for this Inventory, the Soil Conservation Service used essential- ly the same definition for forest as that used by the Forest Service in making forest surveys. Existing data furnished to the counties included total land area, from the 195A Census except when reduced by water bodies formed since 194-7. The latter were from published sources, and in some cases directly from the agencies involved. The data on areas of Federal land were provided by the agencies responsible for adjoinistration of such land or from in- formation furnished by the Department Committee, Land use included irrigated and dry cropland from the Census, with some reduction for wild hay, and irrigated permanent pasture and native hay derived from the Census and Montana Agricultural Statistics. Pasture and range was based on the Census, but adjusted after forest and wood- land and other land on farms were accounted for. The Forest Service supplied data on forest and woodland. Other land on farms came from the Census. To guide the county committees in their estimates, information from the Bureau of Land Management was supplied on land that might enter the In- ventory by 1975, from the Bureau of Reclamation on projects that might be developed, and cropland acreages reported by Agricultural Stabiliza- tion and Conservation Service. The County Needs Committee arrived at an adopted acreage which it be- lieved most accurately represented the present acreage in each of the land uses in the county, after considering the estimates of land uses provided by the State Committee. Estimating Expected Changes in Land Use by 1975 After the estimates of present land use had been accepted by the State Needs Committee, the County Needs Committee estimated the changes in land use that were expected to occur in the county by 1975. The esti- mates of changes in land use took into consideration the physical capabilities of the landj present land use and trendsj expected demands for agricultural, forest, and other products and services as reflected in the economic framework; and the need for farming systems that are 13 economically feasible. It was recognized that demands on the land for agricultural production and other purposes as well as size of farm unit and other factors might tend to keep some land in uses not now considered as the most desirable from the physical standpoint. Estimates of acre- ages for 1975 included the acreage of Federally owned land expected to be transferred into private ownership. Estimates of land use changes were made by land capability units. Infor- mation on land capability was obtained by interpreting information on soils obtained from sample soil surveys, A land capability unit is a grouping of soils that are nearly alike in potential for agricultural use, plant growth, and response to treatment or management. In making capability interpretations, soils are grouped first into capability clas- ses identified by Roman numerals I to VIII. Olass I land includes soils having no problem that limits use. The remaining classes have increasing limitations in use. Capability classes are divided into subclasses based on the dominant kind of problem. These are shown by lower case letters with (e) indicating an erosion problem, (w) a problem of excess water, (s) a soil limitation, and (c) a climatic limitation. The addition of an Arabic number following the class and subclass symbol identifies the capability unit. Secondary problems were not indicated by the land-capability symbol but were recognized by interpreting the soil conditions. This identification of the kind of land and the problems needing treatment was used in esti- mating land use changes. For further explanation of the land-capability classification see page 32 of the Appendix. Estimates of land use changes were made by land-resource units and then added together to give county totals. A land-resource unit is a geo- graphical area of land, at least several thousand acres in extent, characterized by a particular combination or pattern of soils (includ- ing slope and erosion), climate, water resources, land use, and types of farming. Such a unit may occur in one continuous area or in segments. U -Hi 2 D w » <; H w w o Q O H o U o <; w o < a; o H 2 u o M w % 00 ■-im(»ivoo i-io^r^in ooooa\ o^ %ooo ooomtn c'^c^oin^-*in^-J- NOOi-if»i -4- men rHrH f\J cninooo r-oo O vOC«1 ChCDr-l o^ 00 ooinco (M (NJ ^Otn•-^ r- CO ^0 O i-if^CMn-S' inf\]rgi-i fsj.d-yO<-''H co o (^ <£)csj^ \o r- o^ o>oinfMin t-H i-iinmin-H CM in (NJ ^-c^co in-> •-Hiij3i/)U •-•UJ31/) >LlI3i/>U CO rvjtnr^ CM CM r-l (NJ CO vO ror^>o («% in On rH OnO-* O (\i (M o onrHcorH o <7- oo> r-cMcor- ooinco • CO • • • ONC^ • CM • • • invo • • • CMCMO • • • • • • < o COOCO 00 <*■ t-*00*--t'-* 00 CO CM vO (O r-tt~% r-i oor- CM (NJ in o> § CO t--rH r-i On CO On o CM CNJ OnO CNJ r-t rH in rH CM CNJ CNJ nO CO rH coocoin inNocoNO r~ CN^in (^rH^-rH OnI^CM r- CO CO CO r- s h in CO CO COCM -* CO >3tO i-HliiSW ►-UJW -> •-•2U1 •-< _J »-l > »— I •-H HH I— t ^ I > > -- — I- rn I > > O > I- ON s s i-n Tl J sO Tl in 1 ON rH (J c M 91 ^ g Tl > s 0 rH Z 0 f^ M 3 O 0) J3 0 nm (n ■4-t (d •rl Vi >N t> u a 0 4-> >N c 43 V > T3 a U rH m n a •O ;h OJ n 0) 2 T3 C m o (4 • H V *> rH (4 > T3 M B HI nf CD rH c rH 0 (4 o 4» i) T) J3 9J H Ul r-l (Ml NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION TREATMENT Conservation needs were estimated in acreages having conservation problems and needing treatjnent. The problems for cropland and other land are related primarily to the con- servation of the soil resourcei therefore, land-capability units, singly or in groups, were the basis for these estimates- The problems on pasture, range, irrigated native, and forest and woodland are related to the conser- vation of the plant cover as well as to the conservation of the soil re- source; therefore, the estimates for these land uses were based on the actual condition of the vegetative cover and were made with no direct ref- erence to land-capability units. The acreage needing treatment for each land use takes into account the treatment needed for acreage coming into such land use from other uses by 1975. For example, the acreage of pasture or range needing establishment or reestablishment (Table 3) includes the acreage coming from other uses into pasture and range. The Inventory shows that nearly 7o7 million acres of cropland will need appropriate treatment by 1975. Cropland was divided into the following groupings on the basis of problems that limit uses No problems that limit use — This is Class I land without conservation pro- blems except those related to the restoration and maintenance of fertility and tilth which may be solved by the methods generally recommended and used in the community. In Montana there are about 305,200 acres of such land. Water or wind erosion has occurred or is likely to occur under expected use on about 5 million acres of cropland and will therefore require some kind of treatment. Excess water caused by a high water table or by temporary flooding that prevents or limits use of conservation farming systems was estimated to affect about 157,000 acres. IfafaYorable soil conditions such as salinity, alkalinity, acidity, low fertility, stoniness, shallowness to rock or some other condition that limits root development, or low moisture-holding capacity are estimated to occur en about 2,329,600 acres. Adverse climatic conditions affect about 60,500 acres as indicated by ex- tremes, in either precipitation or temperature or both. Tables 4- and 4A show the cropland acreages in each group for each problem that needs conservation treatment. In Montana there is very little land where none of the conditions are serious enough to impose limits or hazards. Most of the land has one or more of the problems any one of which may be dominant. 16 TABLE 4 - ESTIMATE OF NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION TREATMENT ON EXPECTED IRRIGATED CROPLAND ACREAGE. MONTANA. 1975. ' Adequately 1/ ' Needing ' treated or • treatment Total ' treatment ' & feasible Acreage ' not feasible ' to treat Type of Problem 0 o » • o • o Land with no problems that limit use • Land on which the dominant problem is erosion by water or wind or both . , No serious secondary problem Secondary problem of excess water. Secondary problems caused by unfavorable soil conditions . Secondary problems caused by adverse climatic conditions .... Land on which the dominant problem is excess water .... „ No serious secondary problems . , . Secondary problems of erosion by water or wind , , . , , Secondary problems caused by unfavorable soil conditions .... Secondary problems caused by adverse climatic conditions .... Land on which the dominant problems are caused by unfavorable soil conditions? No serious secondary problem , . , . Secondary problems of erosion by water or wind o Secondary problem of excess water. . Secondary problems caused by adverse climatic conditions , . , « Land on which the dominant problems are caused by climatic conditions , „ . . No serious secondary problem , , , . Secondary problems of erosion by water or wind , . . , , Secondary problem of excess water, . Secondary problems caused by unfavorable soil conditions .... 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 292.7 602.7 183.1 0 224.5 86.8 378,2 96.3 0 2,0 0.7 1.3 33.4 11.7 21.7 156,9 47.1 42.8 13.8 134.1 33,3 37.1 8.3 28.8 72.4 20.5 51.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 801.1 52.0 261.4 15.3 539.7 36,7 738.6 9.6 2/,n.8 5.2 497.8 4.4 0.9 83.1 0 83.1 0 0.2 25.9 25.9 0.7 57.2 0 57.2 0 Total acreage of irrigated cropland 1.936.5 867.2 1.069.3 1/ Acreage has been adequately treated or is not feasible to treat under current technology and economic conditions. 17 TABLE 4A-ESTIMATE OF NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION TREATMENT OF DRY CROPLAND ACREAGE MONTANA, 1975 ' Adequately ' Needing ' treated or ' treatment Total ' treatment • & feasible Acreage ' not feasible ' to treat Type of Problem Land with no problems to limit use. . . Land on which the dominant problem is erosion by water or wind or both . . No serious secondary problem ... Secondary problem of excess water . Secondary problem caused by unfavorable soil conditions . . . Secondary problem caused by adverse climatic conditions . . . Land on which the dominant problem is excess water . . No serious secondary problem . . . Secondary problem of erosion by water or wind ... Secondary problem caused by unfavorable soil conditions . . . Secondary problem caused by adverse climatic conditions . . . Land on which the dominant problems are caused by unfavorable soil .... No serious secondary problems . . . Secondary problem of erosion by wind or water Secondary problem of excess water .. Secondary problem caused by adverse climatic conditions . . . Land on which dominant problems are caused by climate <,,....<,.. No serious secondary problems . . . Secondary problem of erosion by wind or water .......... Secondary problem of excess water . Secondary problems caused by unfavorable soil conditions . . . Total acreage of dry cropland 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 17.6 0 0 9,656.1 13.4 0 4,918.5 5.6 0 4,737.6 7.8 0 3U.7 253.2 61.5 9,328.0 4,659.7 4,668.3 80.7 U.6 38.0 10.2 42.7 4.4 58.6 23.0 35.6 7.5 4.9 2.6 0 0 • 0 3,398.9 2.1 1,609.0 1.8 1,789.9 0.3 3,382.7 14.0 1,596.3 11.0 1,786.4 3.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 9.2 0 6.0 0 3.2 0 8.2 0 5.0 0 3.2 0 1.0 1.0 0 13,157.5 6,584.2 6,573.3 18 Pasture o Range and Irrigated Native The conservation needs on pasture, range land and irrigated native were estimated to occur on 12„4- million acres needing treatment of problems related to the establishment and maintenance of cover. Estimates were developed separately for pasture, range, and irrigated native. The total acreage needing treatment and feasible to treat is shown by problem areas in Table 5o The estimates of acreages needing establish- ment or reestablishment do not duplicate those needing improvement; however, acreages estimated for any of the other problems may duplicate some of the other acreages. Establishment or reestablishment of vegetation — The acreage expected to be converted from other uses to pasture, range, and irrigated native plus land in pasture, range and irrigated native species in such poor condition in 1958 that it needs to be completely reestablished amounts to about l.U million acres. Improvement of vegetative cover — Another 14o4. million acres had inade- quate cover in 1958, It is estimated that most of this acreage could be restored to satisfactory condition by improvement measures short of com- plete reestablishment. Protection of vegetative cover ~ The 1958 acreage which needs protection from one or more of the following! Overgrazing — The Inventory shows that about 18.3 million acres have inadequate vegetative cover but which could be restored to satisfact- ory condition by the management of livestock or installation of sup- plemental water facilities. Also, includes any acreage in the estimates for establishment or reestablishment of vegetation or the improvement of vegetative cover on which stockwater facilities are needed on about 6,8 million acres j the acreage thus included is the only duplication of acreage which occurs among these three items. Fire — Serious fire hazards which can be protected by improvement and intensification of fire protection measures occur on about 16,8 million acres. Erosion — The Inventory reveals there are about 2,1 million acres gullied or other seriously washed and windblown areas which need con- trol measures to prevent further deterioration. Rodents — The acreage with serious rodent damage that can be cor- rected by chemical, mechanical, or other measures amounts to about 400 thousand acres. Encroachment of woody and noxious plants — The encroachment of woody and noxious plants had destroyed or threatened the grass cover on about 2,1 million acres which can be protected by chemical or mechanical means. This acreage does not include any pasture on which woody and noxious plants would be eradicated in the establishment or reestab- lishment of the pasture. 19 9 TABLE 5 - ESTIMATE OF NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION TREATMENT ON EXPECTED ACREAGE OF TAME PASTURE, NATIVE RANGE, GRAZED WOODLAND AND IRRIGATED NATIVE - MONTANA. 1975 III I ' Tame ' Native ' Grazed ' Irrigated ^*®™ ' Pasture ' Range ' Woodland « Native III I 1000 1000 iooo iooo acres acres acres acres Total area . , 1,747 A0,317 3,638 652 Area not needing treatment or not feasible to treat 493 11,703 1,419 248 Area needing treatment 1,253 28,614 2,219 404 Type of problem and area affected: Establishment or reestablishment of vegetation » . . 674 683 59 37 Improvement of vegetative cover . 257 13,878 723 221 Protection of vegetative cover from; ^ Overgrazing . . , 241 12,529 1,311 64 Fire . , 306 16,U7 - l/ 4 Erosion 112 2,005 - 7 Rodents 54 415 - 7 Encroachment of woody and noxious plants 69 1,978 358 61 Insects and disease 144 4,416 - 13 Water Management? Excess water 10 147 9 145 Water conservation 159 1,856 65 211 Development of stockwater . . . 84 6,664 383 10 1/ Dashes (-) figures are included in Table 6 - Forest and Woodland 20 Water Management Excess water — The 1958 acreage on which excess water prevents the ' adequate establishment, maintenance, and use of desirable vegetative cover amounts to about 302 thousand acres. Water conservation — The 1958 acreage on which desirable vegetative cover can be feasibly established or improved by water-conserving measures is about 2.2 million acres. Forest and Woodland The conservation needs on forest and woodland were estimated in acres need- ing treatment for problems associated with the development and management of the forest and soil resoxrrces. Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization or incapable of yielding use- able wood products because of adverse site conditions or so physically in- accesible as to be unavailable economically in the foreseeable future was not considered in estimating conservation needs except for measures neces- sary for the protection of such areas for watershed^ wildlife, or recrea- tional uses or for the protection of adjacent productive forest and woodland. Table 6 showB that there are about 907 thousand acres of forest and woodland estimated as needing treatment in each of the problem groups TABLE 6 - ESTIMATE OF NEEDS FOR CONSERVATION TREATMENT ON EXPECTED ACREAGE OF FOREST AND WOODLAND. MONTANA. 1975 Item Acreage 1000 Ac. Total area dplUUo^ Area needing treatment bys Establishment and reinforcement of timber stand ........... 907.1 Improvement of timber stand .... 2,010.0 Protection of timber froms S Xa 6 ooooooooooovooo Py Z|rXOo M Insects and disease . ...... . 4,662.1 Animals, including rodents .... 1,503.9 Erosion control „...,.,„.. 232.4 Establishment of shelter be Its and windbreaks - acres . . . 24.0 miles , o , 5»500 21 Establishment and reinforcement of timber stand — The acreage is made up of three components. First, land expected to shift to forest and woodland from other uses by 1975 except for the acreage which needs trees to check erosion and the acreage of shelterbelts and windbrealcs. Secondly, land classified as forest and woodland in 1958 but which was less than 10 per- cent stocked, or stocked with ;.:. satisfactory species. Thirdly, land in forest and woodland in 1958 more than 10 percent stocked which needed re- inforcement. Ordinarily this did not include any acreage stocked to /fi percent or more. The acreage estimates includes only the proportionate part of the acreage needing reinforcement. For example, if a total area of 100,000 acres needed reinforcement but it was estimated that the plant- ing needed to accomplish this would be equal to only 40,000 acres of full- scale establishment, the 40,000 acres was the amount included in the estimate. Improvement of timber stand — The Inventory shows that approximately 2 million acres of forest land on which stand-improvement measures are recommended as feasible under good forest management. Estimates were limited to acreages and timber types expected to return the costs of improvement investment. Protection of timber stand from; Fire — The acreage of forest land which in 1958 was not receiving protection adequate to meet the fire situation in the worst years and under critical conditions amounts to about 5.4 million acres. Insects and disease — The acreage of forest land not included in 1958 in an effective program of protection from insect and disease outbreaks is shown by the Inventory to amount to about 4.7 million acres. Animals, including rodents — The acreage of forest land which in 1958 was not receiving adequate protection from animals, including rodents, and on which protection is considered feasible and practi- cal under good forest management. This estimate of about 1.5 million acres includes the need for protection from domestic animals. Erosion control ~ There are about 232 thousand acres of Forest and Woodland that is expected to be planted to trees to halt erosion plus the acreage of forest land on which erosion and water-disposal measures are needed to check gullies, control sheet erosion, stabi- lize dunes and blow-outs, contain slide or slide areas, and control logging road and skid trail erosion. Establishment of shelterbelts and windbreaks — There are about 24 thousand acres on which windbreaks and shelterbelts to influence wind currents and thus reduce soil blowing, control snowdrifting, conserve moisture, and protect buildings, fields, gardens, and feed lots are feasible. 22 Forest and woodland grazed — Substantial acreages of land classified as forest and woodland and expected to be used for pasture and range M in 1975 are shown in Table 5„ Also included are the estimates of the " acreages needing treatment for each of the problems previously des- cribed for pasture and range except for the items covering protection of vegetative cover from fire, erosion, and rodents since the acreage affected by these problems were estimated in the consideration of the forest and woodlands needs. Other Land In arriving at the estimate of about 85 thousand acres needing treatment and feasible to treat (Table 7) it was recognized that (1) other land is not subject to the problems that accompany tillage, (2) some of the acre- age had such a low potential for productive use that treatment was not economically feasible, and (3) that problems on other land affecting near- by cropland, pasture and range, or forest and woodland have been considered in the estimates for those land uses. Other land was divided into groupings identical to those for cropland. How- ever, the estimates shown in Table 7 do not show the subgroupings of second- ary problems. Such estimates were developed by County Needs Committees and summarized for the state but were not considered of sufficient importance to include in this table. Of the "other land" needing treatment about 62,000 acres are in farms. About 21,000 acres of "other land" had no problem. TABLE 7 - ESTIMATE OF NEEDS OF CONSERVATION TREATMENT ON EXPECTED ACREAGE OF OTHER LAND. MONTANA. 1975 ' Adequately ' Needing ' ' treated or ' treatment ' Needing Total ' not feasible' & feasible' treatment Acreage' to treat ' to treat ' in farms Type of Problem Land with no problems that limit use ,,0, ,«,,.« Land on which the dominant problem is erosion by water or wind or both ,,,,,,, Land on which dominant problem is excess water » ,,..., , Land on which the dominant problems are caused by un- favorable soil conditions , » Land on which the dominant problems are caused by climatic conditions . , . . Total acreage other land 1000 Ac. 21 177 22 388 6 617 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 1000 Ac. 148 u 342 532 29 8 46 2 85 62 23 INVENTORY BY COUNTIES The land areas of the counties, use of inventory acreage by land- capability classes, and needs for conserration treatment in acres for the dominant problems on cropland, pasture and range, forest and woodland, and other land are summarized in Tables 8 through 10. Conservation needs on cropland and other land were based on prob- lems caused by erosion, excess water, unfavorable soil, and ad- verse climatic conditions. Conservation needs for pasture and range, and forest and woodland were based on problems related to the establishment, improvement, and protection of vegetative cover, and water management. All estimates are in acres. 24 ^ o o o !5£S O -H I n < n -P O O C ^0 f^ ^ O •a 3 •4 s a a :• fe-H 53 H fn O O r^^ f^co • ••'•••••• ■ •, aoaa NO vo r*- r»-,\A-d' ^- ^- iHr-rHvOvONOlA\i> (\j >OsO \0 O 0-3\A|eM-3 CTs CM • ••••••••••■ O O 0\ Oslo O lA CM O O O OlOOO o o 0\\AOlOrH o^ (-1 pH O. C^i-^sO CM -U O O CO t*-tD 0\ CM CMiM (H ^ lAlTvO rriloiAOs^O O O O O f^XJs O OO CD O CN H O V\ fn CM <-j rH r^ Ot*-ti>t>vOf-00'lANOOO S-^r^-SQOvO On^CMtAlA (^ O On H r-J O O U 43 So s4 O O 0-3 (Am ( o o o o k • • • • I.HHOjOj O OjOlA O On O O -O rH O O O <»^ H r-f CM CM O O o^oono ov\o o'h»hoo O nO O -3 O XA O »-i'cM rH O O 0»HOrHOOO\ri COiO c^ O On 000OOOOsOO*lAr--0 • - * X +> 0) TJ o C o O O •-• O <^,0 **^ O U^ O OOcmOIaOcm OOO iHOO OO^aC^OOD'Oco O -^-30 OitDOO OsCTs r4HrH»-teMC4fn»n 3 UN CM O ^^;5 CO P^ CM CM 8 CM CM CM CO rH H CM CM £y ^r ri CTsCO i-t^ 0\PH iH iHOO SO CM CM CM CMAO*0 cm cm CJSO-aOOOlAOaDiOr^O-a-OtD OCOIiHCM OO OOO Hf^rH o o QOCO OC7\<^CM iH-=jaOCD H OvCJN-a'CMf^rHNO-d'r-O rH f^f^CVIrHrHrH'lA'lA 'OU^eMCMOOvOC^. f^CM H Hi f-i i-i ,:Jc*\n^CM \A\A m O M3 p O O rn, (>v 0>Jm3 lA OOOHOOCOIAO ©"XACOO CMlA\r\\A\AOO O^ f*\ On 0\ O O O iH CmVv ^^0^l-^'*^0 ^-0s-30 -J-^O fniAlAOO O iHnOCM OlA O O 'A r^NO O lAin rH CM CM CM I O ONXrWAOmOvOD CMiHO^O^CM^\OH\r»sOONOcOvOcOCMOCVI,OOsOOsOlA r^\t\ i-t -^ (M ^O S H CM O-S-tAO g| O^OO 0sO1AO0\OrHOO rH rH -3- CM lA CO K rHlA_^-:fiH h-Os-3tAt^M3t^.CM n-\cjNCM r* 0\ CM O^ O rH f^-^j^A fA^O fA'XAMJ*0 f- H ^O tA tJvOD pH lA 0\ O CO NO On'MD n-\NO\Af-i-l\A01ACO r-TlAfAP^rH O On *A o cmco o p-noco o c^\A\ANO-^■'AO-d■Xf^ ^X -P a 52 O t^OrH rHcO Or-COr-\ACONOP^O fA_^cO0O'rH CTnOcO fA 00 O (AIA rr, o tCi NCO r-iOD lAXA ( 3 ON O fA-a On < H CM fA f^tA r *OlAr»-CMV\NO Q rH r«-CO\AP-ONt*-OfA ■ H H rH-3-3 H rH vOIAt^ CMCO mtx\\rt CM On rH \r\ C*- r^ rH OnUnXAnO rHCTsMD O f^rHrr,CMf*Nf*NONXA CM CMlAIArHrHCMCM §S ) lAcOlJ ^ c-iAr S On On C A CO XACO UNCO XAtD ■-XAr-UNP^U\P^\A it-ir^ r-t H rH r i I \A CO lA CO lA a _ . r- lA ^- 1A t*- \j On On On ON. On On C r^C*-fA P^.UMACM CMlt—NO CAtA, On OnjCO CO CO 00 OfACN-d-rHCO Orl COrH-:JONO CJnOVAOCMnO \r\ V\ C^ O rH C^ t»- CM O lArH OnO 0*0\AIA rH ON_3-3-t--'55 ' rH CM fA C?N O r^ rH-J rr,\Ar-NO OO \A lA \A CM \A O \t--\ACO_5CO fANO r*-CM r*-CM rHOOfAlACMNOO rHCO QCOVvO -QNO-3U\HaDCOlA'OcONO i-t r NNOUNC^t^CMfAC --------- CM (A ^* tCl\AtDU\CO UN t^-UM^-UN On On On OniOn rH rH H H H \ACO\ t^XAt (KOnC >CDlACOU\ -UNP-u\r* N On On On On I U\ r^ CNl CM fA On I CNj _3 fA fA O rH lUNUN ^- ■ Q3UNCO UNCO U\ U\ (^U\ P- u\ r*- On On On On COUNBOIACO U\C*.Wf^U\ a s a a a lA CTn O O fA *AnO to U\a3U\ P^U\t^ On 0\ On t^ r^ OsOOsOr-tOHOCN-^CNOCO ■S iaxahJ r> r^ t^ cj w CM CM CM CM lA CO T' O (O O O O lACO (D a'^ss^g" ooof^r^cooo u 3 :3 r*-r-of^or^o\CN O eMCDxr\\Ar-o-:J CO r-oo CO o J >rHaO«»MAOrHlOO 0^0 O CM O O • • • • O f^ J■'u^u^^o s^ rH \A P^i' t»- (H H -3 -3! CM t^ OOOHOOO^- «o mn\AT*> r^ c •"1 J III rH dflPrj OiHOlAON-CfOOOr^OOOOOOOCD (H%0 NNXMCM i-t 1-1 MJ ■**J I ' \A O^ OtA o o o o:ocmoHocmO'»>ocm o r^ rq •, « « 0*1 0\a\-it CM^O^A^OV^lA'U^^O J^O^A I(r-I iH ^!X 1jg J-sOOOiOrHr-OO'OCOlnrHO-^'LriC^rHaDOOvOM^Or^ -3'-3'-3'lA M r4 I-+ iH XfMA CM CM r^^'U\0 ■>C«lCMNO\ACMHmt*-H-=rCMCM fOCM CVJlCMt-OO^ ao»HO-^fnt«-fH-:jco ool/^OflC)CM^^OM^H^*\<*^cy^-a-:J(-^ c^-3'vo ^-^,ov^r^^^co o^ ocooo-=fir\ ^OJ Ot^CMO.cMCM OCO ■CO \A\A\A CM f--CMOO'AOCM fHP-CMCM\t\to\j\co\r\(jo\r\co\i\\f\ xJ\AcDU^-iAf^ OnOnOnOnOnO^OnOnCTnOiOnOnOnOxOnOnCNOiOnOn rHr-i»HrHr-tr-fr-4rHHHHr-* ' On 0\ On H r^ r^ i a £ £ OnOnO>OnOnOiC?nOn rH rH H rHH H H H s s U\ACO\ACD\ACO\AOO\ACO'IA LA ^- \A ^-|\A ^- lA t*- lA t^ \A t^ On 0\ On On a 23 ^111 O\C7nO^0n'0n0nO*Ov f-i r-i r^ H r^ M f-* H Table 9. Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclass, by County 1/ BEAVERHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA OAS oonANOi-i rASIUIUANOf KXEST-WOOOIAND amo LAND ««« IVN \m IMS 1975 l«S* If75 19M IfTS \n$ ym I^OOOAOM IXDOAcni 1,000 AoM 1,000 AffM 1»0OAin. 1,000 AoM I^OOOAOM ljOCOA*n« 1,000 Ao« 1,000 A8 • 4 .4 3.5 2.9 .2 .4 3.4 2.9 .2 .3 134.6 113.4 4.5 16.7 135.2 113.9 4.5 16.8 3.7 1.6 5.4 1.6 1.3 2.5 31.0 13.2 29.7 11.0 6.1 12.6 .4 .1 .3 .5 .1 .1 .3 35.1 12.2 7.5 15.4 I-IV 90.9 96.3 100.7 96.2 .8 .4 4.4 4.8 196.8 197.7 V w .1 .1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 .5 >5 .5 .5 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 VI w s 2.8 2.8 4.0 4.0 208.4 210.7 20^:1 36 35 .4 35.4 34:1 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 249.2 2.3 246.9 252.0 24l:? VII E s 1.2 1.2 .2 .2 51.2 12.6 38.6 55.2 15.0 40.2 12 10 1 • 5 12.1 10.6 1.5 .2 .2 64.6 23.3 41.3 67.7 25.8 41.9 V-VII 4.0 4.3 261.0 267.1 49 >1 48.0 1.6 2.1 315.7 321.5 VIII hi 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 \:\ Vlll 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 TOTAL 94.9 100.6 361.7 363.3 49 9 46.4 7.1 8.0 513.6 520.3 CARBON COUNTY, MONTANA OASS CtOPlANDU PASnj«MANGe KXlESrWOOIXAND OTHER LAND | TOTAL | 199a 197S t«B IWS tna 1975 19M 1979 1991 (97S 1,000 AoM 1,000 Ac 1,000 AtfM 1,000 An. 1,000 A0« 1A»Acr« 1,000 A(rM \fiaOJ^am 1,000 Am. 1,000 Aow I 10.8 10.7 1.5 1.4 .5 .5 12.8 12.6 11 E W 5:1 29.3 46.3 9.5 .3 6.2 30.3 23.3 1.4 ilii 22.1 1.4 .7 4.8 15.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 1.6 :6 1.6 .3 .1 .6 .6 70.3 11.4 1.1 11.8 46.0 70.2 11.2 1.1 11.8 46.1 "5 52.2 *?:! 1.1 54.0 43.7 8.0 2.3 22.8 5.0 ■!:i 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 .4 .2 .2 .4 .2 .2 76.5 55.8 14.4 6.3 76.2 55.6 14.4 6.2 IV E s c 41.2 18.0 23.2 43.6 18.1 24.6 .9 100.3 43.1 ii:i 98.9 43.0 34.9 21.0 .7 .4 .3 .7 .4 .3 'till ll'A 143.2 61.5 59.8 21.5 I-IV 149.4 154.6 147.9 143.1 1.3 1.3 3.2 3.2 301.8 302.2 V w 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2 11.4 11.4 10.8 10.8 .1 .1 .1 .1 .6 .6 .6 .6 15.7 15.7 ii:? VI w s 23.9 23. § 26.9 26:? 297.3 305.9 8.8 297.1 12.3 12.3 10.3 2.0 ;i .5 .2 .3 334.0 19.5 314.5 345.6 3^1:! VI. s 62.9 70.0 12.9 84.5 .3 .3 .3 .3 83.2 li:? 84.8 ll'A V-VII 27.5 31.1 391.6 401.2 12.7 12.7 1.1 1.1 432.9 446.1 VIII .1 .1 3.9 .5 3.4 ;;l 8.4 .6 7.8 8.4 .6 7.8 12.3 1.1 11.2 12.4 ihi VIII .1 3.9 3.9 8.4 8.4 12.3 12.4 TOTAL 176.9 185.8 543.4 548.2 14.0 14.0 12.7 12.7 747.0 760.7 CARTER COUNTY, MONTANA OASS OOnANOU PASnnMANOE KXESrWOOOlANO OTHER LAND TOTAL I9» 1973 I9SB 1979 195a 1979 199a 1979 195a 1979 l;0OOA III E S IV s I-IV VI VII E S V-VIl TOTAL 11. 11. 48.4 48.4 97.5 3.5 94.0 97.5 157.4 18. 18. 55. 54. 1. 5. 5. '|:? 85.5 94.0 172.7 13.8 13.8 117.9 106.4 11.5 44. 44. 1123.0 iii?:! 38.6 30.6 8.0 1161.6 1337.5 6.9 6.9 111.3 100.8 10.5 39. 39. 1139.8 5.9 1133.9 40.1 31.8 8.3 1179.9 1337.3 10.0 10.0 10. 10< 10.2 .1 .1 .1 10.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 176.3 164.8 11.5 44.2 44.2 1223.2 14.4 1208.8 38.6 30.6 8.0 1261.8 1507.6 lilt 176.4 164.9 11.5 44.5 44.5 1236.6 14.4 1222.2 40.1 31.8 1276.7 1523.0 Table 9. Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclass, by County 1/ CASCADE COUNTY. MONTANA OOMANOS-l rASTURtJUNGE KJMSIWOOOIAKO OTHER LAND TOTAl ifn 1973 t9» 1973 1930 1973 1956 1975 I93t 1973 IXWOACTM 1,000 AcrM I^XIOAaM 1.000 Acr« IMOA0M IMOACTM 1.000 A0M lAKACM I It. 6 15.0 2.5 1.9 1.3 1.3 18.4 18.2 II E S S4.9 37.6 17.3 57.4 40.0 17.4 23.1 20.5 19.! .7 . S .4 .4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 79.6 79.5 61.2 61.1 18.6 18.5 III E W 321.4 189. i 313.8 185.9 .3 92.4 80.7 97.4 83.3 3.1 3.3 .1 3:1 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.4 421, 275. 7 419.3 I 273.7 s 131.3 127.6 11.6 14.1 3.1 .2 .3 146:2 145:1 66.7 34.0 11. e 62.0 32.9 9.8 76.9 26.0 1.6 81.0 27.2 3.6 44.9 35.9 tt'A 188.5 187.8 96.9 95.9 s 20.9 19.3 49.3 50.2 9.C 9.0 79.2 7B.5 I-IV 457.6 448.2 194.9 200.8 48.5 48.5 7.4 7.4 706.4 704.9 V w 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 VI w 20.2 21.0 334.0 337.7 14.1 14.1 358.3 372.8 s 20.2 21.0 32918 33315 14.1 14.1 35^:? 35^:1 s 17.9 i7.i 7.7 7.7 259.3 246.1 13.2 274.5 249.8 24.7 55.6 55.6 56.2 56.2 332.8 338.4 301.9 305.0 30.9 32.4 V-VII 38.1 28.7 595.7 614.6 59.7 70.3 703.5 713.6 vm s 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 VIII 21.7 21.7 9.7 9.7 31.4 31.4 TOTAL 495.7 476.9 812.3 837.1 127.9 128.5 7.4 7.4 1443.3 1449.9 CHOU TEAU COUNTY, h lONTANA CtASS l»S8 1975 i9sa 1975 193A 1975 1950 1975 I93B 1973 1,0X1 AtfM 1,000 AcrM 1.000 AcrM 1,000 AtfM 1,000 AASTUU«U«« HMEStWqoOiAMO OTMBI lAND TOTAl 1 1»l 1973 IfSi lf7S 1951 IW9 19M IWS I9M 1*73 IJOO Aa»> 1^*gi 'I w s lit E S IV E W S VI w s 208.8 .1 218.9 71.5 64.7 54.9 3.0 6.8 492.4 25.5 .8 24.7 26.5 517.9 229.7 224.9 4.7 .1 229.2 159.8 69.4 62.9 53.8 3.0 6.1 V-VI I TOTAL DAWSON COUNTY, MONTANA 31.0 .8 30.2 31.0 552.8 41.4 41.1 57.9 53.1 4.8 64.5 50.0 1.7 12.8 521.8 163.8 214.0 8.9 205.1 214.0 377.8 20.3 20.5 47.3 "1:1 66.6 51.5 1.7 13.4 134,2 211.3 8.9 202.4 211.3 345.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .5 t3 .1 1.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.2 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.5 2.8 2.6 .2 .4 .4 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.8 253.1 247.8 5.2 .1 277.4 201.1 76.3 129.2 104.9 4.7 19.6 659.7 243.5 9.7 233.8 243.5 903.2 252.9 247.6 5.2 .1 277.9 '^:l 130.0 105.7 4.7 19.6 660.8 245.5 9.7 236.8 246.5 907.3 OASS OtOPlANDU PASTUKMANGC FOBEST-WOOOIAND OWniANP TOTAl IWa 1973 l9Sa 1*73 19M tfl7S 19Sa I97S 193a 1973 {JXKAamt 4.6 1,000 AaM 4.8 1.000 Aa« 2.2 l/KOAow 2.0 IJWOAcm 1.000 ACTM ,000 AoM 1.0 o»™ .000 Am. 1.000 AoM I .4 .4 7.2 7.2 ■1 s 77.2 75.2 2.0 77.4 75.0 2.4 17.2 14.2 3.0 15.7 13.0 2.7 .2 .2 :? .1 :\ 94.6 94.0 88.8 5.2 III E S 177.7 159.4 18.3 189.9 171.2 18.7 251.5 227.1 24.4 236.6 212.8 23.8 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 5.7 5.3 .4 5.8 5.3 .5 436.3 393.2 43.1 433.9 390.9 43.0 s 96.4 96.4 92.0 92.0 137.0 .1 136.9 140.3 . 1 140.2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .3 .3 233.9 233:^ 232.9 .4 232.5 I-IV 355.9 364.1 407.9 394.6 1.9 2.7 6.3 6.6 772.0 768.0 V w •A .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 VI w s 22.1 .4 21.7 9.7 .7 9.0 419.0 409.3 434.3 9.3 425.0 5.1 1.1 4.0 5.1 1.1 4.0 .6 .6 .6 .6 446.8 11.2 435.6 449.7 11.1 438.6 VII s 207.3 106.3 101.0 210.4 108.7 101.7 207.3 106.3 101.0 210.4 108.7 101.7 -VII 22.1 9.7 626.5 644.9 5.1 5.1 .6 .6 654.3 650.3 VIII s • 2 • 2 .2 • 2 .2 • 2 .2 .2 VIII .2 .2 .2 .2 OTAL 378.0 373.8 1034.4 1039.5 7.0 7.8 7.1 7.4 1426.5 1428.5 DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA OASS CBOPtAND^ PASTUH-UNGi FOCESTWOODIAMD OTHtB lAND TOTAl 199 ,.. 1950 1*73 19M 1ff7S WM 1973 1930 1975 1.000 A0M I/MOACFM 1.000 AoM 1»0A)0OA.rM l,a]o A0M 1,000 AOM 1,000 AoM I 3.8 3.7 .3 .3 'I s 5.4 1.8 3.6 5.9 lit 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.1 'i s 850.2 723.9 125.3 876.5 763.7 112.8 258.4 242.8 25.6 242.7 204.0 38.7 IV E s 138.6 41.5 97.1 138.1 163.3 29.3 134.0 164.6 32.2 132.4 I-IV 998.0 1024.2 434.7 409.7 VI s 1.8 1.8 14.3 14.3 304.3 304.3 298.7 298.7 8.0 8.0 VII 5.9 5:^7 2.7 2.7 19.9 19.3 .6 27.1 23.5 3.6 V-VII 7.7 17.0 324.2 325.8 8.0 TOTAL 1005.7 1041.2 768.9 735.5 8.0 4.1 4.0 .8 .8 .7 .7 1:1 3.5 3I5 6 4 2 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.1 1123.0 971.1 151.9 301.9 70.8 231.1 1123.9 972.2 151.7 302.7 70.8 231.9 6 5.2 4.8 1437.9 1439.3 .6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .6 .6 0 0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 318.4 318.4 6.3 325.3 325.3 29.8 23.5 6.3 0 4.9 4.9 344.8 365.7 6 10.1 9.7 1782.7 1795.0 Table 9, Uae of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclass, by County !_/ JEFFERSON COUNTY. MONTANA IVM y^AoM 1979 PAS1UIMANGI 1931 197S FOBBT-WOOWANO I9M Ktrm 1.000 Aaw 1.000 Act** 1.000 Actm I97S 195B \m 1,000 Atrt 1.000 AaM 1 JOO Actw 1 JOO Kan 4 w s c III E w s V kl VI w s VII E s V-VII VIII w s VIII TOTAL .7 17.3 1.2 i:9 27.1 1.5 1.9 1.2 .7 47.0 11. e 1 1 1 22 18. 2 1 1 1 10. e .1 10.7 68.9 49.9 15.3 3.7 21.6 7.9 1.3 12.4 15.8 .4 .2 .2 15.0 72.6 53.3 15.8 3.7 21.8 8.0 1.3 12.5 101.3 110.4 13.3 13.3 218.1 3.3 214.8 26.6 .9 25.9 13.2 13.2 215.3 3.3 212.0 26.7 .9 25.8 48.1 1.9 258.2 255.2 38.2 359.5 365.6 1.1 1.1 44,0 1.3 42.7 15.6 14.2 1.4 60.7 .9 .9 42.7 1.3 41.4 15.4 14.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 2.7 .4 2.3 2.7 6.3 .3 .2 .1 2.2 1.9 :? .3 .1 .1 .1 6.2 6.2 6.3 2.7 .4 2.3 2.7 11.9 26.3 8.6 1.2 2.1 16.4 96.0 74.7 18.0 5.3 24.1 9.5 1.4 13.2 151.2 14.4 14.4 254.2 4.6 259.6 42.4 15.1 27.3 321.0 2.7 .4 2.3 2.7 474.9 .6 27.9 8.6 1.2 2.1 16.0 97.3 74.0 16.0 5.3 24.0 9.4 1.4 13.2 150.0 14.4 14.4 255.9 4.6 251.3 42.1 14.9 27.2 2.7 .4 2.3 2.7 475.1 JUDITH BASIN COUNTY, MONTANA atOflANDS-l fOREST-WOODlAND IJOOA™ IjOOOA™ J,0OOto« !«0»£« !«0A»5. 1WA»» II E III E W S IV E S VI w s VII E S V-VII TOTAL 135.2 128.8 2.0 4.4 106.7 44.9 9.7 54.1 35.8 16.5 19.3 279.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 284.9 138.9 132.6 2.4 3.9 109.2 44.9 10.2 54.1 33.5 15.8 17.8 281.7 4.5 4.5 29. 26 1 138.9 51.9 8.9 68.1 74.6 26.6 48.2 277.7 14.1 263.6 21.0 47 21 25 325 568 25.7 24.4 138.8 62.3 8.4 68.1 77.4 27.7 49.7 261.7 14.1 267.6 47. 21. 25. 329. 571. 1.9 15.6 15.8 11. 11 1.0 12.4 12.4 11.3 11.3 .2 .2 .2 .2 27.1 29.0 23, 24. 164.6 ''1:1 4.4 154.5 ''l:°2 4.4 250.0 107.8 18.5 123.6 249.9 107.7 18.5 123.6 111.7 44.2 67.5 111. 7 44.2 67.5 526.5 526.2 296.7 14.1 284.6 298.5 14.1 284.5 59.0 32.3 26.7 59.0 32.3 25.7 357.7 357.6 664.2 863.8 LAKE COUNTY, MONTANA aiOPUNO!-! KMEST-WOOMAND 1,000 Agw 1,000 Atr.. 1975 1,000 Aq.1 1,000 AOW 1»00 *OT. II E S III E N S IV E W s I-IV V VI w s VII E s VIII s VIII TOTAL 12.9 10.9 2.0 80.8 23.3 1.6 55.9 33.5 14.7 18l7 128.1 13.8 10.7 3.1 92.5 32.3 3.6 56.6 27.6 11.7 T5:) 134.7 1.0 1.0 .5 .5 1.5 7.2 1.5 5.7 32.7 24.4 2 6 41.6 14.5 .8 26.3 81.5 ? I 122 121 9.9 3.6 6.1 126.6 136.2 4.2 225.1 4.5 22.0 15.4 0 5 49.3 17.7 1.3 30.3 77.3 5.5 6.5 122.0 .1 121.9 9.9 3.8 6.1 4.2 219.9 14.2 11.2 1.6 1.4 30.1 1.4 10. a 17.9 44.3 157.8 .7 167.1 173.4 173.4 15.5 16.5 16.5 402.0 12.9 11.2 .6 1.1 26.4 1.2 10.3 16.9 41.3 167.0 .7 166.3 173 173 16.5 16.5 16.5 397.6 .1 .1 22. 23 .1 .1 22.7 23.5 20.1 12.4 7.7 126.4 59.3 5.2 53.9 30.6 11.7 62.9 254.5 7.5 7.5 290.4 .8 269.6 183.3 177.2 6.1 43.4 43.4 43.4 779.2 19.8 12.2 7.6 128.1 59.3 63l6 105.2 30.6 62.* 254.0 7.5 7.5 269.6 .8 286.8 182.9 176.8 6.1 43.4 43.4 43. 777. Table 9. Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclass, by County U LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA ClASS OlOnANOiJ PASTUIMANGC FOtSTWOOOlAND OTHEILAND TOTAl 1 195a "" l9St If75 1931 tW5 t9SI \m 19M 1«S 1.000 Ao« IJOOAg- II E W S c II I E W S IV E W S I-IV V W VI w s VII VIII s VIII TOTAL 1.2 13.1 2.0 3.6 72.1 66.1 2.9 3.1 2.3 .1 2.2 88.7 1.1 13.3 l:S 3.0 .1 77.8 64.5 6.7 6.6 7.1 3.7 1.5 1.9 10.7 10.7 J:? .6 .2 2.3 72.5 & 2.1 2. 5 5 .S s lu .1 10 .3 5 2 15 6 15 .5 III 22 .9 26 .6 169 5 165 ■ 4 2 ? 2 ? .3 .5 194 9 194 9 16 • 0 19 .8 93 9 92 ■ 0 .1 .2 112 0 112 ■ n s i :i 1 5 :i a 4 2 ii :? 2 2 2 2 .2 .3 Vo 4 5 H i4 ■ 5 IV 4 .2 i .4 42 6 42 4 46 n 46 fl E 2 .7 2 .9 35 3 35 .1 36 n 36 ■ n .8 6 4 6 .4 7 ? 7 ? ■ / > ; 9 .9 1 6 1 .6 I-IV 56 .9 63 ,7 258 7 251 .5 2 2 2 2 2.4 2.7 320 2 320 • 1 V 3 0 3 ■0 3 n 3 ■ n 3 U 3 ■0 3 0 3 .0 ^i 490 7 496 .7 139 5 139 5 2.3 2.3 632 5 638 ,5 4 ; 4 . ; 2 5 2 5 2.1 2.1 9 486 ■ 0 492 .0 137 0 137 0 .2 .2 623 2 629 i2 VII .3 .3 65 5 69 ,3 17 3 17 3 83 1 86 ,9 s .3 .3 3 62 3 5 64 'A 17 3 17 3 ll 2 9 5 81 :i V-VII .3 .3 559 .2 569 .0 156 8 156 6 2.3 2.3 718 6 726 .4 TOTAL 57 .2 64 .0 617 ,9 820 .5 159 0 159 0 4.7 5.0 1038 6 1046 .5 Table 9. Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclass, by County IJ MINERAL COUNTY, MONTANA CLASS CROPLAND^ PASTUBE-RANGE FOSEST-WOOOiAND OTHRUWD TOTAL 1 I9M 197S t«M 1975 IMS T975 i9sa 1975 itse 1975 1,000 AcTM 1,000 AcTM 1,000 Actm 1,000 AtTM 1,000 AcTM 1,000 AoM 1.000 AoM lAWACTM 1,000 Am* 1,000 Ao«* II s III E W s IV E w s I-IV VI u s V-VII VIII s VIII TOTAL .5 .2 .3 5.1 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 5.4 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 .3 .7 .1 .6 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 .1 .1 .1 4.9 1.2 .2 10.5 5.3 .5 4.7 14.5 100.9 100.9 100.9 10. 4. 4l 12. 97, 97, 97, .3 .1 .5 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .5 .1 .1 .1 .4 .4 .4 1.0 7.5 7.5 2.7 1.2 .2 1.3 11.8 5.7 .5 5.6 22.0 104.2 104.2 104.2 .6 .6 .6 126.8 2.5 1.1 11. S 5.4 .5 5.9 21.3 101.8 101.8 101.8 .6 .6 .6 123.7 MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA CBOPUWD ^ PASTURE-RANGE FOREST-WOODUND 1,000 Ao.i 1,000 AcTM 1,000 AOM l«o A„.. 1.000 Ao*. 1,000 AtfM 1,000 AtfM 1,000 Acm I 3.8 3.5 .6 .6 4.4 4.1 4 w s c 20.6 12.5 19.0 10.6 .9 5.7 1.8 7.4 3.9 .4 3.1 4.9 '•A 2.2 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.2 31.7 15.9 1.3 .0 III E s 23.6 6.3 17.3 23.4 16^:3^ 17.0 12.7 4.3 13.6 9.5 4.1 49.6 49.6 48.5 48.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 91.9 70.3 21.6 87.0 66.6 20.4 'I w s 9.3 2.6 1.4 5.3 8.7 2.2 1.5 5.0 17.9 6.2 i:9 15.9 5.4 13.8 1.9 E:8 13.8 1.6 .3 .3 .1 .2 41.3 21.1 38.7 9.2 9.2 20.3 I-IV 57.3 54.6 42.3 34.4 67.1 65.5 2.6 2.4 169.3 156.9 V w .1 .1 .4 .4 .4 .4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 VI w s 3.9 3.9 1.8 1.8 53.4 52:1 54.8 54I0 703.1 703.1 700.4 700.4 .1 .1 .1 .1 760.5 759;^ 757.1 756:1 VII s 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 V-VII 3.9 1.9 57.6 59.0 705.5 702.7 .1 .1 767.1 763.7 VIII s '-A 4.9 5.6 .7 4.9 5.6 .7 4.9 5.6 VIII 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 TOTAL 61.2 56.5 99.9 93.4 772.6 768.2 8.3 8.1 942.0 926.2 MUSSELSHELL COUNTY, MONTANA CLASS CROPLAND £-1 PASTURE-AANCi FOREST-WOODLAND OTHER LAND TOTAL 1958 1975 1950 1975 i9sa 1975 i9sa 1973 1958 1975 1,000 Aon 1,000 AcTM 1,000 A«. 1>X0 A0M 1,000 AOM 1,000 AcrM 1,000 Act.. 1,000 >!UTM 1,000 An. 1,000 A0M I 9.6 12.5 4.2 2.5 2.3 1.1 .4 .4 16.5 16.5 II E W s 2.6 2.2 .4 4.0 3.0 1.0 .8 .7 .1 .1 .1 1.5 .3 l-.i .6 .1 .1 .1 .1 • 1 5.0 3.3 1:5 5.0 3.2 .2 1.6 s 39.1 39.0 .1 39.7 39.1 .6 98.8 88.0 10.8 98.1 87.8 10.3 .5 .5 .5 .5 .3 •A .2 .2 138.7 127.2 11.5 138.5 127.1 11.4 IV 12.4 7.9 4.5 11.6 7.6 4.0 92.6 17.3 75.3 93.3 ll'.l 2.6 2.1 2.6 107.6 27.3 80.3 107.5 27.2 80.3 I-IV 63.7 67.8 196.4 194.0 4.3 2.4 3.4 3.3 267.8 267.5 V w 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 VI M S 7.7 7.7 10.0 10.0 482.6 5.3 477.3 48^.1 474.8 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 .4 .4 .4 .4 507.7 5.3 502.4 507.5 5.3 502.2 VI^ s 68.1 67.8 .3 68.1 67.8 • 3 219.6 219.6 219.5 219.5 287.7 287.4 .3 287,6 287.3 .3 V-VII 7.7 10.0 553.7 551.2 236.6 236.5 .4 .4 798.4 798.1 VIII 2.1 2.1 i-A 2.1 2.1 i'A VIII 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 TOTAL 71.4 77.8 750.1 745.2 240.9 238.9 5.9 5.8 1068.3 1067.7 Table 9. Uae of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and Subclaos, by County 1/ PARK COUNTY, MONTANA OAS dorowou PASTUII»ANa( POUEST-WOOOIAM) OTHEB lAND lOTAl 1 IHi tV79 iwa 1W5 IMO 1W5 1955 1979 I9M 1979 1,000 Aow 1,000 Am. 1,000 ACTM 1,000 Asm 1,000 AoM l/XIOAcrM 1,000 A(TM 1,000 Acrt. 1,000 Am 1,000 AffM I 3.0 3.0 .1 .1 3.1 3.1 'I w s c '•6.4 42.0 2:? 1.4 47.5 43.2 .9 2.1 1.4 14.2 14.1 .1 12.7 12.6 .1 .9 1:1 l?:i .9 1:1 '4 w s 47.4 42.3 2.8 2.3 52.9 3.7 38.5 20.1 4.9 13.5 33.0 16.4 4.6 12.0 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 11:1 9.6 15.9 87.4 62.1 il:i IV 22.2 'lit 17.1 '1:1 17i8 7.7 10.1 24.6 12.0 12.6 2.9 2.9 2.4 2.4 42.9 tl:] 19,4 I-IV 119.0 120.6 70.6 70.4 4.8 3,7 .1 .2 194,5 194.9 VI w s 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.1 306.2 7.8 298.4 309.6 8.3 301.3 64.2 8.2 55.0 53.9 ,1:1 2.8 l:i 2.8 376,3 17.0 359.3 378,4 17.4 361.0 VII E s 135.2 56.5 78.7 134.8 56.4 78.4 55.9 55.9 55.8 55.8 191.1 112.4 78.7 190.6 112.2 78.4 V-VII 3.1 2.1 441.4 444.4 120.1 119,7 2.8 2.8 567.4 559.0 VIII s 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 VIII 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 TOTAL 122.1 122.7 512.0 514.8 124,9 123.4 6,0 6.1 765,0 757,0 PETROLEUM COUNTY. MONTANA OASS CROPLAND U PASnjRHIANGC FOPEST-WOODIAND OTHER LAND TOTAL 1«« 1975 IV56 I?75 1050 1975 1950 1975 1955 1975 1,000 AoM 1,000 Aorn IJMOAam l/nOAcn. 1,000 AoM 1,000 AoM 1.000 AffM 1,000 An." IJIOOACTM IMOACTM I 2.7 3.2 21.3 20.8 l.C 1.0 25,0 25,0 w S 3.4 .6 2.8 3.7 3.0 12.5 12:1 12.1 ii:i 2.3 1.; • ! 2.3 2.7 2.7 2,7 2,7 2J.9 20.8 li:? ik? s 16.8 16.8 19.2 19.2 53.1 50.5 37.8 12.7 1.2 1.2 1.3 .1 1.2 71,1 57,2 13.5 71.0 57.1 13.9 'i s 4.7 4.7 5.S 5:1 *i:l 60.1 67.7 8.3 59.4 73, e 8,8 64,8 73.6 8.8 64.8 I-IV V 27.6 32.0 134,5 130.3 23.6 23.1 4,9 5.C 190,6 190.4 VI s 10.8 10.8 1:1 396.0 396.0 407.2 407.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 409.4 409.4 417.1 417.1 VII E s 50.7 17.3 33.4 35.3 50.7 17.3 33.4 53.0 17.7 36.3 V-VII 10.8 7.3 446.7 460.2 2.6 2.6 460.1 470.1 VIII s 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 .3 .3 .3 .3 hi 1.5 1.5 VIII 1.2 1.2 .3 .3 1.5 1.5 TOTAL 38.4 39.3 582.4 591.7 23.9 23.4 7.5 7,6 552.2 662.0 PHILLIPS COUNTY, MONTANA OASS CROPlANDi-1 PASTU«e«ANGC FORBT-WOOIXAND OTMBl tAND TOTAl 1 )9sa 197S •9« 1V75 1958 I97S 1958 1975 1956 1975 1A»A«7M 1,000 ACTM 1,000 AaM 1,000 Affw 1,000 AerM 1,000 AcrM 1,000 AoM 1,000 Asm 1,000 AcTM 1 OOOACTM II E S III E S IV E W S V w VI w s VII E S VIII TOTAL 11.2 148 125 23 41 40c 207, 93 8 85 95.0 11,1 5,3 5.6 .7 175.5 147,6 27,9 61 1 49.5 244,2 .1 .1 96. 10. 1.5 1.3 .3 ,1 1,1 1.1 312.8 288,4 24,4 240,7 11.8 3.3 225.5 98.3 1125,3 11,0 11.0 872.9 24.0 848.9 242. 138. 103. 286.7 266.9 19,8 233,4 12,0 3.3 218.1 554.7 520.5 10,0 10,0 875,5 22.0 853.5 244.3 140.9 103.4 1129. 9 :\ .4 .5 5.4 6:^ .1 .1 5.5 .2 .2 5.4 5:1 .1 .1 5.5 2.3 1.5 .7 3.3 .1 3.2 5.5 ,5 .6 ,1 .1 ,6 5,7 5.6 1.1 463.8 415,4 48,4 285.6 12.5 3.3 259.8 767,4 11,1 11,1 972.1 32.1 940.0 244,1 140.2 103.9 .1 .1 302.0 342.5 1681,0 1550.5 11.2 6.7 5.6 1.1 464.5 416.1 48.4 288.2 13.8 3.3 271.1 770.5 10.1 10.1 978.1 32.1 945.0 246.1 142.2 103.9 2004.9 Table 9. Uae of Inventory Acreage by Capability Class and SubclaBs, by County 1/ PONDERA COUNTY, MONTANA cus CtOPtANDS-J nmnuMKt FOdEST-WOOHAND OTHER LAND | TOTAl 1 1998 19?9 193* 1979 I9S8 1979 1958 1975 1998 1973 t^WOAoM IJXOAaai 1,000 A and Subclaas, by Covrnty U PRAIRIE COUNTY, MONTANA rASfimttANOt FOIEST-WOO0UU40 II E s s IV E S I-IV V W VI w s VII E s VIII s 1.1 4.4 3.3 1.1 1.000 *«F« IJCO Ag.t 86.1 76.0 10.1 10.1 8.4 1.7 101.7 13.8 2.1 11.7 .2 .2 16.2 4.5 3.3 1.2 90.1 79.6 10.5 9.3 >.6 1.7 2.2 2.2 11.7 2.6 9.1 .2 .2 14.1 14.2 2.6 11.6 85.9 67.8 18.1 51.8 12.6 39.2 14.0 2.6 11.4 81.5 63.9 17.6 52.5 13.4 39.1 151.9 148.0 190.0 11.7 176.3 175.8 156.5 19.3 1.1 1.1 VIII TOTAL RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA 117.9 119.1 1.1 518.8 193.3 11.2 182.1 176,6 157.3 19.3 517.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 .2 .2 2.0 5.2 .2 6.0 5.2 .2 5.0 .7 .7 .1 .1 1.1 7.1 18.6 5.9 12.7 177.2 144.5 33.2 61.9 21.0 40.9 2.2 2.2 206.3 13.8 192.5 176.3 156.7 19.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 644.7 18.5 5.9 12.6 176.8 143.7 33.1 61.8 21.0 40.8 258.2 2.2 2.2 207.5 13.8 193.7 177.1 157.5 19.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 645.1 PASnjRE-RANGE FOfiEST.WCODUVNO I I E W S III E w s IV E w s w s VI E M S VII E S VIII S VIII TOTAL 8.3 28.9 5.6 7.1 16.2 40.3 2.4 1.1 36.8 23.8 9.1 1.1 13.5 101.3 1.2 .7 .5 1.1 .9 Ag.. 1.000 AaM 1.000 Agw 1 JOO Agw 1 JOO Ao.i 1.000 Aow 8.3 .1 3.7 .2 1.3 2.2 10.3 .3 2.1 7.9 11.4 1.4 .5 9.4 25.5 31.3 24.5 6.7 15.1 1.8 .2 13.1 39.4 5.8 33.5 103.5 111.3 28.7 5.5 7.2 16.0 40.6 2.4 1.5 36.7 23.9 9.3 1.1 13.5 1.9 1.3 .6 11, 1. 9! 24, 31, 24. 7, 13, 2. 39, 5. 33, .1 .2 .6 .6 14.8 14.8 15.6 9.7 4.5 5.2 16.7 135.0 132.4 2.6 .2 .6 .6 14. S 14.8 15.6 8.9 4.2 4.7 135.0 132.4 2.6 177.0 178.7 3.1 .2 .6 2.3 3.9 .4 .3 3.2 3.5 1.0 .2 2.3 1.5 .7 .5 .5 4.3 4.3 4.3 17.9 4.3 17.9 9.0 35.9 6.0 9.0 20.9 55.1 3.1 3.5 48.5 53.5 11.5 1.9 40.1 153.5 43.7 30.5 13.2 33.4 2.7 .2 30.5 174.9 138.7 36.2 252.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 409.8 9.0 35.4 5.9 8.9 20.6 54.8 3.1 3.5 48.2 53.4 11.5 1.9 40.0 152,5 43.7 30.5 13.2 33.4 2.7 3o:i 174.9 138.7 36.2 252.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 408.9 RICHLAND COUNTY, MONTANA OASS atOPtAN0!-l PA5TURE-4ANGf FOBEST-WOOOIAND OTHEB lAMD TOTAL 1 ifsa 1975 t95t 1975 1«SB 1973 19SB I97S I9SB 197S 1,000 ACTM 1,000 ACTM 1,000 AcTM IMOAoM XffMAam 1,000 AoM 1,000 Actm l/MMAcTM IMO AoM 1,000 A0M II e III E W s IV E s I-IV V w VI w s VII E s V-VII VIII s VII I TOTAL 121.3 115.3 .5 5.5 195.7 158.^ 34.8 56.7 24.0 32.7 46.4 46.4 15.3 126.4 120.1 .5 5.8 192.2 154.3 2.8 35.1 43,8 20.6 23.2 28.0 28.0 125. 114. 5. 5. 465. 16. 449. 116. 68. 48. 14.6 14.0 129.3 118.8 .6 9.9 55.4 41.3 14.1 189.8 202.2 5.2 5.2 490.5 16.5 474.0 121.1 72.5 48.6 1.7 1.7 3.2 3.2 7.8 6.3 1.0 3.1 3.1 .7 .4 7.5 6.5 1.0 7.5 6.9 10.3 8.2 .7 1.4 2.0 ':! 21.6 .3 .3 .2 24.5 7.4 6.6 2.2 1.6 .6 2.6 2.6 20.3 151.5 144.1 .5 6.9 332.1 280.8 4.2 47.1 100.7 63.4 37.3 5.5 5.5 522.3 23.0 499.3 116.9 68.4 46.5 644.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 12 51.; 20.0 151.5 144.0 7I0 332.4 261.2 4.1 47.1 101.6 53.5 38.3 5.5 5.5 526.6 23.0 505.6 121.1 72.5 48.6 655.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 126:.° Table 9. Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Claae and Subclass, by County 1/ ROOSEVELT COUNTY. MONTANA cuua CUOnAHOLl PASTUBMANOC 1 FO8EST-WOODLAN0 OTHER LAND lOTAl 1 i«a 1973 1951 1973 1938 1973 1958 1975 1958 1973 1,000 AiTM 1,000 ACTM 1,000 Am* 1,000 Acrw 1X100 Aon 1,000 Ao.> 1.000 Aww IXOOJ^CJM IMOAm IMOAoM I 2.6 2.5 .1 2.6 2.6 II E 197.0 197.0 232.7 232.7 74.1 74.1 41.0 41.0 7.9 7.9 3.9 3.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 280.0 280.0 278.7 278.7 S 384.2 272.1 112. 1 453.8 319.9 133.9 56.4 121.8 88.3 33.5 .2 .2 1.1 .6 .5 4.5 2.7 1.9 5.3 682.6 412.0 170.6 582.0 411.8 170.2 IV 115.2 55.8 60.4 115.4 139.1 98.3 40.8 145.1 96.3 48.8 3.2 3.2 1.8 1.8 5.7 5.7 2.5 2.6 265. 154. in. 264.9 }!S:S 1-IV 700.0 804.4 406.8 307.9 11.3 6.8 12.3 9.1 1130.4 1128.2 V w :\ .1 .1 :} :1 VI w s 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.2 264.9 33.3 231.6 269.5 33.2 235.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.2 287.4 33.3 254.1 'till 256.0 VII E 12.0 12.0 13.8 13.8 2.8 2.8 2.0 2.0 14.8 14.8 15.8 15.8 V-VII 20.2 20.2 277.0 283.4 .3 .3 4.8 3.2 302.3 307.1 VIII s .8 .8 7.8 7.8 7.0 7.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 VIII .8 7.8 7.0 7.8 7.8 TOTAL 720.2 824.6 683.8 592.1 11.6 7,1 24.9 19.3 1440.5 1443.1 ROSEBUD COUNTY, MONTANA cuss CROnANOU PASTURt«ANGC FORESTWOODLANO OTHER LAND TOTAL 1958 1975 1958 1973 1958 1975 1958 1975 1958 1973 1,000 ACTM 1,000 Act.. 1.000 AcTM 1,000 Am. 1,000 AcTM 1,000 AtfM 1.000 AcTM 1.000 Ao.i yjxcAoM 1.000 AOM I 15.7 17.4 7.4 6.6 4.7 3.7 5.1 5.1 32.9 32.8 II E S 34.3 1.9 32.4 34.3 2.1 32.2 6.5 2.5 4.0 6.2 2.2 4.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 .5 .1 .4 C .1 .4 44.4 4.5 39.9 43.9 4.4 39.5 '4 s 56.7 53.7 3.0 59.9 57.1 •2.8 198.3 196.2 2.1 194.3 192.1 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.7 .1 1.8 1.7 .1 259.3 254.1 5.2 258.5 253.4 5.1 IV 8.2 7:? 8.0 46.9 6.4 40.5 45.9 6.4 40.5 .2 .2 .2 .2 55.3 7.2 48.1 55.1 47:9 I-IV 114.9 119.6 259.1 254.0 10.3 9.1 7.6 7.6 391.9 390.3 VI w s 13.1 13.1 15.7 15,7 1474.6 99.7 1374.9 1477.0 99.7 1377.3 42,8 45.1 2.7 42.4 1.6 .5 1.1 1.6 .5 1.1 1534.8 102.9 1431.9 1539.4 102.9 1436.6 VII .4 .4 887.9 655.5 232.3 897.7 558.2 239.5 47.3 47:! 47.3 47:! 935.6 656.8 279.8 945,0 658,4 286.6 V-VII 13.5 15.7 2352.5 2374.7 92.8 92.4 1.6 1.6 2470.4 2484.4 VIII 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 \l:l 12.8 12.8 VIII 8.1 8.1 4.7 4.7 12.8 12.8 TOTAL SAND 128.4 ERS COU 135.3 NTY, MO 2629.7 NTANA 2636.6 103.1 101.5 13.9 13.9 2875.1 2887.5 ows CBOPl JMOi-i PASTVBE-tANGE KMEST-WOCKMAND OTHER LAND TOTAL 1»M 197S 1958 1973 1938 1973 1958 1975 1958 1973 1,000 A0M 1,000 Actm 1,000 Ao.t IjnoAaM 1,000 AOM 1,000 AC7.t 1.000 A(TM 1.000 AoM 1,000 Am. 1.000 A0M 1 3.: 3.: 3. J 3.3 I 1 22. 13.: 8.! 21., 13.5 8., 3. 3: S 3.e 3. 36. 36. ) 37. i 35: I 1 1 1 62. 14. I 48. 3 62.3 3 14.0 3 48.3 23., 1:' 21.: 14. s 19. 16.' 3.' . 4.( 48. 15. 33. 7 48. ) 15. . 33. ' . 1 1 1 91. 1 46. 2. 42. 3 91.8 b 46.6 7 2.7 J 42.5 1 5.< 1.' . 3.. ^:S .: 2.: ) 18. 3. 3.< 12. i 19. < ! 3.: ' 3.< i 13.' 49. 13. 4. 31. I It 3 4. i 32. 1 73. "7: 1 47. 7 74.2 b 18.6 3 7.5 b 48.1 1-n / 53.! 50. C ) 42.' 1 46., 134. J 136. 1 2 3 231. I 231.6 \ 1 1 > 2. 2. ) 2.( 3 2.C ) 5. ) 4. 3 5. ! 4. J I: • 5 7.1 i 6.3 7 .B V :i t 92. 92. J 92.: ) 92.: 243, 243. L 243. L 243, 336. 336. 3 336.4 3 336.4 VI| ' 30. 30l 5 '°:; 3 io'A 239. 220. ) 18. 3 239. ' 220. ; 18. 3 . ♦ . » 269. t 221. 48. b 269.6 1 221.1 5 48.5 V-VI .' t .' 124. r 124. r 487. I 487. i < * 612. i 613.1 VII < > 2. 2. ! 2. 2 2. 2 5. 2 4. 2 5. B 4. B 7. * 7.4 < .4 3 7.0 VII 2. 2 2. 2 5. 2 5. 2 7. < 7.4 TOTA 54. ! 50. . 167. 1 159. ) 524. 3 625. 9 5. B 5. 9 851. 1 852. 1 Use of Inventory Acreage by Capability Clans and Subclaas, by County \J SHERIDAN COUNTY, MONTANA (MS otonANDU I FOREST-WOOCHAND 01HCR lAND TOTAl 1 i«a 1973 I9sa 1975 I93« I97S 1958 1975 1958 1975 1,000 AcrM 1,000 Am. 1,000 A0M 1,000 Ac*. IJlOOAcM lyOOO Acrat 1,000 AM. I .8 .8 .e .8 II E S 273.2 260.2 13.0 275.2 262.2 13.0 31.4 17.- 13.7 29.4 15.7 13.7 i 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.; 308.6 308.6 281.9 281.9 26.7 26.7 III E M S 272.3 191.2 81.1 276.4 194.3 82.1 84.6 59.6 3.S 21.3 80.3 56.2 3.9 20.2 ,1 4.7 4.5 351.8 351.8 2.7 2.5 253.5 253.5 3.9 3.9 2.0 2.0 104.4 104.4 'I 56.5 42.7 13.8 54.6 41.9 12.7 i%\\ &A 67.2 46.6 2.2 18.4 .7 .7 122.4 122.5 .7 .7 89.2 89.2 2.2 2.2 31.0 31.1 I-IV 602. 0 606.2 182. i 177.7 1.1 9.4 8.7 793.6 793.7 VI 17.0 17.0 16.1 16.1 191.1 199.4 1.7 1.7 189.4 197.1 .4 .4 208.5 215.9 .4 .4 206^8 214*2 VI^ .4 .4 .4 .4 34.1 35.8 2.0 2.0 24.4 26.1 2.0 2.0 9.7 9.7 36.5 38.2 26.4 28.1 10.1 10.1 V-VII 17.4 16.5 225.2 235.2 2.0 2.0 .4 .4 245.0 254.1 TOTAL 619.'! 622.7 407.4 412.9 2.0 3.1 9.8' 9. I 1038.6 1047.6 SILVER BOW COUNTY, MONTANA cuts CDOnANDi-l PASTURMANGf FOItEST-WOCIXAND OTHER LAND TOTAl 19M 1975 1950 1975 1958 1975 1958 1975 1958 1975 1/100 ACTM 1JX«A«. 1,000 A(T« IJMOAoM \jOOOAa*, 1,000 Ao., 1,000 AoM 1400 »OA(rM 1/100 AOM 1.000 AoM 1,000 ACTM 1«WA0M 1,000 AcrM 1,000 ACTM fiODIfJTM 1,000 AoM \Ma*am I 3.2 3.* .3 .1 .2 .2 3.7 3.7 II E 10.7 5.7 ^:°9 H:? 15.5 15.5 ':i 1.0 • 4 29.5 23.8 29.5 23.8 S 5.0 5.1 .2 .1 .6 .6 5.8 5.8 III E 27.5 81.2 37.6 16.5 27.1 75.7 33.3 15.6 26.8 .1 .1 .1 .1 5.5 3.3 III 5.5 3.3 . 9 1.3 130.1 58.4 ll-A 129.3 56.1 H:l W s 25.4 9.5 15.9 24.1 8.7 15.4 96.3 22.8 65l8 97.2 23.5 7.7 66.0 2.6 .8 i:^ 2.6 .8 i:^ 'I'i-A 7.8 83.4 123.9 33.0 sl-A I-IV 82.6 88.5 195.7 188.6 .1 .1 9.3 9.3 287.7 286.5 V w .3 .3 .3 .3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 VI t • 5 .5 .5 .5 413.5 423.8 8.3 415.5 3.0 2.1 .9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 425.5 9.3 416.3 427.7 9.4 418.3 VII E s 101.6 89.0 12.6 107.4 93.9 13.5 53.9 55.1 52.1 3.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 155.6 140.1 15.5 162.6 146.1 16.5 V-VI I .3 .a 523.9 532.8 56.9 57.1 1.5 1.5 583.1 592.2 VIII w s 15.0 .3 14.7 15.0 15:^ 15.0 . 3 14.7 16.0 is:? VIII 15.0 16.0 15.0 16.0 TOTAL 83.4 89.3 719.6 721.4 57.0 57.2 25.8 26.8 885.8 894.7 TETON COUNTY MONTANA QASS CBOPLANO U PASnjRE-BANGE FORE5T.WOO0LAND OTHER UkND TOTAL 1 1956 1975 1958 1975 1938 1975 1958 1973 1958 1975 1,000 AiTM 1,000 AaM 1,000 ACTM 1,000 A<7M 1,000 A0H 1,000 AaM 1,000 Ao.1 1,000 AoM l/nOAcrM 1J1OOA0M I 25.5 26.4 5.3 5.7 4.4 4.1 35.2 35.2 II E W s 135.9 112.7 1.1 23.1 .8 22.3 33.7 29.6 .5 3.6 36.6 31.7 4:! 1.6 1.6 \:i t:? .9 6.3 5.1 1.2 178.2 21. b 1^8.2 ''1:1 27.5 III E W s 287.3 150.5 125.8 292.0 165.3 125:° 123.1 61.0 29.5 32.5 118.2 56.0 28.9 33.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 .1 2.4 .1 3.0 2.1 .9 3.3 2.1 1.2 415.8 223.6 32.0 150.2 415.1 223.5 32.3 150.3 IV E w s 58.4 38.3 19:1 56.5 37.0 i8:f 91.4 51.2 14.2 25.0 94.7 52.8 14.3 27.6 2.1 1.2 .9 2.1 1.2 .9 151.9 90.7 14.7 46.5 153.3 91.0 15.1 47.2 I-IV 508.1 508.8 254.5 255.2 4.0 4.0 15.5 15.8 782.1 783.8 V w 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 VI w s 13.5 13.5 12.3 12.3 250.6 4.5 256.1 257.9 4.7 253.2 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 293.8 4.5 289.3 300.0 4.7 295.3 VII E S 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 31.8 38.7 6.2 32.5 1.0 4.2 3.2 1.0 43.6 9.4 34.2 44.3 9.4 34.9 V-VII 14.9 13.7 302.8 311.1 15.5 15.7 8.3 8.3 341.6 348.8 VIII s 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 VIII 2.5 2.5 7.5 7.5 .5 .5 10.5 10.5 TOTAL 523.0 522.6 559.8 558.8 27.1 27.2 24.3 24.5 1134.2 1143.1 TOOLE COUNTY MONTANA CLASS CROWANOiJ PASTURMtANGE FOREST-WOODIANO OTHER LAND TOTAl 1 1938 1973 1938 1973 1938 1973 1938 1973 1958 1973 1,000 A It does not give an evaluation of the economic feasibility of the projects. In Montana 565 small watersheds or planning units (250,000 acres or less in size) with s total of about 94 million acres were studied. The Inventory estimates (1) there are 245 small watersheds or planning units (250,000 acres or less) on which the water-management problems cannot be solved without the installation of structural measures for water management, (2) the extent or magnitude of the need for each development, and (3) the types of water-management problems requiring project action associated with each of the planning units, including (a) flood prevention to reduce floodwater and sediment-damage and erosion, (b) agricultcral water develop- ments, and (c) nonagricultural water management for municipal or industrial water supply, fish and wildlife, recreation, and other nonagricultural water developments. The following definitions are applicable to terms used in Table 10 and the preceding discussions Watershed-pro.iect problems are water-management problems that r-annot be solved by the individual actions of the people affected 'orj them. Ordinarily a project to meet one or more of these problems requires project action for installation and group benefits for justificationo A watershed or planning unit consists of any watershed, planning unit, or combination of not more than 250,000 acres which has a flood-prevention or agricultural water-management problem of sufficient magnitude to require pro- ject action. In Montana there were 565 such watersheds delineated. 25 Acreage having the problem is the total acreage subject to the watershed project problem to which the estimate applies even though it may have been met already by individual or project action. For example, the acreage of land with a drainage problem includes all land subject to problems of excess water even though it may have an adequate system of drainage. The estimates for this item were provided by the Soil Conservation Service for non-federal lands and by administering Federal agencies for public land. TABLE 10 - WATERSHED PROJECT NEEDS, (Montana, 1959) Number of watersheds needing project action? 24.5 Total acreage in watersheds needing project action? 40,900,500 acres Watershed project problems Acreage having the problem Acreage needing project action Projects needing action Farms affected Flood prevention; Flood water and sediment damage reduction ........... Erosion damage reduction . . . . Agricultural water managements Drainage ...... Irrigation » , , , Other (Irrig. water management and water spreading) • e e Nonagricultural water-management developments? Municipal or industrial water Recreation development ..... Other (Big game damage) ..... Other (stabilize stream flow) , . 1,000 acres 1,000 acres Number Number 2,160 5,348 1,313 1,059 139 110 2,4A8 2,925 779 2,157 378 1,726 89 173 2,333 3,513 82 69 15 346 0 0 0 0 53 29 38 0 69 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Notes The totals shown in the columns may exceed the totals shown at the top of this table since many watershed projects will be multi-pxirpose. 26 Acreage needing pro.ject action is the acreage that cannot be adequately protected or treated by individuals or groups without the assistance of organized groups such as those authorized by Public Law 566. These same acreages may also require additional assistance under other programs. Project action is considered as that cooperative action which can be ef- fected only through formal organizations which have a legal status under state law and has usually given them the power to negotiate contracts, levy taxes, make assessments or otherwise raise funds, and to disburse monies for the installation, operation, and maintenance of works of im- provement. Requirements for project action are found in pamphlet USDA PA 392. The principal benefits of project action will ordinarily be off -site. Projects needing action are the number of watershed projects having wa- ter problems needing conservation treatments. In Montana 245 project size watersheds with approximately 49 million acres were identified. Farms affected are the number of farms that have some acreage with a water problem that requires project action 27 '-•^-ATm,^ CO I t I: 5| E-2 ^5 ;; y^^ APPENDIX 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Washington 25$! Do Co April 10, 1956 MEMORANDUM NOo 1396 National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs The Department has constant need and use for information that can be gained only through a national inventory of soil and water conservation needs. This inventory would equip the Department to more effectively plan and carry out its responsibility in soil and water conservation. From it the Department could arrive at reasonable estimates of the magnitude and urgency of the var- ious conservation measures needed to maintain and improve the country' s pro- ductive capacity for all the peopleo The following policies^, therefore, are hereby established? 1. A National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs will be made and kept current by the Department of Agriculture, This Inventory will be developed for each county in the United States and for appropriate subdivisions of the Territories, The goal for initial completion will be three years. The Forest Service has recently completed an intensive survey of the Nation's timber resources. County estimates for forestry, insofar as is possible, will be developed from this timber survey and other available forest resource information, 2o The Department agencies concerned with land use, soil and water conser- vation and the management of land resources which are to cooperate in this endeavor ares Agricxiltural Conservation Program Service, Agri- cultural Research Service p Commodity Stabilization Service , Federal Extension Service, Farmers Home Administration, Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service, Other agencies of the Department will be called upon where they can make a contribution. The Soil Conservation Service is hereby assigned responsibility for leadership, 3, A Department Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee, comprised of one representative from each of the agencies named in paragraph 2, will be established. This committee, under leadership of a chairman from the Soil Conservation Service, will aid in the development and review of proposed procedures, furnish guidance in the cooperative effort, and make periodic reviews of progress for the information of the par- ticipating agencies. 28 4-. A Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee will be established in each State or Territory, Its membership will consist of representatives who work within the State or Territory for the Department agencies named in paragraph 2. The Soil Conservation Service representative will serve as chairman. The State Conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service will invite representation on the committee from the Land-Grant College, the State Forester, and other appropriate State agencies and groups who may be able to provide assistance and useful data. The State or Terri- torial committee will develop a plan for making the Inventory, and will submit it to the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service for re- view and consideration of the Department Committee and the Assistant Secretary, Federal-States Relations, 5. Data will be developed separately for privately owned and publicly owned land. The Soil Conservation Service will be responsible for collecting basic physical data on soil and water on non-federally owned lands. The Forest Service will be responsible for the adequacy of the physical data on forestry on non-federally owned lands. The Forest Service and other land management agencies will be responsible for making the Inventory on lands under their jurisdiction, 6. Cooperation of State and local agencies, organizations, and groups con- cerned with soil, water, forest, range and wildlife conservation, utili- zation, and management will be actively solicited in the development and review of the Inventory, The Department of Agriculture will also seek and encourage the cooperation of other Federal agencies, responsible for land management activitiesj, in the development of data which can be uti- lized in the National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. /S/ Ezra Taft Benson Secretary 29 APPENDIX 2 PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING BASIC DATA ON SOIL AND LAND USE CONDITIONS The basic data on soil and land use conditions in Montana were secured from soil surveys. A set of randomized samples to represent every county were selected by the statistical laboratory at Iowa State University. The sample units were located on county base mapso The map showed the boundaries and symbols of land-resource units. Boundaries of federally owned land were shown on the maps. Land-resource units were used in the selection of samples. The State SCS office informed the laboratory that it wanted samples drawn by land-resources units fiind indicated whether or not a higher or lower sampling rate was wanted for certain land-resource units. Provision was made for identifying all samples by land-resource units so that data could be combined on that basis for study of special problems. It was necessary, therefore, to have a land-resource map of the State, A land-resource map shows the geographic distribution of land-resource units. A land-resource unit is a geographic area of land, usually several thousand acres in extent, characterized by a particular combination or pattern of soils (including slope and erosion) j, climate, water resource, land use, and types of farming. Such a unit may occur in one continuous area or as several separate but nearby areas. The standard size of sample units was 160 acres. The basic sampling rate was 2 percent. As standard procedure, the statistical laboratory selected two separate sets of sample units in each county, each set representing approxi- mately 2 percent of the county. In a county or other area of 250,000 to 500,000 acres, a 2 percent sampling provided data of an acceptable degree of reliability. In counties of this size, therefore, it was necessary to map only one set of sample units. In larger areas, the rate was reduced, but in smaller ones it was increased in order to maintain the same degree of reliability. The laboratories used the following procedure in selecting sample units; The county, or land-resource area within the county, was divided into blocks (called "strata") which were then farther subdivided into equal-sized sample units. One sample unit was selected at random from each block for each of the two sets of samples. In Montana where section lines were easily identified, both on the photographs and on the ground, the designated quarter sections were delineated. The laboratory outlined one set of samples in red and the other in blue, on the county map. From this map sample unit boundaries were transferred to the aerial photographs on which the mapping was done. 30 In counties where one set of sample units provided adequate data, the set outlined in red was used. No substitution or intermingling of the two sets was permitted. All possible use was made of existing soil-survey information. For coun- ties with recently completed surveys no additional field work was needed. In other counties, onsite surveys produced new maps that provided the information. On sample units not already mapped, soil surveys were made on the regular aerial photograph field sheets at the scale locally used. In partially mapped counties, surveys of sample units were made according to the legend in use in the county. Insofar as possible, all new mapping was done ac- cording to legends that could be used in the standard soil survey. In mapping the samples, urban and built-up areas were classified as to land use only. Federal land identified on the sample unit map was generally not mapped. If the Federal land included cropland farmed under lease or permit rather than by the agency, and if a total acreage of such land in the county could be obtained from the agency, that falling in sample units was mapped. On Indian lands, the Bureau of Indian Affairs assisted in getting survey information. All existing maps of sample units were field checked before use. The map was revised if the soil survey was not adequate or if the land use shown did not agree with present conditions on the ground or with the inventory definitions. Revisions were made on copies of the maps instead of on the original soil-survey field sheets. One of the major values of the survey data will be to show the relation of land use to the physical conditions of the land. Land use was mapped on all sample areas. The condition found at the time of the mapping was shown, with no attempt to predict the intent of the operator. Land use was designated as s Irrigated cropland, nonirrigated cropland, pasture range, irrigated native grassland, forest and woodland, and other land. Definitions used in soil-survey mapping were those used for the Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs, In measuring sample unit maps, each individual mapping unit was measured separately so the data could be combined by land-capability units or other desired interpretative groupings. The soil and land use data from the sample units were then expanded to give figures representing the total acreages of conditions in the county. This expansion was done by Iowa State University. 31 APPENDIX 3 THE LAND-CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION The standard soil-survey map shows the different kinds of soil that are sig- nificant and their location in relation to other features of the landscape. These maps are intended to meet the needs of users with widely different problems and, therefore, contain considerable detail to show important basic soil differences. The information on the soil map must be explained in a way that has meaning to the user. These explanations are called interpretations. The capability classification is one of a number of interpretive groupings made primarily for agricultural purposes. As with all interpretive groupings the capabil- ity classification begins with the individual soil-mapping units, which are building stones of the system. In this classification the arable soils are grouped according to their potentialities and limitations for sustained production of the common cultivated crops that do not require specialized site conditioning or site treatment. Nonarable soils (soils unsuitable for longtime sustained use for cultivated crops) are grouped according to their potentialities and limitations for the production of permanent vegetation and according to their risks of soil damage if mismanaged. The individual mapping units on soil maps show the location and extent of the different kinds of soil. Mapping units permit making the greatest num- ber of precise statements about the individual soils and predictions about their use and management. The capability grouping of soils is designed to (1) help landowners and others use and interpret the soil maps, (2) intro- duce users to the detail of the soil map itself, and (3) make possible broad generalizations based on soil potentialities, limitations in use, and management problems. The capability classification provides three major categoriess (1) Capa- bility unit, (2) capability subclass, and (3) capability class. The first category is the capability unit, which is a grouping of soils that have about the same influence on production and responses to systems of manage- ment of common cultivated crops and pasture plants. Soils in any one capability unit are adapted to the same kiiuis of common cultivated and pasture plants and require similar alternative systems of management for these crops. Longtime estimated yields of adapted crops for individual soils within the unit under comparable management do not vary more than 25 percent. The second category in the classification is the subclass. This is a grouping of capability units having similar kinds of limitations and haz- ards. Four kinds of limitations or hazards are recognized? (1) ejrosion hazard, (2) wetness, (3) root zone limitations, and (4-) climate. The third and broadest category in the capability classification places all the soils in eight capability classes. The risks of soil damage or limitations in use become progressively greater from Class I to Class VIII, 32 Soils in the first four classes are capable under good management of pro- ducing adapted plants, such as forest trees or range plants, and the common cultivated field crops and pasture plants. Soils in Classes V, VI, and VII are suited to the use of adapted native plants. Some soils in Classes V and VI are also capable of producing specialized crops, such as certain fruits and ornamentals, and even field and vegetable crops under highly in- tensive management involving elaborate practices for soil and water conser- vation. Soils in Class VIII do not return onsite benefits for inputs of management for crops, grasses, or trees. The grouping of soils into capability units, subclasses, and classes is done primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common culti- vated crops and pasture plants without deterioration over a long period. To express suitability of the soils for range and woodland use the soil- mapping units are grouped into range sites and woodland sites. CAPABILITY CLASSES Land suited for cultivation and other uses Class I. — Soils in Class I have few limitations that restrict their use. Soils in this class are suited to a wide range of plants and may be used safely for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, and wildlife. The soils are nearly level, 1/ and erosion hazard (wind or water) is low. They are deepj generally well drained, and easily worked. They hold water well and are either fairly well supplied with plant nutrients or highly responsive to inputs of fertilizer. The soils in Class I ajre not subject to damaging overflow. They are pro- ductive and suited for intensive cropping. The local climate must be favorable for growing many of the common field crops. In irrigated areas, soils may be placed in Class I if the limitation of the arid climate has been removed by relatively permanent irrigation works. Such irrigated soils (or soils potentially useful under irrigation) are nearly level, have deep rooting zones, have favorable permeability and water holding capacity, and are easily maintained in food tilth. Some of the soils may require initial conditioning including leveling to the desired grade, the leaching of a light accumulation of soluble salts, or the low- ering of the seasonal water table. Where limitations due to salts, water table, overflow, or erosion are likely to recur, the soils are regarded as subject to permanent natural limitations and are not included in Class I. 1/ Some rapidly permeable soils in Class I may have gently slopes. 33 Soils that axe wet and have slowly or very slowly permeable subsoils are not placed in Class I. Some kinds of soil in Class I may be drained as an improvement measure for increased production and ease of operation. Soils in Class I that are used for crops need ordinary management prac- tices to maintain productivity — both soil fertility and soil structure. Such practices may include the use of one or more of the following: Fer- tilizers and lime, cover and green-manure crops , conservation of crop residues and animal manures, and sequences of adapted crops. Class II. — Soils in Class II have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices. Soils in this class require careful soil management, including conserva- tion practices, to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water re- lations when the soils are cultivated. The limitations are few and the practices are easy to apply. The soils may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, or for wildlife food and cover. Limitations of soils in Class II may include singly or in combination the effects of (1) gentle slopes? (2) moderate susceptibility to wind or water erosion, or moderate adverse effects of past erosion; (3) less than ideal soil depth; (4.) somewhat unfavorable soil structure and workability; (5) slight to moderate salinity or alkalinity, easily corrected but likely to recur; (6) occasional damaging overflow; (7) wetness correctible by drain- age but existing permanently as a moderate limitation; and (8) slight climatic limitations on soil use and management. The soils in this class provide the farm operator less latitude in the choice of either crops or management practices than soils in Class I. They may also require special soil -conserving cropping systems, soil con- servation practices, water-control devices, or tillage methods when used for cultivated crops. For example, deep soils of this class with gentle slopes that are subject to moderate erosion when cultivated may need one of the following practices or some combination of two or mores terrac- ing, stripcropping, contour tillage, crop rotations that include grasses and legumes, vegetated water-disposal areasj, cover on green-manure crops, stubble mulching, fertilizers, manure, and lime. The exact combinations of practices vary from place to place, depending on the characteristics of the soil, the local climatej, and the farming system. Class III. — Soils in Class III have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both. Soils in Class III have more restrictions than those in Class II, and when used for cultivated crops, the conservation practices are usually more difficult to apply and maintain. They may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, woodland, range, or for wildlife food and cover. 34 Limitations of soils in Class III restrict the amount of clean cultivation; timing of planting, tillage, and harvestingj choice of crops or a combina- tion of these items= The limitations may result from the effects of one or | more of the followings (1) moderately steep slopes; (2) high susceptibility " to water or wind erosion or severe adverse effects of past erosion; (3) fre- quent overflow accompanied by some crop damage; (4) very slow permeability of the subsoil; (5) wetness or some continuing waterlogging after drainage; (6) shallow depths to bedrock, hardpan, fragipan, or claypan that limits the rooting zone and the water storage; (7) low moisture-holding capacity; (8) low fertility not easily corrected; (9) moderate salinity or alkalinity, or (10) moderate climatic limitations. When cultivated, many of the wet, slowly permeable but nearly level soils in Class III require a drainage system and a cropping system that maintains or improves the structure and tilth of the soil. To prevent puddling and to improve permeability it is commonly necessary to supply organic material to such soils and to avoid working them when they are wet. In some irrigated areas, part of the soils in Class III have limited use because of high water table, slow permeability, and the hazard of salt or alkali accumulation. Each distinctive kind of soil in Class III has one or more alternative com- binations of use and practices required for safe use, but the nvuaber of practical alternatives for average farmers is less than for soils in Class II. Class IV. — Soils in Class IV have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. The restrictions in use for these soils are greater than those in Class III, and the choice of plants is more limited. When these soils are cultivated, more careful management is required and conservation practices are more dif- ficult to apply and maintain. Soils in Class IV may be used for crops, pasture, woodland, range, or for wildlife food and cover. Soils in Class IV may be well suited to only two or three of the common crops or the amount of harvest produced may be low in relation to inputs over a long period. Use for cultivated crops is limited as a result of the effects of one or more permanent features such as (1) steep slopes, (2) severe sus- ceptibility to water or wind erosion, (3) severe effects of past erosion, (4) shallow soils, (5) low moisture -holding capacity, (6) frequent overflows accompanied by severe crop damage, (7) excessive wetness with continuing hazard of waterlogging after drainage, (8) severe salinity or alkalinity, or (9) moderately adverse climate. Many sloping soils in Class IV in humid regions are suited for occasional but not regular cultivation. Some of the poorly drained, nearly level soils placed in Class IV are not subject to erosion but are poorly suited to in- tertilled crops because of the time required for the soil to dry out in the spring and because of low productivity for cultivated crops. Some soils in 35 Class IV are well suited to one or more of the special crops, such as fruits and ornamental trees and shrubs, but this suitability itself is not sufficient to place a soil in Class IVo In subhumid and semiarid regions soils in Class IV may produce good yields of adapted cultivated crops during years of above average rainfall; low yields during years of average rainfall| and failures during years of be- low average rainfall. During the low rainfall years the land must be pro- tected even though there can be little or no expectancy of a marketable crop. Special treatments and practices to prevent soil blowing, conserve moisture, and maintain soil productivity are required. Sometimes crops must be planted or emergency tillage used for the primary purpose of main- taining the soil during years of low rainfall. These treatments must be applied more frequently or more intensively than on soils in Class III. Land limited in use — generally not suited for cultivation Class V. — Soils in Class V have little or no erosion hazard but have other limitations that are impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Soils in this class have limitations that restrict the kind of plants that can be grown and that prevent normal tillage of cultivated crops. They are nearly level but some are wet, are frequently overflowed by streams, are stony, have climatic limitations, or have some combination of these limi- tations. Examples of Class V are (1) soils of the bottom lands subject to frequent overflow that prevents the normal production of cultivated crops, (2) nearly level soils with a growing season that prevents the normal pro- duction of cultivated crops, (3) level or nearly level stony or rocky soils, and (4) ponded areas where drainage for cultivated crops is not feasible but where soils are suitable for grasses or trees. Because of these limitations, cultivation of the common crops is not feasible but pastures can be improved and benefits from proper management can be ex- pected. Class VI. — Soils in Class' VI have severe limitations that make them gener- ally unsuited for cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Physical conditions of soils placed in Class VI are such that it is prac- tical to apply range or pasture improvements, if needed, such as seeding, liming, fertilizing, ard water control with contour furrows, drainage, ditches, diversions, or water spreaders. Soils in Class VI have continu- ing limitations that cannot be corrected, such as (1) steep slope, (2) severe erosion hazard, (3) effects of past erosion, (4-) stoniness, (5) shallow rooting zone, (6) excessive wetness or overflow, (7) low-moisture capacity, (8) salinity or alkalinity, or (9) severe climate. Due to one or more of these limitations these soils are not generally suited for cultivated crops. But they may be used for pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife cover or some combination of these. 36 Some soils in Class VI can be safely used for the common crops provided unusually intensive management is used« Some of the soils in this class are also adapted to special crops such as sodded orchards, blueberries, etc, requiring soil conditions unlike those demanded by the common crops. Depending upon soil features and local climate the ^ils may be well or poorly suited to woodlands. Class VII« — Soils in Class VII have very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation and that restrict their use largely to grazing, woodland, or wildlife. Physical conditions of soils in Class VII are such that it is impractical to apply such pasture or range improvements as seeding, liming, fertiliz- ing, and water-control measures such as contour furrows, ditches, diver- sions, or water spreaders. Soil restrictions are more severe than those in Class VI because of one or more continuing limitations that cannot be corrected, such as veiy steep slopes, erosion, shallow soil, stones, wet soil, salts or alkali, unfavorable climate, or other limitations that make them unsuited for common cultivated crops. They can be used safely for grazing or woodland or wildlife food and cover, or some combination of these under proper management. Depending upon the soil characteristics and local climate, soils in this class may be well or poorly suited to woodland. They are not suited to any of the common cultivated crops; in unusual instances, some soils in this class may be used for special crops under unusual management pract- ices. Some areas of Class VII may need seeding or planting to protect the soil and to prevent damage to adjoining areas. Class VIII.— Soils and landforms in Class VIII have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production and restrict their use to recreation, wilflife, water supply, or aesthetic purposes. Soils and landforms in Class VIII cannot be expected to return signifi- cant onsite benefits from management for crops, grasses, or trees, al- though benefits from wildlife use, watershed protection, or recreation may be possible. Limitations that cannot be corrected may result from the effects of one or more of the followings (1) exosion or erosion hazard, (2) severe climate, (3) wet soil, (4) stones., (5) low moisture capacity, and (6) salinity or alkalinity. Badlands, rock outcrop, sandy beaches, river wash, mine tailings, and other nearly barren lands are included in Class VIII. It may be neces- sary to give protection and management for plant growth to soils and landforms in Class VIII in order to protect other more valuable soils, to control water, or for wildlife or aesthetic reasons. 37 CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES Subclasses are groups of capability units within classes that have the same kinds of dominant limitations for agricultural use as result of soil and climate. Some soils are subject to erosion if they are not protected, while others are naturally wet and must be drained if crops are to be grown. Some soils are shallow or droughty, or have other soil deficiencies. Still other soils occur in areas where climate limits their use. The four kinds of limi- tations recognized at the subclass level are: risks of erosion, designated by the symbol (e) ; wetness, drainage, or overflow (w) ; root-zone limitations (s) ; and climatic limitations (c) , The class and subclass provide the map user information about both the degree and kind of limitation. Subclasses are not recognized in Capability Class I. Subclass (e) erosion is made up of soils where the susceptibility to eros- ion is the dominant problem or hazard in their use. Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors for placing soils in this subclass. Subclass (w) excess water is made up of soils where excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation in their use. Poor soil drainage, wetness, high water table, and overflow are the criteria for determining which soils belong in this subclass. Subclass (s) soil limitations in the root zone is made up of soils where root-zone limitations are the dominant hazard or limitation in their use. These limitations are the results of such factors as shallow soils, stoni- ness, low moisture-holding capacity, low fertility difficult to correct, and salinity or alkalinity. Subclass (c) climatic limitation is made up of soils where the climate (temperature and lack of moisture) is the only major hazard or limitation in their use. Limitations imposed by erosion, excess water, shallow soils, stones, low moisture-holding capacity, salinity or alkalinity can be .:cl::fied or par- tially overcome and take precedence over climate in deter: ■.irii:;g subclasses. The dominant kind of limitation or hazard to the use of the land determines the assignment of capability units to the (e) , (w) , and (s) subclasses. Capability units that have no limitation other than climate are assigned to the (c) subclass. Where two kinds of limitation which can be modified or corrected are essen- tially equal, the subclasses have the following priority; e, w, and s. For example, we need to group a few soils in humid regions that have both an erosion hazard and an excess water hazard; with them the e takes prece- dence over the w; with soils having both an excess water limitation and a root-zone limitation the w takes precedence over the s. In grouping soils of subhumid and semiarid regions that have both an erosion hazard and a climatic limitation, the e takes precedence over the c, and in grouping soils with both root-zone limitations and climatic limitations the s takes precedence over the c. 38 CAPABILITY UNITS The capability units provide more specific and detailed information than the subclass for application to specific fields on a farm or ranch. A capability unit is a grouping of soils that are nearly alike in suitabil- ity for plant growth and responses to the same kinds of soil management. That is, a reasonably uniform set of alternatives can be presented for the soil, water, and plant management of the soils in a capability unit, assum- ing that effects of past management are properly considered. Soils grouped into capability units respond in a similar way and require similar manage- ment although they may have soil characteristics that put them in different soil series. Soils grouped into a capability unit should be sufficiently uniform in the combinations of soil characteristics that influence their qualities to have similar potentialities and continuing limitations or hazards. Thus the soils in a capability unit should be sufficiently uniform to (a) pro- duce similar kinds of cultivated crops eind pasture plants with similar management practices, (b) require similar conservation treatment and man- agement under the same kind and condition of vegetative cover, and (c) have comparable potential productivity. (Estimated average yields under similar management systems should not vary more than about 25 percent among the kinds of soil included with the unit.) 39 ^y